Wednesday, September 10, 2008
OBAMA AND BIDEN VOTED FOR THE "BRIDGE TO NOWHERE"!! And Kos slammed 'em both!
(Please spread this story far and wide.)
Josh Marshall and the other lying progs are still hounding Sarah Palin on the earmarked funds for the so-called "bridge to nowhere." They say that she supported the earmark before she turned against it. After all the smears they have leveled against Palin, this charge is the one that will stick -- or so they think.
Here's the problem: Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted for H.R. 3058, which provided funds for the bridge to nowhere (as well as a lot of other things). McCain did not vote for H.R. 3058. The summary of the bill is here. (You're looking for Section 186 -- the bit about the Gravina Island bridge.)
Representative Tom Coburn offered an amendment which would have transferred the bridge money to Katrina relief. That amendment failed, 15-82. Guess who stood among the 82 "Nay" voters?
Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
They preferred for the money to go that bridge, not to the victims of America's worst disaster. (By contrast, Russ Feingold voted for H.R. 3058, but also voted for the amendment.) And yes, the bridge was the key factor in the debate. Click that last link and you'll see: Obama cannot possibly pretend that he did not know that the Coburn amendment was all about a bridge in Alaska. (Actually, two bridges.)
As for Sarah Palin? No-one should be surprised that she initially liked the idea of a measure that meant jobs for Alaska. That's what state politicians do. They fight for their states. They fight to bring money into the state, not to keep it out. Later, she turned against the bridge (after it became a national punchline), and spent the money on other projects -- roads, mostly. The progs try to make that decision sound nefarious, but it isn't. Alaska needs roads, and no governor in any state is going to turn down federal funds to improve transportation.
Earmarks are not controlled by governors. They are controlled by House members and Senators. Remember that -- and don't let liars like Josh Marshall try to convince you otherwise.
Josh Marshall and the other lying progs are still hounding Sarah Palin on the earmarked funds for the so-called "bridge to nowhere." They say that she supported the earmark before she turned against it. After all the smears they have leveled against Palin, this charge is the one that will stick -- or so they think.
Here's the problem: Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted for H.R. 3058, which provided funds for the bridge to nowhere (as well as a lot of other things). McCain did not vote for H.R. 3058. The summary of the bill is here. (You're looking for Section 186 -- the bit about the Gravina Island bridge.)
Representative Tom Coburn offered an amendment which would have transferred the bridge money to Katrina relief. That amendment failed, 15-82. Guess who stood among the 82 "Nay" voters?
Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
They preferred for the money to go that bridge, not to the victims of America's worst disaster. (By contrast, Russ Feingold voted for H.R. 3058, but also voted for the amendment.) And yes, the bridge was the key factor in the debate. Click that last link and you'll see: Obama cannot possibly pretend that he did not know that the Coburn amendment was all about a bridge in Alaska. (Actually, two bridges.)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a staunch opponent of pork barrel spending, tried to block $453 million for two Alaska bridges that had been tucked into the recent highway bill. Coburn wanted to redirect the money to the Interstate 10 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain, a major thoroughfare that was severely damaged during Hurricane Katrina.At the time (October 20, 2005), Markos Moulitsas had harsh words for everyone who voted against Coburn's amendment. I rarely get the opportunity to quote Kos approvingly, so forgive this indulgence:
Honestly, there's no reason for any Democrat to vote against this amendment.And yet Obama did. So did Joe Biden.
It's embarrassing that Feingold was the only Democrat voting for it. What a great way to show the country that Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. Sheez..I'm with ya, Kos ol' buddy....
FYI, the reason senators would vote against these amendments is because if any of them pass, it puts every single pork project in their own states in danger.Right on, brother Kos! (He's talking about Obama!)
A $223 million bridge serving 50 people was more important to these people than rebuilding storm-battered New Orleans.Yeah! Preach it! Shout it to the heavens above! Moulitsas, you the man!
Simply unconscionable. Those who voted against these amendments have zero credibility on issues of fiscal responsibility. Zero.
