On a couple of the Sunday morning shows, John McCain and his chief surrogates touted Palin's opposition to the now-infamous "bridge to nowhere," a $398 million bridge to connect the town of Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents. To McCain and his supporters, Palin's firm stand against the congressional earmark is compelling evidence of her courage and conviction.
But what McCain and his cohorts are claiming is simply untrue. Palin supported the funding for the project, and kept the federal funds after the bridge deal fell through. Indeed, she ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge platform," and ended up directing federal funds to other wasteful pork projects, for fear of having to return unused tax dollars funds to the federal government.
This isn't an example the McCain campaign should be bragging about; it's an example the campaign should find embarrassing.
It does, however, lead to another question. McCain and other Republicans are boasting that Palin opposed the bridge. They're wrong. So, is the McCain campaign a) completely ignorant about Palin's actual record on this key issue; or b) simply trying to con the public?
Under the circumstances, it may be either. Making matters worse, I suppose it could be both.
If the single best example of Palin's leadership in office is bogus, what, pray tell, is the McCain campaign's Plan B?