Ballin’ Palin Can’t Make a Wrong Move

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

If a bridge goes to nowhere does it really exist?

Despite barely watching any coverage of the RNC I saw this bridge to nowhere issue discussed on multiple networks.

From what I understand, Congress earmarked some money to build a bridge in Alaska. Palin was all for building it until Congress told her they would be going Dutch. Since Congress only gave Alaska around half the money they initially said they would, Palin voted against building the bridge, but kept the money.

And…

I don’t see a problem. Was this “bridge only” money? According to the reports I’ve seen Congress didn’t say ‘if you decide not to build the bridge send it back.’ So isn’t it a good move if she decided the cost for state was too great and it would be better to use the money on other projects that wouldn’t require any additional funding from the residents? What elected official in the country would have given back that money? Who is going to say, “We don’t have anything we could use this for,” or, “This is way too much?” Nobody. And if someone did, why would you ever vote for that dummy again?

As governor her primary responsibility is to the people of Alaska. It sounds like what she did was in the state’s best interest, which makes it a pretty good decision in my opinion. I want my governor to have a state-first mentality. She was elected by the people of Alaska, not the entire United States, so serving those who elected you comes first.

So why bring it up? I guess there isn’t much out there about her to discuss and mentioning it in her speech opens the door for scrutiny. So what, she changed her mind after she found out it was going to cost more than she originally thought? We’ve all done that. I don’t know if there’s enough there for her to be touting it as evidence of her bold leadership, but there definitely isn’t enough there to question either. So why does it keep coming up? I actually thought it was a dead issue until I saw a clip online of an interview on 20/20 where she had been asked about it again.

Am I the only one who thought Charles Gibson was kind of a dick? Why has “hard-hitting journalism” become to mean the reporter acts like a douche bag? You can address serious issues or ask difficult questions without being accusatory or ultra-confrontational. But it seems like few know how to do that anymore. Reporters turn each interview into an audition for their own show or a shot at an anchor’s desk. Everybody wants to be Geraldo. Eighties’ Geraldo, not the one giving away tactical positions or making a fool out of himself in the water.

Anyway, the online clips actually got me interested enough to watch the interview. Even though parts of the interview looked more chopped up than a Clue tape, it still seemed that Palin was not comfortable talking about some issues.

She painfully danced around the issue of homosexuality saying, “I’m not going to judge them.” Yes she does. But don’t worry Sarah, we all do, gay or straight. What else is she supposed to say anyway?

She lost me when talking about her national security creed. It didn’t seem like she answered the question at all. It sort of boiled down to being more secure by reducing dependency on foreign oil.

Then there was “Troopergate.” I actually wish there was something there. It would be interesting if it turned out the trooper was a really good guy and she was an evil governor unfairly wielding her power. Sort of like every political movie you’ve ever seen except with a woman in power and, you know, for real. But it probably isn’t going to amount to anything. If it were that big of a scandal we would have seen that trooper’s face all over like that parade of busted women Clinton felt up. Besides the Republican party would really be slippin’ if they let that one get by them. That dude is still a trooper. If she wanted him gone he would have been gone. If she couldn’t take out some random officer with a shaky record, how can you expect her to help mastermind the next national disaster needed to instigate war? When the Sears Tower or Golden Gate Bridge goes down we’re going to know McCain and Palin were behind it in like a week.

I also thought it was interesting that she was a baller in high school. I bet she’s got way more handle than Barack. Despite his height advantage I bet she would house him in a game of one-on-one. He’s a black(ish) presidential candidate and he may not even be the best basketball player on the ballot. His little weekend games look like doo-doo next to a state championship.

All in all she looked too prepped in this interview. She stumbled through issues like abortion because she had been told to avoid saying certain things. I’m sure as she gets coached up more and learns the playbook she’ll learn to respond to those questions naturally. Then we’ll never be able to trust her again.

This whole Palin nomination is genius. She is Obama/Biden campaign cancer; the perfect decoy selected by the Republicans to distract everyone from the real issues and reflect the weakness of the Democratic Party. They can’t attack her for being inexperienced, they can’t attack her the way they did Hillary and, oh, that’s right, they’re not supposed to. She’s the VICE presidential nominee. By positioning Palin against Obama and evoking comparisons to Clinton the Republicans have set up the perfect stage to pull the upset. How bad does it look if your candidate for president is getting all he can handle from the JV squad? It looks like the Democrats finally woke up, but the media seems a bit behind and the more attention Palin receives the worse it will get for the Democrats. If we’re still talking about her children, bridges that weren’t built and employees who still have their jobs in November, then we’ll also be seeing McCain sworn into office in January.

Click here to see the whole 20/20 interview.

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.