Ignoring outright "Bridge to Nowhere" falsehoods, Kurtz pronounces evidence insufficient to say Palin is "lying"
SUMMARY: The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz wrote that Gov. Sarah Palin's "description of her role in the infamous bridge [to nowhere] funding is highly selective at best," but falsely suggested that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Palin's claims about her actions on the project are false. Kurtz ignored outright falsehoods in Palin's claims about her opposition to the bridge, including her claim that she "told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks' on that 'bridge to nowhere.'"
In a September 9 post on The Washington Post's The Trail blog, media critic Howard Kurtz wrote that a new campaign ad by Sen. Barack Obama "accurately charges that [Gov. Sarah] Palin, who is touting her opposition to the infamous bridge ["to nowhere"] project, originally supported it when she ran for Alaska governor." Kurtz concluded that "Palin's description of her role in the bridge funding is highly selective at best," but falsely suggested that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Palin's claims about her actions on the project are false. In asserting that Palin has been merely "highly selective" in her "description of her role" on the bridge, Kurtz ignored outright falsehoods in Palin's claims about her opposition to the project -- even though, in a post the previous day, Kurtz had referred to an assertion in a McCain campaign ad that Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere" as a "whopper."
Kurtz wrote:
The Illinois senator recycles a 2004 Bush attack ad against Democratic nominee John Kerry, who had said he was for $87 billion in war funding before he was against it. The ad accurately charges that Palin, who is touting her opposition to the infamous bridge project, originally supported it when she ran for Alaska governor.
Does that amount to politicians "lying" about their records? Palin's description of her role in the bridge funding is highly selective at best. An on-screen headline cites a critique of McCain's ad calling it a "naked lie," but that is from the liberal New Republic magazine. And while McCain may be exaggerating his maverick credentials, that is not evidence of lying.
Kurtz claimed that "Palin's description of her role in the bridge funding is highly selective at best," but didn't actually note what Palin has claimed -- falsely -- about her role. In her September 3 address at the Republican National Convention, Palin asserted: "I told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that 'Bridge to Nowhere.' If our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves." But this assertion, which Kurtz did not report, is false for at least two reasons.
As Media Matters for America previously noted, Palin did not tell Congress, " 'Thanks, but no thanks' on that 'bridge to nowhere,' as she claimed in her speech. First, she was not in a position to do so. As The Daily Howler's Bob Somerby noted, a year before Palin was elected governor, Congress abdicated responsibility for determining how the money would be spent. After authorizing funds to be spent specifically on the bridge project in August 2005, in an appropriations bill in November 2005, Congress earmarked the money for Alaska, but specified that it did not have to be spent on the bridge. Somerby wrote, "[N]o one had to 'tell Congress' anything about the Bridge to Nowhere, because Congress had removed itself from decision-making about the project." Second, Palin did not refuse the funds or reimburse the federal government; Alaska kept the federal funds. Kurtz did not mention either fact.
In assessing Palin's claim that "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," PolitiFact.com reported:
The project also raised bitter debate in Congress, and several attempts were made to yank the funding for the project. In the fall of 2005, Congress removed the language specifically directing the money to the bridge, but it kept the money in place and left it up to Alaska to decide which transportation projects the state would like to spend it on.
By the time Palin pulled the plug on the Gravina bridge project in September 2007, much of the federal funding for the bridge had already been diverted to other transportation projects.
[...]
When Palin says "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," it implies Congress said, "Here's a check for that bridge" and she responded, "No thanks, that's wasteful spending; here's your money back."
That's not what happened. Fact is, Alaska took the bridge money, and then just spent it on other projects. Palin did make the final call to kill plans for the bridge, but by the time she did it was no longer a politically viable project.
From the September 9 blog post on The Trail:
The Illinois senator recycles a 2004 Bush attack ad against Democratic nominee John Kerry, who had said he was for $87 billion in war funding before he was against it. The ad accurately charges that Palin, who is touting her opposition to the infamous bridge project, originally supported it when she ran for Alaska governor.
Does that amount to politicians "lying" about their records? Palin's description of her role in the bridge funding is highly selective at best. An on-screen headline cites a critique of McCain's ad calling it a "naked lie," but that is from the liberal New Republic magazine. And while McCain may be exaggerating his maverick credentials, that is not evidence of lying.
