Sarah Palin, maverick candidate for Vice President, on Friday:
And I’ve championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, 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.
That’s rugged mooseburger-eating individualism, right? Well, it would be, if she hadn’t told the people of Ketchikan that she supported the project (Ketchikan Daily News, September 28, 2006):
‘We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,’ Palin said.”
What does the Anchorage Daily News say?
But Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.
The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them “nowhere.” They’re still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin’s subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects — and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines.
Maybe I don’t understand the mindset of a maverick, but if a person’s sole qualification for national public office is her tough-minded, truth-telling independence, shouldn’t she really have those qualities?