I think Matt Damon said it best – this whole thing is like a bad Disney movie, except if it WERE a bad Disney movie, it would at least end with the mother realizing that her place is with her children, and that she loves her country too much to be used as a political pawn, whose very presence on the ticket might endanger all our futures. What say you, Sarah?

The most disparaging thing about all this is how easily right-wingers can be swayed by someone who, though personally appealing and politically in alignment with their views, has absolutely NO business being considered for the office of Vice President, especially on a ticket where the Presidential candidate is, sorry, old and feeble.  It’s absolutely terrifying. I happen to believe that there is a great deal that goes on at the highest levels of government that protects us, keeps us safe, keeps our way of life on an even keel that we never even know about – and that it takes experienced legislators, operatives, and executives to keep it all working as it should. And look-it, we’ve already taken a chance on a ‘cowboy’ governor who promised to be compassionate, had a shaky, questionable past, but that was tough, and conservative, and who would take such good care of us, and look where that got us.

We cannot be distracted. The bottom line is that there are more Democrats in this country than Republicans, so the real fight is on the ground, getting to un-registered voters and making sure that they get registered and come out to the polls on November 4th.  From the zeal Ms. Palin exhibited in trying to sound knowledgeable and worthy of position she is in, I think we can assume that she won’t be pulling out of the race anytime soon, so it is our job as Obama supporters to continue to fly under the radar and keep the ground game moving as we have been. It’s critical – anything else would mean handing the presidency over to a hot-tempered, war-mongering, ex-playboy and a moose-shooting, book-burning, hockey-mom who can’t tell a foreign policy from a oil rig.

(Source: WIkipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge)

In October 2005, Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska became the object of strong media criticism when he opposed diverting the Gravina and Knik Arm Bridge funds (Bridge to Nowhere) to help aid recovery from Hurricane Katrina.^[8] In his speech on the Senate floor, Stevens threatened to quit Congress if the funds were removed from his state.^[9]

In 2005,^[10] Congress stripped the specific earmark allocation of federal funds for the two bridges, without changing the amount of money allocated for use by Alaska.^[11]

 

“In September [20th], 2006, Sarah Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town’s prosperity.” ^[12][13]

During her campaign for Governor, Sarah Palin visited Ketchikan in September of 2006 to address her support for the Gravina Island Bridge project. At a forum in Ketchikan, Palin was seen holding up a t-shirt designed by a Ketchikan artist, Mary Ida Henrikson with “Nowhere Alaska 99901″ on it, referencing the buzzword of Bridge to ‘Nowhere’, and the primary zip code of Ketchikan, Alaska. At the same forum, she was quoted: “OK, you’ve got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere,” Palin said. “I think we’re going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project.”^[14]

On October 21, 2006 Alaska gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin was quoted saying she would continue state funding for the bridge. “The window is now, while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist,” she said.^[15]

At a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Wasilla on October 27, 2006, Knowles criticized Palin for supporting the Knik Arm Bridge, Ketchikan‘s Gravina Island Bridge and the road north out of Juneau instead of rebuilding the Parks Highway. Then when Knowles got to Juneau he promised to build the Juneau road, plus a second bridge to Douglas Island. Only Palin is consistent in support all of the projects…^[16]

In August 2007, Alaska’s Department of Transportation stated that it was “leaning” toward alternative ferry options, citing bridge costs, despite having already received the funds from the federal government.^[17]

The project was canceled in 2007 by bridge supporter ^{[18] [19] [20] [21]} Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who changed her view ^{[22] [23]} after national public opinion turned against the bridge for being wasteful spending^[24]:

Asked why she initially supported the bridge, Palin’s communications director Bill McAllister said, “It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn’t necessarily dead … there’s still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design… She changed her mind, he said, when “she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving …”^[26]

The city of Ketchikan has already begun to develop roads and a small amount of infrastructure for the Gravina Island‘s 50 inhabitants. However, residents continue to seek funding for the Ketchikan-Gravina span.^[27]

2008 campaign issue

On August 29, 2008, when introduced as Republican Presidential nominee John McCain‘s running mate, Palin told the crowd: “I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere” — a line that garnered big applause but upset political leaders in Ketchikan. Palin’s campaign coordinator in the city, Republican Mike Elerding, remarked, “She said ‘thanks but no thanks,’ but they kept the money.” Democratic Mayor Bob Weinstein also criticized Palin for using the very term ‘bridge to nowhere‘ that she had said was insulting when she was in favor of the bridge.^[28]

In early September, the McCain campaign released a television advertisement that said, “She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere.”^[29] Howard Kurtz called this a “whopper”, writing: “She endorsed the remote project while running for governor in 2006, claimed to be an opponent only after Congress killed its funding the next year and has used the $223 million provided for it for other state ventures.”^[29]

With any luck, the media will pick up on THIS little tidbit!

