About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Post article on earmarks quoted Stevens but not prior Post report that Stevens' earmarks are being investigated

October 14, 2007 12:49 pm ET

22 Comments

An October 12 Washington Post article by staff writers John Solomon and Matthew Mosk headlined, "Earmarks Put Candidates On the Spot," reported that "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) co-sponsored a little-noticed proposal to require the Pentagon to spend $2 million on brain trauma research for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan." Solomon and Mosk reported that "[t]he earmark faced stiff opposition on the Senate floor last year," and noted that Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) "said directing the funds to the University of Chicago would circumvent the normal process by which the National Institutes of Health hands out research funds." But the article did not mention that, according to an August 1 Post article by staff writers Paul Kane and Dan Eggen headlined "FBI Probes Stevens's Earmark": "The FBI is investigating whether Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) used a $1.6 million congressional appropriation to help an Alaska marine center purchase property from a business partner of the senator's son, said sources familiar with the probe." The August 1 Post article added: "The FBI and the Interior Department's inspector general are also jointly examining a series of budgetary earmarks endorsed by Stevens in recent years for the Alaska SeaLife Center in Seward."

In his August 17, 2006, column, syndicated conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote about Stevens' objection to Obama's earmark, and said that "Stevens, as a reigning king of pork, cracking down on earmarking is drenched in irony."

From the October 12 Washington Post article:

Just a few months before he joined the presidential race, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) co-sponsored a little-noticed proposal to require the Pentagon to spend $2 million on brain trauma research for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The beneficiary of the Aug. 2, 2006, earmark from him and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) was undeniably close to home: the University of Chicago, where his wife, Michelle, worked as the university hospital's vice president for community and external affairs.

Earlier this year, Obama made dozens of additional earmark requests, and -- consistent with his position that such requests be transparent -- he publicly disclosed the beneficiaries. More than half a dozen requests were meant for clients of a lobbying and law firm whose partners have donated more than $38,000 to Obama in the past two years.

[...]

The earmark faced stiff opposition on the Senate floor last year. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), then the Appropriations Committee chairman, said directing the funds to the University of Chicago would circumvent the normal process by which the National Institutes of Health hands out research funds.

"For this to be earmarked here, now, means they no longer have to compete," Stevens said of the university. "The program [NIH has] for allocating money, I think, should not be obviated by an earmark here on the floor." The spending proposal was eventually set aside.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tex (October 14, 2007 1:13 pm ET)
         

      This is great. Let's DO it ... let's have it all out in the open. Obama attempting to get funding for our troops, to help them with their most traumatic injuries, with an "earmark".

      Stevens, attempting to get funding to line the pockets of his own family (no doubt including himself). And Stevens OPPOSING helping the troops.

      By all means, let's investigate each and every earmark, and establish who is trying to help America, and who is trying to help himself.

      Do Republicans really think they can get away with playing this game? Did those few years in absolute power make them think they are immune, involnerable? Having a Justice Department dedicated to protecting the GOP will continue forever?

      I'm all FOR it. EXPOSE Obama (and then give him a frickin' MEDAL), and EXPOSE Stevens (and then issue him an orange jumpsuit).

      Unbelievable the absolute GALL of these Republican mooks. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 14, 2007 2:20 pm ET)
           

        If Barack Hussein Obama simply wanted to provide money for the soldiers, then why did he qualify the earmark to go only to the University of Chicago?And furthermore, in your post why did you fail to mention that part?  Obviously, Barack Hussein Obama wanted to help out his home state with some more money from the feds.  However, the reason people question earmarks is a very simple one - when the normal process is circumvented then we do not know if (a) there is already a research program that is already addressing that problem, or (2) if another university would do a better job.  That is why it's usually better to go through the proper channels - in this case the NIH - than to have senators like Barack Hussein Obama butt in where they are not needed.The same criticism applies to Stevens.  Even more to some other Republicans who used earmarks to buy votes.  This has already been covered in great detail in the MSM and is a large reason why Republicans broke faith with the conservative base and are being punished at the polling booth.In terms of criticism of the Wash Post for not going into the prior story about Stevens I can only say that -

         

        • This story is about Barack Hussein Obama, not Stevens
        • The Wash Post already did a lot of reporting on Stevens
        • The Democrat Party controls the House and the Senate are are responsible for everything that is happening this year

        Finally, there is not one factual error in this Wash Post story - it's just not critical enough of the Republican (who is not the subject of this report).  It really looks like it's MMFA who is being unfair and unbalanced.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (October 14, 2007 2:45 pm ET)
             

          Congrats BBJ (if thats really you). As rational a post as I've seen from you. Quinon proficit deficit.

