**McCain Speaks One on One with NBC12**
I just completed a one-on-one interview with Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president. The interview is significant for a number of reasons, but primarily because it makes NBC12 the first station in Richmond to obtain one-on-one interviews with both major party candidates for president. (We have actually interviewed Senator Barack Obama, one on one, on three different occasions).
Much like our interviews with Senator Obama, our time was brief (we were limited to a four minute satellite window). We were however, able to touch on a number of important issues, including McCain’s plans for the economy, his running mate Sarah Palin’s experience level and how vital he believes the race will be in Virginia.
I also asked Senator McCain about accusations today that the Obama campaign has levied about a new ad put out by the McCain campaign regarding Gov. Palin. The ad says that Palin “stopped the bridge to nowhere”. The Obama campaign called the ad an outright lie. This is how McCain responded to the charge:
“The polling data shows that you are going to see, unfortunately, a ratcheting up of these kind of negative attacks which characterize the Obama campaign. The fact is that Gov. Palin learned that earmarks are bad and she did say, we don’t need our bridge to nowhere, and we will pay for it ourselves if we need it. I mean, that is just a fact. Hey look she took on the incumbent, Republican governor and beat him, I mean Senator Obama has never taken on anybody in his party, that is why he has I say the most liberal voting record.”
The most interesting part of the quote is the section where he says that she “learned” that earmarks are bad. Does that mean that at one time she thought they were okay? You can see the McCain interview tonight during our 5:30pm news and then a complete report tonight at 11. We will also post the entire interview, uncut, on decisionvirginia.com at some point tonight. I will alert you when it gets up there.
**UPDATE** Below is the video of Senator McCain’s comments on Gov. Palin.
DV Archive 
[…] McCain defends Palin, saying, “Gov. Palin learned that earmarks are bad and she did say, we don’t need our […]
The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME
September 8, 2008 at 8:02 pm
“The fact is that Gov. Palin learned that earmarks are bad.”
Only after requesting and receiving millions of dollars in earmarks.
Gee, what a reformer!
John
September 8, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Exactly where and when did she “learn that earmarks are bad”? Not during her campaign when she was for it! She was before it until Congress killed it, period! What a crock!
BobSommers
September 8, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Well, if his qualification for “taking on someone in the party” simply means to beat them in an election (as was his qualification for Palin in this interview) — then he is categorically wrong. Obama beat Clinton in the primaries.
Jason
September 8, 2008 at 9:16 pm
It’s a flat-out lie.
She didn’t change her mind, she chose to spend the money elsewhere, and when she couldn’t get Congress to send her more, she blamed Congress and the press. Here’s a real time account, with DIRECT QUOTES:
Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark — or stipulation — that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate.
The state took much of that for other projects, and Palin on Friday said the Ketchikan project was $329 million short of full funding.
“It’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Palin said.
“Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened,” she said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20908207/
Paul '52
September 8, 2008 at 9:56 pm
“The most interesting part of the quote is the section where he says that she “learned” that earmarks are bad. Does that mean that at one time she thought they were okay?”
Let me tell a true story about our local school board.
We had a police officer on the board who really REALLY wanted random drug testing of all extra-curricular activities students.
This was just after a US Supreme Court decision that said you could.
6 months in the process despite all the outrage from parents he still was adamant. The kids needed protecting despite their parents wishes.
Then the final proposal was handed to him which included a 6 month ban from any extra-curricular activity with no challenge to the medical result allowed.
His response?
“There is no way I can vote for this!!!
How the hell is a 6 month ban on activities anonymous? We may as well hang a druggie sign on the kid!
And no challenge?
I am a police officer. Remember?
False positives come in ALL the time when you have large enough numbers.
I want Random Drug testing … but not THIS Random Drug testing plan!
In other words
He was FOR random drug testing BEFORE
he saw the fine print and realized he was AGAINST it.
What was in the fine print on the bridge to nowhere?
*BTW – This example is just as valid for positions Obama switches on.