CNN is reporting that Sarah Palin will sit down with Charlie Gibson of ABC sometime this week. Charlie Gibson is not exactly a hard-hitting journalist, and the McCain campaign she STILL be held to task for not providing full access to Palin to media outlets. Please sign the petition and pass it along to other supporters.

It’s been 9 long days since Sarah Palin was announced as John mcCain’s running mate – why haven’t we seen her in any other media forum except those that have been carefully scripted by the McCain campaign?

Let Sarah Speak!

Today, top McCain aide Rick Davis indicated the campaign isn’t in any hurry to slot Palin for a Sunday show appearance — and will do so only if he and other strategists determine it serves the ticket’s purposes, not because some may view it as a required initiation for a major political player.

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show, Davis said, “I’d never commit to anything in the future. … Our strategy is in our hands, not the media’s. We’re going to do what’s in our best interests to try to win the election. If we think going on TV news shows are [sic] in our best interests, we’ll do it. If we don’t, we won’t.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-w-1.html

Click the image above to sign the petition – let’s hold the McCain campaign responsible for it’s choice!

Gov. Sarah Palin made her first potentially major gaffe during her time on the national scene while discussing the developments of the perilous housing market this past weekend.

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” The companies, as McClatchy reported, “aren’t taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization.”

Economists and analysts pounced on the misstatement, which came before the government had spent funds baling the two entities out, saying it demonstrated a lack of understanding about one of the key economic issues likely to face the next administration.

“You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “These are huge institutions and they are absolutely central to our country’s mortgage debt. To not have a clue what they do doesn’t speak well for her, I’d say.”

Added Andrew Jakabovics, an economic analysts for the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress: “It is somewhat nonsensical because up until yesterday there was sort of no public funding there. Even today they haven’t drawn down any of the credit line they have given to Treasury. ‘Gotten too big and too expensive’ are two separate things. The too big has been a conservative mantra for a while and there is something to be said of that in that they hold about half of the mortgage guarantees that are out there. And in the last year they have been responsible for roughly 80 percent out there. The ‘too expensive to tax payers,’ I don’t know where that comes from.”

Even conservative analysts acknowledged that the statement simply did not hold true.

“Heretofore, if the treasury had a balance sheet there would have been a liability but there was never a taxpayer payment before [the bailout],” said Gerald P. O’Driscoll, an economist with the Cato Institute. “[Fannie and Freddie] were not taxpayer funded. They had taxpayer guarantee, which is worth something, especially in the stock market…”

The Palin misstatement comes as Fannie and Freddie are set to be placed under control of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, created by President Bush in late July to help regulate the two housing giants. Both presidential candidates have been critical of Fannie and Freddie but neither is opposed to the government’s plans for the companies. The treasury is hoping that the government’s role will help stabilize credit markets and incentive more mortgage lending.

“With the takeover they will be taxpayer funded,” said O’Driscoll. “As I understand it they get to withdraw funds with permission going forward.”

How politically significant a “gaffe” it is remains to be seen. The major concern about Palin’s position on the ticket is that she lacks the economic and foreign policy wherewithal to serve as vice president. This certainly doesn’t help on that front. At the same time, the remark went almost entirely unnoticed over the weekend and discussions on the developments of the housing market can be difficult to process for even the most attuned voter.

There are varying explanations that could be offered for Palin’s defense. As O’Driscoll noted, both Fannie and Freddie “were hybrid institutions because they had private ownership but… an implicit government guarantee which people thought at the end of the day was explicit.” Meanwhile, as Baker noted, as of July the two lenders were being offered low market interest rates by the fed again, theoretically, at the taxpayer’s expense. But, he added, “I kind of doubt she had any sense of that.”