About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Like O'Reilly, Hannity misrepresented Obama remark to falsely claim he made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks"

March 08, 2009 10:35 am ET

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.

EMBED

SUMMARY: On his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that President Obama made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks." Hannity then aired a clip of Obama stating his desire to "ban all earmarks" from the economic recovery package, falsely suggesting that Obama was referring to banning all earmarks in general.

30 Comments

On the March 6 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that President Obama made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks." As purported evidence, Hannity aired several clips of Obama referring to earmarks, including a January 6 clip of Obama stating his desire to "ban all earmarks" from the economic recovery package, which Hannity, like Fox News colleague Bill O'Reilly, misrepresented to claim Obama was breaking his word by signing the omnibus appropriations bill.

After purporting to "go to the videotape" and "show the audience at home" Obama's "campaign promise" of "no earmarks," Hannity aired a number of clips from the 2008 presidential campaign in order to claim that Obama was breaking his promise of "no earmarks," when, in fact, in three of the clips, Obama was referring to reforming the earmark process, and in a fourth, he was asserting that an opponent was being hypocritical for taking earmarks and then advocating against them. In the fifth clip, which was actually taken from a January 6 media availability -- not during the presidential campaign as Hannity suggested -- Obama stated: "We are gonna ban all earmarks -- the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review." However, 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.

As Media Matters for America documented, on the March 4 edition of his Fox News show, O'Reilly aired the same January 6 clip, which he 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?" Numerous media figures have similarly misrepresented Obama's statements regarding earmarks to accuse Obama of breaking his promise. As PolitiFact.com and Media Matters 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 6 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: People are getting very worried, nervous, concerned. And I'll tell you one other thing that's emerging, Governor, is anger. Eight point one percent unemployment, all the earmarks galore, massive spending, 8 percent increase in this budget. People are getting angry. I don't blame them -- because, you know what? They're watching half their retirement go away, and they seem like they're helpless at this point. Do you see anything that they can do to maybe get Barack Obama to, you know, live up to his promise of no earmarks?

HUCKABEE: They've got to melt this phone lines at the Senate and the House. They have to let their representatives know that this is gonna be an intolerable situation, and they need to let the president know that his credibility is on the line. He was adamant that he would not sign a larded-up pork bill, and he's about to put his signature on it if we're not careful. He --

HANNITY: Let's go to the videotape, and let's show our audience at home -- now, maybe it's just a campaign promise -- no lobbyists in his administration -- no earmarks.

[begin video clip]

OBAMA [8/28/08]: I will also go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work.

OBAMA [9/06/08]: When you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly, you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on.

OBAMA [9/22/08]: The truth is, our earmark system -- what's called pork-barrel spending -- in Washington is fraught with abuse. It badly needs reform.

OBAMA [9/26/08]: Absolutely, we need earmark reform, and when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.

OBAMA [1/06/09]: We are gonna ban all earmarks -- the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review.

[end video clip]

HANNITY: Why does he get --

HUCKABEE: It's the tale of the tape.

HANNITY: No one's -- no outrage.

HUCKABEE: You have to say that if Barack Obama doesn't veto this bill -- and it is a bill that has 8,500 earmarks -- then he has a lot of 'splaining to do to the American people. And a campaign promise ought to be something that you fulfill, or else you start giving away your political capital. It's early in his administration, and I think it would be a huge mistake. This is not his bill. This is Nancy Pelosi's bill, and he's got to stand up to her. Otherwise, we might as well be talking about President Pelosi.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by worrierking (March 08, 2009 10:53 am ET)
         

      I'm sorry Sean. You too Mike.

      This may have received a passing grade if only either of you had the foresight to squeeze in a socialist or commie reference.

      I know that your new star Beck would never pass up an opportunity like this.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (March 08, 2009 12:07 pm ET)
         
      Again, this goes back to the Con recipe for deception: a lack of reading comprehension, seeing imaginary words between the printed words, reading the words between the lines with a cup full of lying tossed in. Cook at Fox for 24/7. Repeat process daily. Serve to those willing to be mindless. Abracadabra(?) a full serving of ConS$hit (CS). Recipe is also available online and on a radio near you.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by progressiveright (March 08, 2009 12:20 pm ET)
         
      The best lie has a little truth in it and the truth here is that Obama wants to reform earmarks and the rightwing waccos are doing there best to take those words as get rid of them. These idiots fear the truth because for if their viewers or listeners start to get the truth it will set them free from the fear and hate of the right.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by LuvLuLu (March 08, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
         
