Thursday, September 11, 2008

McCain: An f---ing hypocrite

As a Minnesotan, I've been particularly irked time to time when the 35W bridge collapse last summer was exploited for political gain. I'm sure other citizens of other cities feel the same way about their tragedies get politicized and debated over with little regard to the lives affected.

However, this one gets me:
“The bridge in Minneapolis didn’t collapse because there wasn’t enough money. The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects…. I think there is a long, long list of earmarks which went to unnecessary and unwanted projects that I think should have gone to the bridge in Minnesota. I don’t know whether it would have gone or not, but if you’re spending $223 million on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it. …”

–John McCain in Allentown, Pennsylvania on April 30, 2008.

It was a month later that Palin changed her position on the Bridge to Nowhere but kept the $223 million for Alaska, spending it elsewhere.

So, John McCain, you really want to call Palin a reformer still? Praise her for cutting down on pork barrel spending?

Funny, when you were in St. Paul this past week, you forgot to mention how the money given for the Alaskan bridge would have been better spent on the 35W bridge. Huh.

I don't think McCain's solution of cutting special earmark spending would have solved the problems with the 35W bridge. I do find it incredibly ironic that he uses the Bridge to Nowhere as an example of unecessary pork barrel spending, yet praises Palin for reforming the system while she endless repeats her "thanks but no thanks" crap without mentioning that she never gave back the $223 million of federal money meant for the bridge.

Please, please, please, mainstream media. Pick up the story - it's all there in the Minnesota Independent.


The Great American said...

When you talk about tragidies being politicized I'm sure you're talking about the left who constantly politicize Katrina.

The problem with the Bridge to Nowhere wasn't the "bridge" part, it was the "nowhere" part. Why should we have a $223 million dollar project the affects a few people. Instead the money was spread around different projects that all the people of Alaska. And whether or not she was before it before she was aginst it doesn't matter, she was the one who ultimately stopped it. So I think you have a very thin argument for calling John McCain a "f---ing hypocrite". Keep hating on Palin, because it is doing wonders for the Right! By the way, Barry Obama voted for the bridge.

D said...

Also, "Palin the reformer", inquired into banning books, and then attempted to fire the head librarian of the city she was mayor of, when she felt the librarian wasn't on her side in the matter.

Real nice.

Anonymous said...

it matters if she was for or against it because she is refusing to admit she was EVER for it. She didn't say no thanks because she had a change of heart. She said no thanks because it was getting negative review. It also doesn't matter what she did with the Earmark money. it was still earmark money which the McCain campaign is against.

It doesn't matter if Obama voted for earmarks, he is not making campaigning against earmarks the main part of his campaign.
I also saw an article that shows that earmarks are not as big a drain on the budget and McCain likes to pretend they are. So it's another republican trick of the hand: I'll get America really upset about this so that they don't realize I'm not going to do anything to improve what needs to be improved.

Lindsay said...

When you talk about tragidies being politicized I'm sure you're talking about the left who constantly politicize Katrina.
I'm talking about all people who use tragedies for political gain. Both sides do it. I never said Democrats don't use the same tactics - look at the aftermath of Paul Wellstone's death. It's just unfortunate that it happens at all.

And whether or not she was before it before she was aginst it doesn't matter, she was the one who ultimately stopped it.
She stopped the bridge but kept the money: how much of a reformer is she again? See mzbitca's comment... That's exactly what I'm talking about.

The Great American said...

In your post you said that McCain wished that money would go to fixing bridges like to one that collapsed in Minnesota instead of funindg bridges to nowhere. That is what Sarah Palin did, she used the money to repair bridges already in place among other projects. McCain rails against wasteful earmarks, i doubt he would see repairing bridegs like the one in Minnesota as wasteful. The bottom line is that Sarah Palin stopped the bridge. Plain and simple. And so what if she did because the rest of the public didnt want it, isn't that her job? Listening to the people? And all you can find is a weak example of how she is "not a reformer". When she stepped into office and before she stepped into office she was a reformer. She quit her job as head of a commission because she blew the whistle on ethical problems and the governor refused to do anything about. She came into office and enacted huge ethics reforms which resulted in a large number of state employees leaving.

Also I would like to see your "article" that talks about earmarks not being a big drain. There are congressman that ask for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of earmarks per fiscal YEAR. Don't tell me that it's not a drain.

And I think Obama supporters have very little room to talk. Tell me what Obama has ever done in the name of "Change" point exactly. You guys are so worried about Palin being in office when in fact your candidate has run his campaign based on change when the truth is, he has not done one thing in the name of change.

Lindsay said...

McCain denounces wasteful spending, citing congressional "earmarks." These are projects usually designated by individual members of Congress for their districts. Okay, let's scrub them all. In 2008, earmarks numbered 11,610 and cost $17.2 billion, estimates Citizens Against Government Waste. That's less than 1 percent of federal spending.

The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.

Just to put the cost of the earmark program in context.

The Great American said...

So let me get this straight. You think it would be a better idea to fund crap like hippie museums in woodstock, rather than provide adequate funding for our troops and mission in Iraq? And it didn't really put it into context, earmarks are not needed, however funding the War on Terror is.

No matter how you look at it, it's $17.2 billion we save. Both Dems and GOP agree that wasteful spending via earmarks is a problem.

And I'm still waiting to hear what BHO has done in the name of "Change".....