It's been documented on this site that Gov. Palin was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. My criticism of her in this diary is not directly related to her flip flop. My criticism lies with how she and the McCain camp are currently talking about the courageous stand that she made against that bridge. Take a look at what John McCain and Lindsay Graham had to say:
Now let's hear what Sarah has to say for herself (relevant portion 2:22 in, transcript below).
"I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by congress. In fact I told congress thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves."
That sounds pretty good. But let's take a look at what actually happened. From the Anchorage Daily News:
The bridge was intended to provide access to Ketchikan's airport on lightly populated Gravina Island, opening up new territory for expansion at the same time. Alaska's congressional delegation endured withering criticism for earmarking $223 million for Ketchikan and a similar amount for a crossing of Knik Arm at Anchorage.
Congress eventually removed the earmark language but the money still went to Alaska, leaving it up to the administration of then-Gov. Frank Murkowski to decide whether to go ahead with the bridges or spend the money on something else.
So by the time Palin became governor, the was money approved by congress (but not "earmarked") to be used for the bridge or other transportation project. Did Sarah tell the federal government to take their unwanted money and shove it? Not exactly, but she did make the decision not to use the money for the bridge.
Once Palin spiked the bridge project, the money wasn't available to Minnesota or other states, however. Congress, chastened by criticism of the Alaska funding, had removed the earmark but allowed the state to keep the money and direct it to other transportation projects.
At no point did Palin say to the federal government "we don't want your money, we'll pay for our own transportation projects." I'm not suggesting that that is what she should have done. But that is certainly what she's implying she said. I suppose the argument can be made that the bridge was wasteful spending and the projects that the funds will be used for (enhanced ferry access to Gravina Island is one option under consideration) aren't. But Palin is certainly not in the business of giving back federal money, as a matter of fact quite the opposite:
Meanwhile, work is under way on a three-mile road on Gravina Island, originally meant to connect the airport and the new bridge. State officials said last year they were going ahead with the $25 million road because the money would otherwise have to be returned to the federal government.
So in addition the the bridge to nowhere, the original plan called for a $25 million dollar road. Unlike the funds for the bridge, this money was not transferable to other projects. So when Palin said "thanks, but no thanks" to the bridge, at the same time she was saying "thank you very much" for the money for the road that connects the airport to the bridge that they are no longer going to build. Making no mention of the state using its own money to build its own road.
With Palin's thin record we are going to hear about her stand against the bridge to nowhere from now until the election. While she may have actual reform credentials in the earmark arena, her stance against the bridge isn't terribly impressive.