About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Cameron's claim that Palin didn't ask for earmarks is contradicted by Palin herself

September 08, 2008 5:52 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: On Studio B, Carl Cameron said, "Fifty-eight days before the elections, and the Obama campaign is accusing the McCainiacs of lying about this 'bridge to nowhere' issue." He went on to claim of Gov. Sarah Palin, "Now, she didn't ask for the bridge, nor did she ask for the money. ... [W]hen people say, 'Sarah Palin asked for earmark money or pork,' it's just inaccurate." In fact, in an op-ed in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Palin wrote that in 2008, her administration "requested 31 earmarks, down from 54 in 2007" and that "the federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship."

61 Comments

uring the September 8 edition of Fox News' Studio B, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron claimed, "Fifty-eight days before the elections, and the Obama campaign is accusing the McCainiacs of lying about this 'bridge to nowhere' issue." Cameron purported to "straighten out" the issue by claiming, "She ultimately told legislators in Alaska, 'It's not coming,' " and stating, "It's very important to understand in earmark discussions, Jon, governors and state officials don't ask for federal money. That's done by senators and congressmen. So when people say, 'Sarah Palin asked for earmark money or pork,' it's just inaccurate. It's done by members of Congress." But Cameron's claim that Palin did not ask for "earmark money or pork" is contradicted by Palin herself. In a March 5 op-ed in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Palin wrote that in 2008, her administration "requested 31 earmarks, down from 54 in 2007" and that "the federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship."

Moreover, Palin has repeatedly sought and requested hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks as governor of Alaska, and according to The Washington Post, she hired a Washington lobbying firm to acquire tens of millions of dollars in earmarks while serving as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

Further, in claiming that "Sarah Palin can point to a number of things that she did and said that made it very clear that in the end, she was against it. You can't dispute that. She ultimately told legislators in Alaska, 'It's not coming,' " Cameron did not point out, as the Post reported, "the money did not go back to Washington. It stayed in Alaska for a different road project."

From the September 8 edition of Fox News' Studio B:

JON SCOTT (guest host): Well, Barack Obama's campaign says Palin did not stop the "bridge to nowhere" and claims she and McCain will say or do anything to make people believe they can change something besides the person sitting in the Oval Office. Carl Cameron with the news live in Lee's Summit, Missouri. A lot of back and forth. I've already gotten emails from the McCain campaign today over this "bridge to nowhere" thing, Carl. Straighten that out for us.

CAMERON: Oh, it's not an easy one to straighten out at all, Jon. There's a lot of sort of nuance involved in how this plays out. Back when Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasilla in Alaska and the bridge was beginning to be the buzz of congressional spending, she spoke very favorably about it. When she was a candidate for governor, she said that there needed to be a link between Ketchikan, the city in Alaska, and a tiny little island, Gravina Island, which had about 50 residents and an airport.

She said that it needed to be a link. But the political winds began to turn. This $400 million congressional project, dubbed the bridge to nowhere, became unpopular. The political rhetoric -- the din rose, and as it did, it became clear that the federal government was not going to send all of the money for it, and with that change, so, too, did change Sarah Palin's rhetoric. And ultimately, as a candidate for governor, she began to say that she didn't want Alaska bad-mouthed, but it was clear that the federal government was going to come through with the money. So it was time to look elsewhere.

She did continue to say that there should be some sort of an access, and that is why the Democrats have called this ad a lie. They've used the L word, Jon. Fifty-eight days before the elections, and the Obama campaign is accusing the McCainiacs of lying about this "bridge to nowhere" issue.

But Sarah Palin can point to a number of things that she did and said that made it very clear that in the end, she was against it. You can't dispute that. She ultimately told legislators in Alaska, "It's not coming." But there was a time, before she was governor, as a candidate, where she spoke favorably about it. Now, she didn't ask for the bridge, nor did she ask for the money. It's very important to understand in earmark discussions, Jon, governors and state officials don't ask for federal money. That's done by senators and congressmen. So when people say, "Sarah Palin asked for earmark money or pork," it's just inaccurate. It's done by members of Congress.

