Palin Doesn't Back Down From 'Bridge to Nowhere' Claim

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) again said while campaigning Wednesday that she opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" project, even though several news organizations have reported that her opposition was belated, at best.

In stump speeches as the GOP vice presidential nominee, Palin has been touting her stance against the project as evidence of her commitment to fight federal government waste.

"I championed earmark reform, also, to help Congress stop wasting money on those things that do not serve the public interest," she said in Fairfax, Va., Wednesday. "I told Congress thanks, but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere. In Alaska, if we wanted that bridge, we'd build it ourselves."

But as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the St. Petersburg Times's PolitiFact have noted, Palin opposed the bridge project in 2007 only after it became untenable.

"By the time Palin pulled the plug on the Gravina bridge project in September 2007, much of the federal funding for the bridge had already been diverted to other transportation projects," writes PolitiFact in its fact check of her statement. The non-partisan website judged her remark to be "Half True."

Palin actually supported the project, which cost nearly $400 million and sought to connect a small city with an island, when she was a candidate for governor. After Congress pulled funding for the bridge, Palin stopped the effort to build it.

Her policy shift earned her a "Full Flop" from PolitiFact.

Here are Palin's remarks on earmarks from her Wednesday event campaign event.
I championed earmark reform, also, to help Congress stop wasting money on those things that do not serve the public interest. I told Congress thanks, but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere. In Alaska, if we wanted that bridge, we'd build it ourselves.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, just the other day, our opponent brought up earmarks. And frankly, I was surprised that he did considering his record on earmarks. I didn't think he'd want to go there.

In just three years, our opponent has requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarks. That's about a million dollars every working day.

We reformed the abuses of earmarks in our state, and it was while our opponent was requesting a billion dollars in earmarks as a senatorial privilege. What I was doing was vetoing half a billion as an executive responsibility.

More in Court Battles

Court rules children's statements to teachers are admissible

Read more »