The commercial's opening shot shows Obama with fellow senator and running mate Joe Biden and the words "For the Change We Need." That encapsulates the ad's underlying purpose: not to let McCain hijack the change theme that has been at the core of Obama's candidacy.
Unless one postulates that Governor Palin can reasonably said to be unaware of her own positions, then Governor Palin was lying. One can only guess what in Kurtz's imagination would constitute "lying".
I agree with Howie. Just hear me out.
Ever since the President said it was okay to torture and kill someone as long as you didn't think that would be the outcome (even if it was completely unreasonable to think so), I have realized that to Republicans and especially the Bush Administration, the truth appears to be what you make it. Or more importantly what you force yourself to believe beyond reason.
As long as you can completely delude yourself to a false reality, you are covered, because that is the new government approved reality.
In Republicanworld, Palin was actually telling the truth if she deluded herself into believing it really happened.
Republicans have now rendered reality "quaint" along with the Geneva Conventions, Habeas Corpus, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
For the first time I was not proud of my country (permanent resident since 99, citizen since 2006) when I heard the sound from Abu Ghraib scandal.
we are better than abu ghraib, iraq war, pleasing the Big Oil, dammit.
I think I agree with you more often than some who had their citizenship handed to them upon birth. :)
This has to be the worst example of our so-called independent press this month--if not this year. How exactly does Kurtz think Palin did not lie? She stated several times before she was governor she was for the bridge:
"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.
Then, when congress dropped the earmark (it said Alaska could use the money for whatever it wanted), Palin said this:
Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," she said. "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."
Read that second statement again. Palin was *still* for the bridge; she just had to drop it because Alaska didn't have enough money.
I would challenge Kurtz to find any meaningful way, a statement or an act, that shows that Palin said no to the bridge to nowhere.
She said it in that one speech, does that count?
... or was that the speechwriter talking? ;)
"or was that the speechwriter talking? "
She said it, she owns it. If she wants to blame the speechwriter...then next time let the SPEECHWRITER give the speech.
As a former executive speechwriter, I say "elect more speechwriters!" *
At least then there wouldn't be any distinction between the idiot who wrote the lie and the idiot who mouthed it.
* I'm quite impressed that Obama wrote his acceptance speech, as well as many of his other lines. Not only does he do a very good job, he literally talks the talk and walks the walk, and can't pass the buck.
Glenn Beck criticized Obama for an ad which called Palin a liar. He said that you can lead people to that conclusion, but not say it directly.
I thought "straight talk" was supposed to be a good thing. What happened to that?
And on AC360, I saw one of the most ridiculous segments on Palin imaginable. Cooper said that Palin didn't try to ban books. He flat-out said it wasn't true. But then the explanation (from Joe Johns, I believe) was that Palin inquired about banning books, and the librarian was subsequently fired, and then her employment was then reinstated, but that we don't really know what happened. Is there an alternative explanation here? Why is she inquiring about banning books and firing someone if she wasn't trying to get that done?
Cooper also said that the story about Palin pushing creationism in schools was false as well. Johns' explanation for that was that she just wanted students to be able to debate creationism and evolution in school. Where, in the lunch room? If you're making this part of a science class, you're teaching creationism in schools. I don't see how you get around that.
The lead-up to this was that Palin was being mistreated the same way Obama was with "Muslim" stories and the like. What a pathetic exercise in false equivalence.
"I am unsure if Kurtz is just a liar, is too silly to understand her lies, or if he is definitely a Republican shill."
The answer is all three. Kurtz is a liar, Kurtz is a Republican lia, and Kurtz is too silly to understand her lies.
"When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html
It's deceitful for Obama to attack Palin on this subject without coming clean about his vote.
Oh goodie, the latest talking point spewed out in all the right wing blogs endlessly. Ted Stephens, Republican, put in the earmark for the bridge, and Sarah Palin, Republican, thought it was a great idea until it was ridiculed all over the country.
for more right wing distortions of reality: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
New Orleans got their money and the earmark was eventually removed for the Bridge - although Stevens was still able to get the Federal part of the money. It is kind of silly to focus on a single vote on an amendment by Obama - when that is only a very tiny part of the overall story - apparently to attempt to rebut what Palin is on the record as supporting whole-heartedly.
You've got nothing. Sorry.
It should be noted that Howard Kurtz is a right wing Republican himself, and that his wife is a Republican political consultant.
Those 2 factors are key in explainig why Kurtz is trying to rescue Palin from being caught in her lie.