"But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Or in the immortal words or Monty Python and the Holy Grail "Let's not bicker and argue about who murdered who"

Admiral Stockdale in a dress.

Federal funding for the Gravina-Ketchikan Bridge was not "cut off." An amendment was added to the annual DOT appropriations bill in fall 2005 that said that "any amounts made available" for the Gravina bridge and the Knik Arm bridge under the 2005 highway bill would instead "be made available to the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for any purpose eligible under section 133(b) of title 23, United States Code" - leaving the money in place but removing the earmark and leaving it up to the state whether to proceed. See sec. 186 of Public Law 109-115. After that was enacted, there was vigorous debate in the Alaska legislature whether to proceed with the bridge, but Palin opted to kill the bridge and reprogram that money to other needs within the state.

In March of this year, her government affairs representative wrote an op-ed that made it abundantly clear she was only taking her positions on earmarks because Congress was cracking down on them (note how many times he uses "in reaction to").

The piece clearly shows this was a reactive, tactical move to Congress' crackdown, to make sure they could still continue funding from prior earmarks, and get $ from the 99 percent of the federal budget that wasn't earmarks.

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/031808/opi_258953362.shtml

OMG, I missed this from the same article:

Just last month, presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said pet projects could have played a role in a Minnesota bridge collapse that killed 13 people earlier this year.

"Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country," McCain told a group of people in a town-hall style meeting in Ankeny, Iowa.

"Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."

So, Palin actually said: "thanks on the bridge, but I'd like to use the $233 milllion for something else." And she took it. And people died in Minnesota.

Is McCain angry with Palin for taking the money that he now thinks should have gone to bridge inspection? Before he selected her as a running mate, did he know she took this money? Did he ask her what she used the money on, and think it was worth more than bridge inspection? Did it save more lives than the Minnesota bridge collapse caused?