SCOTT: Carl Cameron reporting live with the McCain campaign. Carl, thank you.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (September 08, 2008 5:55 pm ET)
         
      If the Press would just do its job, Caribou Barbie wouldn't last a week. If pigs could fly....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (September 09, 2008 11:12 am ET)
           
        it is on tape shown on Countdown yesterday when palin was running for governor. i am sure the right wing pundits who wrap themselves up in the conservative mantle will deny it and not wartch the tape. Should put it n you tube.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by National_Insecurity (September 10, 2008 2:48 am ET)
           

        She took the money. She spent the money. She just didn't get to spend it on the bridge to nowhere.

        Here's the context I'd like to see asserted: Whatever you call it, it was US tax dollars taken out of my pocket to be spent on an earmark for Alaska that wasn't necessary.

         Sarah Palin fleeced the taxpayers of the US out of  nearly $300 Million for pork-barrel spending in Alaska.  Is that the kind of maverick you want in the White House?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by National_Insecurity (September 10, 2008 6:43 pm ET)
             

          correction - not "nearly $300 million", just $229 million.

           

          Sarah Palin fleeced the taxpayers of the US out of  $229 Million for pork-barrel spending in Alaska.  Is that the kind of maverick you want in the White House?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by loonz (September 08, 2008 5:59 pm ET)
         
      Palin is a liar; McCain is a liar.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (September 08, 2008 6:00 pm ET)
           

        Palin is a liar; McCain is a liar.

        It appears to be a requirement to become a GOP candidate.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (September 08, 2008 6:23 pm ET)
             
          It is a requirement that the Obama campaign should point out.  I think they're being too gentle with their rhetoric.  McCain is a panderer and a liar; Palin is a liar, an extremist, in hiding and quite possibly a criminal.  The Obama campaign should be on the attack.  If they feel uncomfortable attacking the pit bull in lipstick, they should send the female surrogates out to do it.  Obama and Biden should never be on the defensive.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by wolf kotenberg (September 09, 2008 12:21 pm ET)
             
          it is a requirement to become elected, along with scare tactics ( we are going to lose the war if Obama gets elected ).
          Report Abuse
      • Author by onionhead (September 08, 2008 6:43 pm ET)
           

        Anyone see this yet?  When I first saw it, I thought that this was an Obama attack ad. As you can see, it's from JohnMcCain.com.  What a dynamic duo!

        P.S. Go to the second tab entitled, "TV Ad: Mavericks". 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 08, 2008 7:43 pm ET)
             

          That's great, Onionhead. I thought it was a preview of a new Fall cop show.

          And the closing shot of McCain reminded me that Thanksgiving's just around the corner. Not the best angle on the turkeyneck.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by onionhead (September 09, 2008 11:05 am ET)
               

            Yeah, that is great.  You made me watch it again to see his turkey neck. 

            Maybe McCain can claim he has an endorsement from Benjamin Franklin.  

            Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (September 08, 2008 7:37 pm ET)
           

        LIARS!

        When is someone in the Obama campaign going to grow some balls and speak those words?

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mr. l (September 08, 2008 8:17 pm ET)
             
          Agreed- It's amazing how much crap is spewed by the rightwing noise machine BUT it's even more incredible how much of it is NOT addressed by any leftwing pundit/candidate/strategist/etc.  On a side note, I recently moved back home to Pittsburgh, PA and saw a Diebold truck in a restaurant's parking lot.  Methinks ALL the states are going to the 'battleground' for the republicant's this season!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Graydogs (September 08, 2008 6:01 pm ET)
         

      When she was running for governor in 2006, Palin said she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere," according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin's campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city.

      "People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting," Weinstein said. (Reuters)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by doggone-ga (September 08, 2008 6:06 pm ET)
           
        She was for the bridge before she was against it, but she was against the NAME for it before she was FOR the name for it.  I think I'm getting dizzy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Graydogs (September 08, 2008 6:13 pm ET)
             

          But she was for the money that was for the bridge that had a name she didn't like, and for the money after she was against the bridge that had a name she didn't like, and kept the money to build a road to the bridge that she didn't like.....now she has a road to a "bridge to nowhere", but she likes the name now.

          "The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding.

          In fact, the Palin administration has spent "tens of millions of dollars" in federal funds to start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said." (Reuters)

          On MSNBC a McCain spokesperson said.... Palin was okay with the bridge to nowhere until it reached 4 million, and then she no, weren’t not going to waste tax payers money.

          But then she kept the money for that road now didn't she????

          Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (September 08, 2008 7:38 pm ET)
             
          She was also against teen pregnancy before she was for it...   ;>)
          Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (September 08, 2008 7:38 pm ET)
             
          She was also against teen pregnancy before she was for it...   ;>)
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Semiauto (September 08, 2008 6:06 pm ET)
         
      They are even running ads now about how she was against the Bridge. Fact is she took the money and then spent it on something else when the bridge got bad press. She is a liar and McCain is a liar and they are knowingly campaigning on a lie. How can this not be repeated on every news program until McCain tells the truth?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by doggone-ga (September 08, 2008 6:07 pm ET)
           

        "How can this not be repeated on every news program until McCain tells the truth?"

        Good question.  To their credit, NPR has mentioned the discrepancy several times since her nomination was announced.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (September 08, 2008 7:45 pm ET)
             
          Chris Matthews is going after them pretty good tonight. In fact, he seems personally offended at the dishonesty. It's about time...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by commonsenseliberal (September 09, 2008 4:26 pm ET)
             

          Just wait.  When Biden debates Failin' Palin, I'm sure he'll bring it up - and then we can all watch the wicked witch from Alaska tap dance around the truth.

          In the mean time, both Obama and Biden need to pound McCain and Palin on these lies.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (September 08, 2008 6:07 pm ET)
         
      She has been sequestered now for about a week, long enough to memorise talking points and how to insert such talking points while answering questions ( most likely softball ). I would like to see Whoopi Goldberg interview her. I can't imagine old pharts like Schieffer to be anything but facilitators.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (September 08, 2008 6:09 pm ET)
         
      Hey, if the Republicans aren't hanging their heads in embarrassment over Karl Rove's blatant hypocrisy, they are immune to reason. No fact will change their minds; no logic will evaporate their delusions. You can show them the blue sky and they will insist that it's green.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mrhebert74 (September 08, 2008 6:34 pm ET)
         
      Cameron. Camarones. Heh heh. Good one.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (September 08, 2008 7:09 pm ET)
           

        I just finished watching the blitzer report. He sure isn't buying into any of it.Here are a few highlights he noted after hearing Palin speak again about earmarks:

        • Last year Obama asked for $311 million in earmarks, amounting to $25 per person in his state.
        • Last year Palin asked for $240 million in earmarks, amounting to $300 per person in her state.
        • Obama asked for no earmarks this year.
        • Palin is on course for beating last years record.

        Blitzer is becoming my hero!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by ukobserver (September 08, 2008 7:14 pm ET)
             

          Isn't it amazing that these guys will actually do their jobs when they find out a competitor hs the exclusive that they wanted? It's a pity that it took Palin going to ABC first for these guys to start doing some accurate reporting.

           

          :-{

          Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (September 08, 2008 7:18 pm ET)
             
          Snoopy Blitzer is so wishy-washy I saw earlier today where he allowed a Palin aid from Alaska  to set the record straight about that funding for the bridge to no-where by claiming that she told the state that it wasn't going to happen and stood against it, even before it became unpopular.  It was unbelievable, it's hard to take these guys serious.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by funnymanpants (September 09, 2008 2:39 am ET)
             

          Snoopy barked:

          >>I just finished watching the blitzer report. He sure isn't buying into any of it.Here are a few highlights he noted after hearing Palin speak again about earmarks:

          What is bizzarre about this is how poorly McCain has handled this whole affair, first picking someone he didn't vet who is under investigation and courted a sececessionist group. But then, to run around the country repeating a bald face lie strikes me as just plain stupid. Reporters love to catch politicians making factual lies. In contrast, journalist will allow politicians to BS all the time. But they love to catch them on factual lies, the kind that resolve into black and white (I did not have sexual relations with that woman). 

          Did McCain and his campaign not realize that making an obvious lie central to his campaign would come back to haunt him? I don't understand how Palin will maintain any credibility.  

          Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (September 08, 2008 7:28 pm ET)
           

        AA,

        That's your cue.  Please tell us why its valuable to have Cameron reporting his version much like its valuable to have Corsi writing.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (September 08, 2008 7:12 pm ET)
         

      "WHAT CAN ANYONE SAY TO DEFEND WHAT HE HAS DONE TODAY?"UKOBSERVER.  ------- Nothing, zelch ,nada!!!!   

