Fox & Friends' Carlson, AP advance earmark promise falsehood
SUMMARY: Echoing a falsehood advanced by numerous media figures, Fox News' Gretchen Carlson falsely claimed that President Obama "pledged that he was going to get rid of all these earmarks." Additionally, an AP article reported that the "$410 billion spending bill includes the kinds of lawmakers' pet projects that Obama pledged as a candidate to eliminate." In fact, Obama actually promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending.
Echoing a falsehood advanced by numerous media figures, Fox News Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson falsely claimed on the March 9 edition of the show that President Obama "pledged that he was going to get rid of all these earmarks." Discussing the omnibus appropriations bill, Carlson also stated: "If [Obama] wanted to make a statement, he would be like a relief pitcher, and he would win the game, and he would veto this thing, and he would live up to his word." Similarly, the Associated Press falsely suggested in a March 8 article that Obama pledged to end earmark spending, reporting that the "$410 billion spending bill includes the kinds of lawmakers' pet projects that Obama pledged as a candidate to eliminate. His top aides say Obama would overlook for now the time-tested tradition that allows lawmakers to divert millions at a time to pet projects, called 'earmarks,' in the hopes of moving on."
As Media Matters for America has documented, The New York Times, as well as several media figures -- including Times columnist Maureen Dowd, CNN's Campbell Brown and Kitty Pilgrim, and Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, Neil Cavuto, and Bill O'Reilly -- have advanced the false claim that Obama promised during his campaign to stop earmark spending and is breaking that promise by signing the omnibus spending bill. In fact, Obama actually promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending.
From the March 8 AP article:
"This is like your relief pitcher coming in into the ninth inning and wanting to redo the whole game," he said. "Next year, we will be the starting pitcher and the game is going to be completely different."
The $410 billion spending bill includes the kinds of lawmakers' pet projects that Obama pledged as a candidate to eliminate. His top aides say Obama would overlook for now the time-tested tradition that allows lawmakers to divert millions at a time to pet projects in their districts or states, called "earmarks," in the hopes of moving on.
The measure expected to be voted on by the Senate this week keeps the government open for business through Sept. 30, when the federal budget year ends. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion and that just under half of the projects come from Republican lawmakers.
[...]
Orszag also pleaded for patience as the 6-week-old administration looks for solutions: "Well, I think fundamentally, the economy is weak. Job losses began in January of 2008. The stock market started declining October 2007. This has been, you know, eight years in the making, and again, it's going to take some time to work our way out of it."
Republicans weren't swayed by Orszag's arguments, saying the Democratic spending bill doesn't address the problems or keep Obama's campaign pledges.
"First of all, if you make a promise, people expect that you live up to it. And that's why this administration's refusal to go in and change this bill, I think, is a false position," said Rep. Eric Cantor, the GOP's No. 2 official.
"There is no way anyone could take what Mr. Orszag has said with any credibility," Cantor said. "Of course they're negotiating on this bill in the Senate right now. To say that 'we would have drawn it differently' but leave $430 billion-plus dollars on the table like this? No way."
From the March 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: I think the most amazing thing, though, is what this budget director continues to say every time he goes on TV. I think he needs a little PR training.
Here was his line yesterday -- you know, taking blame or not taking blame for this omnibus bill, the Obama administration: "This is like your relief pitcher coming into the ninth inning and wanting to redo the whole game. Next year, we're going to be the starting pitcher and the game's going to be completely different."
Oh, yeah? So when you come in as the relief pitcher in the ninth inning and you're trying to win the game, do you just forget about all those earmarks that happened in the first eight innings? I don't get that, because Obama pledged that he was going to get rid of all these earmarks, and now he's placing the blame completely on the Bush administration for this omnibus bill.
If he wanted to make a statement, he would be like a relief pitcher, and he would win the game, and he would veto this thing, and he would live up to his word.
I didn't make this up, but it's too good not to pass around.
