Las Vegas Review-Journal praised McCain for not backing off "bold position" on MN bridge collapse -- but he reportedly did back off
SUMMARY: A Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial asserted that Sen. John McCain "did have a valid point" when he said, "The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects." The editorial praised McCain for issuing a "bold position ... with no immediate 'clarification' from the staff, explaining that the senator somehow 'misspoke.' How refreshing." But the AP reported that McCain "backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year's deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis" a day after saying it.
In a May 5 editorial, the Las Vegas Review-Journal asserted that Sen. John McCain "did have a valid point" on April 30 when he said of the August 2007 Interstate 35W bridge collapse in Minnesota: " 'The bridge in Minneapolis didn't collapse because there wasn't enough money. ... The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects' -- $18 billion last year alone, the senator estimates." The Review-Journal later wrote: "Goodness. A bold position on an important issue that a president could actually do something about -- with no immediate 'clarification' from the staff, explaining that the senator somehow 'misspoke.' How refreshing." However, contrary to the Review-Journal's assertion, on May 1 the Associated Press reported that McCain "backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year's deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis," stating: "No, I said it would have received a higher priority, which it deserved."
In the May 1 AP article, reporter Libby Quaid wrote that McCain's May 1 statement "was in contrast to McCain's remarks to reporters aboard his campaign bus as it rolled through Pennsylvania on" April 30. While McCain claimed that the "bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects," Quaid noted that "[i]nvestigators with the National Transportation Safety Board suspect a design flaw -- undersize steel plates -- and heavy loads of construction materials as the cause of the disaster Aug. 1, according to preliminary findings." She also added that "Democrats accused McCain of using a tragedy that killed 13 people and injured 145 others to make a political point." Further, Quaid reported:
The remarks also put Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- a national co-chairman of McCain's campaign and potential vice presidential running mate -- in an awkward position. In January, Pawlenty had admonished critics to "quit exploiting the bridge tragedy to advance their political agenda."
Pawlenty struck a more cautious tone Thursday [May 1]. "I don't know what he's basing that on, other than the general premise that projects got misprioritized throughout time," he said. "We have to let the NTSB weigh in on this before anybody can make a final conclusion."
From the May 5 Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial:
Nonetheless, Sen. McCain, who finally seems to be gaining some traction in his own long-term battle against congressional "earmarks," did have a valid point Wednesday, as he campaigned in Pennsylvania.
The senator said the bridge collapse that killed 13 people and injured 145 others in Minnesota last year might have been avoided if Congress had spent its funds on such routine but vitally important projects as infrastructure maintenance, rather than on goofy pet projects that can range from bird-counting computers in Nevada to endive research in Massachusetts to a "$223 million bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it. ...
"The bridge in Minneapolis didn't collapse because there wasn't enough money," Sen. McCain told reporters in Allentown, tacitly rebutting the standard "More taxes!" cry. "The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects" -- $18 billion last year alone, the senator estimates.
Sen. McCain has vowed to veto spending bills containing earmarks, thus forcing congressional allocations back into the old-fashioned system of public vetting through public committee hearings.
"It's the process I object to," Sen. McCain said in response to the objection that some earmarks fund worthwhile medical research. "I'm sure that I can give you a list of projects the Mafia funds, and they would probably be good projects. But I can't give you a justification for the Mafia. I can't give you a justification for the corruption that's been bred which has sent members of Congress to the federal prison."
Goodness. A bold position on an important issue that a president could actually do something about -- with no immediate "clarification" from the staff, explaining that the senator somehow "misspoke."
How refreshing.
Just more proof of the medias crush on McCain. He could get caught roobing a bank, and it would be dismissed as getting more funds for his campaign.
I used to live in Henderson, NV - just outside Las Vegas. The Review-Journal is the mode republican-leaning rag I've ever seen - believe it or not, it's worse than the Moonie Times!!
Opposition to anything conservative while endorsing most things liberal
...But many newspapers accused of being liberal take conservative positiopns on some issues.
"many newspapers accused of being liberal take conservative positiopns on some issues"
A broken watch is correct twice a day. What point are you getting at?
My local newspaper reflects the community it serves...fairly conservative. However, the moment the newspaper prints anything that could remotely be considered liberal it is inundated with letters decrying the paper as liberal. I recently had lunch with a friend and his elderly father who (the father) said that he had cancelled his subscription to the local paper because it was so liberal. That's laughable because the paper is far from liberal.
My point is that any newspaper that is not 100% right wing is called liberal by conservative wing nuts.
That means a broken watch has a MUCH better average than the delusional wingnuts on this site.
Good one, Solon!!! :-)
A dead ender, a thirty percenter, a war enabler who spends an awful lot of his time here claiming that there is very little logic or reason to be found.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
I think he was warning his little friend that he may encounter logic & reason here, and advising him to hold his breath until it stops. It just came out wrong..
Isn't that the guy who's keeping us straight? I'm still staying the course, so it must be working.
The papers in this country are overwheleming left leaning.
You have GOT to be kidding, POV.
When I lived in Colorado, the two main papers in Southern Colorado (the Pueblo Chieftain and the Colorado Springs Gazette) were nothing more than PR vehicles for the local RepubliKKKan Party. And the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News weren't much better. In fact virtually every newspaper in Colorado is right-leaning, except for the Boulder Daily Camera. And the papers I've seen in the two years I've lived here in Texas are the same - right-leaning GOP propaganda machines.
