"Political Grapevine" goes sour: Fox's Baier understated Obey's response to alleged conflict of interest
SUMMARY: Fox News' Bret Baier asserted that Rep. David Obey is "under fire" because the economic stimulus bill provides more than $2 billion for the National Park Service, "the industry for which his son lobbies," and cited a Washington Times article reporting that, in Baier's words, "a spokeswoman for Congressman Obey's office says nepotism was not a factor." But Baier did not mention that the Times article also reported the spokeswoman saying the funding for parks "was included at the request of [Rep.] Norm Dicks." Nor did Baier note that Dicks has repeatedly made similar appropriations requests for national parks in previous appropriations bills.
On the January 29 edition of Fox News' Special Report, anchor Bret Baier asserted that House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) "is under fire about something specific in the stimulus bill: money that goes to the industry for which his son lobbies. The stimulus gives two and a quarter billion dollars to national parks." Baier then cited a January 29 Washington Times article about the alleged conflict of interest and said that "a spokeswoman for Congressman Obey's office says nepotism was not a factor. Quote: 'There is wide support for these funds.' " However, Baier did not mention that the Times article also reported that Obey spokeswoman Kirstin Brost said the funding for parks "was included at the request of [Rep.] Norm Dicks, Washington Democrat. ... Mr. Dicks is chairman of the subcommittee on interior, environment and related agencies." A January 29 Associated Press article -- also published before Special Report aired -- similarly reported that Brost said "the parks proposal came from" Dicks, and quoted Dicks' chief of staff saying: "I will assure you this was the highest priority for Norm. This has been a passion of Norm's for many years."
Further, the level of funding allocated for the National Parks in the stimulus bill is similar to what Dicks has included in his prior appropriations requests. According to the full text of Obey's chairman's mark of the stimulus bill, under the legislation, the National Park Service would receive $1.7 billion for infrastructure, $200 million for the National Mall, and $100 million for the Park Services' Centennial Challenge Matching Grant Program. According to Dicks' June 11, 2008, statement about his subcommittee's recommendations for the FY 2009 Interior and the Environment Appropriations bill:
The bill includes $2.6 billion for the National Parks. This includes a $158 million increase in funding for the operational budgets of our parks. Every one of the 391 units of the Park Service will benefit from this increase. The 2009 bill continues the multi-year effort initiated in 2008 to restore the parks for the Centennial of the National Park Service in 2016. ...The bill also includes an increase of $175 million to begin a multi-year effort to revitalize the National Mall area of the nation's capital, an area often referred to as "America's Front Yard."
Dicks similarly requested $2.512 billion for the National Park Service for fiscal year 2008, in his first year as chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
From the January 29 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: And now some fresh pickings from the "Political Grapevine": A top Democrat is under fire about something specific in the stimulus bill: money that goes to the industry for which his son lobbies. The stimulus gives two and a quarter billion dollars to national parks.
The Washington Times reports Craig Obey, son of Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, is the chief lobbyist for the National Parks Conservation Association.
Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California says, quote, "It really does beg the question of: Is this an earmark, is this a family connection, and should it have been disclosed, at least in the spirit of what the Democrats said they wanted? And the answer is: It should have been disclosed."
A spokeswoman for Congressman Obey's office says nepotism was not a factor. Quote: "There is wide support for these funds." As we heard earlier, the question of just how simulative this and other items are for the economy is really still being fought out on Capitol Hill.
I don't understand the objection to spending money to fix up our national monuments.
I know most would like to forget recent history, but we've got a lot of other history to be proud of and money spent on the monuments on the mall and the historic districts in our cities and towns will add to the economy by drawing people to the cities and towns containing the monuments.
I know, I know. It's better we invest in capital gains tax cuts and business tax cuts and then everything will be rosy once gain.
I'd bet this month's mortgage payments that if someone proposed building a monument to the Bush/Cheney Administration the Republicans and Mrs. Limbaugh would be falling all over themselves to come up with the money.
I am not objecting to it at all. it's not about that, it's about full disclosure and the stench of lobbying influence that Obama says he wants to be rid of.
Obey didn't ask for the funds. What other full disclosure do you want?
of course he didn't, he's not that stupid. get another comrade to do it for him. you people cannot be that naive as to how this stuff works. jeez, i am not saying Republicans dont' do the same things, they all do it. But when mmfa starts covering that, i'll comment.
Did you even read the entire article, or did you just come up with this out of thin air. The guy who requested the funding, has done so in the past (fiscal year 2008), and his office states that National Park funding has been a "passion" of his for years on end.
