Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Actually, We Should Focus on Palin

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 01:19 PM
Original message
Actually, We Should Focus on Palin

I’ve heard a lot of people suggest that we ignore Palin, either because of or despite her popularity, and focus on McCain. I have no trouble with focusing on McCain, but I think there is a great danger in ignoring Palin. The reason why is because she is not just a lightning rod to take attention away from McCain–she has, in fact, quickly become the heart and center of the McCain campaign. She’s the one drawing huge crowds, she’s the one who is revitalizing the base, she’s the one who is bringing his numbers up. Ignore her and you ignore McCain’s greatest new strength. I don’t think that’s wise.

Furthermore, she has maintained her popularity precisely because there has not yet been enough critical attention paid to her. Her lies go relatively unchallenged, her claims about reform and accomplishment pretty much non-fact-checked, her background allowed to mostly slide while America focuses on the trivial irrelevancies which she can use to her advantage.

This is beginning to change. The blush is off the media rose, the honeymoon is beginning to end, insert your metaphor here. Gibson’s interview started that process, and now we are seeing more and more about her finally begin to leak through to the media sources that most Americans pay attention to. And the McCain-Palin lead is beginning to erode and evaporate.

One thing beginning to come through is her lie about the Bridge to Nowhere. It has been noted that she stopped telling that particular whopper when she went to Alaska, but now that she’s back in the lower forty-eight, she’s right back at using the lie again–as if she were aware that Alaskans knew her too well to buy that particular line of horse manure.

But for those who are confused by the claims or don’t know the whole timeline, I have pieced it together here:

November 2005: Congress strips funding for the bridge project.

September 2006: Palin shows up in the town where the bridge is supposed to link, brandishes a “Nowhere, Alaska 99901″ T-Shirt, and proclaims she “feels the pain” of the townspeople for their town being called “Nowhere.”

October, 2006: In a direct answer to whether or not she supported the bridge to nowhere, Palin wrote, “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now — while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” Palin says publicly, “I support these infastructure projects,” “I’m going to fight hard with our federal delegation for the federal financial support of our infrastructure that Alaska deserves.”

November 2006: Palin says “I would not get in the way of progress of” the bridge to nowhere. She wins the election and becomes governor of Alaska.

August 2007: Congress allows Alaska to keep $233 million even though the bridge is long dead.

September 2007: Palin finally kills the project, saying: “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398-million bridge is not the answer. 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.”

September 2008 (repeatedly): “I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that bridge to nowhere!”

And McCain: “Yes, the pork barrel project, a $233 million bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it,” McCain said. “She, as governor, stood up and said, we don’t need it, and if we need it, we’ll pay for it ourselves. Now, that’s guts. I saw that, and I said, this, this is what we need in Washington.”

So: Ted Stevens gets the money for the bridge, but then Congress and the public react in disgust, stripping the funding. For two full years, Sarah Palin maintains her support for the bridge project–starting her campaign for governor on it–telling the people of the town that she feels their pain, and the people of Alaska that she’ll fight for federal money. She repeatedly voices support for the bridge, specifying federal funding. Then Congress decides to allow Alaska to keep much of the money that had been set aside for the bridge. ONLY THEN did Palin kill the project, saying the feds were not going to give them enough money for the bridge to be built. But she kept the money they gave her.

“I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that bridge to nowhere!”

Liar!

To be honest, I was not aware of much of this timeline. I didn’t know that Palin supported the bridge for a full two years after funding had been cut, or that Palin killed the project right after Congress released the funds to Alaska. Let me tell you, making those claims about saying “no” to Congress, “thanks but no thanks” to the bridge, “We’ll pay for that bridge ourselves!”–that takes guts, lying so blatantly and outrageously!

That’s the kind of thing that needs to be told everywhere, made clear to everyone. Obama should make a commercial showing the timeline:


After Congress cut the wasteful spending on the bridge to nowhere, Sarah Palin fought for two years to get it back. She went to the town where the bridge was going to and began her campaign for governor telling them she’d fight for the bridge (show photo with the “Nowhere Alaska” T-shirt). She made the bridge a part of her campaign, repeatedly promising to get the federal funds. (Show video clip of Palin saying, ““I support these infastructure projects!”) But only after Congress cut her a check for 233 million in your taxpayer dollars (show graphic: “Palin accepts $233 million in federal pork”) did she finally kill the project–and she kept your money to boot. Then she said: (show clip after clip after clip) “I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that bridge to nowhere!” And McCain was right behind her: (show clip) “She, as governor, stood up and said, we don’t need it, and if we need it, we’ll pay for it ourselves!” She demanded pork. She got it. Then they both lied.

Heavily cutting, and completely, 100% factually correct.

That’s a campaign commercial we can believe in.

http://blogd.com/wp/index.php/archives/4460
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. She is not the heart and center of the Obama campaign
Sure she can be an occasional target for McCain's incompetence. But the focus has to be Obama, his campaign, and the hope for change he represents. A new future in a new way. Not more of the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. This has never worked in any campaign before
so why would it now?

Our focus should be destroying the top of the ticket.

McCain's strategists would be having multiple orgasms if the Obama camp turned their sights on Palin.

Because that's a fight that leaves one man standing: John McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. We're not Obama's advisors.
Obama can run his campaign as he wants.

We should inform people-we-know that Sarah Palin is a liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xiamiam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. wrong...shes about to implode...we've got other things to worry about..nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. Sarah Palin's stump speech is one misleading statement after another.
She didn't tell Congress not to spend money on the bridge.

She kept the chef for several months while she was living in the governor's mansion for several months, and transferred the chef to feed the legislature when she was returning to her regular home (no money was saved.)

She put the plane on eBay, but it didn't sell there. It would have saved Alaska money to sell the plane in a conventional way in the first place.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. Democrats are numerous enough and powerful enough to focus on both
I don't understand why it should be an either/or choice. This race should be not be dead even between Obama and McCain. I've heard that 80% of Americans believe we're on the wrong track with Bush and we need to show that McCain's train has left the station and is still on that wrong track to nowhere. We also need to show that Palin represents the same wrong-headed thinking for America that Bush has brought us for the last eight years. Palin is the apparent reason that McCain's poll numbers have risen, so we can't ignore her. We should attack both. Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. Any major attacks on Palin should be under the guise of attacking McCain's judgement in choosing her
The media has all ready been surprisingly aggressive in unraveling how inadequate she would be if she were to be president.

I think if the Obama campaign is going to further make her part of the anti-McCan narrative, then it should be more of a rebuke of John McCain himself for being so irresponsible with the future of the country that he would risk the possibility of a totally clueless, scandal mired amateur in the oval office. There were many other qualified and viable VP candidates on the Republican side... policy disagreements aside, I would much rather have a Mitt Romney or a Tom Ridge in charge than Sarah Palin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC