I had initially replied:

Glad to see you concur:

Just because someone is affiliated with either party does not make them 100% hero or Idiot

then you added your next post almost immediately with no possible time to check or cross check the source or the validity

In the same way that being a POW does not in and of itself qualify McCain to be President, your service, while much appreciated, does not make you correct on all issues you chose to discuss.

There is nothing so frightening as a true believer, a fact which you must surely have to remind yourself of each day in combat: the same holds true here but thankfully the outcome is more comical than horrifying.

Pug- the point is to tell the WHOLE story...not just the parts that suit your position.
Don't take this the wrong way......but I have not had to follow a directive in 30 some years... and will not do so now. How I respond is my choice...my style......and I'm not throwing rocks......just the facts.

The funding for the Bridge project was earmarked by the democrat controlled congress and was in place when she assumed the office of Governor in December of 2006: The bridge was canceled in September 2007, ( months after she took office and other avenues to link the island such as enhance ferry service were implemented.

I knew very little about her or about Alaska in general before yesterday, and my only real dog in this fight is that nothing is 100% black or white, and I have very little respect for anyone who treats all issues as absolutes.

If I remember correctly, the bridge to nowhere was authorized prior to 2006, which would make it a Republican controlled Congress, which is somewhat irrelevant as earmarks can be placed by either party, in this case a republican.
As far as I can tell, the only reason the bridge project was cancelled was the public outrage at the stupidity of the entire idea.
And I still haven't heard on single single success story of the last 8 years.

Here is the text of the above referenced link:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/30/palin-wanted-nowhere-bridges/

During the unveiling of his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tried to cast her as a “reformer” and “fiscal conservative.” She boldly claimed that with regard to Sen. Ted Stevens’s (R-AK) infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” she told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks“:
I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. 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.
It appears, however, that Palin is lying. As Bradford Plumer first noted, the Anchorage Daily News interviewed Palin during her 2006 campaign for governor. At the time, federal funding for the bridge had been stripped by Congress. They asked if she was in favor of continuing state funding for the project. “Yes,” she responded, noting specifically her desire to renew Congressional support:
Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
That assistance never materialized. When she finally canceled the $400 million project, Palin lamented the fact that Congress was not more forthcoming with federal funding. She said in a statement at the time:
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’s desire to have federal funding directed toward pet projects in Alaska, however, did not diminish. As recently as March 2008 — around the time she first met McCain — her special counsel, John Katz, wrote in the Juneau Empire that despite recognizing increased scrutiny of such spending, Palin was not “not abandoning earmarks altogether.” While McCain expressed high-profile disdain for earmarks, the Palin administration held that:
[E]armarks are not bad in themselves. In fact, they represent a legitimate exercise of Congress’ constitutional power to amend the budget proposed by the president.

I know it would be impossible for this bunch here to just give them a grade, but here goes.

If you were asked to grade the current administrations past 7 plus years, what would you give them?
Let's use the old A B C D anf F system. Feel free to use a + or - also.

I'll go first.

F-

Next

And it's not grading congress, blaming Bill Clinton, or stating why you graded them that way on what issue. Just give them an honest grade. No other word attached to the post. And no one respond if pug, rykat or anyone else gives them an A+, it's their grade.
Begin!

F

F

D-