There is nothing there, as much as you'd like there to be.
i read it and it changes nothing. You seem to take these Congressmen at their word when they act all coy and innocent of any connection on this. i don't. sorry, pet pork and earmarks have soured me over the years, I've seen it way too much. go ahead and defend.
First of all, this isn't pork. National Parks are huge draws for tourism in this country, and this could be another thing that could stimulate the economy in some far flung places in our country, and draw more people to them, and also, we have a responsibility to keep up our National Parks I believe.
They act all coy? Those are words. They aren't acting coy. One man requested it. Obey, was NOT that man. I take them at their word, just like I do everyone else, until you can prove that they lied about something. They didn't, and haven't. You're just dying for this to be something that it isn't..
Well comrade, let's all form a collective and scrub up them parks ourselves. You take the porta-potties and I'll sweep the sidewalks. We can get it done in about 2,000 years.
Well, we could all start by packing out what we pack in, in re to the mess left following inaugaration day.
Good heavens, I don't think I've ever seen anybody before swallow as much Kool-aid in one swig as you have here.
By your own logic, if any member of Congress requests funds for any purpose or project in which any relative of any other member of Congress of the same party has any interest, we are required to discern "the stench of lobbying influence" - even if it is for something like the NPS and even if it's a program of which the person requesting the funds has been a consistent supporter and even if there is no flipping evidence but merely wild speculation.
I'd say nice try at changing the subject from FOX News's failure to report relevant facts, but it's not even good at that.
sometimes mmfa is either naive, or dishonest, i don't know which. Look, the Democratic Congressman's son lobbies for the National Parks which has now been given billions of dollars championed by another Democratic Congressman. this doesn't raise any eyebrows or bother mmfa in the least? Is it because they will do anything to make Democrats look innocent of any lobbying connections, or backslapping from one Congressman to another. the only thing sour about this is mmfa's incredible partisanship, Democratic politicians must love you people.
Why do you think Fox News omitted which Rep it was who actually requested the funds, naivety or dishonesty?
because Fox News will do anything to put Democrats in a negative light. Do you think you've stumbled across some sort of a scoop with that inference. However, that doesn't change anything I said about this item.
It chages everything about what you've said about this item. You admit that Fox News is being dishonest here yet you somehow think that Media Matters is wrong for pointing it out.
James...Your point is well taken. A book written about former heavyweight champion, Mike Tyson, revealed the same kind of behavior.
As a young man growing up money was short for Tyson and his buddies. They hit upon a scheme...that in their convaluted world absolved them of blame. They new the day that their mother's govt. checks would arrive...their plan was to steal them.
While none of them wanted to rob their own mother...they concocted a simple scheme. Each of his confederates would rob the other's mother...never their own mother...and bingo...no guilt complex.
good analogy. only mmfa would try and deny the connection between two Democratic Congressman and huge bucks for one of their sons' lobbying interests. amazing. But it's all about Fox here. it matters not what our government leaders do, as long as Fox is nailed for their partisanship, job complete.
But it's Media Matters that's disclosing the facts on two Democratic Congressman. (Fox News left out 50% of the folks involved in your purported fleecing of America)
How is Media Matters denying anything?
Apparently if a Democrat supports the National Park Service, it must be because of conspiracy, not because of any actual interest in that regard.
Didn't Republicans create the National Park Service?
"Didn't Republicans create the National Park Service?"
Good catch. That would, of course, be PROGRESSIVE Republicans. The present batch has spent the last few decades, when in power, defunding and seeking to "privatize" them, i.e. hand them over to GOP contributors. That is, I believe, a relevant fact which Jimmie B should take into account. The national parks, like the rest of our infrastructure, has suffered as much as the middle and working classes during the last three Republican administrations.
Yeah, really! SOMEBODY has to lobby for interests, it's part of the biz...
mmfa is certainly not naive. They are rabidly partisan in their quest to make conservatives look bad and liberals look good. Good for them...but the kudos stop when they omit and distort facts to support their effort...just like their alter-ego, FOX News.
mmfa and Hannity are pretty much mirror images...even though I tilt the truth-meter in mmfa's favor...they both rely on simplistic analysis and rely heavily on the old tactic of "when did you stop beating your wife" line of reasoning.
be careful, because you're about to be scolded and mistreated for your behavior, not your ideology, by the resident insufferable web cop around here.
You seem to be upset with Media Matters for not spinning this one way or the other. What's specically is being omitted here by them?
of course Wesley, i mean Obey says nepotism was not a factor, and that's good enough for mmfa, case closed.
How is that "good enough" for Media Matters? It was Fox News that limited its reporting to that single quote.
