Palin For Bridge To Nowhere Before She Was Against It

"I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks' for that bridge to nowhere up in Alaska. If our state wanted a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves," vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin told the Republican National Convention and a crowd in Lebanon, Ohio, on Tuesday.

Sounds pretty impressive, doesn't it? No pork for us up here in Alaska. We don't need a bridge for $223 million to connect Ketchikan with an airport on underpopulated Gravina Island.

The only problem is that Palin lied on this topic. Twice in one week.

Consider Palin's strong endorsement of the bridge during a debate before she was elected governor: "I'm not going to stand in the way of progress that our congressional delegation -- in the position of strength that they have right now -- they're making those efforts for the state of Alaska to build up our infrastructure. I would not get in the way of progress of this project or other projects they're working so hard on."

So why did Palin cancel the project? It became a symbol of congressional pork barrel projects in 2007. It had nothing to do with ethics. Far from it. It was bad P.R. The price of the already expensive bridge was skyrocketing, too.

And what did Palin do with the money after supposedly telling Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks"? Why, she kept it for state transportation projects. Pretty neat trick for a cost-cutter and reformer.

If Alaska needed some roads, perhaps Palin should have told Congress, "We'll pave them ourselves."

John McCain told Chris Wallace of–where else?–FOX News, "She as governor stood up and said, we don't need it, and if we need it, we'll pay for it ourselves." Wallace uncritically referred to the bridge as "the big pork barrel project," as if he were corroborating McCain's story.

One day earlier, Palin criticized Barack Obama's monetary requests for Illinois. What she didn't say was that Alaska under her leadership requested 10 times as much money for pet projects.

The Associated Press reports that under the Palin administration, "Alaska is still and by far the largest per-capita consumer of federal pet-project spending." 

Consider the comparison: "Obama hasn't asked for any earmarks this year. Last year, he asked for $311 million worth, about $25 for every Illinois resident. Alaska asked this year for earmarks totaling $198 million, about $295 for every Alaska citizen."

So the web of deception spun by the McCain-Palin camp continues. Meanwhile, the ticket tries to project the image that it takes on entrenched interests and governmental waste. Really? Not from where Palin stood on the bridge to nowhere.