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Hellsau (September 08, 2008 7:22 pm ET)
         
      Are they seriously calling themselves "McCainiacs"? That's horrible.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (September 08, 2008 7:26 pm ET)
         

      It's about freakin' time the Democrats used the "L word".  That's all Republicans seem able to do.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Graydogs (September 08, 2008 7:37 pm ET)
         

      Tonight on Hardball, Todd Harris, republican strategist claimed that Palin was for a "some kind of link" but not a $400 million bridge".

      Of course the article that Mathews chose to read never mentioned a bridge, but spoke of a "link".....ignoring the many articles that call it a bridge.This lead to Harris who said Palin was for some kind of link, not a bridge. Coincidence that he used that article?

       

      "Yet documents Palin's office released to The Seattle Times on Tuesday show her cuts in earmarks were far more modest than she claimed. Last year, Palin requested $254 million in earmarks, not $550 million, so her cuts this year were only 22 percent, not the 63 percent she claimed." (The Seattle Times)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Graydogs (September 08, 2008 7:39 pm ET)
           
        BTW...I wasn't able to find the article about the "link" to nowhere.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (September 08, 2008 7:46 pm ET)
             
          In other woeds, she lied. She's a lying Barbie...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Graydogs (September 09, 2008 3:53 pm ET)
               

            On MSNBC the right is now saying that the "earmarks" for the bridge were actually "highway funds" that all states get, but Palin was against the bridge when she found out how much it would take from their highway funds....and that the keeping the money to build the road to the "what would have been a bridge to nowhere" is what highway funds do.

            Gees, I dizzy from all the spin.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 08, 2008 7:47 pm ET)
             

          here it is

          Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (September 08, 2008 8:26 pm ET)
         

      liesnowhere19.jpg

      Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (September 08, 2008 8:30 pm ET)
         

      Flashback: In 2006 Debate, Palin Supported ‘Bridge To Nowhere’-Related Earmark

      Last night, C-SPAN re-aired the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial debate, in which Sarah Palin expressed her support for an earmark related to the famed “Bridge to Nowhere.”

      Congress had already removed earmarked-funding for the Bridge to Nowhere in Ketchikan, Alaska. Despite the fact that the bridge was not going to be built, then-Gov. Frank Murkowski approved the construction of a $24 million gravel “access” road (the Gravina Island Access Highway) that would lead to a nonexistent bridge.

      In the 2006 debate, Palin was asked whether she supported this earmark, or whether she would pledge to cancel it as governor. Rather than responding with “thanks but no thanks” to federal funding for this “access” road, Palin said:

      I wouldn’t [cancel the project]. I’m not going to stand in the way of progress that our congressional delegation — in the position of strength that they have right now — they’re making those efforts for the state of Alaska to build up our infrastructure. I would not get in the way of progress

      Report Abuse
      • Author by MoonbatYouBet (September 08, 2008 8:39 pm ET)
           

        Well gosh, it's no wonder the faux pitbull thinks she's being attacked by the media if she thinks that what she did there was to take a strong stand against earmarks.

        All this time I thought she was a liar without conscience or remorse and it turns out that she just has a completely different version of reality than most rational people.  That must be it, right?

        So which is she wingnuts, a liar or a delusional borderline schizophrenic?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by deanoakwood (September 08, 2008 9:00 pm ET)
         

      Whats the most sickening about all of this is that America is falling for this BS!  McCain is ahead in some polls that came out today, even with 2 weeks about her shaky political past in the news.

      And as we read MM everyday, no one is calling out the Republican lies and Americans are falling for the bait hook, line, and sinker.

      Are we really on the road to electing Bush III? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (September 08, 2008 9:16 pm ET)
           

        Not so fast, another poll released today shows Obama already eliminated McCain's surge. Ahead by 1...

        Which means it's time for the song...

        hee haw.bmp

        Where, oh where are my ratings tonight?
        Why did you leave me here all alone?
        I told everybody that I was a P.O.Dubyah…
        But you met Obama and PHPPPHT you were gone.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by gg (September 08, 2008 9:35 pm ET)
         
      "candidate for governor, she said that there needed to be a link between Ketchikan, the city in Alaska, and a tiny little island, Gravina Island, which had about 50 residents and an airport."

      There was a link, a ferry; afterall, this airport wasn't some private field, it was the Ketchikan International Airport. This was pork, she knew it, she wanted it, she campaigned for it, and now she is stuck with it!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (September 08, 2008 10:45 pm ET)
         

      I was particularly struck by Cameron's sneer and head bobbing as he attempted to mock those who would DARE use "the L word" to describe Palin's rather obvious lies.