What makes you believe that nepotism happened then? Obey denied it. There's no proof that there was any. Case is indeed closed.
when it walks like a duck, it's a duck
Move over, Watergate!
Thing is chief, it doesn't walk like a duck. It doesn't quack like a duck. The Congressman who requested the funding had made a similar request the year before for funding.
There is NOTHING there. I know you guys are just dying for your first scandal of the Obama administration for democrats, but this isn't it at all.
Teddy Roosevelt is lying in his grave rolling his eyes at you as I write this no doubt.
Sorry, Mags. I jumped in with my quack before I read your response.
"when it walks like a duck, it's a duck"
No, it could be a goose. It's got to "quack like a duck," too. AS I suggested above, try to see the whole picture before jumping to conclusions.
Well Vic...you would be dead wrong. I'm not at all upset with mmfa...I enjoy the site and the info provided. Being mostly opposed to mmfa's philosophies doesn't make me angry with them.
However, when a snarling dog with foam ringing his mouth approaches me...I recognize the situation for what it is.
Yes--that dog used too much aftershave.
Ok, so you're not upset. Got it. But my main point to you was to simply ask what specically it is that you think Media Matters is omitting here?
If you see our National Parks as a snarling, foaming dog, you really need to get out and visit them more often. They're actually quite calm and peaceful. I've been to several and have yet to contract rabies.
Wes is Petrified by the Forest, thinks yosemite sam terrorizes Yosemite, & you can get yellow fever in Yellowstone.
the thing is is whenever a government funded program or expenditurer is questioned in any conceivable way, whether it's towards the program's validity, or the process, the liberals move mountains to defend it, no matter what. Of course there can be no conflict of interest for two reasons, it's put forth by a Democrat, and it's taxpayer government money involved. There is never waste or abuse or shenanigans where that is concerned. money 100% accounted for. no need to question it, we just hate national parks now.
Thanks for admitting that. I question a government funded program: the Pentagon, a fount of waste, fraud and abuse. Any funding cuts alerts the army of faux patriots to attack mode.
i question the pentagon and military spending as much as anything else. under Rumsfeld there were billions unaccounted for.
Horray, we agree. Happy Friday!
There certainly can be a conflict of interest, but there has to be some evidence in order to believe it. That's not an unreasonable standard to meet.
When defending democrats, mmfa is quick on the draw to take one source denials from the accused...in this case Obey.
I'm not suggesting that Obey is guilty of anything. But I do take exception to mmfa's tactic of trying to sweep any discussion under the rug when it comes to defending liberals...simply because the accused has denied any wrong doing.
I'll also help out those hand-wringers who are about to drum up the "you can't prove a negative" defense...I'm not interested.
Guilty or innocent...there is only one response that Obey could make...not guilty. Just like the famous denial of "I did not have sex with that woman".
But you and I can just continue to keep our eyes open...absorb the information...and make up our own minds...unlike some lemmings who take everything mmfa says as gospel.
well stated. and its all about perception as much as reality in things like lobby influence. if this had been a Republican and Fox glossed it over, mmfa would be all over it like white on rice, and the liberals here would be following their leader's lead in guilt by ideology. it's more of the same in Washington, Obama may want to change and clean it up, i don't know, but good luck.
There's nothing there though. There's no evidence there. This is not comparable to Clinton/Lewinsky in the least. Why? Because, well, there's nothing there about Obey. You can make your own decision, and apparently you already have, even though, someone else introduced, or asked for the funding for the parks, NOT Obey.
I'm well aware of the context of the story...and I've not condemed or convicted Obey of anything. What I have done is call horseturds on mmfa's blind allegiance to Obey's denial.
If you want to blindly follow mmfa or Obey's contention...go for it...but don't think that everyone else thinks like mmfa and that Obey is pure as the driven snow. You're correct when you say "there's nothing there about Obey"...but thanks to mmfa I've learned that Obey's son is a lobbyist.
That's something that will go into the old memory bank...as I sort through future stories about Obey. Having a lobbyist son doesn't make Obey a crook...but it does make it abundantly clear about the potential conflict of interest....regardless of mmfa's unswerving allegiance to his denial.
I defy you to point out where there's any "allegiance" to the denial, either explicit or implied. They show that FOX did not provide the whole story, period. That would be wanting fair, objective journalism. That's too much to expect from the likes of FOX, of course, but it makes for a perfectly valid complaint.
You're smart enough to understand this.
"I'm not suggesting that Obey is guilty of anything."
"A book written about former heavyweight champion, Mike Tyson, revealed the same kind of behavior. As a young man growing up money was short for Tyson and his buddies. They hit upon a scheme..."