Rush, Hannity, the FOX talking heads, etc. all make us suffer from ignorexia verbosa.
oh come on, are you really gonna give credibility to a former miss usa? the woman is dumber than a post.
this is the chick who is Billo the Clowns Lt. General in the "War on Christmas"
Keith Olbermann has proof she is dumber than a box of rocks. Sorry rocks, she is !
She's dumber than a box of rocks with all the smart rocks removed.
and that she is a religious nutbag
Refute this little buddy.
He told reporters at his transition office that his package 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 projects without review."
Details of the plan, which has yet to be drafted as a bill, will be available online, Obama said, "so the American people will know where their precious tax dollars are going and whether we are hitting our marks." He promised to make difficult choices and to "eliminate outmoded programs and make the ones we do need work better." He did not specify which programs might be trimmed or eliminated.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28525113/
I think that pretty much states that the CHOSEN ONE did say he was going to get rid of all earmarks.
Yes, he promised ban earmarks from the stimulus plan.
Seems you have a problem with reading comprehension, little feller.
Details, details, details... ;>)
So banning earmarks from the stimulus plan has nothing to do with his spending bill?
That's right. They are two different bills. Obama wanted to keep the stimulus bill free of earmarks, and he wants to stop the abuse of the earmark process in future appropriations.
The main part of the article was stating that he NEVER said he was banning on earmarks and that he was just going to reform spending. The article clearly suggests that HE has stated that HE will ban all earmarks. But if I took this thread out of context, I apologize.
The main part of the article was stating that he NEVER said he was banning on earmarks and that he was just going to reform spending. The article clearly suggests that HE has stated that HE will ban all earmarks.
-----------------------
He never said he was going to ban earmarks in regular appropriations proposals that he helps write.
He didn't write the continuing resolution - that was a leftover from the Bush budget last fall.
What does the link you provided say? Well, the Headline is "Obama bans earmarks from economic package."
Did you even read your own link, or were you just cribbing from some other insane righty? The first paragraph says
"President-elect Barack Obama vowed Tuesday to bar lawmakers' pet projects from his massive economic stimulus plan..."
And now you think that with a lame apology that says that the article by MMfA was to blame for your error you can get away with it all? What a tool.
PULL YOUR PANTS BACK UP!
I just hope that this anti-earmark crusade lasts until the next election cycle. I can see it now. Some red state congressman, going to his constituents and bragging about how all of the other congressmen brought jobs and federal money back to their districts, he stood firm.
He knew his people would rather not have jobs than to work for an employer with his hand in the pocket of the American taxpayers.
funny thing about crusades.
only the first one actually accomplished its goal. the third one would have if Richard I didn't chicken out and had the foresight to try and recruit locally.
I would love to see Gov Jindahl explain to his constituents why he refused money. And sen Kit Bond who campaigned so hard against the stymulus and then not only took all the money he could but also took credit for getting the money. they all got jello for stomachs. And you got Boehner going around with his new bumpersticker " spending freeze " and all his lapdogs end up kissing his feet like he is a messiah.
Bobby Jindahl says that he will refuse stimulus funds for enhanced and/or extended unemployment benefits because it would purportedly result in permanent taxes for businesses after the funds are exhausted. However, our local (New Orleans) newspaper has pointed out that the scenario described by Jihdahl could easily be avoided by adding a "sunset" provision in the enabling legislation by which any additional taxes would expire when those particular stimulus funds were exhausted.
I think if I were one of Jindal's constituents I'd try to recall him. Seriously, what is he more interested in his ideology and Republican agenda or helping the people in his twice beleaguered state? What a putz.
Seriously, what is he more interested in his ideology and Republican agenda or helping the people in his twice beleaguered state?
Dumb question... ;>)
Seriously, Bobby Jindahl has become an absentee governor. He spends his time these days flying to one Republican fundraiser after another giving speeches. Nah...I'm sure he's not planning to run for President in 2012. <sarcasm>
you could replace jindal with Kenneth the Page and no one would know the difference.
