Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > September > 13 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USPalin cops on the bridge question
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
It appears that when confronted with the truth about that Bridge to Nowhere, Palin backs down and acknowledges it was all a scam. Charlie Gibson laid out the facts for her yesterday, stating that Palin had strongly supported bridge earmarks until long past the time it was clear that Congress would never pass them. Only then did she stop pressing for them.
And Palin sat there and acknowledged that was true and defended her support for that project.
“I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it’s not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure.”
That’s true. That is not inappropriate. It is only inappropriate to lie repeatedly about it.
It will be interesting to see whether she now stops making that claim on the campaign trail.
Comments
By getalife wingnurs
September 13, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
Its all spin Jay but this is treason:
Former CIA third in command and indicted Cunningham bribery scandal co-conspirator Kyle “Dusty” Foggo is threatening to out agents, secret programs and Bush administration skeletons in an attempt to ward of a possible jail sentence on 30 counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering.
More gop treason but lets give them four more years.
Country first.
Yeah, right.
By sunshine and thunder
September 13, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
How many of these little columns have you posted over the past week, and how many of them are about only one subject: the bridge to nowhere?
Is this the only issue for you? Are you a one issue voter?
Doesn’t anyone on the editorial board question why you use all this bandwidth for one issue?
Obsession.
Why don’t we compare records on earmarks. I’ll go first:
By Vonnie
September 13, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
You know it is really frightening how many people cannot see through this woman or the Republicans. I believe that woman could walk down the street naked and they would find a way to make it alright. Talk about blind leading the blind. If they get in, it will be nothing but eight more years of Bush.
By Klondike Cat
September 13, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
The Spin & Twist
For the love……Why do we have to explain the difference between Congressional earmarks and State government financing?
When you are a State official you try and grab as much Federal funding as you can for your constituents, Democrats wrote the book here, the Federal Government namely Congress allocates where this funding goes.
Jay as usual skillfully manipulates the facts and paints apples orange for the obvious reasons.
The rumor is growing that **Joe Biden** will be stepping down or pushed aside next week from the ticket….Lets see if Jay has any orange paint left for those apples when they fall from the tree.I hate meeces to pieces !
By getalife wingnuts
September 13, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
sunshine,
She lied, admit it and Jay might stop posting about the lie.
Or moveon to the next lie.
Jay is really getting to you but the rest of the media is getting sick of the lies too.
When “the view” did their job, it makes them look bad.
By W*******?
September 13, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
“Sunshine”- You’re missing the point—she actually turned against it once CONGRESS did….
But the biggest issue? The continual lies she’s (and McCain’s campaign) have been telling.
Dearie-it is Mr. Bookman’s job as a columnist to express his OPINIONS. A long while ago, Mr. Bookman confessed to being a former Republican….so in MY eyes, he’s imminently qualified to bash ANYONE in any political party…that’s what his J-O-B is.
What I don’ get is if you disagree with his “obsession” and his writing about a topic, why do you keep reading and coming back?
It is his job, as a columnist/journalist to continue to call out lies and injustice until it is rectified. Today’s blog topic dovetails nicely with the previous-that is, now that she’s admitted the TRUTH..what will she do about it? Will she and Mr. “Honorable” finally stop repeating the fairy tale, or will she announce that she said she was against saying she was for it before she said she was on the news??? (or some insane wordy circular thinkspeak she’s so well in)….
Seems like Mr. Bookman may not be the only one with an obsession.
Someone, anyone? Pass the celebrex….
Off topic, sorta…. read an article this a.m. how Sarah’s beginning to change—they interviewed the local coffee shop owner, who was prepping for Sarah’s weekly Friday visit..poor sucker even had special coffees named in her honor. He swore that she’d be in, even after all that’s gone on since her nomination, because, “after all, she’s still just Sarah.”
He was stood up.
Another shining example of Alaskan awareness of the lower 48/world view was given from a 70 something who announced that he’d “never even heard of Biden”….HUH? Biden’s been around in D.C. for nearly my entire LIFE…..
By LibsSuck
September 13, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
Go ahead Jay and liberals, please keep at it. You’re playing right into McCain’s hands, alienating white women, blue collar voters, and independants right into McCain’s camp. Please, please, please keep it up!!!!
This is so hilarious, I’m watching the Democrats yet again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory—this time in very entertaining slow motion!!!
Just how stupid are you guys? In an election year where you should be cleaning up, you just had to pick THE MOST liberal voting senator and a plagiarizing, loose lipped con man VP candidate. McCain had nothing to lose and you guys are now running so scared you resort to attacking a hockey mom that most Middle Americans can relate to. This message won’t sell well in “flyover country”. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…..
By Slick
September 13, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
As a joke in her acceptance speech, Palin asked “What is the difference between a hockey mom (which she claims to be) and a pitbull dog?” She answered her own question: “lipstick”. Which brought the house down with Republican applause and laughter.
Was she claiming to be a pitbull dog with lipstick? Which also means: A b*** with lipstick?
I know that is not a PC inferrence, but logic makes it a TRUE one!
By sunshine and thunder
September 13, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
TO: GETALIFE WINGNUTS/ W
I’m too much of a BS seeking missile to ignore the incredible lies I see on this forum. That’s why I keep coming back.
Most of the lies are the worst kind of pre textual BS by the way.
Sarah Palin removed the bridge from the budget.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden (good old boys club) voted for it twice. Even voted for it instead of diverting the funds to Katrina victims.
Jay spends days and days writing incorrect and incomplete information on this one topic.
It’s enjoyable to see such a left wing moonbat squirm.
The topic of this article is earmarks. Sarah Palin and John McCain win that contest HANDS DOWN. Live with it.
