Barack Obama has said that Palin "was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it". That's not quite the whole story.
Last night, I saw Rachel Maddow take on Palin on her lies, but she stated that Palin was for the bridge before it became embarrassing to be for it. That's not quite it either.
The sequence of events, as best as I understand it, is that Palin was for the bridge (and any other pork Young and Stevens could get their hands on). Meanwhile, in Congress, it became a symbol of excess and the funding was deauthorized for the bridge. Palin was still for it, but the money from Washington wasn't available for the bridge any longer, and she didn't want to spend Alaska money to make up the difference. So the money was reallocated to the Road to Nowhere, which didn't pack the same powerful symbolic punch...
So, when Palin says repeatedly on the stump that she told Washington "thanks, but no thanks" to the bridge, it's a total, unequivocal lie. She never told Washington at any point "no thanks". The only thing she was against, ever, was spending Alaska money to build the bridge! This fact is getting totally glossed over in the various fact checks and call-outs of Palin. Her "opposition", which came after the bridge became a symbol, only reinforces her utter addiction to Washington pork.
It's not really so complicated:
*Palin never, at any point, told Washington "no thanks". PERIOD.
*Palin only "opposed the bridge" in terms of spending Alaska monies to build it.
*Palin had no agency in "stopping" the Washington money for the bridge. She was fiercely for it until it became unavailable, deauthorized in Congress.
We all need to get the facts straight, lest this devolve into a hopelessly muddied "yes, but" story.