My Governor, Rick "good hair" Perry said he was gonna refuse the bucks. But I don't know if he followed through on that.
Rachel Maddow had a segment on her show with Ana Marie Cox regarding this silly "spending freeze", orr "Republicans out of ideas". It's kinda humorous.
http://airamerica.com/maddow/blog/2009/mar/08/rachel-maddow-ana-marie-cox-gops-spending-freeze
Remember the WORD: TRANSPARACY? That when the way of "READ MY LIPS!" The only think that is Transparent is Obama himsef and his followers...You can SEE right Thru then ALL!
Oh yes "CHANGE" has the same meaning as what "IS -IS"
"Change...Change...Change....We're All FOOLS!!!
no not all of us just you are the fool. given the fact that so much coverage is given to president obama and his cabinet. compared to dick's consistent undisclosed locations and his SECRET meetings with oil execs.
id say the difference in transparency is pretty glaring.
Remember the WORD: TRANSPARACY [sic]?
No, I don't, considering the word is spelled, "transparency". Nonetheless, what exactly is Obama not being transparent about?
he won't answer that.
If I had written communication skills like that, I might be tempted to think of myself as a fool, too.
drunk or suffering from oxycontin
This funding is a continuation of the Bush budget submitted last summer/fall. It was written before Obama was elected.
This is not his error, nor is it evidence that he will not change things.
He has already provided evidence that he will be a messenger of change - the Stimulus Bill didn't have any earmarks on it. That is a change.
Democrats have already provided evidence of change. The highest level of earmarks was the last year Republicans were in power in Congress. This past year, the number of earmarks dropped 80%. That's a significant decline, all due to the efforts of the Dems. And in this most recent funding effort, the Republicans have 40% of the earmarks in the bill, although they are not even 40% of Congress anymore.
"Remember the WORD: TRANSPARACY? [sic]"
Do you have any concept of what Obama meant by that?
I think a huge part of it was being able to go to a website and see exactly where the money is going.
Change...Change...Change....We're All FOOLS!!! Speak for yourself.
"nomadine4usRemember the WORD: TRANSPARACY? That when the way of "READ MY LIPS!" The only think that is Transparent is Obama himsef and his followers...You can SEE right Thru then ALL!Oh yes "CHANGE" has the same meaning as what "IS -IS""Change...Change...Change....We're All FOOLS!!!"
It's Monday morning, and already I can see what will become Republican Talking Points for the week - 'Smile'. This "twisted" lie from FoxNoise will be repeated today by Rush, Hannity, Cantor, and other Republicans as their cries for the Omnibus Spending Bill "NOT" to pass because of the 'earmarks'.
(My take) Game plan for Republicans regarding Omnibus Spending Bill:
Not a bad plan to gain back 'political power', huh? Shameful and smart, I would say.
Again not a promise but even if it were does he have to fix everything immediately?
yes he does....because the republicans dubbed him the messiah and since he aparetnly is such should be able to perform miracles immediatly.
The same Cons who say he is doing too much too fast. YIKES!!!
speed kills.
sometimes to truly shake things up you need to move fast.
you would think but she didn't i looked it up.
Disn't what...? Star in Night Court or boink Bill Clinton? According to Wikipedia Ms. Carlson has a history of boinking married men. The shameless woman obviously doesn't deserve the title of former Miss America (1989). ;>)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Carlson
i missed the part about affiars with married men. but i was talking about night court
It would be beneath the dignity of a former Miss America to star in a silly show such as Night Court. After all, Ms. Carlson is a serious journalist for FOX News. As for boinking married men, even serious journalists get lonely sometimes...even former Miss Amricas. ;>)
I'm no former Miss America but I loves men whether they be married types or not. What's a hot chick sposed to do, ya dig? Ha! I wonder what Phyllis George is up to these days.....:-0) I guess I should leave off Anita Bryant....! Oh, they're not oh so serious Journos like Ms. Carlson though, huh?