      I get the feeling that he does a LOT of head bobbing down there at Faux News.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by vysotsky (September 08, 2008 10:51 pm ET)
           
        Does Cameron get Showtime?  "Lie" isn't the first thing I think of when someone says "The 'L' Word".
        Report Abuse
    • Author by vysotsky (September 08, 2008 10:51 pm ET)
         
      Doesn't this just boil down to, "She was for it before she was against it"?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (September 08, 2008 11:07 pm ET)
           

        vysotsky wrote 

        >>Doesn't this just boil down to, "She was for it before she was against it"?

        Sadly, NO! She was always for it. By using that catchy line, Obama allows Palin to spin, to say that she was once for the bridge, but when she became governor, she realized pork was bad. In fact, she never told congress no. By the time she became governor, the project was pretty much dead, and an embarrassment. She then used that money for another project.

        In no meaningful sense was she ever against the bridge to nowhere.  

        Report Abuse
        • Author by vysotsky (September 08, 2008 11:48 pm ET)
             

          Hey, not so fast -- Mr. Cameron here just told me that whenever I hear someone say that Sarah Palin still supported it, I'm supposed to say,"That's just inaccurate!  It's done by Congress!"  Wait... he said I should say something else, too.... right!  "She didn't ask for the bridge and she didn't ask for the money, and it's very important that you understand that!"  Um....there was one other thing...Oh yeah!  "You can't dispute that."

          Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (September 09, 2008 2:31 am ET)
               

            vysotsky wrote: 

            >>She didn't ask for the bridge and she didn't ask for the money, and it's very important that you understand that!"

            Yes, it is really outrageous how dishonest Cameron is being. First, he says " Now, she didn't ask for the bridge, nor did she ask for the money." But that's just a clever strawman argument. Palin claimed she was *against* the bridge; that is what she is campaigning on. But Camerson cleverly changes what Palin says to "She never asked for the money." Of course she didn't, because she wasn't governor. But while she didn't ask for the money, she didn't tell congress no, either. Let me repeat that: she never told congress no! 

            As Cameron concedes, by the time she was governor, the bridge was an embarrassment, and pretty much dead.  

            Camerson then creates another strawman (or something very similar), when no points out that governors don't ask for earmarks. Well, technically that is true, but she made sure, through lobbyists that Alaska got more earmarks per capita than any other state. 

            Palin never was against earmarks, and her running around claiming she was is like a coke addict running on an anti-drug platform.  

            Report Abuse
    • Author by dandec5947 (September 09, 2008 12:07 am ET)
         
      Seems like Palin has energized Cameron as well. I've always viewed him as a shill, probably the worst of the actual journalists (non-personality division) on FOX. Rosen's better, Angle's better, never understood Cameron's "rise."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (September 09, 2008 12:19 am ET)
         
      It is going to fall on Biden to bring this out spectacularly in a debate.  Outside of that, the media do not seem interested in debunking all of these falsehoods the GOP is claiming about Palin.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (September 09, 2008 12:49 am ET)
         
      This "Bridge to Nowhere" talking point is a double-edged lie. First of all, she supported the bridge until it became an embarrassment and its cost outstripped the available federal money. Second, and most important.... ALASKA KEPT THE F***ING MONEY!

      What is the purpose of this myth, after all? To make her Troglodyte worshippers think that she saved the U.S. taxpayers all that money. The fact that the money stayed in Alaska negates any benefit to the cancellation of the bridge. It's a vapid, disingenuous talking point, designed to fool the gullible GOP base..... and it's working like a charm.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jmh (September 09, 2008 12:27 pm ET)
         
      maybe its me, but it seems that RovePublican political hypocrisy has increased geometrically with the Palin nomination
      Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (September 09, 2008 2:49 pm ET)
         
      The only reliable news these days, and has been for a long time, is Jon Stewart:

      http://crooksandliars.com/2008/09/04/jon-stewart-exposes-rove-hannity-morris-palin-hypocracy
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JimmyCraghorn (September 09, 2008 4:51 pm ET)
         

      SCOTT; Carl reporting live FOR the  McCain  campaign

      fixed 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by BillyDelyon (September 09, 2008 8:29 pm ET)
         

      Cameron's on a roll isn't he..,

       First with the flag story. Now this? 

       Can't wait for all this stuff out there about Palin starts to catch fire. 

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.