      We have seen the Republicans tell lies revolving around the initiatives of the President repeatedly. Today Lindsay Graham said that it's wrong to increase taxes in the middle of a recession, but that's not an accurate portrayal of what will happen. Taxes will go up on the rich after January 1st, 2011, almost 2 years from now. That almost certainly won't be in the middle of the recession. Top that off with the lie about what Obama did and didn't 'promise' from Hannity, and you have two perfect examples of the methods of those on the right. They have to lie about what the Democrats are going to do, because a fair portrayal would hurt the Republicans, and they have to create and maintain an atmosphere of fear, just as they did when they were addressing terrorism during the Bush Administration. This bill is a budget continuation bill, and is Bush's, not Obama's. His first budget proposal will come this summer. I can't tell you how many Republican talking heads have misled listeners by conflating the stimulus bill with the continuation budget bill. It's sad that they can't be honest.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (March 08, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
           

        Sadder that their silent followers always, I mean always believe them.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by JamesCraven8209 (March 08, 2009 1:28 pm ET)
         

      This from a guy who asks Dr. Lou Holtz (little Awful Announcing injoke) on the topic of global warming.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (March 08, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
         

      I wonder how long it will take FOX NOISE to replace HANNITYS LIBERAL counterpart ALAN COLMBS with someone else or will they continue to torture us with 2 HANNITY hosted shows?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (March 08, 2009 1:58 pm ET)
         
      Hannity doesn't knoew the difference between earmarks and pork. He conflates the two very easily.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (March 09, 2009 8:45 am ET)
           

        Hannity doesn't knoew the difference between earmarks and pork. He conflates the two very easily.

        Sean Hannity doesn't know the difference between his a$$ and a hole in the ground..

        Report Abuse
    • Author by pach128612 (March 08, 2009 2:00 pm ET)
         
      Sean Hannrity has mistaken John McCain, who campaigned against earmarks with Barack Obama. As the general public understands, earmarks permit individual members of Congress to send funds directly to projects in their constituencies. The vast majority of earmarks are for projects that any informed observer would support. Hannrity is misleading the public in the manner of one who asks when an opponent has stopped beating his wife. There is no riposte to Hannrity, there is only the option of exposing his lies and tuning him out.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (March 08, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
           

        I vote for the tune-out.  I only know what he's saying by reading Media Matters.  I'm glad they wade thru his steaming pile so we don't have to.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (March 09, 2009 8:51 pm ET)
             

          That comment shows that you are no better than the people you detest so much who listen to Fox. It is a shame that you would allow someone else to do your thinking for you, the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by riverdog (March 09, 2009 9:38 pm ET)
               

            i aggree. and by the way the bill has TO MUCH PORK. stimulis is one thing but this is way out of line. wasn't the left saying for the last 8 yrs that we have to much of a deficit that our grandchildren will paying it for us. cool, the left is now the right.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (March 08, 2009 5:23 pm ET)
         

      on meet the press this morning, republican senator lindsey graham was trying to explain why a convention center for myrtle beach was not an earmark.   why should the federal government pay for that?

      as senator schumer also pointed out, the process is entirely different now than before.  all spending projects now must have the name of the person who placed them in the bill.  no more slipping a bridge to nowhere into these projects by unidentified persons.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (March 08, 2009 9:04 pm ET)
           

        If people are put to work building that convention center, if the people who work there after it's built are paid living wages, then go for it. So long as the project doesn't become yet another corporate subsidy, it could be a good thing. But knowing the conservative stance on corporate welfare, it's more than likely just another transfer of wealth to the wealthy. 

        Now, did any of the talking heads ask Lindsey for alternative methods of reducing waste? For instance, did anyone point out the massive waste created by the Pentagon? Did anyone ask Lindsey about wasteful government subsidies to profitable businesses engaged in mining, oil and gas drilling? How about subsidies for pharmaceutical marketing, or arms manufacturing? How about those Bush tax cuts that transferred nearly 1 trillion dollars to the wealthiest 5% in our country? 

        Did they ask him about maybe making government more responsible in how our tax dollars are spent by making the process more transparent?

        No? They just let Graham spit his acid tipped anti-government screeds? 

        Really? ;)

        You make a good point though. The blaring hypocrisy of these braying GOPers would deafen the average person.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (March 08, 2009 9:37 pm ET)
             

          The biggest hypocracy is that the 9,000 earmark figure is coming out of the mouths of republicans. If they are now scrambling to claim that their earmarks aren't earmarks, why are they still saying the number is 9,000? Methinks they dug themselves a deep hole this time.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (March 08, 2009 10:10 pm ET)
               

            It's hilarious. In 94, before Republicans took out their contract on America, there was a total of 1,300 earmarks enacted, totaling about 7.8 billion dollars. By the end of their reign in fiscal year 06, we saw 10,000 earmarks totaling 29 billion dollars. Enter the Democrats in 06 and earmark spending went down to 17 billion dollars.

