Is the "Bridge to Nowhere" a Trap for Dems and Media?

kennetha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-10-08 03:09 PM
Original message

Is the "Bridge to Nowhere" a Trap for Dems and Media?

Edited on Wed Sep-10-08 03:13 PM by kennetha

Palin keeps repeating her line that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere. And some in the media and many in the blogosphere keep expressing incredulity that she would continue to express what has been thoroughly debunked as a flat-out lie.

So that raises the question, if the "lie" has been "debunked" what is Palin doing so brazenly repeating it?

The obvious answer is that she doesn't buy into the media and blog created meme that the story has been debunked as a lie. But there's obviously got to be more to it than that. That's because if she keeps on saying what keeps getting called a lie, then when she finally does face the press and finally does meet up with Biden in the VP debate, she will OBVIOUSLY be called on it and asked about it. Since that is obvious, it seems safe to infer that she's entirely prepared to be called on it and asked about it. Indeed, she must WANT to be called on it and asked about it. It's like she's begging the dems and the media to keep calling her a liar.

Now why would she want that? Why would she keep provoking the media, the bloggers, et al that way?

My guess is that she must BELIEVE, whether rightly or wrongly, that she has the better of the story. .

But how could she believe that unless she's deluded? (typical blogger reaction right now would be to conclude -- yep, she's deluded.)

But the devil is in the detail. Think about it. Sometimes the media and the blogosphere spin this as Palin mendaciously claiming to be and to always have been "against" earmarks in general and the bridge in particular. And then the charge against her is that this is just a complete fabrication. After all, she sought many earmarks as mayor and even hired a lobbyist to get more. And said that she would not stand in the way of the bridge during her campaign for governor. And this is supposed to show that she is a flat out liar. I even heard Steve Roberts, I think it was, ask some McCain spokesperson on CNN something like "how can Governor Palin claim to have always been against the bridge, when she campaigned in support of it?"

But, of course, the Republicans aren't that stupid. They aren't stupid enough to lie THAT baldly. Palin has never said that she never ever sought an earmark or that she always opposed the bridge from the beginning. What she actually said during the campaign was something about not standing in the way of a project that the voters wanted and the congressional delegation had fought hard for. Or something like that.

But if that's what she said, then we haven't yet found the bald-faced lie in her claim to have said thanks but no thanks to the bridge. So if that keeps being the spin, then when she is finally confronted with her supposed "lie" she will knock this thing out of the park. It will give her a chance to explain her side of this tale. And I suspect she will be able to tell the tale in a way that makes her look strong. She will be able to represent herself as having refused to go along, once she got elected, what she came to see as a Congressional pig in a poke. And she will be able to say that she rejected it despite the popularity of the bridge with her own voters and despite the work of her own Congressional delegation to get it done. She will look like a prudent administrator, a wise guardian of her states fiscal well-being. We will look look silly, small, desperate and grasping at straws.

Some have suggested we should go after her for inconsistency -- you know, for being for it before she was against it. But that's silly too. Her response will again be that she changed her mind in the "right" direction, once she got a look at things. She will be able to say that it would have irresponsible to do otherwise.

Well, perhaps we should go after her for "keeping the money" and using it for other priorities once the bridge was finally killed.

But again, who WOULDN"T want their governor to use federally allocated highway funds (I think they were) for genuine state priorities?

How could we possibly paint that as a bad thing? Are states never ever supposed to feed at the federal trough? Is a governor never ever supposed to use targeted federal funds for urgent state priorities? Is that our argument against her? Again, once she gets her chance to spin this in the light most favorable to her, we will have NO COMEBACK. We will look petty, small, silly, grasping at straws and out of touch with how real executives make real decisions.

Maybe the only real issue is that she exaggerated her role in the killing of the bridge. Made herself look like the lone maverick who single-handedly took the bridge down.

Maybe that is true. But that seems hardly an indictment worth of moving a single vote. And again, it gives her a chance to explain her role. And we're in no position, really, to contest that role.

Bottom line, this whole thing about the bridge should be dropped. The fact that Palin and McCain show not an ounce of fear about repeating what we keep calling a lie, is either a testament to their "balls" or a testament to our folly. I'd put my money on the folly, to tell you the truth.