In my post yesterday, Palin, the Media, and the Bridge, I talked about how Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin continues to repeat that she killed the Bridge to Nowhere, even though the media are reporting that she only did so after the federal government didn’t fork up enough money for it. Some are claiming that Palin’s avoiding the media because she’s afraid they’ll ask her about it.
But Sarah Palin is not stupid. I mean, if I were Palin, and I were afraid that the media would ask me about the Bridge to Nowhere, I’d simply not mention it ever again and hope that they’d forget about it. But she keeps talking about it over and over. And she knows she’ll have to face hard questions some time in the near future. After all, she’ll be interviewed by Charlie Gibson later this week. And, in her debate with Joe Biden this coming October, either the moderator or Joe Biden will ask her about the bridge.
What’s up Sarah Palin’s sleeve? Does she have a secret recording in which she tells Ted Stevens, “Stop trying to shove this bridge down my throat! Sure, I supported it at first, but it’s too darn expensive!”
Or here’s another possibility: she keeps bringing the bridge up because it makes Barack Obama and Joe Biden look worse than she does. At least she killed the bridge when it got too expensive. But here’s what John Powers of the Chicago Daily Observer documents about Obama and Biden (see here):
“…Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.”
Considering that, Obama and Biden should probably be the ones who shut up about the bridge!
I think that McCain’s selection of Palin in general should put the Democrats on mute. I don’t hear Obama calling Palin “inexperienced,” even though he calls her a host of other things. How can he say “Sarah Palin is too inexperienced to be Vice-President or President,” when people can easily respond, “And you are?”
Some may argue that McCain has now taken experience off the table, but that’s not necessarily true. He has a come-back to that: Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
The media are talking about John McCain and Sarah Palin like they’re politically stupid, but I doubt they’re that, let me tell you!
The problem is that Palin is largely running her campaign on the idea that she was against the bridge to nowhere and responsible for killing it. That is one of her main claims to fame that highlight her supposed reformer status.
Also after reading the short article you linked to it seems a bit too simple. Were you able to read the bill and understand all that it was trying to do? I wasn’t. I was pretty much dependent on what amounted to a couple of sentences saying that Obama and Biden both supported the bridge and then a link to the bill that didn’t make much sense to me. I would wait a bit for the story to get around and for other “fact checkers” to look into it a bit deeper.
“Some may argue that McCain has now taken experience off the table, but that’s not necessarily true. He has a come-back to that: Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”
The problem in using that argument is that it then make Palin more qualified than McCain and brings up the question of whether she is the only one qualified to be running for president.
Besides that kind of executive experience doesn’t necessarily make anyone more qualified to be president since the current president was a governor before he was a president and look how he is now viewed. His experience didn’t seem to give him much of an advantage.
Plus there is always the question of whether her executive experience as mayor of a town of 5000-9000 is really that relevant. There are business and schools that have more people than that. Are we going to say that those business owners and principals are more qualified now to be president than McCain, Obama and Biden?
We’ll have to see what people will say about the bill. I thought it was possible that the bill had nothing to do with the Bridge to Nowhere on the whole, but simply included something about it. But it looks like it was an amendment about the bridge. But, no, I’m not sure what the author wants me to look at on the link.
My question here is why Palin is continuing to emphasize her killing the Bridge to Nowhere, when the media are saying she didn’t, and she knows she’ll have to explain herself soon. Shouldn’t she be seeing her statement as a gaffe that people should forget? But she keeps repeating it. I mean, I know she’s not dumb. Even her critics can admit that. But what’s she up to? Are the media missing something?
I’m not saying this thinking you’re a Democrat–I’m not sure you’re that at all, since your posts take shots at both sides. But there have been governors whom some would say made good Presidents. FDR and Bill Clinton are examples.
I see what your getting at and they may very well have something up their sleeve. Alternatively they might just repeat the claims about her opposition to the bridge for as long as they can and then drop it close to when she has to start answering questions about it and then come up with some reason why she stated it the way she did and then hope that people have moved on by then or something.
If they have something up their sleeve I imagine it’s more deceptive than factual with the way the McCain campaign has been acting lately. I imagine it will be more spin than substance.
BTW I do identify myself more with the Democrats although I was trying to vote for Bush the last election (I was coming back into town and I couldn’t get to the voting place in time). I voted for Gore in the 2000 election.
I don’t think being a governor is irrelevant either and you pointed out to well known president who were governors. I just don’t know if it automatically makes someone more qualified to be president or that it is the best experience to have (especially when it is relatively short and for a state that has a population that is smaller than many cities).
It will be interesting to see how she handles it. I think she’d try to drop the whole thing if she had no way to get around it. There have been times when the McCain campaign has stated things that are false–like Obama’s tax plan raises taxes on the middle class. But I think they can keep repeating that line without much damage to their own credibility, since the Democrats are pretty much established in people’s minds as the party of taxes. I’m not sure that would work with the Bridge, though. She’ll have to give answers on that.
“But I think they can keep repeating that line without much damage to their own credibility, since the Democrats are pretty much established in people’s minds as the party of taxes.”
Exactly. Heck I thought Obama was planning on raising my taxes and I was fine with it. Apparently he’s planning on raising the taxes of those who make over $250,000. Now the issue may be over ending the Bush Tax cuts and whether that amounts raising taxes and that’s a fair debate to have. However as you said they can repeat that line as long as they want and most people probably won’t doubt it because that’s what Democrats do.
Actually, Obama’s line (as I understand it) is that he wants to give the middle class a tax CUT. But Bill Clinton said the same thing in 1992, and that went out the window.
What you said about being willing to pay more taxes reminds me of a discussion I had with a professor. He said his needs are met, so he’s willing to pay more. And he said that the rich are greedy for not wanting to pay their fair share.
But I wonder if the issue is greed as much as conception of government. If one sees the government as a force for good, then that person will be willing to pay more to it. But a lot of people don’t see it that way–they see it as an external force that takes their money and uses it to botch things up.
“But I wonder if the issue is greed as much as conception of government.”
I think you’re right. I don’t think in every instance it is greed (some cases it is) and I can see why people would want to keep more of their money.
For me it’s not so much that the government is good as much as there are needs that need to be met and the government at this moment seems more effective to me at meeting many of those needs on a grand level than many of the other options, although still imperfectly. Plus I’ve been a recipient of the governments help in one way or another in the past and I wasn’t complaining much then.