Reply to thread

i haven't seen that. based on my understanding, it went like this:



palin ran on a platform of supporting the bridge (this is known to be true)


by the time palin got into office, congress had released the money, so that it did not have to be spent solely on the bridge (therefore, there wasn't really anything for her to say 'no' to)


she took the money for her state anyway, which i have no problem with, and spent it on other things, which i have no problem with.


the issue is her hypocrisy. she says she was against it, but that wasn't true until it was no longer important, because the bridge no longer had any earmarks allocated to it.


Back
Top