Thu, Sep 4, 2008 5:47pm ET

Send to a friend Print Version

Join the Discussion

Media ignore "bridge to nowhere" falsehood in Palin speech, despite having previously flagged it

Summary: The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post have previously challenged Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion that she "told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," but they did not report that she repeated the false claim in her September 3 vice-presidential acceptance speech.
Read more

Threaded Comments: on / off

Post a new comment

You must be a registered user to post and flag comments on this site.
Please log in or sign up to post in this forum.

Posted by MoonbatYouBet

So what she really said was something more like "Thanks, but if you're going to be all snotty and rude about our bridge we'll just go and buy something else instead.  So there!"

Posted by mefirst

she did not say anything close to "thanks, but no thanks", except in her speech.  what she said back then was:  we want it, but we don't want to pay for it.  revisionist history.

Posted by wzwriter

Here's an interesting op-ed piece about Sarah Palin.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks4-2008sep04,0,5675222.column

Posted by eweston8542983

Sounds a bit like the Col. Good article.

Posted by Max Dharma

Wallace did not challenge McCain's claim that Palin said of "bridge to nowhere"

Chris Wallace does not need to challenge anything that is true. If she said that (which she did by the way), then it is a true statement and need not be challenged.

What MMFA is really trying to do here is to discredit a final decision with earlier considerations. Nice try, lol.

Palin > Obama, get used to it.

Posted by 1st Republic 14th Star in reply to Max Dharma

Max, here's how it works:  If someone says something that is not true, it could be a lie or it could be a mistake.  If he or she says it more than once, and after its incorrectness has been pointed out, well then he or she is lying.

Simply repeating something that's incorrect does not make it true.

How do I know Palin is lying, and how can you know it, assuming that you want to?  Check these links:

This. This. This.  and This.

Posted by historygeek001 in reply to Max Dharma

Max:

You do an excellent job of mocking the right wingnuts.  You are so consistently wrong and completely ignore all facts that prove your talking points are out-and-out lies.  Nice going.

Posted by shaggles

The Daily Howler has been all over this.  Palin never said squat to Congress about the Bridge to Nowhere because the project was cancelled before she took office.  She's lying.

Posted by snoopy in reply to shaggles

Look up the road to nowhere. It's another boondoggle project for a $300 million dollar road connecting a little fishing shanty of 850 people to juneau. It's underfunded, behind schedule, and traverses dangerous territory subject to severe rock slides and quakes. This Palin project makes the Coke and Whoe's party look conservative.

Posted by oscar the grouch in reply to snoopy

Ah, a West Coast "Big Dig".

Posted by tman418

Maybe Congress should ask for the money back.

Posted by tman418 in reply to tman418

Actually, John McCain, as THE "fiscal conservative" should be the one asking Palin for their money back.

Posted by Wisewood in reply to tman418

If conservative equals Republican, then "fiscal conservative" is a contradiction in terms.

Posted by Max Dharma

MMFA is grasping at straws now .. and they will be for weeks.

The liberal Democrats got their butts kicked last night by Gov Sarah Palin and they will whine about how every aspect of her speech was not challenged.

Weak MMFA, very weak.

Palin > Obama (deal with it)

Posted by mary59 in reply to Max Dharma

Max Pharma: Get well soon.

Posted by skeptical in reply to Max Dharma

Yeah, those stupid Democrats got so destroyed by Palin that they only got $10 Million in donations since her speech.

Take that you lousy Democrats!

Posted by kuwuan2012 in reply to skeptical

Get your facts right: 10 mil in one night

Posted by kuwuan2012 in reply to skeptical

10 million right after her speech because people see thru the BS

Posted by DeminTX in reply to Max Dharma

Really, besides smears, what policy issues did Palin discuss?  Yeah, I didn't think you could come up with anything.  Do you really hate America that much?

Posted by mary59 in reply to DeminTX

Well he does hate librul America. Plus Mrs. Palin loves America haters like ole joe vogler, who didn't want nothing to do with the U.S. of A.

Posted by snoopy in reply to Max Dharma

Gidget and Geezer = another 40 years in the minority (take that, pembridge scholars!)

Posted by Col. Harlan Sanders in reply to Max Dharma

Max, all Mrs. Loopner did last night was get a couple hundred old republicans excited (or at least semi-conscious, as close as they can get to "excited") by lying to them. It's not a very difficult thing to do, any second-rate tv preacher or used car salesman could have done it. The only butt-kicking that happened at Concon last night was to the truth and any sliver of dignity the GOP had left.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Grampy & his over-the-hill spokesmodel are out of the race. There are a good number of frightened and ill-informed Americans out there keeping the Republican parties hopes alive.

