Times' Dowd used falsehood to advance McCain accusation that Obama broke promise on earmarks
SUMMARY: The New York Times' Maureen Dowd falsely claimed that President Obama is not "liv[ing] up to his own no-earmark pledge from the campaign," echoing a Times article false claim that Obama made "campaign promises to put an end to the practice" of earmarks and Sen. John McCain's accusation that Obama has gone back on a promise to "work to eliminate ... earmarks." In fact, Obama promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending.
Echoing a falsehood that recently surfaced in her newspaper's news pages, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd falsely claimed in her March 3 column that "[i]n one of his disturbing spells of passivity, President Obama decided not to fight Congress and live up to his own no-earmark pledge from the campaign." In a March 1 article, the Times reported that Obama made "campaign promises to put an end to the practice" of earmarks, when, in fact, as PolitiFact.com noted, Obama had actually promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending.
By repeating this falsehood, Dowd -- who included numerous statements in her column from Sen. John McCain criticizing earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill -- advanced McCain's accusation that Obama has gone back on a promise to "work to eliminate -- eliminate -- earmarks." Discussing the omnibus bill in a March 2 speech on the Senate floor, McCain stated:
McCAIN: Not surprisingly, the measure has unnecessary and wasteful earmarks. So much for the promise of change. So much for the promise of change. This may be -- in all the years I have been coming to this floor to complain about the earmark, porkbarrel corruption that this system has bred, this may be probably the worst -- probably the worst.
I just went through a campaign where both candidates promised change in Washington; promised change from the wasteful, disgraceful, corrupting practice of earmark, porkbarrel spending. We have former Members of Congress residing in Federal prison. We have former congressional staffers under indictment and in prison. So what are we doing here? Not only is this business as usual, but this is an outrageous insult to the American people.
[...]
McCAIN: So here we are. Here we are promising the American people hope and change, and what do we have? Business as usual.
What does the administration say? What does the administration say? Mr. Peter Orszag -- an individual I don't know -- brushed off questions during his appearance on ''This Week'' about whether the President would sign a spending bill that contains 9,000 earmarks -- 9,000 earmarks. Noting that during the campaign President Obama said he would work to limit earmarks and make them more transparent, his response was: This is last year's business. We want to just move on.
Last year's business? The President will sign this appropriations bill into law. It is the President's business. It is the business of the President of the United States. It is the business of the President of the United States to do what he said.
When we were in debate seeking the support of the American people, he stated he would work to eliminate -- eliminate -- earmarks.
From PolitiFact.com:
Speaking on the House floor, Republican Leader John Boehner [OH] railed against a spending bill with some 9,000 earmarks, calling on President Obama to veto it and insist on one free of pet projects.
"The President campaigned against this type of legislation, this number of earmarks," the Ohio Republican said on Feb. 25, "and I would hope that the President would veto this bill because Republicans in Congress will be here to uphold his veto of this piece of legislation."
Several news organizations made even harsher claims. The New York Times, for example, reported that Obama would sign the bill, earmarks and all, "despite campaign promises to put an end to the practice."
That's incorrect. Obama did not promise to end earmarking, only to "reform" it, and eliminate "screwy" or wasteful earmarks.
From Dowd's March 3 column:
"When do we turn off the spigots?" Senator McCain said in his cri de coeur on the Senate floor. "Haven't we learned anything? Bills like this jeopardize our future."
In one of his disturbing spells of passivity, President Obama decided not to fight Congress and live up to his own no-earmark pledge from the campaign.
He's been lecturing us on the need to prune away frills while the economy fizzles. He was slated to make a speech on "wasteful spending" on Wednesday.
I'd love to know the brand of antacids her editors use. Send it along, send it along...
*Sighhh...* Dowd- such a good writer but not so good with the facts. Whatta waste...
On another note, why doesn't ANYONE (McSame, phlib, MM) actually POINT OUT an instance of 'pork' or waste in the bill? Seriously, it can't be THAT hard, especially for members of congress with aides, pages, and staff working 24/7 for them. McSame! Just point out which page(s) have pork- let us all see it! Thank you!
Pork just is. It's there, and if you don't see it, nobody can point it out to you.
OK, I don't really know what pork is, but I'm pretty sure it's our taxes put towards doing something constructive, instead of blowing up furriners.
Hey, Col! I wrote to you on one of the county fair clips, but I shall repeat it here- did you 'disappear' Tommy? I haven't seen race needlessly interjected into some posts in a while and was wondering where he went. Somehow, I don't think LA will be the same without him...
I have no knowledge as to the whereabouts of Tommy.I'm down behind the Orange Curtain, and he's in L.A.. so we're both in constant danger. Anything could have happened.
Don't worry - his alter ego jamesb pops up every once in a while to parse words.
I thought pork was the other white meat?
"OK, I don't really know what pork is"
Pork is the money that Congress allocates to be spent in some other Congressional distract from that of the critic.
This is only one of many reasons McSame lost,he could never keep anything straight,including POW record
If 'American Idol' ever did a gig covering debates, McCain's and Palin's *debates* would be the ones you would see on the first couple of episodes. You know, the ones that are so horrible people cringe at the performance and the performers are stupid enough NOT to know they are soooo atrocious.
