Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge

By JIM DEMINT

September 10, 2008; Page A15

"But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up." -- Barack Obama, Sept. 6, 2008

In politics, words are cheap. What really counts are actions. Democrats and Republicans have talked about fiscal responsibility for years. In reality, both parties have a shameful record of wasting hundreds of billions of tax dollars on pork-barrel projects.

My Senate colleague Barack Obama is now attacking Gov. Sarah Palin over earmarks. Having worked with both John McCain and Mr. Obama on earmarks, and as a recovering earmarker myself, I can tell you that Mrs. Palin's leadership and record of reform stands well above that of Mr. Obama.

Let's compare.

Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."

Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.

Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.

Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.

Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

Mrs. Palin has proven courageous by taking on big spenders in her own party. In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."

Mr. Obama had a chance to take on his party when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a sham ethics bill, which was widely criticized by watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste for shielding earmarks from public scrutiny. But instead of standing with taxpayers, Mr. Obama voted for the bill. Today, he claims he helped write the bill that failed to clean up Washington.

Mr. Obama has shown little restraint on earmarks until this year, when he decided to co-sponsor an earmark moratorium authored by Mr. McCain and myself. Mr. Obama is vulnerable on this issue, and he knows it. That is why he is lashing out at Mrs. Palin and trying to hide his own record.

Mrs. Palin is one of the strongest antiearmark governors in America. If more governors around the country would do what she has done, we would be much closer to fixing our nation's fiscal problems than we are.

Mrs. Palin's record here is solid and inspiring. She will help Mr. McCain shut down the congressional favor factory, and she has a record to prove it. Actions mean something. You can't just make stuff up.

Mr. DeMint, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from South Carolina.

The Opinion page of the Wall Street Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is nothing wrong with changing one's mind about something. Yes, you can be for something and then against it. Good grief...you might remember a little disturbance called the Civil War. One of the things that caused it was slavery. Luckily we had people who were enlightened enough to understand that although it was a part of daily life in the American South to own slaves, it was not acceptable to own other human beings. If minds had not changed, if the Civil War had not been fought, we could still have slaves in the United States today.   

Have you never changed your mind about something? Don't you remember a time when something seemed like a good idea, and then you got more information or just realized it wasn't the dream it was presented to be? 

The only time I object to someone changing their mind is when they do it at the drop of a hat...changing their opinion to agree with the last person they talked to, or the group they are about to address because it will get them votes.

A person who never changes their mind, or changes with the wind, is a person I don't want in office. 

Consider this:

A convicted murderer is being prepared for execution. It's only minutes before the lethal cocktail will be injected. The Lt. Governor, the state's Attorney General, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney coming running into the Governor's office and announce, "We have video tape proving that the defendant was meeting with the Pope at the time of the murder. We've also discovered security tape showing the real murderer committing the crime. We have a signed confession and the murderer right here to verify the facts of the confession. We have to stop the execution! That's an innocent person!" The governor says, "Nah...I can't stop the execution just because there's new evidence proving innocence of one and the guilt of the other. It might make me look bad if I change my mind." 

Extreme? Perhaps, but this is what happens when people refuse to change their minds when presented with new information. There are certainly times when you don't change your mind, and that's okay. But, when you have new information that changes the picture, you need to carefully review all the facts and then decide to continue on the same course or to, dare I say it? change your mind and do something different. A person of good moral character will do what's right, not what makes them look good.

Let's take into consideration the reasons why a person might change their mind before we condemn that they did. You may not agree with their decision, but you have to respect that they made a decision based on the facts, even new facts or information. You might want the same consideration someday. 

Yes, Senator Obama, words mean something. And sometimes you have to say "No, thank you, I've changed my mind."