Gov. Palin's landmine # 2: The bridge to nowhere

This is yet another example of the folly politicians engage
when they’re not upfront with the public. Sooner or later the
truth will out, and when it’s later, it’s always worse
because untruth takes on a life of its own, complete with
unfounded rumors and distortions that could have been
avoided had the truth been told at the outset.

Although it’s not a major setback, and in the end Governor
Palin did the right thing, in this case she initially shaded
the truth and is now paying the consequences.

Several years ago, congressional funding in the amount of
some $400 million for two proposed new bridges in Alaska
was earmarked by one of Alaska’s two Republican U.S.
senators, Ted Stevens, arguably one of the most powerful
men in the nation’s capital in recent years.

The costlier of the two bridges was intended to link the
city of Ketchikan, Alaska’s fourth largest city, with
the offshore island on which its municipal airport is
located. The only way air passengers can get to or from
the airport is by ferryboat, about a 15-minute ride.

It would be the equivalent of going by boat from Erie’s Public
Dock to Presque Isle by ferry. (The second bridge would have
served the more populous Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city,
and isn’t especially relevant here).

The Ketchikan bridge, estimated to cost about $350 million,
would have served another purpose besides eliminating the
inconvenient and, in bad weather, hazardous ferry boat
ride to and from the airport. The city, now crowded on
a narrow shoreline between the water and the mountains
behind it has for decades needed more room for commercial
and residential expansion.

Although only a few dozen residents now live on the island,
the bridge would have opened up a whole new area to residential
and commercial development, allowing the city to experience
substantial growth.

Thus, there was a legitimate rationale for
what mockingly came to be known as “the bridge to nowhere”
which was lost in the growing unrest with Congress’s infamous
pork barrel politics. Instead it became a symbol for the
arrogance of lawmakers like Stevens who felt they could do
anything they like with impunity.

In the early stages of the efforts to obtain the funding
for the bridges, Palin was not governor. But as mayor of
a small Alaska city and later as candidate for governor,
she was an advocate for Alaska’s interests and actively
supported Stevens and the rest of Alaska’s congressional
delegation’s efforts on behalf of the Ketchikan bridge
funding. She is quoted in several Alaska newspaper accounts
as supporting the project.

It was only after she became governor that the pork barrel
politics which gave rise to widespread disaffection with
congressional earmarks that Palin opposed the bridge funding
and publicly spoke against it. Nevertheless, the funding was
approved and deposited into Alaska’s state treasury after
Palin became governor.

But once there, Governor Palin announced a year or so ago that she
would not authorize the money to be used to build the “bridge
to nowhere.” Instead, she said, it would be used to fund
other needed state infrastructure projects. That was the right
thing to do and it met with almost unanimous approval.

Fast forward to August 29, 2008 in Dayton, Ohio, the day
Senator McCain announced his decision to name her as his
vice presidential running mate. In the excitement and
chaos of the moment, Palin asserted at one point in her
acceptance speech that she had rejected the bridge to
nowhere and told Congress thanks but no thanks, drawing
a roar of approbation from the Republican partisans in Dayton.
She was technically correct, but misleading. She should have
said she accepted the funding, but used it for other state projects.

Some of the national news media did what they’re
supposed to do, check into the veracity of public
utterances issued by politicians and refute them
when they’re wrong.

That’s what happened to Palin. If she had told the
complete truth the day she was anointed,her dissembling
would not have come back to haunt her as it has, even
though her statement was partly truthful.

As a result, her credibility, one of her most prized
attributes,has been somewhat compromised, perhaps
irreverisbly.
Inevitably, the McCain campaign's political foes will
use this lapse against her at every opportunity during
the balance of the campaign.