She told local officials that money appropriated for the bridge “should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done.” Palin indicated during her 2006 campaign for governor that she supported the bridge, but was wishy-washy about it. “It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Palin said then. Her explanation then was that it would be fruitless to try to persuade Congress to come up with the money. That's not what she told Alaskans when she announced a year ago that she was ordering state transportation officials to ditch the project. “I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere,” she said in her convention speech last week. She is portrayed as a crusader for the thrifty use of tax dollars who turned down an offer from Washington to build an expensive bridge of little value to the state. McCain and Palin together have told a broader story about the bridge that is misleading. It stayed in Alaska for a different road project.

And the money did not go back to Washington. Palin said she told the federal government, “Thanks but no thanks.”īut she does not mention that she endorsed the bridge when she was a candidate for governor. And she and McCain never fail to mention that as governor she opposed a federal earmark for a bridge to a sparsely populated island that became a symbol of pork barrel politics.Īs a senator, “I tried to stop the $233 million 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska,” McCain said.

For instance, Palin's rise in Alaska politics was fostered by the political culture that she turned against and eventually battled for control of state government. Somerby wrote, 'o one had to 'tell Congress' anything about the 'Bridge to Nowhere,' because Congress had removed itself from decision-making about the project.'įrom the September 2 Washington Post article:īut McCain's enthusiasm for Palin sometimes leads to embellishment.

After authorizing funds to be spent specifically on the bridge project in August 2005, in an appropriations bill in November 2005, Congress earmarked the money for Alaska, but specified that it did not have to be spent on the bridge. As The Daily Howler's Bob Somerby noted, a year before Palin was elected governor, Congress abdicated responsibility for determining how the money would be spent. As Media Matters for America previously noted, Palin was not in a position to tell Congress ' 'hanks, but no thanks' on that 'Bridge to Nowhere,' ' as she has repeatedly claimed. In reports over the last 10 days, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, ABC, and CNN have repeatedly reported all or part of Palin's repeated false claim, “I told the Congress 'Thanks, but no thanks' on that 'Bridge to Nowhere.' ” But while those reports noted that Palin had previously supported the bridge, or that Palin did not refuse the funds previously allocated for the bridge or reimburse the federal government, they did not report that Palin's claim that she “told the Congress 'Thanks, but no thanks' on that 'Bridge to Nowhere' ” is false.

Palin road to nowhere