          I'd say that it's because of Ted's recorded critism of the type of thing that he's under investigation for. This absent detail earned the author a mention on MMFA.

          If this were Monday, you'd find more support for your position.

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 14, 2007 2:55 pm ET)
               

            eweston8542983

             

            thanks for the "congrats" ... And believe me, Stevens will be the subject in many more MSM reports.  

             

             

            Report Abuse
            • Author by steeve (October 14, 2007 3:35 pm ET)
                 

              Remember when you used to pretend you were a Democrat?

              Ah, those were the days.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 14, 2007 9:32 pm ET)
                   

                I'm a registered Dem.   But I'm a conservative Democrat.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by mescal (October 15, 2007 2:51 am ET)
                     

                  And who was the last Democrat the you voted for?

                  And who were the last TEN ReNamblacans? 

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 15, 2007 11:08 am ET)
                     

                  To add to that last question, why the fixation on Obama's middle name?  Does that affect your perception of him negatively?

                  Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (October 14, 2007 3:16 pm ET)
             

          Barack Hussein Obama Barack Hussein Obama Barack Hussein Obama Barack Hussein Obama

          Billybob, can't help but notice how many times you've highlighted Obama's middle name. Is that part of right-wing propaganda to highlight his middle name?. Is that for the backwards, uninformed members of your party?

          Liberals unlike right-wing nut jobs acknowledge that one's middle name is given to a CHILD at birth and that child is in no way responsible for his or her middle name.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by JLyons (October 14, 2007 3:36 pm ET)
             

          This story is about Barack Hussein Obama

          Billybob why the reason to bold Senator Obamas middle name?   Can we have an honest answer? I do not see you ever trying to emphaize Rudy, Romney , McCains middle name. Lets have the reason please, i am curious.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 14, 2007 9:41 pm ET)
               

            JLyons

            I just can't seem to get anything past you guys.  Yup, there was no really good reason for the <B> Hussein <B> formatting.

             

            But lets be honest - I see a lot of left/libs taking shots at Bush/Cheney, so I kind of saw this as kind of tame.

             

            Report Abuse
        • Author by psp (October 14, 2007 4:43 pm ET)
             

          Sheesh, Bob, can you please stop writing Hussein over and over again?  Now I can't stop thinking about women's fashion.  That was your point, right?  Personally, I don't get it, but to each their own, I suppose.  

          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (October 14, 2007 6:03 pm ET)
             

          Well BillyMORONJones since you are too ignorant to even know the NAME of the largest political party in the US, I cant take anything a MORON like you takes seriously. BillyMORONJones is a propagandist. BillyMORONJones is a ReNAMBLAcan who thinks someones middle name is somehow relevant to anything except his anscestry which only a BIGOT like BillyMORONJones would pretend has any real significance. BillyMORONJones' posts arent worth reading

          Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (October 14, 2007 6:57 pm ET)
             

          That is why it's usually better to go through the proper channels - in this case the NIH - than to have senators like Barack Hussein Obama butt in where they are not needed.

          I think republicans have a problem with funding anything that has to do with the troops excluding war.  They don't care about the troops; they care about their precious war.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by RoberttheP (October 14, 2007 7:11 pm ET)
               

            Bush and the gop took real good care of our military at Walter Reed. Vile war criminals.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (October 14, 2007 2:08 pm ET)
         

      Teddy and the whole congressional delagation from Alaska seem to be in deep do do.

      While I do comend Obama for this earmark. My Sunday paper had an article on some local ear marks of less utility, national defence, and infrastructurewise. Some may be from Democratic representatives and as both senators are, they may take some hits. OK, while I support them usually, if they're wrong here they deserve a hit or two.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (October 15, 2007 1:08 am ET)
           

        This whole issue might appeal to the brain-dead GOP zombie base.While Obama wants to provide government handouts and entitlements to do research on soldiers who are useless as far as killing more people, Stevens is sharp enough to get into real estate.

        As long as the Repubs can convince their Billybobs that they're  investing in their interest, while Obama doesn't even have a flag lapel pin, the GOP may hang onto the stoopidest 30% of our fellow Americans.

        Support the Troops! F*ck 'em and wear a flag pin!

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.