As for Sarah Palin? No-one should be surprised that she initially liked the idea of a measure that meant jobs for Alaska. That's what state politicians do. They fight for their states. They fight to bring money into the state, not to keep it out. Later, she turned against the bridge (after it became a national punchline), and spent the money on other projects -- roads, mostly. The progs try to make that decision sound nefarious, but it isn't. Alaska needs roads, and no governor in any state is going to turn down federal funds to improve transportation.
Earmarks are not controlled by governors. They are controlled by House members and Senators. Remember that -- and don't let liars like Josh Marshall try to convince you otherwise.
None of this matters. Although I'd rather both McCain and Obama lose, only one will. I prefer that the loser be the one praised by all those right wing nuts at the GOP convention. The rest is irrelevant, and so I'm tuning out and dropping my political feeds. Thanks for the informative posts over the past months, Joseph.
Very clever way to turn the debate upside down, but the fact is, I'm still waiting to see where Biden or Obama claimed to have voted against the bill. As you well know, the bridge was simply a small part of a much larger bill, and I'm not sure either one of them were willing to reject the entire bill because of a single earmark. The fact is that it's the height of hypocrisy for Palin to run as some big opponent of earmarks generally, and of this bridge specifically, when she actually welcomed the earmark, and campaigned on her support for it. Obama and Biden, like any senator, can be tarred by their connection to thousands of earmarks in the same way. Neither of them is directly connected to that particular earmark. More importantly, they have not made it a central campaign slogan, and directly misrepresented their position when speaking to voters. But you don't have a problem when they lie to voters, of course.
Why would you post about the candidates who are trying to distract voters with false and misleading claims, when you can pass the days by simply attacking Obama? I guess like the McCain campaign, it's easier for you to attack than to talk about anything productive the Republicans are bringing to the table this cycle. Its sad that the candidates positions on real issues can't be discussed, because we all have to spend so much time sorting through which is the most egregious of the attacks and distortions coming from the McCain camp. Who cares which attacks are flat out lies, when we can parse a single bill to make Obama seem like a liar.
American politics has never been so dispiriting, but I guess that's all that's left when a candidate happens to excite Americans and actually speak to the countries problems, and not just what divides us based on fear. Very sad.
Why would you post about the candidates who are trying to distract voters with false and misleading claims, when you can pass the days by simply attacking Obama? I guess like the McCain campaign, it's easier for you to attack than to talk about anything productive the Republicans are bringing to the table this cycle. Its sad that the candidates positions on real issues can't be discussed, because we all have to spend so much time sorting through which is the most egregious of the attacks and distortions coming from the McCain camp. Who cares which attacks are flat out lies, when we can parse a single bill to make Obama seem like a liar.
American politics has never been so dispiriting, but I guess that's all that's left when a candidate happens to excite Americans and actually speak to the countries problems, and not just what divides us based on fear. Very sad.
"Seem" like a liar? Fuck you, Buzzflash boy. Obama is the worst liar in the history of the Democratic party.
NAFTA. FISA. Campaign Finance. Gun control. Iraq. Hillary. Bill. Taxes. Free trade. The decision to run in '08.
If Obama is not a liar, then why did he scrub his site of his earlier denunciations of the surge?
I honestly cannot think of a major issue on which Obama has NOT lied.
Chuck: None of this matters? Then why do Josh Marshall and the other progs keep harping on the bridge? You cannot have it both ways!
NAFTA. FISA. Campaign Finance. Gun control. Iraq. Hillary. Bill. Taxes. Free trade. The decision to run in '08.
If Obama is not a liar, then why did he scrub his site of his earlier denunciations of the surge?
I honestly cannot think of a major issue on which Obama has NOT lied.
Chuck: None of this matters? Then why do Josh Marshall and the other progs keep harping on the bridge? You cannot have it both ways!
Voteonissues:
You clearly didn't read the post, the whole post. While the initial earmark was part of a larger bill, the COBURN amendment WASN'T. The Coburn amendment was specifically about that bridge and both Obama and Biden specifically voted for the bridge and against diverting money for the bridge to rebuild the gulf.
I'll repeat that since your reading comprehension appears slow - when given the opportunity to vote specifically for or against that Alaska bridge and only that bridge, Obama and Biden voted for it and against rerouting that money to Louisiana for rebuilding.
