Like O'Reilly, Hannity mis-represented Obama on earmarks

[DavidS]

Media Matters - Like O'Reilly, Hannity misrepresented Obama remark to falsely claim he made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks"

On the March 6 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that President Obama made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks." As purported evidence, Hannity aired several clips of Obama referring to earmarks, including a January 6 clip of Obama stating his desire to "ban all earmarks" from the economic recovery package, which Hannity, like Fox News colleague Bill O'Reilly, misrepresented to claim Obama was breaking his word by signing the omnibus appropriations bill.

After purporting to "go to the videotape" and "show the audience at home" Obama's "campaign promise" of "no earmarks," Hannity aired a number of clips from the 2008 presidential campaign in order to claim that Obama was breaking his promise of "no earmarks," when, in fact, in three of the clips, Obama was referring to reforming the earmark process, and in a fourth, he was asserting that an opponent was being hypocritical for taking earmarks and then advocating against them. In the fifth clip, which was actually taken from a January 6 media availability -- not during the presidential campaign as Hannity suggested -- Obama stated: "We are gonna ban all earmarks -- the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review." However, Obama was referring to his desire to "ban all earmarks" from his "recovery and reinvestment plan," which he specifically distinguished from "the overall budget process."

During his January 6 media availability, Obama stated:

OBAMA: But we're not going to be able to expect the American people to support this critical effort unless we take extraordinary steps to ensure that the investments are made wisely and managed well. And that's why my recovery and reinvestment plan will have -- will set a new higher standard of accountability, transparency, and oversight.

We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. We will create an economic recovery oversight board made up of key administration officials and independent advisers to identify problems early and make sure we're doing all that we can to solve it. We will put information about where money is being spent online so that the American people know exactly where their precious tax dollars are going and whether we are hitting our marks.

But we're not going to be able to stop there. We're going to have to bring significant reform not just to our recovery and reinvestment plan, but to the overall budget process, to address both the deficit of dollars and the deficit of trust. We'll have to make tough choices, and we're going to have to break old habits. We're going to have to eliminate outmoded programs and make the ones that we do need work better.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The apologists dig in!

 

[DavidS]

The apologists dig in!

Apologists? It's one thing if you quote Obama accurately as saying "I will never ever sign a bill that contains earmarks as long as I am president." He never said that. Hannity mis-construed what Obama said to deliberately make you believe that Obama had broken a campaign promise.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The apologists dig in!

Apologists? It's one thing if you quote Obama accurately as saying "I will never ever sign a bill that contains earmarks as long as I am president." He never said that. Hannity mis-construed what Obama said to deliberately make you believe that Obama had broken a campaign promise.

But, he has. He ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility, in fact harped on it over and over, and yet what does the public see?

Too bad mediamatters never bothers to go after The Obama's cheerleader "journalists" and instead, nit picks talk shows. Hannity and O'Reilly are Opinion, not news. They're not journalists. There's a large difference.

 

[DavidS]

But, he has. He ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility, in fact harped on it over and over, and yet what does the public see?

No, he ran on a platform of helping the middle class and getting our troops out of Iraq. It was McCain who was all about eliminating earmarks. And Obama has said he's going to cut the deficit by 50% by the end of his first term. You cannot get out of a recession by doing nothing.

And not every single earmark is a waste. There are many communities and schools that get badly needed funding to improve their community through these earmarks. The pig odor earmark is one of them - it has overwhelming support in Iowa, the state the earmark is for.

 

[Annie]

The apologists dig in!

Apologists? It's one thing if you quote Obama accurately as saying "I will never ever sign a bill that contains earmarks as long as I am president." He never said that. Hannity mis-construed what Obama said to deliberately make you believe that Obama had broken a campaign promise.

But, he has. He ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility, in fact harped on it over and over, and yet what does the public see?

Too bad mediamatters never bothers to go after The Obama's cheerleader "journalists" and instead, nit picks talk shows. Hannity and O'Reilly are Opinion, not news. They're not journalists. There's a large difference.

Media Matters is Soros funded through the back door.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

But, he has. He ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility, in fact harped on it over and over, and yet what does the public see?

No, he ran on a platform of helping the middle class and getting our troops out of Iraq. It was McCain who was all about eliminating earmarks. And Obama has said he's going to cut the deficit by 50% by the end of his first term. You cannot get out of a recession by doing nothing.

And not every single earmark is a waste. There are many communities and schools that get badly needed funding to improve their community through these earmarks. The pig odor earmark is one of them - it has overwhelming support in Iowa, the state the earmark is for.

