O'Reilly misrepresented Obama remark to falsely claim he "pledg[ed] ... to end earmarks"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly aired a clip of President Obama stating, "We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review," which he falsely characterized as "President Obama pledging last January to end earmarks in federal spending." In fact, 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."
On the March 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly aired a clip of President Obama stating, "We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review," which O'Reilly falsely characterized as "President Obama pledging last January to end earmarks in federal spending." Later in the show, referring to earmarks included in the omnibus appropriations bill, O'Reilly stated, "But Obama's on record -- we just played the clip -- that he's going to do away with this. And then he takes 9,000 of them and signs it?" In fact, in the January 6 clip O'Reilly played, 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.
O'Reilly is the latest media figure to misrepresent Obama's statements regarding earmarks to then accuse Obama of breaking his promise. As PolitiFact.com and Media Matters for America have noted, during his presidential campaign, Obama actually promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not eliminate earmarks altogether.
From the March 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Where your tax dollars are going -- that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." And we begin with this.
OBAMA [video clip]: We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review.
O'REILLY: Uh-oh. That's President Obama pledging last January to end earmarks in federal spending. But now the House has passed a new spending bill full of earmark pork. And if the Senate OKs the 400 billion-plus spending bonanza this week, Mr. Obama is expected to sign it into law.
Senator [John] McCain [R-AZ] is outraged.
McCAIN [video clip]: Not surprising the measure has over 9,000 unnecessarily and wasteful earmarks. So much for the promise of change, Mr. President, so much for the promise of change.
O'REILLY: Well, McCain should also be hammering his own party. Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi is the biggest pork promoter on Capitol Hill. Now, the dumb spending of our money just never ends.
[...]
DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): You know, that speech clip you showed from McCain was pathetic. This is McCain trying to be forceful. You know, "Well, it's a sure thing." And, you know, "There's two bad earmarks." And then he slams his fist on the desk.
O'REILLY: But he was right.
MORRIS: He was right, but he was not a compelling spokesman.
O'REILLY: Well, I mean -- OK.
MORRIS: The Republican Party needs to develop some faces.
O'REILLY: They need some charisma. Absolutely. But I think --
MORRIS: [Gov. Bobby] Jindal [R-LA] bombed in the response.
O'REILLY: I don't know why President Obama, [White House chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel, and these people are wasting their time on this. See? I would rather have them looking out for me and trying to fix the economy and trying to figure out why Wall Street thinks they're a bunch of bozos.
MORRIS: Sure, sure.
O'REILLY: Wouldn't you?
MORRIS: Sure.
O'REILLY: Wouldn't you?
MORRIS: Let me just say this about the earmark thing that you're talking about. We're going to get to [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi [D-CA] in the next segment.
O'REILLY: Right.
MORRIS: This is Obama surrendering the details to Pelosi. Pelosi is Obama's prime minister.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but -- wait, wait. I got all that. But Obama's on record -- we just played the clip -- that he's going to do away with this. And then he takes 9,000 --
MORRIS: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- of them and signs it?
MORRIS: Sure.
O'REILLY: Come on.
MORRIS: Yeah. Well, he might make a show of vetoing it. But he can't because --
O'REILLY: He's not gonna veto it.
MORRIS: -- those earmarks are all of his members', all of his supporters'.
O'REILLY: He's not going to veto it.
MORRIS: Yeah.
O'REILLY: But he looks like -- what? A regular politician.
MORRIS: Barack Obama is going to be brought down by a drip, drip, drip of hot water and cold water. The cold water drip, drip, drip is going to be the bad employment numbers. The hot water drip, drip, drip will be just what you did in the "Talking Points" of the waste and the corruption and the ridiculous spending.
O'REILLY: OK.
What else did anybody expect when Bill O'Reilly and Dick "The Toe-Sucker" Morris get together? One lie after another.......
MORRIS: [Gov. Bobby] Jindal [R-LA] bombed in the response.
Ohhhhh, nooooo...now Dick Morris is going to have apologize to Rush Limbaugh for criticizing Bobby Jindal. Remember, Rush issued the order that no one should criticize Jindal. Man, I wouldn't want to be in Morris' shoes right now. Hey, Dick, who do you think you're messing with...Hillary Clinton?
Great bit from the Daily Show
Jon Stewart basically whupping Blimpy & BilldO's entire careers in a few minutes.
Thanks Col.
John Stewart is one of the best on TV right now!!!