If you're watching the convention tonight, they just showed one of those treacly little slide shows about Cindy-Lou's family that was very enlightening. It recounted the day that Grampy and his bride-to-be met at a party. The 41 year-old Johnny introduced himself to the 24 year-old Cindy. He told her he was 37, she told him she was 27. According to the story it was love at first sight.

That's a Republican "cute meet". They both lied right to each others faces within moments of meeting, and it worked out perfectly.

The bad news; Cindy's getting a bit long in the tooth.

The good news: Our hero just met yet another younger woman who can lie with a big smile on her face.

And she's suckering you just like John McCain and Cindy McCain suckered each other.

Posted by mary59 in reply to Col. Harlan Sanders

I'm listening to McCain give his speech.  (What's up with the green screen and all that grinning) 

He's sure talking a good game.  He's even using the word "progressive."  Sorry his rhetoric doesn't match his deeds.  He's so jingoistic as is the crowd, it's embarrassing.

Posted by Col. Harlan Sanders in reply to mary59

Mary, I was halfway watching the speech, but I think the green was in the closeups when there was a big picture of the White House behind him (it was the lawn).I was cracking up.After the other unfortunate Green Screen incident, they didn't see this one coming.

And these people want to keep trying to run the country? Har! Time's up, Goopers.

Posted by mary59 in reply to Col. Harlan Sanders

That was the white house lawn? Geez, everything is a fabrication with these people.  Why not  photoshop some fake easter eggs & happy children to go with?

Posted by Col. Harlan Sanders in reply to mary59

Correction; it was a middle school (as corrected in Friday thread) I had only seen a brief glimpse and the close-up.

Posted by CountOlaf in reply to mary59

It's that kind of grin where he realizes that he'd be amazed if anyone actually believes what he's saying.

If you notice, he gives us that strange grin an awful lot.

Posted by shaggles in reply to mary59

I missed McCain's speech but I keep hearing this blip of him saying "I don't work for the party, I don't work for myself, I work for you."  Assuming "you" means the American people then why are his policies so at odds with the wishes of most Americans?  The vast majority of us, for example, want to end the war but not McCain.

Posted by wzwriter in reply to Max Dharma

Palin > Obama (deal with it)

Every Liberal In The World > Max Dharma (deal with THAT).

Posted by princeofwheels

Speaking of the Princess Sarah, what has her record been for the families with disabled children prior to her own? Has she been an advocate or did she just lean that way since the little ones' birth? Just curious...Hopefully, the speech writer did use this issue for political reasons.

Posted by shaggles in reply to princeofwheels

She actually cut funding for schools for special needs children by about 60%.
I was watching c-span throroghly as the "Bridge to Nowhere" was being porked into the bill.  All of Alaska, I heard, would benefit from this bridge, being it was in a "strategic" location.  Why doesn't someone ask her about the Homeland Security money she took for her town, and then her state, citing "strategic" location?   Alaska doesn't seem all that strategically sensitive to me, seeing that the Discovery channel has a whole program about Bering Sea crab fishermen, and they come and go as they please.  All the way up to the ice packs and really close to Russia.

Posted by joseph_b26

One Word:NARRATIVE

The talking heads got cought talking about it when the mics were cut off the yesterday.  The use of narratives has served the Republicans well. Yet, it does not make the Republican invincible. 

 If you believe the Republican narrative, it follows Sarah Palin speaks just as effective as Barack Obama. In fact, as a Republicans would see it, Palin is better then Obama. In narrative, she is more experienced, she is more of a parent, and she is, of course,  more of an American. Their narrative has a subtle message: Palin is whte and Obama is black. 

The narrative does not include, she may of had an affair with her husban's former business partner.  The narrative has a careful line that can be blown apart. 

Joseph

Posted by troupadour175

I wish that Media Matters would investigate Gov. Palen's role in the defeat of Alaska's recent intiative that would have protected the salmon runs in streams and rivers.  Rather than a "reformer" I believe there is every indication that Gov. Palen is in the hip pocket of the big mining corporations which want to continue business as usual in Alaska to the detriment of the fishing/salmon industry and the native population for whom fishing is a way of life.  GM