He's following Bush's Iraq exit plan almost to the letter. And if you don't believe The Obama ran on a fiscal responsibility platform, you weren't paying very close attention.

EXCEPT for when McCain said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, Obama pooh-pooh'd it, saying something to the effect of "that's not practical" but look! Lo and behold, The Obama adopts that idea too!

Remember Paygo? Where is it? After six years of Dems demagoguing it, lamenting how "Bush let it die" and now with total power, the ability to bring it back, and no one to stop them from doing so, a much watered down version of it with no teeth at all was adopted by the House.

Why?

 

[editec]

I keep wondering how the word earmarks became synomonous with pork.

Good earmarks are good, bad ones are pork.

Am I missing something here?

Other than partisan spin, I mean?

 

[Gunny]

Media Matters - Like O'Reilly, Hannity misrepresented Obama remark to falsely claim he made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks"

On the March 6 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that President Obama made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks." As purported evidence, Hannity aired several clips of Obama referring to earmarks, including a January 6 clip of Obama stating his desire to "ban all earmarks" from the economic recovery package, which Hannity, like Fox News colleague Bill O'Reilly, misrepresented to claim Obama was breaking his word by signing the omnibus appropriations bill.

After purporting to "go to the videotape" and "show the audience at home" Obama's "campaign promise" of "no earmarks," Hannity aired a number of clips from the 2008 presidential campaign in order to claim that Obama was breaking his promise of "no earmarks," when, in fact, in three of the clips, Obama was referring to reforming the earmark process, and in a fourth, he was asserting that an opponent was being hypocritical for taking earmarks and then advocating against them. In the fifth clip, which was actually taken from a January 6 media availability -- not during the presidential campaign as Hannity suggested -- Obama stated: "We are gonna ban all earmarks -- the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review." However, Obama was referring to his desire to "ban all earmarks" from his "recovery and reinvestment plan," which he specifically distinguished from "the overall budget process."

During his January 6 media availability, Obama stated:

OBAMA: But we're not going to be able to expect the American people to support this critical effort unless we take extraordinary steps to ensure that the investments are made wisely and managed well. And that's why my recovery and reinvestment plan will have -- will set a new higher standard of accountability, transparency, and oversight.

We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. We will create an economic recovery oversight board made up of key administration officials and independent advisers to identify problems early and make sure we're doing all that we can to solve it. We will put information about where money is being spent online so that the American people know exactly where their precious tax dollars are going and whether we are hitting our marks.

But we're not going to be able to stop there. We're going to have to bring significant reform not just to our recovery and reinvestment plan, but to the overall budget process, to address both the deficit of dollars and the deficit of trust. We'll have to make tough choices, and we're going to have to break old habits. We're going to have to eliminate outmoded programs and make the ones that we do need work better.

Try to spin it how you like. It still comes up as a promise to eliminate pork. McCain pushed that issue in his campaign and Obama had to ante up. Simple as that.

There was pork in the stimulus, and there was MAJOR pork in the Omnibus, and no, clearing "old business" is NOT an excuse. THIS is where Obama was supposed to take a stand and come through with some "change we can believe in." He did not.

Your allegation lacks merit. The accusations are correct.

 

[WillowTree]

He did say he was going to get rid of earmarks, "We are going to change the way Washington does business" It was going to be the kebosh on lobbyists too and you see what he did about that? He hired them of course.. right after he signed the "imperfect" bill yesterday he told his congresscritters, he was go to do battle with them and his ear marks.. you will pardon the fuck outta us mr.. dummie but we don't believe a word you say about nuttin you say,,he was going to create 2.5 million jobs too,, that soon was modified to create or "save" I guess he thinks he the brightest pencil in the drawer and we "the people" don't see his naked azz standing there!

 

[editec]

I believe that I HEARD Obama say that he was going to end ALL earmarks.

At the time I thought that statements didn't make much sense.

Earmarks are a SOP for funding specific projects.

Why on earth would you want to end that?

PORK is probably always an earmark, but not every earmark is pork.

duh!

 

[sealybobo]

I believe that I HEARD Obama say that he was going to end ALL earmarks.

At the time I thought that statements didn't make much sense.

Earmarks are a SOP for funding specific projects.

Why on earth would you want to end that?

PORK is probably always an earmark, but not every earmark is pork.

duh!

Did you hear Obama yesterday? He said the most corruption/fraud/waste goes to private companies.

What have I been telling all of you? The problem is not government. At least not when the Dems are in charge. The problem is Corporations. Especially when they are in bed with the GOP government.

So money that goes to schools, roads, etc, generally is spent wisely. But money that goes to companies like Haloburton, Motorola & Blackwater, that money gets wasted.

 

[sealybobo]

He did say he was going to get rid of earmarks, "We are going to change the way Washington does business" It was going to be the kebosh on lobbyists too and you see what he did about that? He hired them of course.. right after he signed the "imperfect" bill yesterday he told his congresscritters, he was go to do battle with them and his ear marks.. you will pardon the fuck outta us mr.. dummie but we don't believe a word you say about nuttin you say,,he was going to create 2.5 million jobs too,, that soon was modified to create or "save" I guess he thinks he the brightest pencil in the drawer and we "the people" don't see his naked azz standing there!

He is doing an excellent job. He is changing the way washington does business. Did you go to the website where you can see all the pork? That's new.

And the days of corporations stealing the money they were awarded, is over. And no more NO BID contracts.

You are not the brightest person in the world, so I can see why you are not happy with how things are going. You and Rush should get married.

 

[editec]

I believe that I HEARD Obama say that he was going to end ALL earmarks.

At the time I thought that statements didn't make much sense.

Earmarks are a SOP for funding specific projects.

Why on earth would you want to end that?

PORK is probably always an earmark, but not every earmark is pork.

duh!

Did you hear Obama yesterday? He said the most corruption/fraud/waste goes to private companies.

What have I been telling all of you? The problem is not government. At least not when the Dems are in charge. The problem is Corporations. Especially when they are in bed with the GOP government.

So money that goes to schools, roads, etc, generally is spent wisely. But money that goes to companies like Haloburton, Motorola & Blackwater, that money gets wasted.

I did hear him yesterday.

He was, I think, correcting himself.

Certainly some projects that are earmarked are sensible spending.

What happened, I think, is what often happens to our language.

Something specific is bad, and what happens is that the class of that thing becomes bad, rather than the specific thing being bad.

Earmarks are not necessarily a bad thing, but pork is often insinuated into bills as earmarks.

There are, we're told 9,000 earmarked spending items in this latest bill.

Are all 9,000 of them pork?

How about the 5,000 of them that the REPUBLCIANS WANTED in that bill?

Were they all pork too, or cqan some of us find the intelligence to understand that earmarking is a legislative technique for how money gets allocated in spending bills?

 

[WillowTree]

I believe that I HEARD Obama say that he was going to end ALL earmarks.

At the time I thought that statements didn't make much sense.

Earmarks are a SOP for funding specific projects.

Why on earth would you want to end that?

PORK is probably always an earmark, but not every earmark is pork.

duh!

Did you hear Obama yesterday? He said the most corruption/fraud/waste goes to private companies.
What have I been telling all of you? The problem is not government. At least not when the Dems are in charge. The problem is Corporations. Especially when they are in bed with the GOP government.

So money that goes to schools, roads, etc, generally is spent wisely. But money that goes to companies like Haloburton, Motorola & Blackwater, that money gets wasted.

Yep! I most assuredly heard that.. He is waging a war on private enterprise. On his way to Marxism.. Listen to what he tells you. He means every word of it.

 

[WillowTree]

He did say he was going to get rid of earmarks, "We are going to change the way Washington does business" It was going to be the kebosh on lobbyists too and you see what he did about that? He hired them of course.. right after he signed the "imperfect" bill yesterday he told his congresscritters, he was go to do battle with them and his ear marks.. you will pardon the fuck outta us mr.. dummie but we don't believe a word you say about nuttin you say,,he was going to create 2.5 million jobs too,, that soon was modified to create or "save" I guess he thinks he the brightest pencil in the drawer and we "the people" don't see his naked azz standing there!

He is doing an excellent job. He is changing the way washington does business. Did you go to the website where you can see all the pork? That's new.

And the days of corporations stealing the money they were awarded, is over. And no more NO BID contracts.

You are not the brightest person in the world, so I can see why you are not happy with how things are going. You and Rush should get married.

I am happy to announce that unlike yourself,,, I am not happy with the obamalama.. he is corrupt and a fraud and a big fat liar to boot. did I mention he is a marxist?

 

[WillowTree]

I believe that I HEARD Obama say that he was going to end ALL earmarks.

At the time I thought that statements didn't make much sense.

Earmarks are a SOP for funding specific projects.

Why on earth would you want to end that?

PORK is probably always an earmark, but not every earmark is pork.

duh!

Did you hear Obama yesterday? He said the most corruption/fraud/waste goes to private companies.

What have I been telling all of you? The problem is not government. At least not when the Dems are in charge. The problem is Corporations. Especially when they are in bed with the GOP government.

So money that goes to schools, roads, etc, generally is spent wisely. But money that goes to companies like Haloburton, Motorola & Blackwater, that money gets wasted.

I did hear him yesterday.

He was, I think, correcting himself.

Certainly some projects that are earmarked are sensible spending.

What happened, I think, is what often happens to our language.

Something specific is bad, and what happens is that the class of that thing becomes bad, rather than the specific thing being bad.

Earmarks are not necessarily a bad thing, but pork is often insinuated into bills as earmarks.

There are, we're told 9,000 earmarked spending items in this latest bill.

Are all 9,000 of them pork?

How about the 5,000 of them that the REPUBLCIANS WANTED in that bill?

Were they all pork too, or cqan some of us find the intelligence to understand that earmarking is a legislative technique for how money gets allocated in spending bills?

You keep saying that,, but why didn't the Democwats vote to kill the bill and eliminate the republican earmarks doyathink?

 

[WillowTree]

I believe that I HEARD Obama say that he was going to end ALL earmarks.

At the time I thought that statements didn't make much sense.

Earmarks are a SOP for funding specific projects.

Why on earth would you want to end that?

PORK is probably always an earmark, but not every earmark is pork.

duh!

Did you hear Obama yesterday? He said the most corruption/fraud/waste goes to private companies.

What have I been telling all of you? The problem is not government. At least not when the Dems are in charge. The problem is Corporations. Especially when they are in bed with the GOP government.

So money that goes to schools, roads, etc, generally is spent wisely. But money that goes to companies like Haloburton, Motorola & Blackwater, that money gets wasted.

I did hear him yesterday.

He was, I think, correcting himself.

Certainly some projects that are earmarked are sensible spending.

What happened, I think, is what often happens to our language.

Something specific is bad, and what happens is that the class of that thing becomes bad, rather than the specific thing being bad.

Earmarks are not necessarily a bad thing, but pork is often insinuated into bills as earmarks.

There are, we're told 9,000 earmarked spending items in this latest bill.

Are all 9,000 of them pork?

How about the 5,000 of them that the REPUBLCIANS WANTED in that bill?

Were they all pork too, or cqan some of us find the intelligence to understand that earmarking is a legislative technique for how money gets allocated in spending bills?

You keep saying that,, but why didn't the Democwats vote to kill the bill and eliminate the republican earmarks doyathink? Better yet why didn't the liar veto it?

 

[Missourian]

I believe that I HEARD Obama say that he was going to end ALL earmarks.

At the time I thought that statements didn't make much sense.

Earmarks are a SOP for funding specific projects.

Why on earth would you want to end that?

PORK is probably always an earmark, but not every earmark is pork.

duh!

If it's a good program, it can be voted on and passed on it's own merit and need not be inserted into another bill as an earmark.

From Wikipedia:

Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of the Congress having to identify themselves or the project.

 

[editec]

Did you hear Obama yesterday? He said the most corruption/fraud/waste goes to private companies.

What have I been telling all of you? The problem is not government. At least not when the Dems are in charge. The problem is Corporations. Especially when they are in bed with the GOP government.

So money that goes to schools, roads, etc, generally is spent wisely. But money that goes to companies like Haloburton, Motorola & Blackwater, that money gets wasted.

I did hear him yesterday.

He was, I think, correcting himself.

Certainly some projects that are earmarked are sensible spending.

What happened, I think, is what often happens to our language.

Something specific is bad, and what happens is that the class of that thing becomes bad, rather than the specific thing being bad.

Earmarks are not necessarily a bad thing, but pork is often insinuated into bills as earmarks.

There are, we're told 9,000 earmarked spending items in this latest bill.

Are all 9,000 of them pork?

How about the 5,000 of them that the REPUBLCIANS WANTED in that bill?

Were they all pork too, or cqan some of us find the intelligence to understand that earmarking is a legislative technique for how money gets allocated in spending bills?

You keep saying that,, but why didn't the Democwats vote to kill the bill and eliminate the republican earmarks doyathink? Better yet why didn't the liar veto it?

No first of all I only siad it once, but let's address your question anyway, shall we?

Because, Willow, the need to get money back into the economy is more important than the partisan bickering you think is such a good thing, that's why..

And it is very likely that they did so because many of the Republican earmarks were no more pork than thousands of other earmarks.