Not guilty of anything except conspiracy, that is.
See, the thing is that even if you want to conclude that there is a conspiracy, the information that would lead you to that was omitted by FOX. They should give the entire story so people can make up their own minds, right?
Agreed. I'm still trying to understand how, as Wesley puts it, "they (Media Matters) omit and distort facts to support their effort...just like their alter-ego, FOX News."
He has yet to explain what - if anything - is being omitted here by Media Matters.
I'm sure that had you been around here for years like a lot of us, you'd have been yelling the loudest about no bid contracts to Haliburton since their former CEO was VP for the last eight years.
We only ask for a little consistency. Tell us how you wrote to your congressman about the Haliburton/Cheney ties and we might start accepting your point of view. Until then, if you don't like it, no one's holding your fingers to the keyboard.
"mmfa is certainly not naive. They are rabidly partisan in their quest to make conservatives look bad and liberals look good"
Nope, not even close. MMFA doesn't need to "make conservatives look bad" - "conservatives" are doing a great job of that themselves. MMFA just turns a spotlight on what they are doing, and how they are doing it. Makes for lots of fun reading.
The conservatives that post here and the people they support fall into this trap all the time.
Somehow MMfA is the bad guy for pointing out the errors of Fox, and including the information that Fox should have included. The whistleblower is the bad guy. The Democrat who says that torturing prisoners is hurting America's reputation is the bad guy for getting terrorists mad at us. People displaying the atrocious photos from Abu Ghraib were the bad guys, not the ones who misbehaved as guards in the prison!
They live in upside-down, black-is-white world.
MMFA by its own admission focuses on conservative misinfo, ignoring when progressive outlets make the same (or different) mistakes. It gives a distorted view of the media.
Which is what they want, otherwise they would correct both sides.
To expand on my prior comment, MMFA is very good at leaving out relevent information when giving their analysis. For example, on one of the Limbaugh threads yesterday, MMFA noted that economists disagree with Limbaughs plan to incorporate corporate and capital gains tax cuts in conjunction with some government spending increases, saying that type of plan would not stimulate the economy.
MMFA did not mention that the current Obama plan also contains billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts. Instead they criticize the media report that didn't note the economist disagreement with that viewpoint and left the Obama plan in the clear.
It's a very smart way for MMFA to play the game.
You get low marks for reading comprehension. MMFA had no need to point out that there are tax cuts in the stimulus package in order to make their point that Limbaugh took a shortsighted view of the plan. And it was, in fact, Limbaugh who failed to note in his op-ed that the stimulus package includes neary $300 billion in tax cuts. Of course, he couldn't mention that because it would have dulled the edge of his argument a bit.
You can't be serious.
There is no suggestion about anything regarding progressive outlets. If MMfA claimed that they monitored all misinformation, then they would be creating a distorted view. If you read a site that admits to covering one side, and somehow think it covers both sides, that's your problem, not theirs.
Progressive outlets can still be guilty of the same things conservative outlets are guilty of, for example not correcting a guest that puts forward conservative misinformation. If the site is to monitor conservative misinformation in the media, then it shouldn't matter if a liberal or conservative program is allowing the misinformation to be stated.
I know what MMFA's mission is, I've been reading the site for years.
"MMFA by its own admission focuses on conservative misinfo, ignoring when progressive outlets make the same (or different) mistakes. It gives a distorted view of the media...Which is what they want, otherwise they would correct both sides."
It sure sounds like you were talking about liberal misinformation there, since you're drawing a distinction between what MMfA focuses on and the mistakes that progressive outlets typically make. Obviously conservative misinformation is going to come from conservatives far more often than from liberals.
I also have seen many times where someone will say something along the lines of "why is MMfA pointing this out, so-and-so is liberal", as if that has anything to do with whether conservative misinformation has been spread or not. I find the argument that this is some intentional, consistent fault to be hard to swallow, since I too have been reading the site for years.
It's a fault in that partisan sites have credibility issues. Going after Lou Dobbs for not correcting a guest, when Rachel Maddow didn't correct the same guest on the same issue (this is just an example) is a problem if you ask me.
Do you find any of these threads to be shaky that MMFA posts? I find it hard to believe that fair-minded people don't take closer looks at what MMFA writes about. It would be refreshing to see some progressives give some critical analysis once in a while instead of the lame comedy routines (you don't do that but you know what I mean).
I agree that's a problem, I just have seen enough counter-examples that I'm not sure it's a strong enough pattern to draw conclusions about intent. And I don't expect that it happens often enough to make a significant difference in perception of the media as a whole.