Palin did indeed come out in support during her campaign, but when it really mattered and she saw how wasteful it was, she turned against it. Now, doing so certainly carried the risk that she would anger Alaskans who were looking forward to the jobs the bridge building would bring. She also risked claims that she was reneging on a campaign promise. But, she did the right thing when push came to shove and she had to make an executive decision.
Now, who does that NOT remind me of?
You clearly didn't read the post, the whole post. While the initial earmark was part of a larger bill, the COBURN amendment WASN'T. The Coburn amendment was specifically about that bridge and both Obama and Biden specifically voted for the bridge and against diverting money for the bridge to rebuild the gulf.
I'll repeat that since your reading comprehension appears slow - when given the opportunity to vote specifically for or against that Alaska bridge and only that bridge, Obama and Biden voted for it and against rerouting that money to Louisiana for rebuilding.
Palin did indeed come out in support during her campaign, but when it really mattered and she saw how wasteful it was, she turned against it. Now, doing so certainly carried the risk that she would anger Alaskans who were looking forward to the jobs the bridge building would bring. She also risked claims that she was reneging on a campaign promise. But, she did the right thing when push came to shove and she had to make an executive decision.
Now, who does that NOT remind me of?
It doesn't matter as much as the key issues of this election, which I haven't heard Palin address yet.
She said the "Bridge to Nowhere" was an insulting term, but she uses it freely now. She took the $450 million in earmarks, without giving the intended residents access to their airport, without the promised explanation. Former Gov. Knowles says she is planning a bridge to her hometown of Wasilla, instead.
She said the "Bridge to Nowhere" was an insulting term, but she uses it freely now. She took the $450 million in earmarks, without giving the intended residents access to their airport, without the promised explanation. Former Gov. Knowles says she is planning a bridge to her hometown of Wasilla, instead.
You will love this
New Documentary
Takes a Look at the 9/11 Truth Movement
On the anniversary of the attacks of September 11th, British filmmaker Dean Puckett releases "The Elephant in the Room," a new award-winning film documenting his journey into the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Los Angeles September 10, 2008 -- On the anniversary of the attacks of September 11th, British filmmaker Dean Puckett releases "The Elephant in the Room," a new award-winning film documenting his journey into the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The Movement can best be described as a group of citizen activists from around the world who don't believe the U.S. government's explanation of what happened on September 11th. While there are a growing number of law enforcement personnel, pilots, architects, engineers, and scientists joining the ranks, they have been called everything from 'patriots' to 'conspiracy theorists' - with some right wing talk show hosts going so far as to call them 'jihadists.'
But In the documentary, "The Elephant in the Room", the viewer is introduced to folks who aren't as dangerous as some would believe. They just happen to be average citizens asking some very simple questions.
The film features interviews with numerous 9/11 Truth activists including Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (who is currently running for President) and William Rodriguez, a janitor of 20 years at the World Trade Center, who testified that he heard and felt explosions in his building before it was hit by a plane. Also in the film is Richard Gage, a San Francisco based architect with experience in steel framed, high-rise buildings. He claims that the WTC towers could not have come down without help.
The filmmaker also travels to New York City to meet 9/11 first responders who are suffering from various life-threatening illnesses due to breathing the toxic dust at Ground Zero. Few people realize that when the buildings came down, the cement was turned into dust resembling talcum powder. Rescue dogs died within days and now the responders are meeting the same fate, but with little help from the government.
Winner of the Best Documentary at the 2008 London Independent Film Festival, "The Elephant in the Room" is now available on DVD at http://www.nosmokewithoutfire.co.uk/buy.htm. What's the best part? The filmmaker is giving the public permission to make as many copies as they like to distribute freely to family and friends. For more information or to watch it online for FREE log on to the film's official website at http://www.nosmokewithoutfire.co.uk
About the Filmmaker: Dean Puckett has directed over seven short films, produced two independent feature films and worked on several commercial and charity projects. For the award-winning feature length documentary 'The Elephant in the Room', he wore many hats as the film's director, producer, editor and cameraman.