But Dick would like to be in Piyushs'shoes.
Bruce succeeds in misrepresenting the similarities between what MMfA does and what Bill O'Reilly did.
Media Matters doesn't take people out of context. Bill O'Reilly did. Bill pretended that Obama was talking about the continuing resolution, not his (Obama's) budget at all! Media Matters doesn't do that. They take things in context.
What a simpleton you are and a glutton for punishment.
Earmarks...pork...it matters little to me what you call it...but spending on frivolous projects is flat out wrong. The singular motive for politicians is buying votes.
If the project is worthwhile...enter it into the bill by going to the podium on the floor and announce it to all...and let the voting chips fall where they may.
Republican or democrat...stop the horseshit madness and corruption.
on the nose, it's typical politicians, and changes very little no matter who is in power. Now it's the Democrats turn to reward those who got them elected, just like the Republicans before them. And it's supposed to a new era in Washington, right. anyone who believes that has pork for brains.
The one thing that you can count on from the group of politicians in Washington that are supposed to be conducting business on our behalf...there won't be much rancor across party lines when it comes to screwing the public and making sure they get re-elected.
Democrats controlling the appropriations committee means they got about 60% of their graft slipped into the bill...and graciously allowed the republics the other 40%.
Anyone who would even remotely try and defend this policy is whacked out.
Pres.Obama has said he is against the earmark system. If that's true...it's time for him to stand and deliver.
according to mmfa it's a big distinction. Obama said no more earmarks in his recovery plan, but in the budget they are a-ok. huh? Liberals and their advocates love to parse words when it comes to their agenda and then scratch their heads as to why they are always misquoted, amazing. And then they blame that on conservatives who are black and white thinkers and don't understand nuance, funny as hell.
Who is blaming RepubliCons, the Party of Rush, for anything? They should just disavow their gratiously allowed 40% of this pork. Show some balls RepuliCons...or Rush will get you.
And jamesB, Reading is Fundamental. Read and listen to what Obama said. You are the one parsing words. As noted elsewhere, some of this money could be used elsewhere...but they should of thought of that last year when the process started.
Not all earmarks are pork. Pork is unnessary spending while earmarks are spending that is for a specific project. Here is an example of an earmark that is pork the Bridge to nowhere that was put in by Sen. (convict) Stevens of Alaska. Here is a type of earmark that is not pork $1,000,000 for more police officers in Washington DC. I am not from any where near DC so I am not helped by this.
<b>Obama:</b>We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review...We'll have to make tough choices, and we're going to have to break old habits. <b><i>We're going to have to eliminate outmoded programs and make the ones that we do need work better</b></i>
Sounds like what he is saying is not all earmarks are bad. Just ones that have been going towards outmoded programs and projects. Its clear that the reason these earmarks exist is because they are geared towards new government spending and no old. I am sure that if these new projects do not work than more than likely they will not receive anymore funding from the government.
and the mark-up didn't work
well done. an excellent point
nice qualification, media matters... you so owned o'reilly... i can now rest easy knowing you got my back should the sky start falling...
If Obama said 'I'd like to have a ham sandwich for lunch' and instead had a turkey sandwhich O'Reilly, et al would be all over him saying he promised he was going to have a ham sandwich but he lied and now he can't be trusted and he's going to hell because lying is a sin.
i think o'reilly just wants to try and get as much comapany as he can when he goes to hell.
Changing your mind concerning a lunch item cannot be equated with changing your mind about a serious campaign promise, the type of campaign promise Obama maintained would end the way politicians do business in Washington, I do believe were his exact words.
Interesting having a clock in your handle...Most can tell time. Seems yours is running fast. Snipper, why not just hunch down in the corner of the bell tower, play with your weapon and just wait a little bit. Unless, you believe those NoBell winners DA Limbaugh and SeannieTheSissyBoy Hannity that time is running out.
The same guys that believed Santorum would win in Pa. The same idiots that believed Princess Sara was just right for this country. The same pair that predicted McCain would win in Pa. The same pair that kept pushing Sen. McCains' story about never talking about being a prisoner of war..an aside to Snoopy--Did you know McCain was a POW..the other kind of POW.
These guys know nothing about what they speak. And Prez Obama is not changing his mind about anything he said...He is doing everything he said he would do. Read it, it is in all the papers.
First, the tired old figure of 46 million that do not have insurance is a misleading statement. There are 300 million of us here. 25% of that liberal lie is made up of illegal immigrants. (don't qualify) People that make enough money but go without it. People that qualify but simply do not sign up. On and on. A miniscule percentage of this number actually needs this.
