Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
PALIN CONTINUES TO LIE ABOUT THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE.
Sarah Palin continues to lie about her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere:
Palin refuses to yield on her claim that she opposed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere earmark, despite charges by the Obama campaign that her assertion is a "lie."Once again, Palin told Congress nothing. This isn't "an assertion by the Obama campaign." Palin's claim regarding Congress is factually wrong. As Bob Somerby points out, this is the most compelling part of the lie, because it involves her standing up to an unpopular Congress when in fact she did no such thing. While the idea that Palin "killed the bridge" is a distortion at best, (she kept the money anyway) the idea that she "told Congress thanks, but no thanks," is an outright lie. At this point, it's a war of attrition: The McCain campaign is betting that the press will get tired of reporting that this claim is untrue and simply cease to do so. We should not."I told Congress thanks but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere," Palin said Tuesday in Lebanon, Ohio.
CNN notes that Palin is being dishonest here, although they don't use that language. But as Matthew Yglesias points out, "[t]he ultimate test of what matters isn’t one-off articles but campaign narratives," and in past elections, Democrats were tagged as being either dishonest (Gore) or indecisive (Kerry). Given that the McCain campaign has refused to stop repeating its false claims about Palin's record, it would be nice if campaign journalists began to put this approach in the larger context of the election. Attributing the objective truth to the Obama campaign is simply an abdication of journalists' role to tell their readers what can be verified as true and what can't, or what is objectively false and what isn't. Rather than presenting the story as a "he said, she said," journalists should note what is factually true beyond argument: Palin is lying.
--A. Serwer
COMMENTS (8)
I love how Sarah Palin has caught you libs flat footed. The Democrat Party doesn't know how to handle her, she's securing the election for McGenius!
Posted by: Right Wing Conspiricist | September 9, 2008 2:46 PM
Should not politicians be honest and truthful to the public. It seems as it it is a betrayal of public trust when they deliberately lie. GOP told us they were going to fight terrorism and they led us into Iraq, a phony and pretend war. The real war should have been waged in Afghanistan. The GOP now has an agent of change, a phony and pretend Person Sarah Palin who is a puppet more than an agent of change. The real agent of change is Barack Obama.
Posted by: Angellight | September 9, 2008 4:02 PM
That "Thanks, but no thanks" line is getting pretty stale, especially for it being a bald-faced lie.
Posted by: fry1laurie | September 9, 2008 4:20 PM
It's not a lie, it's a metaphor. I would argue that a statement shouldn't be classified as a lie if it, on its face, cannot be true: in this case, you cannot "say" anything to "Congress," (since Congress is an institution, not a person) so the statement is obviously meant metaphorically. Once its intent is understood as metaphorical, it is less obvious that it is misleading or inaccurate.
Posted by: TWM | September 9, 2008 5:26 PM
You realize, of course, that both Obama and Biden voted against the Coburn amendment, which would have diverted those bridge funds to Katrina reconstruction, (so, FOR the Bridge) , TWICE. In other words, they were for the Bridge before they were against it.
Posted by: CS | September 9, 2008 7:12 PM
...the idea that Palin "killed the bridge" is a distortion at best, (she kept the money anyway)
No distortion; the bridge was moving ahead until Palin cancelled it. Unless you want to argue that forces beyond her control (e.g. the price of steel) are responsible for stopping the bridge.
Keeping the money is no fault of Palin's. Since Congress had de-earmarked it, the money was Alaska's to keep. It was the discretion of Palin's predecessor that allocated part of it toward the bridge.
CS: "You realize, of course, that both Obama and Biden voted against the Coburn amendment..."
Interesting observation. I've been focused so much on Palin's flat-out lie ("I told Congress..." is meant to mislead) that I haven't noticed if Obama & Biden have stated a position on the Bridge itself. Have they?
Posted by: Grumpy | September 9, 2008 7:45 PM
I'd like to extend & revise my statement above: "Keeping the money is no fault of Palin's."
Keeping the money is understandable, as I've explained. However, if she's misleading voters into thinking that she saved the taxpayers' money, that's another lie.
Posted by: Grumpy | September 9, 2008 7:47 PM
Yeesh. I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I guess I should be glad that I can still muster outrage at the egregiousness of the GOP's lies and the battered-spouse mentality of the party faithful.
The Coburn amendment? Obama and Biden were among 86 nay votes. If I were an apologist for the Democrats, I guess I'd spin it as "bold bipartisan spirit."
And if I were 'CS,' I'd say it was another example of McCain's Maverickosity(TM)! The man who's made combating the Alaskan bridge the centerpiece of his campaign was one of three senators who didn't show up that day.
Posted by: Matt Sandwich | September 9, 2008 7:48 PM