HOW ABOUT: MINDLESS TURDBRAINED VOIDS!

WALAH!! PERFECT DESCRIPTION HUH!

I am afraid that you are missing the main point. What she said at the convention with great bravado was that she turned down the bridge project out of strong philosphical belief that earmarks are wrong.

If that were the case, then she would not have weighed the financial and political considerations, but rather turned the money down from the very beginning because it was a federal earmark.

One more time…. s-l-o-w-l-y…..

The money came in, and Congress no longer looked at those funds as a bridge earmark…. BEFORE Sarah took office. Now how you can ask a woman to turn down federal funds for a bridge project that were received by the state BEFORE she was in office, is beyond comprehension…. yours, that is.

That $200 mil, in the Alaskan treasury so to speak, was no longer “bridge to nowhere” funds, but federal funding for transportation projects. Palin used that money for other needed transporation improvement projects, as laid out by advisors and analysts.

That aside… the original bridge problem still remained. The Ketchikan community needed better access to the airport, and Gravina Island needs growth stimulus with that access.

Palin listened to her transition analysis team, the Alaskan themselves, considered other access alternatives, and chose a route that did not require asking Congress for ANY federal funding. Which is why she said “thanks, but no thanks”. Had she presented another cost effective access plan, they could have gone to Congress to fund that as an earmark project.

Instead, as she said, if they want a bridge, they’ll build it themselves. I believe they are favoring a more efficient ferry system instead.

So she *did* turn down the bridge project, because she would not let it go forth, nor allocated Alaskan taxpayer dollars to fund it.

She is correct. You only hear what you want.

There a Moby,

Everywhere a Moby Moby.

It’s like someone kicked the top off of an ant hill.

They’re digging and parsing and dissecting every sentence ever written and every statement ever made looking for something that will rescue their Messiah.

Palin is right over the target, the flak is flying, and the inhabitants of the Leftward fever swamps are squirming in angst and anguish as they watch their HopeyChangfulness slip from their grasp.

The polling numbers are beginning to roll in now. The race is back to dead even for the polling period before last night’s speech. Obama’s train is coming off the track, hence the emergency 5am e-mail this morning.

The wolves in the media and here on the Net have done whatever they could do since last Friday to find a weakness in regards to Sarah Palin. Any weakness.

They even attacked her children. Her CHILDREN! with the most vile, scurrilous, sewer dwelling smears in the history of American politics. Unbelievable.

Is this the “change” that B-Rock has been touting? If so, I’m sure that America wants no part of it.

Sarah Palin demonstrated last night steely eyed, firm footed, unflappable resolve, poise, dignity, and confidence even in the face of TelePromTer issues and CodePinko demonstrators trying to storm the stage just as she was delivering the “Lipstick” line.

The two individuals who attempted to disrupt Palin’s speech last night are none other than Jodi Evans, and Medea Benjamin, Marxist. Together, they founded CodePinko.

Jodie Evans is one of Uh-bama’s top money producers. I wonder if he’ll denounce her behavior. I won’t hold my breath waiting. He never has before.

The MSM and the sub-human animals from the Left have failed.

They underestimated this breath of fresh air from the great state of Alaska.

I am afraid that you are missing the main point. What she said at the convention with great bravado was that she turned down the bridge project out of strong philosphical belief that earmarks are wrong. If that were the case, then she would not have weighed the financial and political considerations, but rather turned the money down from the very beginning because it was a federal earmark.

In my book that is political expediency.

As far as not all breaches of contracts ending in litigation… but of course. It’s up to the party who’s damaged to sue.

Let’s see… a contractor gets a $25 mil contract for a road, and the state pulls the contract. What would he do? Why not sue… he’s got all the legal eggs in his basket to get some cash, and has planned and engineered the work. He’s got costs to cover. But of course, he could have been a nice guy, ate the costs and scrambled for other jobs to fill the hole he thought he had filled, and walked away. Right…

As I said, if you have the costs of litigation and get nothing for it (especially since the signed contract is in his favor), or you go ahead in case they opt for a smaller, lesser expensive bridge in the same place, which is the more fiscally responsible thing to do?

You see little will in Gov. Palin because you don’t want to. Not my fault you want to ignore her facts on record. But then, you are governed by emotion, and not logic.

“Never want to read links or go thru history themselves.”
I did some research on why Governor Palin didn’t stop the “road to nowhere” and couldn’t find an answer. I was asking because you seemed to be knowledgeable on the subject,… but wait this just in …

“As far as the Gravina road goes, I would have to assume …”

So, at the end of your long dissertation, beginning with how I am lazy, you actually do not know yourself. Typical.

BTW, not all early closures of contracts need to result in litigation. If there is a will, there is a way, but I see little will in Governor Palin, just a lot of talk.

pmcdee, I’m so sorry that you can’t follow trails and links, nor research yourself. I recognize an attempt at “gotcha” when I see one.

However I suggest you ask Congress why they didn’t demand the $200 million back. Afterall, was granted to Murkowski’s treasury prior to Palin becoming Governor.

As for why Palin didn’t hand perfectly good cash back to the feds when it was already there? Quite simple. The Alaskan transportation system…i.e. roads… is more unusual than lower 48 states. Permafrost and weather wreak havoc, and road repair there is annual.

There were other transportation projects where the funds were put to good use.

Secondly, you suffer from the same problem as Doug. We went thru this already on another thread, and you can read that and catch up.

And earmark is federal funding for a state project. Quite simply, if you want to get rid of all earmarks, you get rid of any funding the feds give to individual states. Period. Obviously this is not the ultimate goal, as federal funds for things such as transportation/interstate needs is appropriate.

So what we have is legitimate earmarks with appropriate funds for the project, and ABUSE of earmarks for overinflated funds for the project. It is the latter than needs to be monitored and cleaned up. Wisely used federal funds are part and parcel of the federal-state budgeting… the key words being “wisely used”….

As far as the Gravina road goes, I would have to assume that if one governor contracted a building firm to do the road, and the funds were already in the treasury, then the choices were either continue the road in case they built a smaller bridge later in time, or the guy could legitimately sue the government for breach of contract.

One way you get a road as a just in case. With litigation, it’s money down the drain. So what would you do?