I'm trying hard not to believe that a former Miss America is capable of having an affair with a married man...it's too upsetting. ;>)
Not to worry, anybody that looks like Clooney has a shot with former and not former Miss Americas. ;-)
I can dig THAT, J... ;>)
I don't like to brag, J...but if I was a right winger with no integrity FOX News would hire me in a second as eye candy. ;>)
You mean you and my Canoodle Doodle, J2 could be co-anchors?! Da'mn!
Oh, I forgot, he has a shred (just a shred) of integrity. Ha!
Methinks we need a new network, or at least a calender. The Men Of MMFA.......Woo hoo...............! ;-0) I'd buy it. Let's see, you, J2, the Colonel, Donald, WK, POW, Easy, Snoopy (man, that dog has a set), Neon, Eweston, Steeve et al. Who am I missing? I need one more. ;-)
LOL...you crack me up.
6'2"...218lbs...Wavy blonde hair....Ocean blue eyes...I'm ready.
As long as I can bring the broken mirror that I got from the old fun house at West View Park. I like to call it my Magic Mirror.
Hmmmn, you sound like Simon Baker....you're in!
You mean you and my Canoodle Doodle, J2 could be co-anchors?! Da'mn!
Oh, I forgot, he has a shred (just a shred) of integrity. Ha!
And don't forget those dimples of mine you love Miz Julia. And hon you know I'd win the talent contest ;-)
And hon you know I'd win the talent contest ;-)
Oh baby! Do I! And don't forget the most photogenic! You, not your talent. Ha! Although..........?!
hey what about me....resident complete military and roman historian. yes ima geek
Dude, I'm a total geek but in the social sciences. Geeks are alright by me.
cool. thanks
If wiki is to be believed then Ms Carlson graduated with honors from Stanford and studied at Oxford.
Not bad for a blonde.
I've got blond highlights and I'm a Rhodes scholar. So what? ;-)
Right. Since Wikipedia is a reliable website. We couldn't even usethat site in college as a source. I'm not saying she didn't but don't drop in an article from Wikipedia to prove a point.
So in other words, Wikipedia has about the same credibility as FOX News and Gretchen Carlson. Ironic that... ;>)
see thing about wikipedia....that it is good for and my professors encouraged in its use was the sources cited. basically using it as a bibliographical reference point. you look what is cited and find those works. thats what i ever used it for and my history professors never had a problem in my using it in that fashion
I would think MMFA's readers would have more taste than to assail Ms. Carlson with sexism. I would think that, except that I just read this whole thread.
Very ironic...considering that FOX puts blonde babes in front of the camera as eye candy rather than for their journalistic skills.
now just wait a darn minute......megyn kelly is a lawyer!
I suspect strongly that among the male demographics of FOX's male viewership that Megyn Kelly is regarded as a babe first and a lawyer second. I wish I could find the quote but years ago Roger Ailes more or less admitted that at FOX they purposely hire eye candy.
and another thing. to ensure that billo isnt grabbing at them they are all blonds
they purposely hire eye candy.
That's why while I admit to watching the Fox News Harem, it's only with the volume on "mute".
What do you call someone who graduates last in their class in law school?
A lawyer.
is your info accurate? cause if it is. that explains alot
They're the number one source for the type of idiots who come here expecting to get a reasonable answer to their questions about when Obama will be responsible for the economy, and comparing the economy to a terrorist attack.
Fox team member Hannity gets even nuttier on the radio. I just heard him trying out a new, completely silly nickname; Barack "Hoover" Obama.
Barack "Hoover" Obama.
That's revisionist history again. Hoover initiated a spending freeze, which accelerated the path to the depression, and of which repub congressmen are invoking as a course of action right now.
That's what I meant by a "completely silly" nickname, Fog.Not saying it won't work on the Fox base, but there's not much that doesn't fool the Hannitized types.
