Brad Plumer has more on the fact that Palin is pretty much lying when she says she opposed the bridge to nowhere:
So she was very much for the bridge and seemed to be saying that Alaska had to act quickly -- Ted Stevens and Don Young might not be in the majority much longer to secure pork for the state. By that point, though, the bridge was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin -- it had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, and future federal funding seemed unlikely. Now, true, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first state budget didn't contain any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was simply trying to figure out where the project fit on the state's list of priorities, given the lack of federal support. Finally, on September 19, 2007, she redirected funds away from the bridge with this sorry-sounding statement:
Only the governor of moron-land would support building a vastly expensive bridge to a barely-populated island if her state had to actually front the funds -- killing the bridge once federal funds are gone is a foregone conclusion.What's more, Palin claimed in Dayton, untruthfully, that she actually rejected an offer of federal funds:
In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)