Bring It On!

Bridge to Nowhere for Governor Palin

September 1st, 2008 | by Papamoka |

One of the worst things in politics is to be caught in a lie. In some instances it can be in fact a career ending event. Ergo the evacuation of many Republicans, and a few Democrats over the last eight years for stepping way over the gray line. I could go down the list of alleged abusers of political office and power but it would be pointless. Then again, maybe not. I could point out the shame of Mark Foley, the cover up by Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert trying to hide the fact that Mark Foley was a child predator. Then we could go into the fact that the leader in the Senate, Tom Delay, worked so close to lobbyist Jack Abramoff that it’s a shock that he was not on the payroll of Jack Abramoff. I won’t even mention the not gay but gay Senator (Not that there is anything wrong with being gay) caught by police in a sting operation at the airport because his “stance” was just a bit wider than most people. So wide that it reached into the next stall.

Then we have John McCain with the Keating Five scandal that was bought and paid for by all of the American taxpayers in that savings and loan scandal. I’d say that was the Conservative voters worst day in American history but then again that would not be accurate if the people elected John McCain for President in this election.

Here is the meat and potatoes of this post, Governor Sarah Palin claimed that she told the Congress, Thanks, but no thanks for the bridge to nowhere, courtesy of Ted Stevens, Republican from Alaska. Turns out she was all for it till the heat was turned up on it by Democratic watch dogs in the Congress. That my friends is a bold faced lie by the Governor from Alaska that she told to the Republican Party base in Ohio on her acceptance of John McCain’s pick as a VP running mate. Could it be that the definition of Conservative is very different if the money flows to your state as Governor? Over at MSNBC and Count Down they have this to say on this politically volatile bad decision to lie about the bridge to nowhere by Governor Palin…

Video Link

This is politics at its highest level and lying about facts that can be picked apart as easily as a Google Search is a bad idea. Maybe someone should actually look at the Governors speeches before she makes them? Experience in politics goes a long way these days. This pick by McCain for Vice President is actually showing his lack of due diligence which leads into the fact that maybe his idea of experience has the Republican pinball machine tilting thus the flippers are ineffective.

This little nugget of seeing the truth about the McCain philosophy and actual thought process just proves that Governor Sarah Palin is ready to lie like the best of them and take Dick Cheney down a notch. Maybe that was a serious consideration for McCain picking her for VP? Enough said on this one…

Papamoka

Originally posted at Papamoka Straght Talk…

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 4 Responses to “Bridge to Nowhere for Governor Palin”

  2. By Cranky Liberal on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply

    thanks Papa, I was just going to write this. USA today is confirming it as well. Not to mention she hired a lobbyist to help earmark money for other pork barrel projects when she was Mayor of Mayberry. So she was against the bridge after she was for it, agaisnt pork after she ate it and she is for truth after she lied about it.

    She should make a FINE Republican candidate.

  3. By JD on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply

    Damn, she’s a flip flopper too! At least she wasn’t for Bill Ayers before she was against him!

  4. By Steve O on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply

    It’s funny that JD brought up Bill Ayers. It seems to be the talking point of the day for the GOP attack dogs. I just posted the following on another post but I believe it is relevant here.

    During the 2004 presidential campaign, Simmons made a $4 million donation to the controversial group Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. He also donated $100,000 to George W. Bush’s January 2005 inaugural ball. He’s also a backer of a controversial plan to store nuclear waste in West Texas, which his waste management company would administer (Hmmm and Bush would be able to help him out with that).

    I wonder if the Republicans have a slide rule out there that tells you how much you need to bribe, kinda like the tools out there for math challenged people that tells you how much of a tip to leave after dinner?

    Here is the ad in question for anyone that hasn’t seen it.

    And here is the extent of the case, I am pasting it here for all you lazy people that cannot click through links. It lays out the case at hand.

    It is far from a fascist move as Craig stands to claim, first off if it was a fascist move hwy is it being argued in court?

    Obama attorney Bob Bauer sent this letter to the Department of Justice claiming that AIP is engaged in illegal activities. Bob’s letter makes two main claims:

    1. The group is engaged in political activities that a 501(c)(4) organization may not engage in.

    2. The group, by engaging in express advocacy against Sen. Obama and engaging in no other activities, is a political committee. But it has not registered as a political committee and has not followed the rules applicable to political committees.
    Story continues below
    advertisement

    I won’t address the first issue, leaving that to the tax/non-profit lawyers. So the rest of this post addresses the second issue. Is AIP really a political committee in disguise? One of the most important limits on political committee activity is that the groups cannot accept contributions over $5,000 from any individual, making Simmons’ $2.9 million contribution illegal. (There’s an argument that individual contributions to political committees that make only independent expenditures are constitutionally protected and cannot be limited. Bob has expressed sympathy with this argument in the past in his own (not campaign) capacity, the the Supreme Court has not considered the question yet.)

