Palin shows solidarity with the residents of Gravina Island.

Over 37 million people saw Sarah Palin declare in her acceptance speech that she told Congress, “thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.” That statement is demonstrably false, but the campaign of Sen. John McCain continues to tout Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s opposition to the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere” despite once linking it to the collapse of the 35W bridge.

During the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, Palin was a strong proponent of the project, which aimed to connect the town of Ketchikan, Alaska, to a nearby airport on Gravina Island.

“I support these infrastructure projects,” Palin said during a gubernatorial debate. “It will build Alaska, and it’s cheaper to do it today than it is tomorrow.”

Once governor, Palin killed the effort only after it became apparent that the federal government wasn’t going to put any more money into the bloated project beyond the $233 million in earmarks that Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, had already secured. Under pressure to cut wasteful spending, Congress then stripped the stipulation that the money be spent on a bridge but allowed the state of Alaska to keep the $233 million for other transportation projects. Palin then directed her transportation commissioner, Leo von Scheben, to review transportation projects statewide to prepare a list of possible uses for the funds.

Days after the 35W bridge collapse John McCain connected that $233 million with the tragedy that claimed 13 lives in Minneapolis.

“Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country,” McCain said at a campaign stop in Ankeny, Iowa on Aug. 4, 2007. “Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it.”

One month after McCain’s critical comments Palin changed her position on the bridge, citing the project’s high cost to Alaskans, while continuing to defend the project.

“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Palin stated in a released statement dated Sept. 21, 2007. “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.”

Both Rep. Jim Oberstar, D – Minn., and Rep. Keith Ellison, D – Minn., strongly criticized Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain for his remarks today that pork-barrel spending was to blame for the 35W bridge collapse .

As previously reported by Minnesota Monitor, McCain declared that “the bridge in Minneapolis didn’t collapse because there wasn’t enough money. The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects.”

Oberstar, who is Chairman of the House Transportation Committee and has a reputation for securing funds for his district, took exception to the claim:

The state was actually spending money on the I-35W bridge at the time of the collapse, but instead of fixing the weakened superstructure of the bridge, MN/Dot was resurfacing the roadway on top.  It’s clear now that the money was being spent in the wrong place, but it is not helpful to point fingers or assign blame until the investigation into the cause of the collapse is complete.”

“McCain either didn’t bother to check his facts, or he knew the facts and ignored them to make a political point. Neither explanation is very flattering. This is the kind of manipulation of the truth that led this nation to war in Iraq; it is a troubling look at what a McCain presidency would be like,” said Oberstar.

Ellison was even more forceful in his condemnation of McCain’s remarks:

Senator McCain, who thinks we should stay in Iraq ‘for 100 years,’ and who despite his 30 years in Congress ‘knows little about the economy,’ has now displayed a startling ignorance of our nation’s infrastructure.  He should sit down with his aspiring Vice President (Governor Pawlenty) and talk about the neglect of infrastructure needs during (Pawlenty’s) tenure as Governor.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty was also asked to weigh in on the comments. The AP reports that “Pawlenty told reporters that McCain’s theory is the senator’s opinion and everyone should reserve judgment until federal investigators release findings later this year.”

In January, the National Transportation Safety Board suggested that the bridge failed because of a faulty design, namely that the gusset plates were too thin. Those gusset plates are shown to be bowing under pressure in the photos by URS in 2003.

Last fall, the paper reported that the same consultants that provided MnDOT the photos as part of their inspection also made recommendations about the steel plating:

“MnDOT considered the steel plating at the recommendation of consulting engineers who told the agency that there were two ways to keep the bridge safe: Make repairs throughout the 40-year-old steel arched bridge or inspect it closely enough to find flaws that might become cracks and then bolt the steel plating only on those sections.” The inspection route, instead of reinforcing the steel plates, was the cheaper option and the one the department pursued.

In a similar situation, MnDOT closed a major bridge in St. Cloud this weekend because an “inspection showed the gusset plates, metal plates used to reinforce bridge joints, had bent one-quarter of an inch.”

The 2003 photos of the 35W bridge, available at The Star Tribune, show bending of more than a quarter of an inch at at least two joints.

Continued: Click “Read more”

I appreciate your phone call yesterday, to notify me of the Board’s decision that it will not hold a public hearing to review the evidence on the causes of the collapse of the I-35W Bridge last summer. As I told you yesterday, and as I will reiterate in this letter, I strongly disagree with the decision that a hearing will not be held. In addition I am highly concerned that you did not tell me that the Board’s decision was not unanimous, and that two of the five Board members issued dissenting views, forcefully supporting the need for a public hearing.

In our conversation, you stated that a report of the Board’s staff, which you could not share with me, recommended against a hearing because it would not produce new information and would delay publication of the final report on the I-35W bridge collapse beyond December of this year. You did not share with me the concerns of the Board’s staff that there has been a “political” debate in Minnesota about the causes of, and the responsibility for, the accident. This information I learned from Minnesota news reporters who gleaned it from Board member’s dissent. This is unacceptable; you should have been fully candid with me.

For the NTSB staff to characterize concerns as political and for you to concur in that view makes you appear to dismiss citizens’ concerns as not worthy of serious consideration. This approach by a federal agency is very disturbing.