Category: Uncategorized

Palin favored the “Bridge to Nowhere”

Flummoxed conservatives looking for something nice to say about Sarah Palin cite her opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere,” a proposed $398 million Alaskan boondoggle that John McCain fought against. For instance, here’s what New York Times columnist David Brooks said on “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” last night:

But what he saw when he looked at her, according to the people I spoke to, is someone who fights the same fights I fight. The first gateway sort of fight that he thought they have in common was the bridge to nowhere. He’s been talking about that for years. She’s the one who killed it.

Wrong. As The New Republic’s Bradford Plumer shows, citing reports from the Anchorage Daily News and Palin’s own official statement, Palin supported the bridge at every step, and dropped it from her list of priorities only when it became clear that federal funding wasn’t going to be forthcoming. In her statement, she even criticizes congressional opponents of the bridge, including, by implication, McCain:

Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.

Here’s an AP report from Sept. 22, 2007, noting that Palin had withdrawn her support for the bridge because of lack of funding.

Ron Fournier on the Palin pick

Last week I criticized the Associated Press’ Washington bureau chief, Ron Fournier, for writing what I thought was a dumb and partisan analysis of the Joe Biden pick. Fournier, as I noted, has an interesting history with John McCain, so I was wondering if he would be similarly harsh when writing about McCain’s choice.

To Fournier’s credit, his analysis of the Sarah Palin nomination is pretty tough. Granted, it would be hard for it not to be given its utter ludicrousness. But Fournier hits all the right notes, observing that McCain himself said just a few months ago that he was determined not to repeat George H.W. Bush’s Dan Quayle mistake of 1988 — and making it clear that he just did.

Personally, I think Fournier is wrong about Biden and right about Palin. But he was even-handed.

Palin’s anti-science, anti-gay agenda

According to information dug up by Boston Globe religion reporter Michael Paulson, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin not only supports the teaching of creationism in public schools, but opposes state health benefits for same-sex partners — even to the point of supporting a constitutional amendment.

I know John McCain has said some disturbingly supportive things about teaching “intelligent design,” but no one thinks he actually believed what he was espousing. Palin, on the other hand, sounds like a true believer. Off the top of my head, it also strikes me that Palin’s anti-gay agenda is considerably to the right of McCain’s.

Not good.

Dan Quayle in a skirt

John McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (at left in photo) as his running mate is deeply problematic on two levels.

1. It shows McCain can’t adjust quickly to changing events. A woman might have made sense last week. But, right now, it looks as though Republican hopes of peeling off vast numbers of Hillary Clinton supporters are diminishing. No, Clinton voters don’t have to march in lockstep with convention delegates. But whatever lingering anger there was between the Obama and Clinton camps had largely dissipated by Wednesday night.

2. It fails to address McCain’s biggest weakness. That would be his age (72 today) and his history of cancer. Let me be blunt: If McCain wins, it would surprise no one if his vice president became president in a year or two. Palin is stunningly inexperienced. And before you say, “So’s Obama,” keep in mind that’s the single biggest obstacle Obama needs to overcome. Voters are making judgments about that every day. Running mates are not generally subjected to that level of scrutiny. And it already looks like the vetting process used to select Palin was a little ragged.

If McCain really believed he needed a woman, I’m not sure why he didn’t go with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. At 72, Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina is probably too old, but Hutchison is 65.

By far the most intelligent choice would have been former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Above all else, McCain needs a plausible president as his running mate. Romney’s not the most popular guy in the world, and McCain plainly doesn’t like him. But he would have done McCain a lot more good than I suspect Palin’s going to do. And given his political and business experience, you can picture him as president.

This is not going to play well, I suspect.

More: Markos Moulitsas, who also thought of Quayle, flips the experience question on its head: “The Sarah Quayle Palin pick is an abandonment of the ‘Obama is not ready to lead’ attack lines. Those are dead, and to be honest, while that line didn’t work for Hillary and it had limited traction for McCain, it still had some traction. That attack line is gone.” He’s right.

And the Outraged Liberal takes note of the corruption investigation now under way involving Palin’s alleged involvement in trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from his job as an Alaska state trooper.

Photo (cc) by Tricia Ward and reproduced here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

“The media” cheer Obama

From The Hill:

Several members of the media were seen cheering and clapping for Barack Obama as the Illinois senator accepted the Democratic nomination Thursday.

Standing on the periphery of the football field serving as the Democratic convention floor, dozens of men and women wearing green media floor passes chanted along with the crowd.

Is it possible that some members of the media behaved unprofessionally? Of course. But there were 15,000 people in Denver with media credentials, and to tar “the media” with an item like this is ridiculous.

Having covered four national conventions, I can tell you that there are plenty of folks at these things from one- or two-person newsletters for farmers, accountants and the like, blatantly partisan outlets and — in some cases — organizations with no obvious tie to journalism at all. A friend of a friend comes up with a media credential, and there you go.

If you want to make the case that the mainstream media are in the tank for Obama, be my guest. But this non-item proves nothing. (Via InstaPundit.)

What will we think tomorrow?

Tonight, at least, it seems clear that Barack Obama delivered a terrific speech. How good? Not to be a weasel, but I think it’s too soon to say. His decision to be his own attack dog was an interesting one. Was it smart?

There was lots of soaring rhetoric, of course, as well as more specifics than we’re accustomed to hearing from him. He almost certainly got what he needed this week, despite the pundits’ obsession with the Clintons.

I’ll be scanning media reaction early tomorrow morning for the Guardian. Also tomorrow, I’ll be on “Beat the Press” on WGBH-TV (Channel 2) at 7 p.m. for its convention wrap-up.

Go-go Gore

Remember when people used to parody Al Gore by talking … very … slowly? He just rushed through his brief speech like the guy from the old Federal Express commercials.

The parallels he drew between Obama and Lincoln — their relative inexperience, their opposition to popular wars, their eloquence — were a reminder that long years in office are no substitute for judgment, even if you think Obama = Lincoln is a stretch.