I do find some to be shaky, many that are borderline I don't bother commenting on. Items that I feel are unjustified I will certainly dispute. I spent a lot of time shooting down the Ingraham/Sharpton controversy a while back. One of the worst ones in recent memory was the "anthrax" thread, where the complaint was that it was wrong to say we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 because that statement ignores the anthrax attacks. The first problem is that the timing is so close to 9/11 that it's largely negligible on those grounds alone. The bigger problem for me is that the current understanding is that was the work of one man who was trying to make his scientific work more relevant. That's not "terrorism" by either technical or practical definition as far as I can see. Terrorism has a religious or political goal behind it. Otherwise shooting hostages during a bank robbery would be "terrorism", because you're "terrorizing" people. The man was a serial killer, whether people were frightened or not. And on the practical side, the whole point was that it was misinformation to say that Bush has kept us safe since 9/11. That would mean Bush didn't keep us safe from anthrax, which is ridiculous. Some lone nutjob could terrorize us with letter bombs and someone could say "Obama isn't keeping us safe from terrorism!" Obviously if there's no organization to infiltrate or otherwise get intelligence about, what the hell is anyone supposed to do to prevent such a thing?
Sorry for the rant but I wasn't able to comment very much at that time and I would have liked to. But the point is that I certainly agree there should be more critical analysis from everyone, and some items here are definitely shaky.
Well, plenty of conservative posters on that thread said that Clinton had not kept us safe from Terrorism for eight years because of the OK City attack- did that actually qualify as an act of "terrorism," since it was committed by basically one or two Americans and not for any religious or political goal? And if one argues that McVeigh was in fact a "terrorist," what about the abortion clinic bombings and the murder of abortion providers? Surely they had as much political and social reasoning behind them as the OK City bombing did.
I argued on that thread that one legitimate act of terrorism on US soil took place during the Clinton Administration- the first WTC bombing. After which, Clinton kept us safe from another attack for 7 years and 11 months. And received no real praise for doing so. Bush, on the other hand, was instantly lionized merely for being President during the worst National Security failure in our nation's history, and his minions in the media have been hammering away at the "he's kept us safe since 9/11" theme for at least the past two years. Someone has to call the Bush supporters out on their double-standards and hypocricy.
I'm not sure that McVeigh and company did it just for fun, and they certainly didn't do it for profit. I thought it was on the anniversary of Waco (correct me if I'm misremembering), or at the very least was a pretty clear anti-government statement. That should qualify as terrorism, and abortion clinic bombing is terrorism as well. But at the same time, that's similar to the letter bombing scenario, because any random person can commit an atrocity and it doesn't show any systemic problem. That's what makes the entire "kept us safe" discussion meaningless to begin with. If Bush had made efforts to prevent 9/11, taken all reasonable measures to close security loopholes, etc, then I wouldn't blame him for not "keeping us safe". If Clinton ignored some actionable intelligence that could have prevented OKC, then he should get some blame for that. Otherwise, "keeping us safe" is pretty random itself, because it relies purely on the actions of people and not anything having to do with the President or those serving him.
I agree double-standards should be exposed, and I find the entire framework of the discussion to be blatantly self-serving for Republicans.
Thanks for your response. I do think you are one of the most credible posters on here, despite your detractors.
I'm not expecting people to agree with my opinions on here very much because I know where most people are coming from politically. I've tried to move from a conservative viewpoint to a more neutral viewpoint over time. This site has helped in that regard.
Thanks very much!
I guess that baselessly asserting a conspiracy isn't an effort to make Democrats look bad.
As others have said, MMFA doesn't "try" to make conservatives look bad, they use their own words, in context, to bury them for the lies and misinformation that they bring up in the media.
MMFA and Hannity are nothing alike. Since one organization tends to make things up out of whole cloth, and one has a strong base for facts.
To make any comparison between Media Matters for America and Sean Hannity is beyond ridiculous, and flat-out dishonest.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
So I guess by your assertion the entire democratic party is involved with Obey's son, who lobbies for the National Parks (WOW powerful lobby there no doubt...), because his Dad is a democrat (who didn't request the funds), and well, so is the guy who requested the funds.
Talk about really loose ties here. It doesn't raise any eyebrows because the conflict of interest didn't happen.
Gosh, never realized that the name of the Congressman from Washington was a profanity. Tried using it and was "red-lettered."
Stormin Normie? His district has a major military site, he's been arround for almost three decades. He looks a bit bluish on occasion. The are several state level legislators who I'd like to see replace him. One an ex battleship skipper named Seaquist.
Ah, a West Coast Joe Biden (at least in length of service)