That is an apt analogy. "If I'm being honest, its sort of like bad karaoke"
Even if he had promised to "put an end" to earmarks does he fail if he doesn't do it in his first full month in office? Give him a freakin' chance before you start blaming him for breaking promises he never made in the first place.
I read a posting earlier today about earmarks, basically, someone in the house said that Obama can't make congress do what he wants in regards to earmarks. It wasn't Pelosi, but I'm pretty sure a democrat said that.
I read that too. It might have been Harry Reid. He made a good point about congress' constitutional right to control how the govt spends money.
It was Hoyer.
That's right, thanks!
ya know, dowd i believe writes good stuff usually, im somewhat disappointed that she did this.
I've got a conservative friend, and that seems to be his take. Since Obama didn't enact his whole agenda on his first day in office, he's failed. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad.
OK- I'm watching McCain's speech right now. In fifteen minutes he's mentioned PNA ten times and FBI raids six times. Whoops! Make that eleven and seven now!
OK- it's finally over... Landrieu from LA rebutting. What a surprise, she's tearing him a new one with past facts and a reality check.
all the crap going on and we are going to argue about earmarks that make up less than 2 per cent of the entire federal budget for this fiscal year? gimme a break. grrrrrrr
Yes, terrapin. Remember, money spent on "earmark" projects doesn't go to American workers, it goes to extraterrestrials who build the pork projects for us and then spend their earnings like drunken sailors in some faraway galactic resort town. That's why the pork in this bill is not stimulative.
I know this is trivial and somewhat off point, but is Dowd really dumb enough to think that Grandpa McCain was twittering this stuff from the Senate floor? Remember, this is a guy who couldn't use e-mail or a computer during a presidential campaign, who couldn't remember how many freaking homes he has.
One of his aides was twittering this stuff. I don't think Grandpa McCain follows the budget bill enough to even be able to pull out the statistics on his own, much less type them into one of those new-fangled keyboard thingys. His aide twitters. McCain pontificates the usual silly GOPer fiscal "conservative" crap, which they only care about if they're not in charge.
mmfa misses a few beats in the conga line when they cited Politifact's report on Boehner's comment "The President campaigned against this type of legislation, this number of earmarks".
Here's what Politifacts ruled on the Boehner statement:
-- But that doesn't nullify Boehner's point that the bill is—in featuring earmarks added by senior members of Congress in a process that lacked transparency and pushed earmark spending for the year well over $7.8 billion—the "type of legislation" Obama campaigned against. We find Boehner's claim to be True. --
This isn't Obama's budget. That will be introduced later this year.
This is the bill that should have been passed last fall. It's totally unfair to hang this 'budget' around Obama's neck.
But when has being fair mattered to you, Wesley?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/15/obama.earmarks/index.html
Yes, he requested no earmarks for FY 2009 in his capacity as senator. That's unrelated to this story except inasmuch as it demonstrates that Obama wanted to polish his anti-earmark bona fides. As far as this story goes, I think its regrettable that the stimulus bill included earmarks. But not as regrettable as if the stimulus bill didn't get passed at all, or took a lot longer to pass.
It's certainly worth the American public's while, or even the press's while, to hold Obama accountable for reforming the earmark process. But let's not use falsehoods to bolster our arguments! Did Obama pledge not to allow earmarks at all, or to eliminate them? No! So, let's not pretend he did. OK?
As far as this story goes, I think its regrettable that the stimulus bill included earmarks. MRHEBERT74
I think that's incorrect. The "stimulus" bill doesn't have earmarks, but the "omnibus" spending bill does. I know there are still earmarks, but a lot of radio talkers seemed to contend the stimulous bill had earmarks when it didn't (i.e. train frm Disneyland to Vegas).
Either way, he hasn't been in office that long and yet it appears his opponents want him to institute all his pledges at once.
eliminate, reform, invent, take the initiative in creating, whatever.
But on the topic of pork in the stimulus bill, it's obviously all pork. I can't believe all that money's going to be wasted. Just let out into the economy to stimulate spending and lending. What a collossal misuse of power and money.
</sarc>
Are we shocked anymore, when Maureen Dowd continues to "snark" about things?
I just can't believe that the New York Times give valuable space to this woman, who is not funny, never says anything intelligent, and is only interested in gossip.
Click here to visit Maureen Dowd's home.
I think Ms. Dowd has a " Big " crush on Barack Obama !!!!
You have to remember what motivates Maureen Dowd. She wants above all to be seen as dishing the dirt evenly in all directions. Her vanity will stand for nothing less. This was especially evident in 2000, when despite her obvious and deep-seated distaste for George W. Bush, she put on a show of belittling Al Gore. No one, she's hoping in vain, can accuse her of being in anyone's pocket. The rotten part is that she manages to damage politcians whose views are closest to her own, again, all for the sake of vanity. Think of the column inches wasted by this pseudo-humorist, peddling lame satire and a subtle form of self-loathing. It's a shame.
To "truthseeker:"
Why that tinge of resentment that Dowd has a nice home? Have you checked the homes of Dubya and Cheney whose policies have caused the death of thousands of young Americans and the wounding of tens of thousands while providing huge financial benefits to companies with which they're still affiliated and which moved their headquarters to Dubai? I'm sure you're equally critical of these and other Republicans who have moved their money to offshore accounts.