By AJC/DNC Management
September 13, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
It is rather hilarious to see some of the biggest liars on planet Earth having to play verbal gymnastics just to try and gin up an opposition’s lie where there is none.
She said, and again I quote, “I cut earmarks by 500 million dollars.”
Deal with it, losers.
By Rufus
September 13, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Is Palin running for president or is McCain running for president? Further, where’s Mr. Hairplugs been lately? We haven’t seen hide nor hair of him lately. If the bridge to nowhere issue is all the liberals have against Palin, it’s going to be a very long two months for them. But, that’s beside the point. Only Senate and US House of Representatives can appropriate and vote for earmark funding in congress. Palin can support or suppress all she wants with those funds as a governor, but the fact at the end of the day is that she did not vote in Congress for the Bridge To Nowhere, unlike say Joe Biden and Barack Obama who DID vote for the Alaskan Bridge To Nowhere in Congress. (Gee that wasn’t too hard, was it?)
Let’s take a peek at how the media is portraying Gibon’s handling of Palin, shall we?
The Washington Post:
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?” She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?” Sick ‘em Krauthammer. BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is alive and well and it is painfully obvious, isn’t it?
The UPI:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) — There were no surprises, no knockout zingers, but also no bloopers Thursday night in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s first TV interview since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee.
Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Sunday night.
Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his “Muslim faith” on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to say his Christian faith.
By contrast, Gibson tried to embarrass Palin by referring to her Christian faith in asking people to pray for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Palin countered by pointing out she was following the precedent set by Abraham Lincoln.
Heh. Hehehe. You mindless liberal hysterics keep it up on Palin. You have riled up a LOT of women in this nation which is predominately going to cost you the White House in November. Maybe next time you liberal Dimocrat “leaders” will listen to the will of the people and not the delegates.
I’m SO not sorry for you liberal left wing socialists.
Oh, but we’re not done yet folks. Let’s check in with the Congressional report from the Financial Times:
Democratic jitters about the US presidential race have spread to Capitol Hill, where some members of Congress are worried that Barack Obama’s faltering campaign could hurt their chances of re-election.
Party leaders have been hoping to strengthen Democratic control of the House and Senate in November, but John McCain’s jump in the polls has stoked fears of a Republican resurgence.
A Democratic fundraiser for Congressional candidates said some planned to distance themselves from Mr Obama and not attack Mr McCain.
“If people are voting for McCain it could help Republicans all the way down the ticket, even in a year when the Democrats should be sweeping all before us,” said the fundraiser, a former Hillary Clinton supporter.
Uhm, yeah. Conservatism is dead and all that…
By sunshine and thunder
September 13, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
TO: JAY AND OTHER WING NUTS
Why don’t we examine the Obamassiah too:
“Based on these calculations, Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397.
Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.
Why this disparity? One reason may be the underrepresentation of women among Obama’s highest-compensated employees. Of Obama’s five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.
On average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama’s campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.”
[punch here]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmEzMTZmNTk5MDI0NTZmNjUwMjllN2ZlZTc0MWFmYzY=
By Rufus
September 13, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
Slick:
Hey, at least Palin is woman enough to admit she can be one if you mess with her (like every single woman I know), unlike Shrillary who is one FULL TIME.
By sunshine and thunder
September 13, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
Sorry, trying again: punch here
By Rufus
September 13, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
Oh yeah, and one other point before I go hit the shooting range:
Anyone want to take a guess what OTHER governor of a traditionally Red State had no international experience or “experience” in general who was actually running for PRESIDENT and not a Veep like Palin?
My don’t the liberals have short memories. It’s my job on blogs to jog them.
By Slick
September 13, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Rufus I’d like for the McCain campaign to admit that Palin can be a bitc* when “you mess with her”. At least they would be telling the truth for a change. They may also need to define “mess with her” as disagreeing with her.
By Rufus
September 13, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this
Slick:
Unlike you mindless liberal incompetents on the liberal loon left, THINKING people don’t need to be told that. They can pretty much figure it out or make up their own minds on their own - like so many have done with Shrillary as I referenced.
Then again, Republicans are the ones who can think for themselves, unlike so many helpless idiot liberal Dimocrats in this nation who need to be TOLD what to do and think.
Ok, I’m gone for a while. Really. But I’ll be back…
By Rufus
September 13, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
Oops, one other thing Slick:
They may also need to define “mess with her” as disagreeing with her.
Sure beats the hell out of being called a RACIST when disagreeing with Barack Obama.
By Ray
September 13, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
I sure as hell hope she gets the reputation of “b*** of the year”. It’s about time that the Washington hacks started standing up for something other than their re-election. This “b***” now has an approval rating at 59% of the “uncommitted” white female voters. How long do you think that they are going to stay uncommitted?
By RW-(the original)
September 13, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
Gibson’s questions to Obama three months ago. For those of you that don’t seem to realize it he’s the one running for the top job on the Democrat side.
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
Newsbusters, meanwhile, has Gibson’s interview with John Edwards in 2004 after being selected as John Kerry’s running mate. Edwards had less than a full term in the Senate as his entire political background, and no foreign-policy, military, or executive experience at all. Yet Gibson didn’t press Edwards on these points at all. In fact, the entire interview consisted of a hard-hitting interrogation … on how mean Republicans are:
By GOPs got to go
September 13, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
What is the difference between a Hockey Mom and a Pittbull?
The Pittbull will just rip your throat out. The Hockey Mom might get you nuked.
By Marc
September 13, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
It’s amazing that the Democratic candidates for change Obama and Biden both voted to fund the project over sending the moneys for Hurricane Katrina relief