All media inquiries should contact Dead Dean Films at (+44) 7709 443 794 or dean@nosmokewithoutfire.co.uk
New Documentary
Takes a Look at the 9/11 Truth Movement
On the anniversary of the attacks of September 11th, British filmmaker Dean Puckett releases "The Elephant in the Room," a new award-winning film documenting his journey into the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Los Angeles September 10, 2008 -- On the anniversary of the attacks of September 11th, British filmmaker Dean Puckett releases "The Elephant in the Room," a new award-winning film documenting his journey into the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The Movement can best be described as a group of citizen activists from around the world who don't believe the U.S. government's explanation of what happened on September 11th. While there are a growing number of law enforcement personnel, pilots, architects, engineers, and scientists joining the ranks, they have been called everything from 'patriots' to 'conspiracy theorists' - with some right wing talk show hosts going so far as to call them 'jihadists.'
But In the documentary, "The Elephant in the Room", the viewer is introduced to folks who aren't as dangerous as some would believe. They just happen to be average citizens asking some very simple questions.
The film features interviews with numerous 9/11 Truth activists including Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (who is currently running for President) and William Rodriguez, a janitor of 20 years at the World Trade Center, who testified that he heard and felt explosions in his building before it was hit by a plane. Also in the film is Richard Gage, a San Francisco based architect with experience in steel framed, high-rise buildings. He claims that the WTC towers could not have come down without help.
The filmmaker also travels to New York City to meet 9/11 first responders who are suffering from various life-threatening illnesses due to breathing the toxic dust at Ground Zero. Few people realize that when the buildings came down, the cement was turned into dust resembling talcum powder. Rescue dogs died within days and now the responders are meeting the same fate, but with little help from the government.
Winner of the Best Documentary at the 2008 London Independent Film Festival, "The Elephant in the Room" is now available on DVD at http://www.nosmokewithoutfire.co.uk/buy.htm. What's the best part? The filmmaker is giving the public permission to make as many copies as they like to distribute freely to family and friends. For more information or to watch it online for FREE log on to the film's official website at http://www.nosmokewithoutfire.co.uk
About the Filmmaker: Dean Puckett has directed over seven short films, produced two independent feature films and worked on several commercial and charity projects. For the award-winning feature length documentary 'The Elephant in the Room', he wore many hats as the film's director, producer, editor and cameraman.
All media inquiries should contact Dead Dean Films at (+44) 7709 443 794 or dean@nosmokewithoutfire.co.uk
Who cares about ONE FUCKING BRIDGE IN ALASKA ? Americans should be ashamed of focusing on stupid issues like that... the decline of the American empire will be through its stupidity and this blog is a fine example.
"NAFTA. FISA. Campaign Finance. Gun control. Iraq. Hillary. Bill. Taxes. Free trade. The decision to run in '08..."
Those are all true Joe, Obi is the lowest D ever to run for POTUS. But just for a second (and lest i be called a Troll once more on your blog, a quick question) Here's another short list of things to think about; Samuel Anthony Alito, John Glover Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, David Hackett Souter, Anthony McLeod Kennedy, Antonin Gregory Scalia, John Paul Stevens
VS.
Ginsberg + Breyer
McCain might only last 4 years, but the gifts they'll give us (aside from "Bomb bomb bombing Iran") will last a loooong time.
Those are all true Joe, Obi is the lowest D ever to run for POTUS. But just for a second (and lest i be called a Troll once more on your blog, a quick question) Here's another short list of things to think about; Samuel Anthony Alito, John Glover Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, David Hackett Souter, Anthony McLeod Kennedy, Antonin Gregory Scalia, John Paul Stevens
VS.
Ginsberg + Breyer
McCain might only last 4 years, but the gifts they'll give us (aside from "Bomb bomb bombing Iran") will last a loooong time.
This entire discussion is mistaken (as one might expect if McCain is pushing a line, and D-Kos is backing it up).
Earmarks do not add pork spending to the budget. Rather, they take already authorized and appropriated monies and direct they be used for special projects.
If you read the paragraph language Joe points to, the earmark authorization says **the money that Alaska is due under SAFETEA-LU** can be used for these two bridges. And Alaska, like (probably) all the other states, IS due monies under SAFETEA-LU.
So when Coburn, who is not a serious member of Congress, proposed taking the bridge money from Alaska for NOLA projects, he was not stripping an added-on pork project, but proposing stripping the SAFETEA-LU monies already authorized and appropriated TO ALASKA, because how they chose themselves to spend the money was risible and easily attacked.
Considerable time in negotiation and compromise was involved in dividing these SAFETEA-LU monies across the various states originally. Coburn was suggesting that this delicate arrangement be overturned for essentially purely political reasons, to look good, on false premises.
So, as should not be surprising, D-Kos' statement that this had something to do with fiscal responsibility was quite false. The bridges' earmarks didn't increase payments to Alaska, but only (perhaps foolishly) specified where the money already due them was to be spent. The taxpayers were not being gouged (since the monies sent to Alaska would be the same regardless), and if anybody had reason to complain, it would be the Alaskans who perhaps had better use of the monies in other areas of highway building and maintenance. Period.
XIslander
Earmarks do not add pork spending to the budget. Rather, they take already authorized and appropriated monies and direct they be used for special projects.
If you read the paragraph language Joe points to, the earmark authorization says **the money that Alaska is due under SAFETEA-LU** can be used for these two bridges. And Alaska, like (probably) all the other states, IS due monies under SAFETEA-LU.
So when Coburn, who is not a serious member of Congress, proposed taking the bridge money from Alaska for NOLA projects, he was not stripping an added-on pork project, but proposing stripping the SAFETEA-LU monies already authorized and appropriated TO ALASKA, because how they chose themselves to spend the money was risible and easily attacked.
Considerable time in negotiation and compromise was involved in dividing these SAFETEA-LU monies across the various states originally. Coburn was suggesting that this delicate arrangement be overturned for essentially purely political reasons, to look good, on false premises.
So, as should not be surprising, D-Kos' statement that this had something to do with fiscal responsibility was quite false. The bridges' earmarks didn't increase payments to Alaska, but only (perhaps foolishly) specified where the money already due them was to be spent. The taxpayers were not being gouged (since the monies sent to Alaska would be the same regardless), and if anybody had reason to complain, it would be the Alaskans who perhaps had better use of the monies in other areas of highway building and maintenance. Period.
XIslander
Brother Joe:
Thanks for keeping this story alive. I LOVE this site and one of the reason I continue to come here is your independance and willingness to shrug off the bullshit that permeates the web.
Thanks Brother!
I will do what I can to point out the hypocrisy of those so called "Progressives". I hope you do not mind if I quote you and your site when I write my story this evening.
Gilbert Mondragon
Aka
RedDragon62
Thanks for keeping this story alive. I LOVE this site and one of the reason I continue to come here is your independance and willingness to shrug off the bullshit that permeates the web.
Thanks Brother!
I will do what I can to point out the hypocrisy of those so called "Progressives". I hope you do not mind if I quote you and your site when I write my story this evening.
Gilbert Mondragon
Aka
RedDragon62
just a reminder folks...
but it was OBAMA who said he was bringing "Change you can believe in".
I'm still not sure what the hell he's talking about. And then when examples of him showing that his "change you can believe in" is actually a ruse because he has always played politics as usual .... it is deemed not focusing on policy.
Sorry, but I am very concerned about what his former idea of change has had to do with his current idea of change. And since he doesn't have much of record for us to base it on, everything becomes important (especially his main focus on the privatization of public housing policy in Chicago and when he had a chance to vote for an amendment that specifically would help his own kind in NOLA), including the votes he made when he did show up for Congress.
Call me cynical... but I began uncovering Obama's reliance upon politics as usual instead of the change he purports to uphold when I was finding reasons to CAMPAIGN for him back in Dec 2007 after my candidate of choice Edwards dropped out. Because I'm a liberal.
Not only have I not found reasons to campaign for him, I find no reason to vote for him!
kudos Joseph for finding reason to throw Markos Moulitsas words back at 'em.
we need to expose the liberal bloggers as what they are ... more concerned about a particular candidate than the Dem Party or Liberals in general. The party has been overtaken by neo-progressive thugs who are more concerned about holding power than they are about you or me, and have created every possible fracture possible to do so.
Wake Up People!
FembotsForObama
but it was OBAMA who said he was bringing "Change you can believe in".
I'm still not sure what the hell he's talking about. And then when examples of him showing that his "change you can believe in" is actually a ruse because he has always played politics as usual .... it is deemed not focusing on policy.