He THOUGHT XXXX was a good idea. Then when he saw the fine details … woops! Not THIS plan!”
chrome
September 8, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Yeah…she said “earmarks are bad…we don’t need our bridge to nowhere,” but she didn’t return the federal money given to her for it. Is there no end to McCain-Palin hypocrisy?
Mark, Cleveland, OH
September 9, 2008 at 1:41 am
Mr Obama is the one that suggested the crowd that Mr McCain thinks that they are stupid. Note, not Mr McCain.
Now Can you define “hypocrite”?
According to Merriam-Webster:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
With that in mind, let us tune in to Barack Obama’s attack against John McCain today:
“Don’t be fooled,” Obama told the crowd surrounding him in a large barn. “John McCain’s party, with the help of John McCain, has been in charge” for nearly eight years.
“I know the governor of Alaska has been saying she’s change, and that’s great,” Obama said. “She’s a skillful politician. 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.”
First of all, if words REALLY mean something, maybe we should consider some of the words that are directly linked to Barack Obama. I think the words, “G-d America!” should mean something, too.
But that aside, let us consider Obama’s earmark record. According to The Hill:
Obama has released all the earmark requests he offered since being elected to the Senate in 2004, which totaled roughly $740 million over three years.
That same article concludes with this wonderful sentence:
Last year, Obama took in $91 million while McCain earned nothing because he did not request any projects, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Here is a list of Obama’s earmarks, in his own “But it was all for worthy causes” words.
I wrote an article about Sarah Palin and earmark spending. To put it is a single sentence, Sarah Palin is a Governor who reduced her state’s earmarks by 63%, nearly 2/3rds, since taking office. It’s still high in Alaska (for reasons the article describes), but it is only a third of what it used to be. To portray her as a “pork queen” when she has cut pork like no other governor, is beneath the level of cheap. She has done everything she reasonably could do – and much more than any other governor – to cut a vicious cycle of pork that has characterized Alaska for decades. She has often found herself on the other side of her own party in the process. And if she can do it in Alaska, she can do it anywhere.
What’s wrong with earmarks? The very idea of earmarks represents everything that’s wrong with Washington insider politics. They are requested and awarded purely on the basis of special interests. They are inherently tainted with fraud, waste, abuse, and quid pro quo political patronage. They are tacked on to other, legitimate issues without review and are funded entirely by deficit spending.
John McCain has always opposed them; Sarah Palin has a documented history of fighting them tooth and nail in her own state, and has been painstakingly winning the battle. Meanwhile, the guy who has benefited from $740 million dollars is talking smack while studiously ignoring the log in his own eye.
Barack Obama – the same guy who asked for $740 million dollars as a politician in one office, has asked for zero dollars since announcing his candidacy for another office. Maybe you see that as a radical conversion; I view it as radical pandering.
Published By Michael Eden
Idi
September 9, 2008 at 4:01 am
Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.
Barack Obama has requested the equivalent of $1 million in new pork-barrel spending for every working day he’s been in the U.S. Senate, while John McCain has never once asked for an earmark, and Gov. Palin has vetoed hundreds of millions in government spending including killing the infamous ‘Bridge to Nowhere’,” Bounds wrote in an email response. “Just like so many other issues Barack Obama is all talk, has no record to back it up and isn’t ready to make change.”
And here’s what McCain spokesman didn’t say:
Obama and Biden voted for the bridge to Nowhere!!
Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (“to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, chosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.
However, Sen. McCain did not vote on the Coburn Amendment, though he is on record as opposing the Ketchikan bridge earmark.
Let’s look at this a second time
However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.
Obama and Biden preferred the bridge to nowhere to Katrina releief?
Can NBC check this story?
Idi
September 9, 2008 at 7:01 am
Nice interview. How about another one with Obama? After he lost the elections: http://preeedict.blogspot.com/2008/08/nostradamus-obama-mccain-and-mabus.html
Katzenelson
September 9, 2008 at 10:35 pm
[…] some pretty hefty criticism from the Obama camp. Despite attacks on some specific things such as: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere, Drill Baby Drill and The E-Bay plane. All of these topics were trumpeted and done so proudly by […]
Recap from Fairfax « Decision Virginia
September 10, 2008 at 7:37 pm