Why did Lieberman vote YES on Bridge to Nowhere? ..Most Alaskans say NO !

[snowbear]

What the hell is wrong with him !?!?

I keep hearing on the radio here how Lieberman has voted with Republicans to approve funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere".

This is a $223 million appropriation sought by Republican lawmakers in Alaska for a single bridge between the town of Ketchikan and the tiny community of Gravina Island (population 50)

Yo... EARTH TO JOE: ...Most Alaskans think it's an incredible waste of money to build that bridge!


Strangley enough.. the corrupt Republican Governor of Alaska (2nd worst approval rating in the nation) who is pushing for the bridge, owns 33 acres of land there..



What on earth would prompt Joe Lieberman to vote YES on this bridge?

http://www.ktva.com/alaska/ci_4111150

[gulfcoastliberal]

1. The fact he votes with Republicans on a lot of things?

I dunno, but Joe's gotta go!

[Eric J in MN]

2. Did he vote for a big bill with it, or specifically? NT

NT

[snowbear]

3. Not sure.. It's been on our news, almost hourly for days now..

They aren't mentioning what all was in the bill, just that Lieberman is supporting Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere"

[skipos]

4. I am a Lamont supporter, but I must admit I am skeptical

whenever I hear some oversimplified "this person voted to do x" kind of statement. It reminds me too much of all the Republican spin of "Kerry voted to increase taxes 689 times," "Kerry voted against body armor for our troops" etc etc.

It is one of the reasons senators don't become president anymore.

[snowbear]

5. Here's how he explained it in the Lieberman/Lamont debate..

LAMONT: Let me talk about that transportation bill with 6,341 earmarks. An earmark is a special piece of pork written by a lobbyist, submitted at the last moment. And it's wrong. It's legal, but it's wrong. If you're not shouting from the rafters that this is wrong, then you're complicit and you're part of the problem. That bill also included the infamous bridge to nowhere.

LIEBERMAN: We were all against the bridge to nowhere. But there are earmarks that are good. Is he against the earmarks I put in the bill for $50 million to decrease congestion along I-95, or the money for ferry service from Bridgeport? Those are good earmarks.

LAMONT: Alaska gets 10 times what we do. We're not doing very well on that front. But more importantly, I think we should outlaw these earmarks. They corrupt the political process. They are written by lobbyists & they're wrong. You support the earmarks, you work with the lobbyists, & that's what needs to be changed.

LIEBERMAN: The earmarks are great for Connecticut

...........

Source: 2006 Connecticut Democratic Senate Primary debate Jul 6, 2006

http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/2006_CT_Senate_Government_Reform.htm

[Joe Bacon]

6. Senator Vanilla Ice LIEberman will soon be gone.

But don't worry, I'm sure Fox News will pick Vanilla Ice up so he can join other phony Democrats like Tammy Bruce, Pat Cadell, Susan Estrich and Donna Brazille!

[Totally Committed]

7. D I N O . . . .

He votes with the Republicans a lot... almost like he's one of 'em. ;)

Joe's gotta go!

TC

[TheVirginian]

8. The real reason (ignoring the Joe = GOP crap above)...

Is that there is a general understanding among Congressmen when it comes to earmarks. If Senators start opposing specific appropriations for states, then the Congressmen from those states will oppose it back. In order to secure X amount of money for Connecticut, Lieberman also has to support Y amount of money for other states so other Senators from those states will help support X amount of money for Connecticut.

This isn't a partisan issue; in fact, there was a very vocal contingent of Republican Senators opposed to the Bridge to Nowhere, as well as a very vocal contingent of Democratic Senators opposed to anything Ted Stevens does. The measure was passed, however, because most Senators, including Lieberman (and stalwarts like Robert Byrd) buy into the agreement rather than risk jeopardizing earmarks and pet projects.

Funny how the truth is neither as vile nor as interesting as people assume.

[josh nelson]

9. No surprise here

Where else can Lieberman go wrong?