PDA

View Full Version : Elections OOOps: NObama and Biden voted for the Bridge to nowhere...


memyselfI
09-08-2008, 08:22 PM
so do they get points for voting for it and staying for it even if it was wrong? Cuz they are sure making it an issue that Palin flip/flopped on the issue. :spock::doh!:ROFL

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/

BigCatDaddy
09-08-2008, 08:25 PM
Ouch! That's gotta hurt.

Messier
09-08-2008, 08:32 PM
so do they get points for voting for it and staying for it even if it was wrong? Cuz they are sure making it an issue that Palin flip/flopped on the issue. :spock::doh!:ROFL

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/

How is this an "oops" for them?

dirk digler
09-08-2008, 08:36 PM
How is this an "oops" for them?

Exactly.

This goes back to when the right and Denise were saying throwing shit back on Obama for not living up to his different kind of politician mantra.

This is the same thing. McCain\Palin are claiming they are reformers when they clearly are not. It is not even disputable when she hires a federal lobbyist to get over $27 million dollars for a 6,000 sized town.

memyselfI
09-08-2008, 08:36 PM
How is this an "oops" for them?

They are criticizing her for changing her mind on an issue that was proven to be a bad decision. Either they should stand by their vote inspite of the fact that the decision was a bad one or admit it was wrong and thereby become against it after they were for it...

not a particularly good position to be in. :shake:

StcChief
09-08-2008, 08:37 PM
Dem spend money for fun

kcfanintitanhell
09-08-2008, 08:37 PM
How is this an "oops" for them?

Don't you know? She has to preface all her threads with an "oops" or "ROFL", as if this gives some sort of credence to it.

ROYC75
09-08-2008, 08:41 PM
OUCH, that's going to leave a mark ...........

HolmeZz
09-08-2008, 08:43 PM
Are you people idiots? Obama and Biden aren't the ones pretending they were against it. That's why Palin's getting criticized for it. She's using her 'opposition' to something she supported as proof that she's some kind of government reformer.

dirk digler
09-08-2008, 08:45 PM
Are you people idiots? Obama and Biden aren't the ones pretending they were against it. That's why Palin's getting criticized for it. She's using her 'opposition' to something she supported as proof that she's some kind of government reformer.

They are pretty much idiots. It's like talking to a rock except a rock is smarter.

Messier
09-08-2008, 08:45 PM
They are criticizing her for changing her mind on an issue that was proven to be a bad decision. Either they should stand by their vote inspite of the fact that the decision was a bad one or admit it was wrong and thereby become against it after they were for it...

not a particularly good position to be in. :shake:

That's not why they are criticizing her.

RJ
09-08-2008, 08:51 PM
I'm sure most of the people on this board understand the way these earmarks get through. It's all a bunch of crap and both parties are equally at fault for going along with what amounts to a big scam on the taxpayers. But really, who was in a better position to know what that money was for? Senators from Illinois and Delaware or the Governor of Alaska?

I would give McCain huge props if he got elected and actually followed through with doing away with earmarks, though I doubt if anyone ever will.

RJ
09-08-2008, 08:52 PM
They are criticizing her for changing her mind on an issue that was proven to be a bad decision. Either they should stand by their vote inspite of the fact that the decision was a bad one or admit it was wrong and thereby become against it after they were for it...

not a particularly good position to be in. :shake:



Odd, I've never read any criticism of her for changing her mind.

Direckshun
09-08-2008, 09:03 PM
You can't dole out blame the same in this situation. A Senator who is voting on a bill with earmarks has more things to consider and should share less of the blame than the governor that lobbied for the earmark to be added for her state.

I don't get it. You can't even say this is complicated. This is very simple to understand.

You're just choosing not to.

memyselfI
09-08-2008, 09:10 PM
That's not why they are criticizing her.

Actually they are playing with fire here because it strains THEIR credibility to criticize her for something they supported as well regardless of how she's spinning her support/nonsupport in retrospect.

They will look rather foolish bringing this up when it becomes known that they supported it as well. They will have to explain the nuance and by then most people would have tuned out considering the issue a draw.

memyselfI
09-08-2008, 09:13 PM
You can't dole out blame the same in this situation. A Senator who is voting on a bill with earmarks has more things to consider and should share less of the blame than the governor that lobbied for the earmark to be added for her state.

I don't get it. You can't even say this is complicated. This is very simple to understand.

You're just choosing not to.

Correction, she was apparently FOR the bridge while running for GOV but became against it when she was actually GOV.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/09/08/5-flip-flops-of-the-presidential-candidates-and-their-running-mates.html

Well, it corrects your misinformation about her 'lobbying' for something as GOV that she apparently did not do. And secondly, if she's for something as a candidate and against something in office it would be the same type of thing NObama did about the Iraq war.

He was against it when running for State Senate but once he got to the US Senate he supported every funding bill until he began running for POTUS.

Different issue but same type of political posturing.

Direckshun
09-08-2008, 09:14 PM
Correction, she was apparently FOR the bridge while running for GOV but became against it when she was actually GOV.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/09/08/5-flip-flops-of-the-presidential-candidates-and-their-running-mates.html
And this helps her cause how.

memyselfI
09-08-2008, 09:24 PM
And this helps her cause how.

Well, it corrects your misinformation about her 'lobbying' for something as GOV that she apparently did not do. And secondly, if she's for something as a candidate and against something in office it would be the same type of thing NObama did about the Iraq war.

He was against it when running for State Senate but once he got to the US Senate he supported every Iraq War funding bill until he began running for POTUS.

Different issue but same type of political posturing.

Direckshun
09-08-2008, 09:31 PM
Well, it corrects your misinformation about her 'lobbying' for something as GOV that she apparently did not do. And secondly, if she's for something as a candidate and against something in office it would be the same type of thing NObama did about the Iraq war.

He was against it when running for State Senate but once he got to the US Senate he supported every Iraq War funding bill until he began running for POTUS.

Different issue but same type of political posturing.

I'm scratching my head here... I'm not picking up what you're laying down.

Palin did support lobbying for the bridge. As governor or a candidate for governor, it doesn't matter. When the political tides turned, so did she.

That's saying you support A, then turn around and oppose A. That's a contradiction.

That's not what Obama has done. You're drawing this "supporting the troops = supporting the war" equation that conservative ideologues have drawn since 2002.

Once again, it's possible to support the troops without supporting the war.

Again, this is not complicated. You're just choosing not to understand.

Messier
09-08-2008, 09:31 PM
Well, it corrects your misinformation about her 'lobbying' for something as GOV that she apparently did not do. And secondly, if she's for something as a candidate and against something in office it would be the same type of thing NObama did about the Iraq war.

He was against it when running for State Senate but once he got to the US Senate he supported every Iraq War funding bill until he began running for POTUS.

Different issue but same type of political posturing.

Very different issues. Why do you think he supported those funding bills? All the while not supporting the war.

Direckshun
09-08-2008, 09:34 PM
Very different issues. Why do you think he supported those funding bills? All the while not supporting the war.

Don't allow her to change the subject onto Obama's votes on the war.

This is shit the morons around here do all the time. They make outlandish charges and then they back off having to defend those charges by shifting the conversation. The last thing hey need is help.

memyselfI
09-08-2008, 09:36 PM
I'm scratching my head here... I'm not picking up what you're laying down.

Palin did support lobbying for the bridge. As governor or a candidate for governor, it doesn't matter. When the political tides turned, so did she.

That's saying you support A, then turn around and oppose A. That's a contradiction.

That's not what Obama has done. You're drawing this "supporting the troops = supporting the war" equation that conservative ideologues have drawn since 2002.

Once again, it's possible to support the troops without supporting the war.

Again, this is not complicated. You're just choosing not to understand.

No, it is not possible to be against a war but for funding it.

Give me a break. He became FOR the war once he decided to help pay to continue it. After all, withholding funding would end it faster than anything else on the planet could. Like Palin, NObama changed his tune once in office and once it became politically expedient to do so.

But unlike NObama, Palin's bridge flip flop funded, er supported in your words, no one's death.

memyselfI
09-08-2008, 09:40 PM
Don't allow her to change the subject onto Obama's votes on the war.

This is shit the morons around here do all the time. They make outlandish charges and then they back off having to defend those charges by shifting the conversation. The last thing hey need is help.

The subject is not about NObama's war vote. The subject is NObama is capable and has done exactly what he is pointing fingers at Palin over.

Messier
09-08-2008, 09:42 PM
No, it is not possible to be against a war but for funding it.

Give me a break. He became FOR the war once he decided to help pay to continue it. After all, withholding funding would end it faster than anything else on the planet could. Like Palin, NObama changed his tune once in office and once it became politically expedient to do so.

But unlike NObama, Palin's bridge flip flop funded, er supported in your words, no one's death.

Direckshun is right, this is not the argument to be having, but no cutting funding would not have ended the war.

Messier
09-08-2008, 09:45 PM
The subject is not about NObama's war vote. The subject is NObama is capable and has done exactly what he is pointing fingers at Palin over.

No you've twisted the argument to say Obama supporting troop funding= supporting the war. Which I disagree with wholeheartedly.

Direckshun
09-08-2008, 09:45 PM
No, it is not possible to be against a war but for funding it.

Give me a break. He became FOR the war once he decided to help pay to continue it. After all, withholding funding would end it faster than anything else on the planet could. Like Palin, NObama changed his tune once in office and once it became politically expedient to do so.

But unlike NObama, Palin's bridge flip flop funded, er supported in your words, no one's death.

You're changing the subject from the bridge to the war. We're not talking about the war.

We're talking about how much blame should a Senator assume for the however-many earmarks are attached to a bill that he supports?

Some. But it's a part of a complicated decision he has to make. What are the necessary hits you're willing to take for a bill you support? When do you say when? At what point does a supportable bill become untenable anymore? It's hard to say, and it can get extremely complicated.

Compare that to Palin, who's decision was simple: "I like the bridge, and I want it built." She campaigned for it. And she succeeded in having the earmark added.

These two sins are not equal. One person pursued it. Another person had to accept it to pass something else.