    Cleta Mitchell, AIP’s lawyer, has sent this response to the Justice Department. Mitchell does not disagree that AIP’s anti-Obama ad is express advocacy, and that disclosure of spending on such ads is required. However, she argues that AIP does not have to register as a political committee, because the group qualifies as a special kind of non-profit ideological corporation that can make unlimited independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates for office and take unlimited contributions to fund them. These types of groups are known as either “MCFL” corporations, because the Supreme Court created this exemption in a case called FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The FEC calls such groups “qualified non-profit corporations” (or QNCs), and it has issued a regulation defining who gets QNC status.

    Mitchell argues that its group qualifies for QNC status because it is a non-profit corporation engaged in political activities that does not take corporate or union money and is organized as a 501(c)(4). It says its activities are no different from those of NARAL Pro-Choice America (which I believe is also a client of Bob Bauer’s).

    Assuming the facts are as Mitchell represents they are, it looks like AIP meets the requirements to be a QNC. However, Mitchell leaves out a significant part of the MCFL analysis. As the FEC’s own discussion of MCFL (linked by Mitchell) notes, “Furthermore, the Court pointed out that ’should MCFL’s independent spending become so extensive that the organization’s major purpose may be regarded as campaign activity, the corporation would be classified as a political committee,’ subject to the restrictions and extensive reporting requirements the law applies to such entities.”

    So the answer to the question depends upon whether AIP, like the actual MCFL organization and the NARAL Pro-Choice America, actually engages in other activities besides independent spending in federal elections. Bob’s letter claims that the group does not appear to have engaged in any other activities. The Mitchell letter claims in contrast that “the majority of AIP’s annual expenditures are not political expenditures but are devoted to grassroots lobbying and education on issues, public policies and other communications, activities and programs appropriate to a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization in accordance with all applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.”

    Whether the group really is going to spend more on such activities than the significant anti-Obama ad buy remains to be seen. It is interesting that AP quotes the group’s spokesman as saying “the group has set aside money to carry out non-election related work to meet the legal requirement.” In other words, the other activities are being set up to avoid being classified as a political committee.

    It would not surprise me that, following the election and an investigation (if we are lucky by late 2009), we will learn that AIP really should have been called a political committee and the contributions found to be illegal. The group, and perhaps Simmons, could face fines, but by then the election would be over.

    One lesson to learn: a few years ago, the FEC resisted crafting regulations for determining when 527s should be considered political committees, preferring instead to rely on case-by-case adjudications. This situation explains why clear-cut written rules are preferable in dealing with this knotty problem (at least until the Supreme Court moots it if and when it declares limits on contributions to independent expenditure committees to be constitutional; at that point we can expect lots of billionaires to pony up money as Mr. Simmons has).

    And I will also ad the facts of Bill Ayers so no one gets confused;

    The Facts

    The first article in the mainstream press linking Obama to Ayers appeared in the London Daily Mail on February 2. It was written by Peter Hitchens, the right-wing brother of the left-wing firebrand turned Iraq war supporter, Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens cited the Ayers connection to bolster his argument that Obama is “far more radical than he would like us to know.”

    The Hitchens piece was followed by a Bloomberg article last week pointing to the Ayers connection as support for Hillary Clinton’s contention that Obama might not be able to withstand the “Republican attack machine.” Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the State Department, predicted that the Republicans would seize on the Ayers case, and other Chicago relationships, to “bludgeon Obama’s presidential aspirations into the dust.”

    The London Sunday Times joined the chorus this weekend by reporting that Republicans were “out to crush Barack by painting him as a leftwinger with dubious support”.

    The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Ayers did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls requesting clarification of the relationship. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:

    Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.

    In the short term, the person who has most to gain by speculation about Obama’s acquaintance with a former terrorist is Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady likes to present herself as “tested and vetted” after years of exposure to Republican attacks, in contrast to Obama, a relative newcomer to hardscrabble presidential politics. Such arguments resonate with Johnson, the counterterrorism expert, who told me that he is a Clinton supporter, although not involved with the campaign.

    But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out, Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?

    Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington, said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and “passion for social justice.”

    “This whole connection is a stretch,” Harrington told me. “Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns.”

    NOW LETS GET TO THE POST AT HAND SHALL WE JD?

    She didn’t flip flop, she out right lied, during a speech about her connections to the Bridge to Nowhere.

    In the background, yes, she went ahead and used the money as she saw fit and left the people that the money was intended for out in the Alaskan cold.

    Get it, she stated “thanks but no thanks” but then took the money anyway and used it on other pork programs like tens of millions of dollars on a road to the very bridge (that isn’t there yet) she said shouldn’t be built. OINK! OINK!

  5. By Lisa on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply

    It could have been worse she could have been against it before she was for it.
    At least now she has McCain to reign her in on spending but who’s going to reign in Obama/Biden? At least with Bill Clinton you had a republican congress to reaign him in.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel