Dave, so what evidence do you have that this scenario applied? None. It’s a fantasy. It might be true, but it runs counter to where the evidence points
Fo example: Palin went out on national TV and announced that she had said “no” to the famous “bridge to nowhere.” She said: “I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress — 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.”
The crowd cheered–those rugged individualist Alaskans!
But that’s not what happened. See this account from Reuters news service
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3125537020080901
She was for it, and said she was insulted that it was called a “bridge to nowhere.” After a national outcry over the staggerng amount of tax dollars going to fund a largely un-needed bridge, she still reiterated her support and her regret at the project’s demise
"The Anchorage Daily News interviewed Palin during her 2006 campaign for governor. At the time, federal funding for the bridge had been stripped by Congress. They asked if she was in favor of continuing state funding for the project. “Yes,” she responded, noting specifically her desire to renew Congressional support:
[b]Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.[/b]
But Congress did not come up with more money fro the project, so she canceled it, saying:
[b]Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island.[/b]
Palin’s desire to have federal funding directed toward pet projects in Alaska, however, did not diminish. As recently as March 2008 — around the time she first met McCain — her special counsel, John Katz, wrote in the Juneau Empire that despite recognizing increased scrutiny of such spending, Palin was not “not abandoning earmarks altogether.” While McCain expressed high-profile disdain for earmarks, the Palin administration held that:
[b][E]armarks are not bad in themselves. In fact, they represent a legitimate exercise of Congress’ constitutional power to amend the budget proposed by the president.[/b]
Now I actually agree with that last statement about earmarks. In my opinion, the campaign against “earmarks” is mostly political theater. But then I’m not out on the campaign trail talking about myself as an enemy of “earmarks.” And I’m not out lying about the history of my position on the “bridge to nowhere.”
It is possible, of course, that the actual meetings in the governor’s office went as you suggest. Everyone in the room wanted that bridge, and Sarah Palin stood alone against them. It’s possible she burst into song, like Mary Poppins, and a full orchestra supported her as she sang her passionate but happy opposition to this waste of the taxpayers money. Indeed, you could choose to believe that. You can make up any fantasy you want about any candidate. Or you can look at the record.
