![]() It's that the Internet-and, through the Internet, the Obama campaign-is forcing major media outlets to repeatedly reject the Bridge to Nowhere deception. That said, the most interesting thing about today's give-and-take is not that Palin and McCain are misleading the public. "So, just recognizing that, seeing the writing on the wall, and dealing with it is where I am." "Both Presidential candidates have both confirmed that they will work towards earmark reforms," she said in July. As Palin said last year when ordering state transportation officials to ditch the bridge, "it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island." In other words, McCain's new running mate nixed the project-which, again, she originally supported-because the politics were untenable and not because she was against earmarks (she subsequently spent the money on other transportation projects). In fact, she supported the remote project-with some reservations-while running for governor in 2006, telling her potential constituents that she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." It was only when people like John McCain succeeding in convincing Congress that the project was a waste of money-and Congress subsequently killed its funding-that Palin decided to quit. While it's technically true that Palin abandoned plans to build a $400 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, it's completely misleading to portray Palin as a "crusader for the thrifty use of tax dollars" and claim, as the Alaska governor did in her convention speech last week, that she "told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere." Ultimately, Palin's decision to pull the plug on the project had nothing to do with principle. They were clearly hoping that my blogging colleagues and I would jump on the "pants on fire" bandwagon.įor the record, it's hard to resist. and 3 p.m., reporters received five-count 'em, five-e-mails from the Obama camp forwarding factchecks by independent organizations. Paul-the spot made one claim in particular that seemed to provoke a lot of agita on the left: that Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere." Within seconds, the liberals bloggers at Talking Points Memo Election Central had pointed out that "the ad continues to perpetuate the falsehood that Palin was responsible for stopping the Bridge to Nowhere." Soon, The Washington Post was calling the claim a " whopper" and The New Republic was characterizing it as " a naked lie." Between 10 a.m. That said, there's at least one good thing about a campaign that moves at the speed of the Web: no one can hide.Ĭase in point: earlier today, the McCain campaign released an ad called " Original Mavericks." Designed to advance the GOP ticket's campaign to rebrand itself as a force for change by casting both candidates as the sort of Republicans who "battl Republicans"-never mind last week's shindig in St. ![]() Palin displays a pro-bridge T shirt during her 2006 gubernatorial runĪs I've written before, the new, Internet-driven 1,440-minute news cycle does a lot of damage to our political process, forcing the media to make ever-bigger mountains out of ever-smaller molehills in order to feed its insatiable online appetite.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |