Fact Check

So JimAK thinks his interpretations and analysis are better, somehow, than Andrew's. I don't think so. I do agree with you JimAK that Andrew's opinions are just that, opinions, and we all have our opinions. For me, it is hard to think a project "just" began that actually began over thirty years ago and then re-began or re-re-began under Murkowski. At best, it could possibly now be claimed the project "re-re-began" or "re-re-re-began" with the current effort. Of course, if the structure is flawed such that it can not or will not proceed and succeed, then it seems disingenuous to claim it has "re-re-began". For the Gasline, the finish date seems much more important than the start date. Did she say when she expects the last section would be laid and its valves opened? Or even the first section? I think not.

The difference is that: A. Unlike Andrew, it is clear my statements are opinions, based on my interpretation of events. I don't present them as FACT. B. I also don't jump on Palin for saying something that may give an impression that is an exageration. Her job isn't to present every side of every issue, she isn't required to point out the good and bad in everything she did. She says she killed the Bridge to Nowhere. She did. She says she started the gas line. She did. Both statements are FACTUALLY correct and it is up to others to determine how to weigh those accomplishments - and it isn't fair to accuse her of lying or obscuring the truth.

Help me out here. In your deliniated point A...you stress the importance of the distinction (in your opinion) that Andrew is presenting opinions as facts, and your statements, conversly, are clearly opinions, and that you dont present them as facts. OK fair enough I guess. But then you go on in point (B.)..to present two statments as FACTUALLY correct, (emphasis yours) that are, how can I put this, simply not. I think everyone can agree, at this point, that politicians are not required to point out their policy failures. But here's the thing on the infamous Bridge earmark, a little lesson in sausage making. First, just a point of trivia, the bridge to nowhere wasn't even really an earmark, it was an authorized program, that later got appropriated, then later got de-authorized. Ok, hold your nose warning, but here we go. Sausage making 101. The bridge(s) funding was originally created in an authorization bill, which contain all the programs that the government intends to fund, and which Congress also directs and specifies, a specific amount of money for. Those programs lmust be funded by a matching appropriation, which happens in a seperate piece of legislation. The bridge to nowehre 'program' was authored and thereby created, by Alaska's own Don Young in a 2005 re-authorization of the surface transportation law. Soon after, the project was discovered by a watchdog group, and Sen Coburn attempted to have the funding stripped in the attached appropriation bill. This was a temporarily unsuccessful move, as the Senate sided with Don Young, and passed the appropriation legislation anyway. However, when the authorization bill went to conference committee to draft the final language (reconciling the House and Senate versions) to be voted on and sent to the president...by this time, the public outcry had increased in volume to the bridge projects. And so, a compromise that was struck in conference.(again, thanks Don Young, and Ted Stevens) The compromise, was to de-authorize the projects in the (i.e. Congress now says, by federal law, that money, CAN NOT/MAY NOT be used for that project), but - allowed the state of Alaska to keep the $223 Million, to be used at their discretion on any transportation project. Which by the way, put the new Governor in quite the lucky seat, I would think. I could probably name 49 other Governors, especially a newly elected first term Governor, who would have loved to recieve $223 Million dollars from the federal treasury...no strings attached, to be used on any transportation project they wished. But I digress. So...flashback to Sarah Palin's campaign for Governor. I'm sure you know there is no shortage of videos, interviews and public statements where she was quite clear in her support for the project, and frankly, her pledge to work with Alaska's senior leadership in Washington (that would be Don Young and Ted Stevens, who's endorsement she sought and recieved, by the way)...to get even MORE of these federally directed funds and/or earmarks. Flash forward to her first year as Governor...by now the national media had made a mockery of the infamous project...and the federal dollars, generous as they were, were not even enough to build the bridges in question...Alaska would have had to kick in another 100 million or so to even get them built. So THEN, and only then, did she kill the project...at the state level. But a critical point of information, is the FACT...that at the time that she killed the projects at the state level, it would have been against a federal law...for her to use that money, on the bridge projects. I suppose in fairness and fact, she did have a choice, technically. She could have taken the free $223 (by free I mean to say, there was no longer any required matching state dollars, as was required by the original authorization/appropriation)and spend it on, whatever, and then, she could have chosen to cough up $300 million ++, of STATE MONEY to complete the bridges. Like many have noted, she's a skilled politician. She chose to scrap those 2 bridge projects, take credit for the new free money, and call herself a refromer. As for your other 'fact' that you cite (while you are clearly stating opinions, according to you)...is that Sarah Palin started the Gas Line. I know my way around Congressional legislation, but I'm not as up to speed on all things Alaska. So I suppose I could be crazy, but it seems to me I've been hearing about that project being underway, for about 20 years or so. Which would mean Gov Palin was working on this deal for a long time, since the mid eighties, which must mean she was on the case of starting a new pipline, in between beauty pagents. Anyway, I'm sure there someone on this forum who can clear that one up for me.

The gasline has fond memories for me. My wife had a job drafting up geotechnical drill results on the line. Her health insurance from that job paid for my first son's birth. That son got his MS from UAF a few years ago and has been out working around the state. Yup, that's about 26 years. We haven't even started the geotechnical drilling for Sarah's line.

Anonymous asks a good question: How did these letters from Wev Shea become public knowledge? Were they released as part of the response to FOIA requests? One might have thought that if there was ever a good argument for privilege, it would relate to letters from an attorney to Palin . . . of course, the story is that he was acting as a volunteer and apparently not as counsel engaged to represent her.