            They're disgusting liars, these Repubs. They love earmarks so long as they get to channel the money to their wealthy buds.

            On the other hand, earmark spending only constitutes about one half of one percent of the federal budget. So this is just Republicans fighting to protect the big guys, making mountains out of mole hills and feeding those stupid conservative myths about fiscal responsibility. 

            Republicans suck at life.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (March 09, 2009 12:14 am ET)
                 
              I'd like to see a graph of earmarks by year. Wonder if that data is available somewhere?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by roundhouse (March 09, 2009 12:51 am ET)
                   

                See full size image

                Sorry it's a tiny graphic. Got it from OpenCongress. org.

                Here's another.

                Chart4_insider.jpg

                Can't find any that go back further. I'll keep looking.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by roundhouse (March 09, 2009 12:52 am ET)
                   

                OOPS! See if this works.

                Report Abuse
    • Author by dahlkaiser7587 (March 08, 2009 11:53 pm ET)
         

      Come on Repulican’ts you’re complaining that Obama will sign YOUR earmarks?   What is this, stop us before we spend again? 

      Why don't you clean up your own damn mess before sending to the president and quit blaming him for your incompetence.  Give us a break! 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by rdirkse (March 08, 2009 11:54 pm ET)
         

      earmarks = pork, 2% increase = socialism, socialism = BAD, return to slightly higher income taxes= redistribution of wealth, spin, spin, spin.  But Rush and Sean, Bill, Ann, and Michelle keep adding to their bank accounts from their sheeple.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dahlkaiser7587 (March 09, 2009 12:57 am ET)
         

      Come on Repulican’ts you’re complaining that Obama will sign YOUR earmarks?   What is this, stop us before we spend again? 

      Why don't you clean up your own damn mess before sending to the president and quit blaming him for your incompetence.  Give us a break! 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by debbiesim (March 09, 2009 9:21 am ET)
         

      I'm sorry, to me it sounds like Obama misled the public. If he didn't want to ban earmarks, then he should have made that clearer.

      The public HATES earmarks. And Obama, being such a smart politician, knows that, and he has always played to that. So I don't blame Hannity for trying to hold him to that.

      Obama has made many promises on the campaign trail, and like all politicians, he is having a hard time living up to them. Read my lips.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (March 09, 2009 10:39 am ET)
           

        The public does hate earmarks.

        Except earmarks for their own congressional districts. That's how things are done. Every congress person and senator knows that if they don't bring Federal money back to their districts, the voters will replace them with someone who will.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by egb (March 09, 2009 10:59 am ET)
         

      I understand the general public to have heard that Obama will eliminate earmarks. Concatenate all his words on the subject and that's what I hear. Nevertheless, does anyone here believe he has gone "line by line" over the Stimulus bill (with all its earmarks) or the Omnibus spending bill ($410B) to weed out the bad ones? He doesn't seem to have given his "no earmarks" message of Jan 9 to congress.

      Earmarks and "pork" - [btw, what is the difference] - are a small part of the $410B but at $8B, there is a lot of money to give to the right people. They will hire others to do real work [which benefits local economy] but they will also "convince" these new employees to vote a certain way and will contribute heavily to political campaigns. That is why people don't like earmarks.  One only needs to look around at the number of campaign financing scandles going on today to see where the money goes.

      Money should simply go to the state or not collected in the first place. The United States Government should not be involved in building a Teapot museum.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ejhickey (March 09, 2009 12:51 pm ET)
         

      Nic to know that the President like Earmarks.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Liebuster (March 10, 2009 9:49 pm ET)
         

      We KNEW earmarks were coming!  That was the point kids!!!!! 

      You all want the government to go broke WITH you all!  More people ought to be able to chill out at home and play victim.  As the cycle of ignorance is continually fed with more welfare, programs and now featuring the monthly special, "Mortgage Payments", Obama special, aisle 5.

      Wow.  What a country!  They gone pay my bills!  Free!  heeheee!

      How bright does that really sound folks?  I chill, you work, I get paid.  Hurh?

      I sit on couch, you work 50 hours!  Really?!

      Keep spouting off that 8 years stuff, I'm loving it!!!  The gravy train will end ladies.

      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.