What does these folks that do not have insurance have to do with ME? Why am I responsible for them? The Constitution says nothing about me having to be responsible for you pal...
The very reason that we are where we are right now is directly because of government on SO many levels. So much of our system is NOT private to start with. So much of what the insurance companies can or cannot do is mandated by government. States mandate who can do business there. That is why I personally only have a couple of choices. Why can I not take the money that the employer spends on me and purchase a catastrophic plan? The government will not allow that. There is no competition either. If you had to pay each time that you went to a doctor, you would not go so often. You do not have a RIGHT to go to a doctor for every little sniffle. No one calls their doctor and ask what they are going to charge and shop around!
Obama tries to make this sound capitalistic. You can trade within the system, you buy your insurance within the system, etc.
If the government is so great in this instance, why do we continuously hear horror stories of our veterans? If the government treated those appropriately that gave up their health to serve their country, I would not be SO discouraged. You get Aspirin vs. Plavix when you need a blood thinner for instance. Ask the veterans how well socialized medicine has worked for them. Walk into a VA hospital. You would think that they had this down before they offered MORE OF THE SAME to us!
To make it all work for EVERYONE, the government will take the appropriate medicines/treatments away from those that have them just to provide a service to everyone. They are going to decide what the insurance company covers and cannot cover. You get an insurance card. It crinkles like an insurance card, looks and feels like one, but it is not the same that you may have now.
Don't be fooled. For if this is allowed to go forward Americans will pay a GREAT price.
What an ignoramus. The USA spends more per capita than any other developed nation on healthcare, yet many people are not covered by insurance.
Once the system is in place with everyone having health care, it will lower the amount that it costs each individual in the USA to be healthy. Your healthcare premiums will be lower, and you will pay less to have insured people cared for in a reasonable fashion than you pay now to have uninsured people cared for in a haphazard, wait til you're really sick to get treated, and get your routine care done in the ER way.
ahh a good point there lie....or is it. this will be a short schooling today.
Class is in session.
in the preamble of the Constitution of the US. it states "promote the general welfare" now maybe it is a bit of a stretch.....but wouldn't ensuring that all citizens having access to afordable healthcare fall under that purpose?
SCHOOLED AGAIN. class dismissed
You need to go back to school and study history buddy. Go back in history to the time around when the Whiskey Rebellion happened. This is the point in history where we went to two parties. (The Federalists and the Democratic Republicans) Study this point in time and you will understand what our forefathers meant government to stand for. Your imagination while looking at the Constitution is very out there. So, you REALLY think the folks that wrote the Constitution were gutless and believed that government needed to take care of everyone's responsibilites?
I can expound on what you will find if you want me to take you to school. Again, you have had NOTHING to teach me. When you do, I will humbly thank you however.
and what pray tell Master Buster..........that promoting the general welfare would entail.....like i said had you read what i posted....i said it could be a bit of a stretch. and at the same time asked a serious question.....what would promoting the general welfare entail. i never said that i believed the government should take care of everyone's responsibilities, you took my comments to the an extreme that would be the distance of a home run in center field at yankee stadium.
as said before what would be the problem haveing "citizens" that would mean those here legally and those of us born here, im not counting illegal immigrants, access to affordable health care......now here is what i mean.....and never once have i said about having completly government run health care......but access to affordable stuff, meaning that you could pick and choose whatever you like from a wide range of possibilities and prices. doesn't mean at all government run or even sponsered.
and don't you dare tell me to go ready history. considering the fact that my degree is in that very subject. what do you have for a degree?
Guttersnipe said "Changing your mind concerning a lunch item cannot be equated with changing your mind about a serious campaign promise, the type of campaign promise Obama maintained would end the way politicians do business in Washington, I do believe were his exact words."
Obama didn't change his mind, first off. Obama does plan to change business as usual when he has a plan he introduces. He introduced the Stimulus plan, and it had no earmarks. We'll have to see what he does when he suggests a budget this summer/fall. This continuing resolution budget funding bill was not Obama's. It was leftovers from last year. I keep making this point, and it shuts up the righties.
Has MMFA every thought of doing a "Dick Morris Wrong Prediction" Scorecard?
It would be interesting to count how often The Dick got one wrong. You could start with his predictions about Bill Clinton being removed from office during the impeachment trial and Rick Lazio beating Hillary Clinton and taking it from there.