You haven't seen the truth in so long, POV, that you no longer recognize it.
That wasnt logic. Not on Planet Earth. No matter what your substandard hivemind assmilated brain tells you REPEATING nonsense is NOT logic. YOU are not the arbiter of what is overwhelmingly left. At least half if not a majority of major newspapers endorsed Bush in 2000 with no incumbent running. You are so silly the way you think things will become true just because you SAY they are. Its DUMB but cute.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/natendorse5.html
And once again, POV, your post has no substance!
Just like POV's brain... :-)
This strait-talking maverick flip-flops so much, he's makes the republican made image (myth) of John Kerry look positively stead-fast by comparison.
If Obama want to campain successfully, he HAS to highlight all of these flip-flops and expose this so-called "maverick" for the "panderer" that he's become!!!
The bridge collapse is still being investigated so how would McCain know if it could have been avoided?
I remember a report showing substandard steel plates were used in the building of the bridge. I'm not certain, but I thought the investigation was done.
I may have it wrong but I'm pretty sure I got the straight dope on the story this time.
The investigation is ongoing but updates and theories have been provided periodically. The investigation may continue through the end of 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge
McCain is becoming the master of nuanced positions... ;>)
When the guy is correct, then say so: Congressional "earmarks" are out of control and ridiculous... they do represent an obscene money-grab by Congresspersons, a money-grab out of the U.S. Treasury, in truck-load amounts of money, even hundreds of millions of dollars at a time.
To take this no-brainer position against the greed of Congressional "earmarks" is nothing that qualifies a McCain IRAQ Bush Presidency in '08 though...
It just means that it's a darned good issue for Sen. Obama, or Sen. Clinton, to likewise pick up on, and likewise to oppose Congressional "earmarks" for the American People...
Opposition to the greed of Congressional "earmarks": GOOD CAMPAIGN ISSUE!
John McCain: THE WRONG MAN FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN '08!
Two things there, that sound good together, and would sound great being said by either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton.
Campaigns of this type aren't always like a football game, where you are constantly pushing against your opponent, in a direction opposite him... as often as not, these campaigns are like a foot race, where you are going in the exact same direction as your opponent... and then you are doing exactly what he is doing, but just doing it better, and much quicker.
Sen. McCain is such a lousy campaigner, and an even worse Public Speaker and Debater, that it would be like taking candy from a 72 year-old baby, to outdo him on the issue of opposing Congressional "earmarks".
Good point. I thought about that the other day when I heard Sean Hannity try to argue that the poor oil companies only made eight (8) cents per gallon of gas and yet the federal government was taking a much larger chunk in gas taxes and doing absolutely nothing for it. I thought gas tax money went to the upkeep and improvement of highways.
Comically, Hannity then went on to name Democratic Congressmen, and the kinds of cars they lease on taxpayer money...as though Republican Congressmen don't take advanyage of the same perk. Yea, Sean, gas would be affordable if only those Democratic lawmakers would give up their gas guzzlers. Too funny...
Why would a wing-nut publication endorse any Democrat? I don't understand.
I'm surprised that this Vegas Review newspaper which endorsed Barack Obama before the Nevada caucus was nothing but a right-wing rag.
Why would a wing-nut publication endorse any Democrat? I don't understand.
Because most major newspapers endorse a cnadidate in both presidential primaries. In fact, I just did a Google search and found the R-J's endorsement - it's an editorial entitled "Obama Best Choice for Democrats". Not "everyone" - just "Democrats". And if you read the entire editorial (link below), you'll see that it's a rather underhanded, "he's-not-as-bad-as-Hillary" endorsement.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/13832767.html
And here's their Republican endorsement - for Romney. It's more of a rallying cry to the GOP base than anything else.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/13860907.html
"$223 million bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."
They've still got the suckers whining about that mean old Bridge to Nowhere. Don't get me wrong, it's a good example of our tax dollars going to a pet project, but it comes out to less than 8 hours (or one regular work shift) of this pet project.
""[i]nvestigators with the National Transportation Safety Board suspect a design flaw -- undersize steel plates"
I think mmfa better check their own facts before they start printing statements like this one. It wasn't a "design flaw" as mmfa insinuates with their paraphrasing of the statement (do they ever use statements IN context?). The design is sound, but the contractors USED undersized steel plates, which led to that disaster.
Uh that is what YOU say. Apparantly the Transportation safety Board disagrees they say its a design flaw, remarkably like MMFA SAID.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22663216/
Undersized gusset plates in the Interstate 35-W bridge in Minneapolis were “the critical factor” in the bridge collapse last year that killed 13 people and injured 100, the National Transportation Safety Board said Tuesday.
Chairman Mark Rosenker said the plates, which connected steel beams, were roughly half the thickness they should have been because of a design error. Investigators found 16 fractured gusset plates from the bridge’s center span, he said.
“It is the undersizing of the design which we believe is the critical factor here. It is the critical factor that began the process of this collapse. That’s what failed,” Rosenker said.
Maybe its YOU that ought to check your facts.
Maybe its YOU that ought to check your facts.
If Phil checked each and every "fact" he posts here, we'd never hear from him again. Come to think of it, check your facts, Phil!! :-)