Logical
09-08-2008, 09:45 PM
They are criticizing her for changing her mind on an issue that was proven to be a bad decision. Either they should stand by their vote inspite of the fact that the decision was a bad one or admit it was wrong and thereby become against it after they were for it...

not a particularly good position to be in. :shake:Personally I think she is being criticized for lying about it in a way that made it sound like she was always against it.

Direckshun
09-08-2008, 09:51 PM
Personally I think she is being criticized for lying about it in a way that made it sound like she was always against it.

Right, and memyselfI has zero evidence that Palin changed her mind based on evolving evidence. Palin has not said anything to that effect, and she has not even admitted to supporting the bridge at one point.

MemyselfI is ASSUMING that's what happened, without any explanation from Palin to support that conclusion.

jAZ
09-09-2008, 12:20 AM
They are criticizing her for changing her mind on an issue that was proven to be a bad decision. Either they should stand by their vote inspite of the fact that the decision was a bad one or admit it was wrong and thereby become against it after they were for it...

not a particularly good position to be in. :shake:

That's the most convoluted interepretation of this commerical I've ever seen.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ieuA7nAOBXQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ieuA7nAOBXQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 02:08 AM
The fact they voted for it, although humorous, means about as much as the fact that Palin ultimately said no to the money to build the stupid thing.

I really don't understand why the Obama campaign thinks they have something here. Or did some info come out that she took the money that I'm not aware of? Who cares if she considered it or lobbied for it or had someone working for her who made a call to see if she could squeeze the money out of the government if she ultimately didn't take the money? It's a stupid issue to try to stick a flip-flop charge against her...but I guess it's Obama's campaign to run (into the ground) so more power to him.

penguinz
09-09-2008, 05:39 AM
Asked why she initially supported the bridge, Palin's communications director Bill McAllistersaid, "It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn't necessarily dead … there's still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design... She changed her mind, he said, when "she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving ...


On August 29, 2008, when introduced as Republican Presidential nominee John McCain's running mate, Palin told the crowd: "I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere" — a line that garnered big applause but upset political leaders in Ketchikan. Palin's campaign coordinator in the city, Republican Mike Elerding, remarked, "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money." Democratic Mayor Bob Weinstein also criticized Palin for using the very term 'bridge to nowhere' that she had said was insulting when she was in favor of the bridge.

tiptap
09-09-2008, 06:08 AM
I'm sure most of the people on this board understand the way these earmarks get through. It's all a bunch of crap and both parties are equally at fault for going along with what amounts to a big scam on the taxpayers. But really, who was in a better position to know what that money was for? Senators from Illinois and Delaware or the Governor of Alaska?

I would give McCain huge props if he got elected and actually followed through with doing away with earmarks, though I doubt if anyone ever will.

The only way for a President to veto an earmark is to have a line item veto. And we know that the SC ruled that was unconstitutional. Therefore the only thing is to make each of the earmarks well known. This is where I like it. I LIKE EARMARKS. As long as they are well known and not hidden in the legislation. I don't mind having Congressmen's vote obtain for specific legislation by those seeking a majority as long as it is well understood at least in the deliberative body. I don't like it to be secret in the conference though

J Diddy
09-09-2008, 07:31 AM
according to this page they voted no on it

:shrug:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/1/votes/262/

penchief
09-09-2008, 07:32 AM
Actually they are playing with fire here because it strains THEIR credibility to criticize her for something they supported as well regardless of how she's spinning her support/nonsupport in retrospect.

They will look rather foolish bringing this up when it becomes known that they supported it as well. They will have to explain the nuance and by then most people would have tuned out considering the issue a draw.

Wait a minute. I'm confused by what you're suggesting here.

Are you saying that because a senator votes for a bill that has earmarks they support everything in that bill? Is it true that a bill that is likely to pass is often encumbered with earmarks so that both parties can get something they want?

Maybe you can tell us what bill it was that they supported. Certainly, it wasn't the "bridge to nowhere" bill. What was the primary legislation that was being passed? I'm asking because I don't know and I assume you must.

That said, I find it far different that a governor who advocated for wasteful spending turns around and says she didn't. In fact, it is a far different thing when that very same governor not only says she opposed earmarks when she didn't, but also campaigns on that fact and calls herself a reformer based on that claim.

Playing the game in the senate, as right or wrong as it may be, is not the same as touting yourself as something you are not when the evidence blatantly contradicts your own self-aggrandizement.

Why are you supporting people that lie right to your face? Why are you willing to allow your bitterness to cause you to wage an unreasonable and biased campaign against the one candidate who is trying to rise above the political tactics that have rendered honesty and integrity a liability in politics?

bigfoot
09-09-2008, 07:21 PM
according to this page they voted no on it

:shrug:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/1/votes/262/


They did vote against the Coburn admendment.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a staunch opponent of pork barrel spending, tried to block $453 million for two Alaska bridges that had been tucked into the recent highway bill. Coburn wanted to redirect the money to the Interstate 10 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain, a major thoroughfare that was severely damaged during Hurricane Katrina.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001931.html

Biden and Obama voted against this.