Fog, see the video I posted near the top of the thread. Rachel Maddow ,complete with Herbert Hoover mask. Only she's making the case against the new 'Pub talking point of spending freeze like you are.
and don't forget who convinced FDR to do a spending freeze in 1937, and appealed to his budget balancing nature, even though he knew it was stupid to do......that woul dbe the republicans
It goes well with Sean "Father Coughlin" Hannity.
It goes well with Sean "Father Coughlin" Hannity.
Bill Donohue just called and said to tell you thanks on behalf of Catholics for your complimentary remark. ;>)
Seriously MMFA...though does protest too much. I believe this is the fifth thread in the last two weeks on this subject. SO what if he did or din't say he was going to ban all earmarks. Even if he, the chosen one by a slim majority, only agreed to be more transparent and limit earmarks - it doesn't matter. The key point is he has not done oanything to root this out. He went uyp the hill to twist arms on a stimulus package and told Pelosi and gang to go along with some right sided changes. He, the chosen one who only speaks eloquently when there is a teleprompter (guess old dog did learn a trick or two from the Bush experience) could have taken a position on earmarks in this budget. What you say, this was George's budget? Well all things George has not stopped BHO from making major changes to those very same GWB things in his first few days. So, MMFA, why is the promise kept, promise not kept on the earmark thing such a big issue to you? I believe only because it brings out the loonies on the left to jump up and down about all that is wrong with the world thus validating your existence.
I think MMFA should keep this thread going at least another 4 years until we all grow tired of MMFA!!!!
I think everyone will know when you grow tired of MMFA. Actually, you better look ahead, which the Repuglicons never can achieve. We are talking 8 years of this President and who knows how many years of dominance the, get this, Democrat Party will be in charge.
As you know, I think the Conservative National Party should appear soon. Join it, become it, love it.
P.S. What would you know about speaking eloquently? Unless Rush and Seannie told you. They preach that crap everyday. Wait a minute, are you SeannietheSissyBoy?
You're under the mistaken impression that Obama is against earmarks. The candidate and the party that was supposedly against earmarks took a drubbing last November.
What a tool.
It's not a flaw in MMfA when a false talking point gets mentioned multiple times, and so they cover it multiple times.
If you were a true Conservative and a loyal American who treasured the truth, you would be upset that after this false talking point got called to notice, it continued to make the rounds. Reasonable people make mistakes, then don't make that same mistake again.
Conservatives lie about Obama, and then continue to do so even after that lie has been pointed out. If you had a soul, you would be bugged by that deception.
I'm sorry but in my world it is a flaw with MMFA. There are so many issues that need seeing the light of day, such as what are those billions in earmarks going to, that I believe MMFA is doing itself and its lefty supporters a disservice by taking the substantive issues down to a least common denominator - i.e gutter talk about Clintonesque parsing of what he did or did not promise.
MMFA can and should rise to a higher level.
I would also suggest a look in the mirror Miss Lulu. If you were a true American that stands for truth and unequivocal full disclosure you should be upset that MMFA has gone to such pains as to say the commentators are lying when his highness clearly has implied that he was against wasteful earmarks and would work them out of the system. That is the message he wanted all you believers to accept - but like all politicians before him, "the circumstances change when I got in office" so it is OK to go back on campaign promises.
I have a soul, and I am bothered about deception. That is why I am smiling now as once Hilary dropped out of the race, and Obama was in I knew where the deception was coming from (Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, ACORN, I could go on and on) went to all cash - so while markets are down 50% I am actually up!!
Thanks for confirming that your "world" is the Bizarro Planet.
I don't think anyone is falling for your shenanigans.
In all fairness, your memory cells are broken.
But THIS STATEMENT IS PROBABLY TRUE. He promised to reform earmarks. "This bill includes [SOME kinds] of [earmarks] that Obama pledged...to eliminate."
The AP isn't saying that he promised to eliminate all earmarks, just that he promised to reform them, and this bill is not a reformed earmark bill. It has a lot of earmarks--some good earmarks, some bad earmarks, and some kinds of earmarks that Obama promised to eliminate.