In trying to simplify the matter, everyone is distorting the events that led to the defunding of the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere” in Ketchikan, Alaska.
Granted, Gov. Sarah Palin’s “thanks but no thanks” construction is self-serving shorthand (ignoring the facts that no one was offering the money for that particular project by the time she took her firm stand it and that she took the $223 million earmark and used it for other projects), but it’s no more accurate to frame it the way The Associated Press did yesterday, accusing John McCain of having “repeated the false claim that Palin opposed the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, for which she campaigned in her race for governor and accepted federal money to build.”
The real story, in a nutshell, is this: Palin touted the project while campaigning in Ketchikan, sympathizing with voters whose home was being called “Nowhere.”
Late in the same campaign, she indicated that there might be cheaper alternatives than a bridge.
And, as the project’s price tag got fatter, she indicated to local officials in Ketchikan that the bridge was unlikely to get funding, before putting out a news release against it.
Sounds like the normal flow of politics: You run, you learn. You govern, you learn a whole lot more. The more Palin learned about the project the harder she leaned against it. Nothing wrong with that, it seems to me.
Here’s a relevant portion of an Anchorage Daily News piece on the matter:
But it is the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere in Ketchikan that seems destined to make or break Palin’s national reputation as a cost-cutting conservative.
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.
In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town’s prosperity.
She said she could feel the town’s pain at being derided as a “nowhere” by prominent politicians, noting that her home town, Wasilla, had recently been insulted by the state Senate president, Ben Stevens.
“OK, you’ve got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere,” Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. “I think we’re going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project.”
One year later, Ketchikan’s Republican leaders said they were blindsided by Palin’s decision to pull the plug.
Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said Saturday that as projected costs for the Ketchikan bridge rose to nearly $400 million, administration officials were telling Ketchikan that the project looked less likely. Local leaders shouldn’t have been surprised when Palin announced she was turning to less-costly alternatives, Leighow said. Indeed, Leighow produced a report quoting Palin, late in the governor’s race, indicating she would also consider alternatives to a bridge.
