Media ignore "bridge to nowhere" falsehood in Palin speech, despite having previously flagged it
SUMMARY: The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post have previously challenged Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion that she "told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," but they did not report that she repeated the false claim in her September 3 vice-presidential acceptance speech.
Several media outlets, including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post, that have previously challenged Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion that she "told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," did not report that she repeated the false claim in her September 3 vice-presidential acceptance speech. Previously, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Post (in four separate articles) had noted that, in the words of a September 2 Post article, "Palin said she told the federal government, 'Thanks but no thanks.'" But, as the Post also reported, "she does not mention that she endorsed the bridge when she was a candidate for governor. And the money did not go back to Washington. It stayed in Alaska for a different road project." While the Post, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times each had reported that Palin had previously supported the bridge, and at least one of those articles in each paper additionally noted that Alaska kept the money that had been appropriated for it, none of the three newspapers -- in two September 4 articles in The New York Times, two articles in the Los Angeles Times, and two articles in the Post -- reported that Palin's nomination acceptance speech included the falsehood.
Moreover, the claim that she "told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' " is false, not only because Alaska kept the money, but because, as The Daily Howler's Bob Somerby noted, while appropriating the funds, Congress had abdicated responsibility for how they would be spent a full year before Palin was elected governor. Congress authorized funds to be spent specifically on the bridge project in August 2005. But, a year before Palin took office, in an appropriations bill in November 2005, Congress specified that Alaska could but was not required to spend those funds on the bridge; thus, as Somerby wrote, "no one had to 'tell Congress' anything about the Bridge to Nowhere, because Congress had removed itself from decision-making about the project."
Here's an interesting op-ed piece about Sarah Palin.....
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks4-2008sep04,0,5675222.column
Wallace did not challenge McCain's claim that Palin said of "bridge to nowhere"
Chris Wallace does not need to challenge anything that is true. If she said that (which she did by the way), then it is a true statement and need not be challenged.
What MMFA is really trying to do here is to discredit a final decision with earlier considerations. Nice try, lol.
Palin > Obama, get used to it.Max, here's how it works: If someone says something that is not true, it could be a lie or it could be a mistake. If he or she says it more than once, and after its incorrectness has been pointed out, well then he or she is lying.
Simply repeating something that's incorrect does not make it true.
How do I know Palin is lying, and how can you know it, assuming that you want to? Check these links:
This. This. This. and This.
Max:
You do an excellent job of mocking the right wingnuts. You are so consistently wrong and completely ignore all facts that prove your talking points are out-and-out lies. Nice going.
The Daily Howler has been all over this. Palin never said squat to Congress about the Bridge to Nowhere because the project was cancelled before she took office. She's lying.
The liberal Democrats got their butts kicked last night by Gov Sarah Palin and they will whine about how every aspect of her speech was not challenged.
Weak MMFA, very weak.
Palin > Obama (deal with it)
Yeah, those stupid Democrats got so destroyed by Palin that they only got $10 Million in donations since her speech.
Take that you lousy Democrats!
Max, all Mrs. Loopner did last night was get a couple hundred old republicans excited (or at least semi-conscious, as close as they can get to "excited") by lying to them. It's not a very difficult thing to do, any second-rate tv preacher or used car salesman could have done it. The only butt-kicking that happened at Concon last night was to the truth and any sliver of dignity the GOP had left.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Grampy & his over-the-hill spokesmodel are out of the race. There are a good number of frightened and ill-informed Americans out there keeping the Republican parties hopes alive.
If you're watching the convention tonight, they just showed one of those treacly little slide shows about Cindy-Lou's family that was very enlightening. It recounted the day that Grampy and his bride-to-be met at a party. The 41 year-old Johnny introduced himself to the 24 year-old Cindy. He told her he was 37, she told him she was 27. According to the story it was love at first sight.
That's a Republican "cute meet". They both lied right to each others faces within moments of meeting, and it worked out perfectly.
The bad news; Cindy's getting a bit long in the tooth.
The good news: Our hero just met yet another younger woman who can lie with a big smile on her face.
And she's suckering you just like John McCain and Cindy McCain suckered each other.
I'm listening to McCain give his speech. (What's up with the green screen and all that grinning)
He's sure talking a good game. He's even using the word "progressive." Sorry his rhetoric doesn't match his deeds. He's so jingoistic as is the crowd, it's embarrassing.
Mary, I was halfway watching the speech, but I think the green was in the closeups when there was a big picture of the White House behind him (it was the lawn).I was cracking up.After the other unfortunate Green Screen incident, they didn't see this one coming.
And these people want to keep trying to run the country? Har! Time's up, Goopers.
It's that kind of grin where he realizes that he'd be amazed if anyone actually believes what he's saying.
If you notice, he gives us that strange grin an awful lot.
Palin > Obama (deal with it)
Every Liberal In The World > Max Dharma (deal with THAT).
One Word:NARRATIVE
The talking heads got cought talking about it when the mics were cut off the yesterday. The use of narratives has served the Republicans well. Yet, it does not make the Republican invincible.
If you believe the Republican narrative, it follows Sarah Palin speaks just as effective as Barack Obama. In fact, as a Republicans would see it, Palin is better then Obama. In narrative, she is more experienced, she is more of a parent, and she is, of course, more of an American. Their narrative has a subtle message: Palin is whte and Obama is black.
The narrative does not include, she may of had an affair with her husban's former business partner. The narrative has a careful line that can be blown apart.
Joseph