I am hearing that Obama and Biden voted FOR the Bridge to Nowhere...

[Hepburn]

...does anyone have the facts on this? I am not satisfied that I have a definite answer. If you have any links, I would appreciate them. An Obama supporter asked me about this...and I am stumped.

TIA....:hi:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. They did, though of course as part of an immense omnibus spending bill

There is seldom a speciffic vote on something like that. It's bundled up in the whole national highway funding bill.

[Hepburn]

2. Thanks....I thought that is what I found...

...but not sure because of how complex the info was on this bill.

:hi:

[AzNick]

36. And that is not the issue ...

The issue is that Palin said she voted against it while she did not.

Well-spent pork can be useful, especially for such states as... Alaska or... Arizona, where the I10 between Phoenix and Tucson has to be one of the most dangerous piece of Highway in the country.

[Canuckistanian]

37. That's what I don't understand

Palin is a Governor. She doesn't HAVE a vote where Congressional bills are concerned.

Since when does she have control over what Stevens asks for?

This whole "I turned down the Bridge to Nowhere" thing is bullshit.

She didn't have a say in it.

Am I wrong?

[Ramius]

42. Yes you're wrong...

In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere" and urging speed "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." About two years after the introduction of the bridge proposals, a month after the bridge received sharp criticism from John McCain, and nine months into Palin's term as governor, Palin "canceled" the Gravina Bridge, blaming Congress for not providing enough funding. Alaska will not return any of the $442 million to the federal government and is spending a portion of the funding, $25 million, on a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone, expressly so that none of the money will have to be returned. Palin continues to support funding Don Young's Way, estimated as more than twice as expensive as the Gravina Bridge would have been.

In addition it might be interesting to know that Palin was Chairperson of Steven's reelection campaign and she gathered up $27 million in subsidies from Washington, $15 million of it for a railroad from her town to the ski resort hometown of Senator Ted Stevens, now under indictment for failing to report gifts.

[Canuckistanian]

44. Ah, thanks

You seem to be quite knowledgeable on Alaska politics.

That'll come in handy around here.

[rufus dog]

40. Please tell me

that thing is still not two lanes! I haven't been on that stretch since the early 90's

[AzNick]

41. Yes, still the same disgrace of a road

With cracks, and all.

Regularly people have accidents. Sometimes even truckers.

Even the I10 from LA to Phoenix is in better shape than this.

[marshall]

16. Anyone know how McCain voted?

Is there some website where one can look it up?

[msallied]

3. They didn't vote FOR the bridge. They voted for the spending bill.

Which itself was laden with pork, as we know. That's the unfortunate trick about being a Senator. If they'd not voted for it, some very important items on it would have been voted down.

Of course, that there is one argument in favor of a line-item veto for the President, even if it was eventually ruled unconstitutional (for good reason). It would be nice if Congress could simply STOP with the earmarking and pork business altogether. THAT'S where true change is going to come from, and sadly, the President can't really do a whole lot about that.

[shraby]

5. Line-item veto is putting too much power

in the hands of one person. It's also unconstitutional because only congress has the purse strings.

[JBoris]

7. Amen. Dem or repub, I don't want that power in anyone's hands. nt

[msallied]

11. Ummm, that's why I said "for good reason."

I'm just saying, it would be nice if there was a way to strike the BS from a spending bill before it was signed, but the only option that they've come up with is bad.

[karynnj]

28. The variation that Kerry proposed in 2004 was inmteresting

It required the Senate and House to have to pass the set of all the lines eliminated. This is interesting as it gives the power back tho the Congress If the President eliminated things too many people support, it will fail. It also is public, so if the President used it to punish opponents or areas of the country, it would backfire. I'm sure I don't have all the details right or even all the details period It was interesting as it does counter the "log rolling" where Senators vote for each other's pork.

[littlebit]

12. In other words

they voted for it.

[msallied]

13. Wow, did you read what I wrote?

It would appear you didn't. You're thinking like a Republican.

[littlebit]

14. No I am thinking like most people

who don't have time for long drawn out bullshit answers. The fact is they both voted for it. It is that simple.

[msallied]

19. If they voted "for" the bridge, then the bridge would have been its own separate bill.

And THEN we could accurately say whether or not Obama/Biden voted FOR the bridge.

The truth is, they didn't. They voted for the vital parts of a gigantic omnibus spending bill. They can't just decide to vote for parts of it. Either you vote for the whole bill with the pork attached, or you vote nay and scrap away all of the vitally-needed expenditures with it.

If you don't have time for intelligent answers, you're in the wrong party.

[merh]

15. Didn't that spending bill contain provisions for the troops/veterans?

I'm trying to remember.

[Sugarcoated]

21. I thought that was the case . . .

Google time . . .

