What I really am interested in is that this is not even an earmark, so calling it that gets things going in wrong direction. That began with Factcheck.org calling it an earmark and then everyone else running with that.

So to me they collectively are not thinking, they jumped on the issue “poster child for earmarks” Palin was there she inherited it, I do not think she dropped it only because of that, but it got so much negative publicity she may have.

The reality is that it was and is part of larger allocation of funds from the fed to the state and she has control of that in part as Governor. Why would she be for building the bridge…because the people of Ketchikan were?

I can see her role in the actual project and how she is handling it and approve, but the statement I cannot it was misleading, she is guilty of chiming in at the end of a long series of distortions and over simplifications related to the project.

I could compare her stance with Nancy Pelosi’s with respects to ANWR and then we can really get into misleading and distortions. I watch and listen, Palin quoted some numbers in her CNN interview and I checked them and they are valid according to the CIA fact book and the federal department of energy. I said it before that is were she really begins and ends…she knows her state and energy related resources.

The problem I have is that people are not really drilling down, the media is flash bites and misleading talking point, they all fuel each other.

Palin has access to 19B she could build the bridge if she wants and we can all see that there would be a confederation of fools against that, none of which seriously looked at the project.

Do you think the largest longest highest bridge in the US would be a tourist attraction? Is the Gravina Island developable? Would it have had economic impact on the area? It all got lost because “the bridge to nowhere” became the poster child for earmarks and it isn’t even and earmark.

Palin is an outsider and she is learning the tricks of the trade from who…a master…the masters, hey they all do it, that also is why I say the higher the monkey climbs the more you see of it ass.

????

How could have the congress killed the project if they already transferred the funds? The funds where transferred weren’t they?

The Alaska department of transportation still has the money, they can build the bridge if they want, they I believe they have an open study ongoing. http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/projectinfo/ser/Gravina/index1.shtml

I also am aware that it was factcheck .org that instigated or coined the name “bridge to Nowhere” and they are now again doing what instigating.

This page has a picture of Palin endorsing the project, she is holding up a tee-shirt with Nowhere 99901 on it Ketchikan’s zip code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

She was and is abreast of the project, it’s everybody else that has there preverbal heads up there asses.

The entire nation received federal transportation project funding, is it an earmark? That in itself is distorted isn’t it?

The McCain campaign is following along on an going distortion. The poster child for earmarks is not even an earmarks is it?

Do we even know how the federal highway system is funded? Virtually 100 percent of the construction and maintenance costs are funded through fuel taxes

If it was an earmark and “killed” then why did the state get the funds?

Who checking factcheck.org ? me today, I guess, anybody anyone?