Maybe Sarah Palin…

…is a hero on the Bridge to Nowhere after all. She wasn’t going to spend that federal money on an expensive bridge to nowhere, which cost too much in light of the unimportant task it was supposed to accomplish. (After all, people could take the ferry to the airport.) And so she used the money on something useful, like roads.

I solved your problem, Governor! You can put the bridge back into your stump speech (Palin Drops “Bridge to Nowhere” Reference in New Speeches)!

About jamesbradfordpate

My name is James Pate. This blog is about my journey. I read books. I watch movies and TV shows. I go to church. I try to find meaning. And, when I can’t do that, I just talk about stuff that I find interesting. I have degrees in fields of religious studies. I have an M.Phil. in the History of Biblical Interpretation from Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio. I also have an M.A. in Hebrew Bible from Jewish Theological Seminary, an M.Div. from Harvard Divinity School, and a B.A. from DePauw University.
This entry was posted in Candidates, Current Events, Politics, Sarah Palin. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Maybe Sarah Palin…

  1. Pascalian Awakenings says:

    How kind of you to fix her problem. You need to join her staff. 🙂

    I recently found out by watching Stephen Colbert that a young blogger may have been influential in McCain picking her. Here is his link, and if you scroll down you can see the interview on “The Colbert Report.”


  2. Bryan L says:

    At least you try James! : )

    Bryan L


  3. James Pate says:

    That was funny, Yvette! I wonder if Huckabee used that desk in a sermon on Christ dying for our sins.


    Here’s an idea for your politics and hermeneutics series: How do we interpret the significance of events? Palin pretty much accepted the details the media gave us. She said she saw the writing on the wall, and the state didn’t want to pay for the bridge, and so (drumroll) she said “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge from Nowhere. She dramatizes what to many of us appears undramatic. Isn’t that what some higher critics say the biblical authors did? Dramatize what was ordinary–or see divine significance in it, or something like that?


  4. Pascalian Awakenings says:

    You’re following all of this closer than I am. I’ve grown tired of it. Since you’ve been posting on the interviews, you may find this article interesting.

    In case you don’t know, News Busters exposes liberal media bias.


  5. James Pate says:

    Thanks, Yvette. I think they may have included those things in the later interviews, since they look familiar.


  6. Bryan L says:

    I saw the interviews on Youtube and those parts were in there.

    Is that what you watched James?



  7. Bryan L says:

    I forgot to address the other thing you brought up.

    I think another way of looking at it that is similar to the view of the biblciaal authors reinterpreting prophecy in light of new events and new revelation.

    It seems to me that Palin was trying to put a new spin on the “thanks but no thanks” comments. She she had to reinterpret her previous comments in light of the outcry that things weren’t really adding up. I think it’s clear to anyone who was listening to her before that she made it sound like she was against the Bridge before everyone else was and she was the one responsible for killing it and that added to her reformer image the campaign invented for her. I think she’s now reinterpreting what she originally said to make it seem like all along she meant what you suggested she meant.

    So just like in the Bible all along the prophets were speaking about the Messiah who had to suffer and die and be raised. Meanwhile everyone is saying: “What?! I sure don’t see that in there?”
    And the response is:
    “Ahhh, but that’s because you don’t have the christological lenses with which to view those prophecies.”

    Reinterpretation in light of new events and revelation : )

    Bryan L


  8. James Pate says:

    No, I watched both 6:30 ones, both Nightline ones, Good Morning America, and 20/20. And I also posted a link of a transcript for the first night. Some things had stuff that the other lacked, but 20/20 was the smoothest and most comprehensive.

    What you say about reinterpretation may be right. I think it was the Huffington post that said Palin was choosing her words very deliberately–to get a certain effect. It’s kind of like what I learned in this one lobby I worked with years ago: you don’t really want to deny something, but affirm something positive. And that’s somewhat what I saw with Palin–she often tried to go from defense to saying something positive. Not all the time, but a lot of the time.


Comments are closed.