Sorry, but I am very concerned about what his former idea of change has had to do with his current idea of change. And since he doesn't have much of record for us to base it on, everything becomes important (especially his main focus on the privatization of public housing policy in Chicago and when he had a chance to vote for an amendment that specifically would help his own kind in NOLA), including the votes he made when he did show up for Congress.
Call me cynical... but I began uncovering Obama's reliance upon politics as usual instead of the change he purports to uphold when I was finding reasons to CAMPAIGN for him back in Dec 2007 after my candidate of choice Edwards dropped out. Because I'm a liberal.
Not only have I not found reasons to campaign for him, I find no reason to vote for him!
kudos Joseph for finding reason to throw Markos Moulitsas words back at 'em.
we need to expose the liberal bloggers as what they are ... more concerned about a particular candidate than the Dem Party or Liberals in general. The party has been overtaken by neo-progressive thugs who are more concerned about holding power than they are about you or me, and have created every possible fracture possible to do so.
Wake Up People!
FembotsForObama
I just posted this information at Krugman's blog. He is promoting the idea that Palin was dishonest to say she was against the bridge to nowhere, and never mentioned that Obama and Biden voted for it. Twice. His column today is devoted to the idea that McCain's campaign is being dirty and dishonest.
This makes me really sad (I was already angry). Krugman is someone whose intellect and liberal agenda I admire a lot. I presume he is motivated by party loyalty. The democratic party does not deserve my loyalty after their Bush-enabling, do-nothing record of the past eight years, especially since their electoral victory of 2006. Why should I be loyal to a party that calls me a bitter racist, and white trash? WAKE UP, MR. KRUGMAN!!!
This makes me really sad (I was already angry). Krugman is someone whose intellect and liberal agenda I admire a lot. I presume he is motivated by party loyalty. The democratic party does not deserve my loyalty after their Bush-enabling, do-nothing record of the past eight years, especially since their electoral victory of 2006. Why should I be loyal to a party that calls me a bitter racist, and white trash? WAKE UP, MR. KRUGMAN!!!
There are two problems wrong with your argument. First, I disagree that the notion that the Bridge to Nowhere was the key part of this legislation is absurd. Here's a complete list of everything in the bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3058&tab=summary
Second, the point to be made is not who was responsible for the bridge. The reason it was brought up is to show that Palin was standing up to earmarks, and it was brought up by her. The facts tell another story, that she was the most earmark hungry governor in the US. The fact that she didn't even return the money more than illustrates this fact.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3058&tab=summary
Second, the point to be made is not who was responsible for the bridge. The reason it was brought up is to show that Palin was standing up to earmarks, and it was brought up by her. The facts tell another story, that she was the most earmark hungry governor in the US. The fact that she didn't even return the money more than illustrates this fact.
Kelly, you're one dumb fucker. No, I won't apologize for my language.
If you had bothered to read my story, you would have noted that I linked to the entire bill, and I noted that there was a lot of other stuff in it. HOWEVER, I also discussed the amendment that would have diverted the bridge money to Katrina relief. At the time, the bridge was at the center of the debate. Obama and Biden voted against the amendment.
You don't mention that. Why? Because you are a cowardly apologist.
Sarah Palin did not lie. Granted, some of what she said was TECHNICALLY true, in what we might call the "MacBeth" sense -- "No man born of woman." But still, it was true.
And the fact remains -- no Democrat has any right scoring Palin on the bridge if that Democrat also voted FOR the bridge.
Post a Comment
<< Home
If you had bothered to read my story, you would have noted that I linked to the entire bill, and I noted that there was a lot of other stuff in it. HOWEVER, I also discussed the amendment that would have diverted the bridge money to Katrina relief. At the time, the bridge was at the center of the debate. Obama and Biden voted against the amendment.
You don't mention that. Why? Because you are a cowardly apologist.
Sarah Palin did not lie. Granted, some of what she said was TECHNICALLY true, in what we might call the "MacBeth" sense -- "No man born of woman." But still, it was true.
And the fact remains -- no Democrat has any right scoring Palin on the bridge if that Democrat also voted FOR the bridge.
