Obama and Biden voted for the Bridge to nowhere

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Obama and Biden voted for the Bridge to nowhere not just once but twice, and against shifting the funding of the bridge to Katrina relief efforts.

Obama and Biden voted for the Bridge to nowhere

Votes database

For consideration and discussion....




posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
“Now that Alaska is front and center in the news again, it is a good time to catch up on a favorite story, The Bridge to Nowhere, using the Washington Post US Congress Votes Database.

Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (“to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, chosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.

However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.

Sen. McCain did not vote on the Coburn Amendment, though he is on record as opposing the Ketchikan bridge earmark.”



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Excellent find, star and flag for you.

This is a great piece of hyprocricy here in more ways than one. Forget the bridge, they voted against diverting funds to Katrina????
What a field day this one is going to make especially considering Obama's sparse voting record.
I can't wait for the debates, this is just the tip of the iceberg of the stuff they are gonna have to squirm their way through.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by SectionEight]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
64.233.169.104...:szpJxaSZwiMJ:www.retireted.com/real-estate/gravina-bridge/ted-earmarked-funds-for-bridge-that-goes-nowhere/+


“The proposed Gravina Island Bridge, also known as the “Bridge to Nowhere,” became a national symbol of wasteful congressional spending and driver of earmark reform. On Sept. 21, 2007, the State of Alaska officially abandoned the controversial project.

The Gravina Island Bridge initially received $223 million in 2005 via earmarks by Alaska Senators Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski. The bridge would have connected Ketchikan, Alaska with its local airport on nearby Gravina Island (population 50). Congress stripped the earmark after a national uproar about it but appropriated the money anyway for unspecified transportation uses. Former Gov. Frank Murkowski’s administration set aside about $113 million of the appropriation for the Ketchikan bridge. However, Gov. Sarah Palin said the $398 million bridge was $329 million short of full funding, and only $36 million in federal funds were set aside for it. She said it was clear Congress had little interest in spending any more money for it and that the state had higher priorities.”



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Too funny.

Of course, we already knew about Obama/Biden's spending behavior.


Simply ridiculous politics.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
alright, no other ats leftys will take a swing at this one, so I will.



Here's Obamas history on Katrina related subjects. So its laughable when this is being used as a talking point that Obama would try and stop funding to Katrina victims...
Obama on Katrina



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Ummm....actually that's not the major point.

I think the intent was to highlight the ridiculous Palin earmark debate.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Then one topic at a time. Cause the backwards way Katrina was used here was misleading, wouldn't you agree?



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The bill would have taken the Bridge money and shifted it to Katrina efforts, so the issue becomes connected at that point. And for as much as he has pilloried Bush over Katrina this vote is double Hypocrisy.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mabus325
"However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief."


Wow, that's big news. I can't believe BOTH of them voted for the bridge. I can see how some people wanted that, but I mean, the real problem is the Katrina part, they didn't think New Orleans needed that money a bit more than Alaska needed a bridge to nowhere? Is this really the kind of candidate we should be voting for? Sounds like George W. Obama to me.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
The bill would have taken the Bridge money and shifted it to Katrina efforts, so the issue becomes connected at that point. And for as much as he has pilloried Bush over Katrina this vote is double Hypocrisy.


did you ignore everything Obama has done for Katrina? Did you just skip the link i provided so you could post this..... drivel?



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Well it ironically puts into focus their priorities with respect to the bridge project. In other words, in this instance, and in their view, the need for additional Katrina funding was outweighed by these other funding interests.

I think that looks pretty bad when they have spent much of this week painting Palin as someone gorging at the public trough and McCain as a hypocrite-- particularly when Obama/Biden's spending records are even worse, and much of this controversy surrounds this one specific funding issue which Obama/Biden voted for.....twice.

It is no mistake McCain is broadening his lead. The wheels are starting to come off the Obama cart.




[edit on 8-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
The bill would have taken the Bridge money and shifted it to Katrina efforts, so the issue becomes connected at that point. And for as much as he has pilloried Bush over Katrina this vote is double Hypocrisy.


did you ignore everything Obama has done for Katrina? Did you just skip the link i provided so you could post this..... drivel?


I don't think Obama is gonna think it is just drivel when he has to face this question at the podium. He is gonna take it seriously and it will take all of his pollitical squirming abillity to sidestep this one.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SectionEight
 


Again , did you read the 15 things he has done for Katrina, or did you just skip the link?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by SectionEight
 


Again , did you read the 15 things he has done for Katrina, or did you just skip the link?


He just nullified all of that with one boneheaded vote.

I was more interested in a few other things on that link you provided.
He is against homeowners having guns for self defense in their own homes and voted to make it illegal to defend yourself in you own home with a firearm. That one will sit well with mid america.

Or how about the one defending gang members from ever having to face the death penalty for murdering in the gangs name? That is one I would just love to see him try to defend in the Ohio swingstate during a debate.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SectionEight
 


I can quickly tel you that most liberals are against death penalties when DNA is out here freeing guilty men.

the rest, I'll put more research in.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


A broad sweeping against the death penalty law is one thing but one that is tailor made to only protect gang members convicted of murder is another far different law. Your average law abiding citizen does not understand the need to protect a gang member who murders in the name of the gang. I don't see how you could even start to say anything about such a law on the national stage without looking bad.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SectionEight
 


You couldn't. Both of these issues would be terrible for Obama if they came up in a debate.

Regardless of whatever he has done for Katrina in the past, the fact remains that he voted against shifting additional funding from this project to those efforts. Not to mention the fact that his argument against her supporting the project at first is nullified because of his repeated voting for it.

Obama just keeps tripping over his past with every new issue that comes up.

We are watching the slow death of the Messiah here.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Well 81 other senators voted with Obama, so there must of been a reason. Im searching for it now, and when I find it, I will post it.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
The HR 3058 bill passed the senate by 93%.

93 Senators voted for it.
1 against it. Bayh from Indiana
6 not present...McCain among them.

* This bill includes a great deal more than just the "bridge to no where".

www.govtrack.us...

It's strange that something McCain opposed strongly...he didn't show up to cast a vote? AND why did 93 out of 94 Senators present vote for it?

Let's think. Anyone want to actually read what was in the bill?

OR we can just continue to gobble up the spin.



[edit on 9-9-2008 by maybereal11]





top topics
 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join