On the Bridge to Nowhere issue he said:
When it came to the Bridge to Nowhere she was for it until everybody started raising a fuss about it and she started running for governor and then suddenly she was against it!
Hello? And isn't that what politicians are supposed to do? They are supposed to learn more about things so that they can decide if they are good or not. The way he characterized it as "everybody raising a fuss about it" misrepresents the process of her learning more and changing her mind. It's just a negative way of presenting it. I think Obama thinks people are stupid if he's trying to deceive them in this way. Deciding to stop the Bridge to Nowhere was a direct result of her uncovering the depths of corruption that it involved. To hold it against her that she actually figured out that it was a bad thing is the real stupidity here. Obama, you will have to do better than that if you want to sway the really smart people.
1 comment:
You know that old saw about being careful what you wish for? Well, you may not like the comments I make about political stuff, and I've hesitated to comment before because:
a) I'm long-winded, and to respond thoughtfully to some issues and points you raise would take a fair amount of space on a blog that isn't "my" territory
b) I don't wish to be antagonistic, and my view of things is quite different from yours on some issues, regardless of how much common ground we share.
Now that I've made my disclaimers ;-) , I have a couple of comments on the "Bridge to Nowhere" issue. To me, the heart of the matter lies not in whether or not Palin supported the bridge and then changed her mind--I agree that politicians should listen to the concerns of the people and respond to them--but in her choice to use a somewhat misleading summation of her stance on the bridge as her main example of how she is against earmarks and pork-barrel spending.
On the contrary, Palin has raked in millions of federal dollars in earmarks for the already oil-rich state of Alaska (where, as you know, I lived for many years and know a little bit about)--27 million for the tiny town of Wasilla when she was mayor, and more than 300 million for the state so far as governor. How do these numbers support her supposed opposition to earmarks?
Oh. And while the bridge in question may not have been built, Governor Palin still took the money. Alaska just spent it on other projects. There was no "no thanks, we don't want that federal money" as her speech implied.
ellen
Post a Comment