On Edit - clicked on the link below, and from what I can make of it, it's mainly an infrastructure bill.

[vaberella]

22. That's what I thought too...I can't remember though myself. Which would explain the support. n/t

[merh]

23. they wrapped the earmarks in with important funding

I can't recall if it was veterans or health care or what, but it wasn't just the earmarks for the damn state of palin next to russia.

[Sugarcoated]

29. Someone posted a link below

It's a massive bill and I did a quick skim, but I didn't see any military/war/veteran expenditures in it.

It's actually a link to a link. I'll post the actual web page link on edit.

I could've missed something in it, take a look:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/bills/h_r_3058/

[merh]

33. it was the healthcare bill

A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to consolidate and reauthorize health professions and minority and disadvantaged health professions and disadvantaged health education programs, and for other purposes.

and veterans

An original bill making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

and a host of other funding measures for important projects like head start -

It looks like if it hadn't passed the federal government would have shut down, it funding all of the federal agencies.

[Malidictus Maximus]

17. One person's "pork"

is *sometimes* another person's vitally needed infrastructure improvement.

[BumRushDaShow]

30. Been there, done that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996">Line Item Veto Act of 1996 which ironically gave Clinton that power (and he used it). But it was ruled unconstitutional 2 years later (imagine that, 'cause a Dem now had that power instead of a repuke). ;)

[hlthe2b]

4. I know you know this as others have replied similarly...

but to equate a vote for an onmibus spending bill, to which this pork has been subtly buried within, to voting FOR the Bridge to Nowhere is so disingenuous, or willfully ignorant, that only a RW Moran would truly and unquestionably buy it. Of course THEY are the ones seeking to spread it...

[Hepburn]

6. Thanks again to the DU....

...I thought this was pretty much what had gone on ~~ and that the statement was misleading. Yes, they both voted for a bill that contained this funding...but they did not with specificity for for that bridge.

[zabet]

8. Link

with link to vote records. Doesn't paint it in the best light but, you can get to the votes from here.

http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/

[subterranean]

9. They are not out there shouting that they opposed it.

They may have voted for whatever bill it was slipped into, but they did not actively support the bridge. And they're not falsely claiming that they fought against it. That's the difference.

[Lex]

18. Exactly.

nt

[1corona4u]

24. That's the real factor...

[AngryAmish]

10. Lies, all of it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

20. Obama and Biden had better have a short and convincing explanation

I'm sure this is going to come up in the debates.

[NotThisTime]

25. Pretty simple, tied up with important legislation, but furthermore, they AREN'T running as non-pork

requesting Republican's who seem to absolutely shun the idea that some of that spending might actually go to useful projects... However, McShame & Unable ARE... Obama and Biden don't have to come up with any answer other than it was tied in with other legislation. Palin is the one in charge of that puppy...

[karynnj]

26. They voted for the omnibus budget bill that included it

They also voted against a Coburn amendment that was said to take all earmarks and assign the money to children's health care or Katrina victims' support - he uses different things each year The problem is that if passed - it would kill the buget compromise - I think it also included some unpalatable otehr things. It was not just Obama and Biden, it was nearly every Democrat.

[bunkerbuster1]

27. Did they lie about it? Repeatedly? 23 times?

[mzmolly]

31. I honestly don't give a rats hind end about this bridge. The issue is that Palin LIED

not that anyone vote for or against it.

[AZ Criminal JD]

32. Only someone who pays no taxes

would say they "don't give a rat's hind end" about the bridge.

[mzmolly]

34. Well, I pay taxes

and again, I don't give a rats ass if someone voted for the bridge. What I do care about is that someone who said they were "against" it was actually "for" it. I'd never heard of the bridge before Palin made it an issue.

[AZ Criminal JD]

35. You can't be serious

I have heard about the bridge long before I ever heard about Palin. Do a google search and you will find hundreds of news articles about it before the primaries even began.

[mzmolly]

38. I am serious.

:hi:

[TheKentuckian]

39. I'm thinking that actually running based on "Thanks but no thanks"

is the issue.

This is seriously one of the main reasons this person was tapped for the job and she's full of it. It is entirely besides the point of who voted for it as they aren't suggesting we vote for them based on this stance.

Palin is straight bull.

[MagickMuffin]

43. Here's another question concerning this bill

How do we know this wasn't slipped in AFTER the vote?.?.?

The republicons if I may refresh your memory, did this during the wiretapping fiasco. Remember Diane Feinstein found out about it AFTER everyone had voted. Arlen Specter's office then added additional info to the bill in the wee hours of the night, after everyone had gone home.

Of course this was an Appropriations Bill, so there was a lot of stuff crammed in them. That's why they are referred to as earmarks and "Pork Barrel" spending.

:hi: