Forbes on Fox's Asman falsely claimed Obama "once pledged to ban all earmarks"
SUMMARY: On Forbes on Fox, host David Asman falsely claimed that President Barack Obama "once pledged to ban all earmarks." In fact, Obama promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not eliminate earmarks altogether.
During the March 15 edition of Fox News' Forbes on Fox, host David Asman falsely claimed that President Barack Obama "once pledged to ban all earmarks." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not eliminate earmarks altogether. Indeed, as NBC News White House correspondent John Yang noted during the March 11 edition of MSNBC Live, "[T]he president has never said he wants to eliminate earmarks."
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the March 11 edition of MSNBC Live:
YANG: Now, the president has never said he wants to eliminate earmarks. He's opposed the outright elimination of earmarks. He says they do -- he has said in the past that they do serve a valid purpose of directing money back to worthwhile projects in lawmakers' home districts. But he wants to make sure that in addition to the transparency that Congress itself has put in place -- people have to identify by name the earmarks, put their names on the earmarks -- they want to make sure that these are worthy projects and it's not wasted spending.
Addressing claims that Obama campaigned on a promise to end earmarks, PolitiFact.com similarly wrote: "That's incorrect. Obama did not promise to end earmarking, only to 'reform' it, and eliminate 'screwy' or wasteful earmarks."
Numerous media figures have similarly misrepresented Obama's statements regarding earmarks to accuse him of breaking a promise.
From the March 15 edition of Fox News' Forbes on Fox:
OBAMA [video clip]: Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts. And that's why I've opposed their outright elimination.
ASMAN: Well, he once pledged to ban all earmarks. Now the president says, eh, they're not so bad. And someone here says the president is right. Hi, everybody, I'm David Asman, welcome to Forbes on Fox. Let's get to our "Flipside" with Steve Forbes, Victoria Barrett, and Bill Baldwin, along with Neil Weinberg, Elizabeth MacDonald, and Jack Gage. Jack, of all the people in the world, I would not have expected you to defend earmarks.
JACK GAGE (Forbes magazine associate editor): Look, I think we have to separate two things. One, Barack Obama's contradiction of what he said before about how he feels about earmarks. But the second thing, I believe there's a fundamental case to be made for earmarks as part of the fabric of representative government.
Good god... how many times do I have to say this...
Obama NEVER said he wanted to get rid of earmarks!
What he wants is for earmarks to be made public and transparent before they are allowed to become part of any spending bill!
Would it be better for each earmark to be its own bill... yes... but that would be impractical... for any party!
I have no problem with thousands or millions spent as earmarks... as long as they make sense and create jobs... but what President Obama speaks of is stopping the way that Republicans and Democrats (in the past)... which is in secret or placed into the bill AFTER the bill was read... so that when the vote occurs... the earmark is now part of the law... when reality is that it was never debated on.
That is what President Obama wants!
Prove me wrong?
captfoster2--- Obama NEVER said he wanted to get rid of earmarks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue1I0O5l85E
I hope Media Matters has the journalistic integrity to post a retraction when they see this video. While I'm sure they have good intentions, this video shows that the truth isn't what they think it is. The same would go to all others who claim Obama NEVER said that.
Nice try Floyd... you've attempted your little right-wing skew of reality... now it is my turn...
What that video did not do was go beyond what Obama said...AFTER he said... "We are going to ban all earmarks" ...
Here is the entire part of his talking about his economic recovery and earmarks...
Pay very close attention between 2:20 - 2:27 on the video I have provided ... here he says what your little video clip offers and then childishly repeats over and over and over... but fails to put it in its full context...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpolOSPTDaI
Notice the very last word he says... right at the 2:27 mark... "REVIEW" as it pertains to what he is speaking about as it pertains to earmarks!
Try and pay attention in class Floyd and learn something... which is... context is everything!
Excellant point. Now show me where Media Matters points out that Obama only meant that in regards to the stimulus package. You can't, and neither side of this article even attempts to. The FACT remains Obama DID SAY "no earmarks". You can say he meant this or meant that, but the FACT remains he said it and Media Matters is claiming he did not. Which is my point. The point that seems to be flying right over your head.
I don't know why you're hung up on this, but here you go:
Hate to pop your bubble, craig. But, I'm talking about THIS article, not past articles. If you're as smart as posters get at this site, I may as well go back to sites where the posters understand simple questions and logic. Sites where the article authors aren't so proud where they can't admit they made a mistake. Maybe craig isn't a good example of the intelligence at this site, he seems to be the only one confused over what I'm asking. No one else is answering, but that may be because they know they would look...well...not so smart if they did... like craig.
It has nothing to do with this article except in your addled brain.
Obama NEVER said he wanted to get rid of earmarks!
He never said he'd bomb, nuke or invade Pakistan either, but that didn't stop the "liberal" media from repeating that RW talking point ad nauseum. (Along with the ridiculous notion that Pakistan was somehow a useful ally in the war on terror.)
This guy is no different from the rest of the trolls at Fox. As captfoster2 said, the President never said he wanted to get rid of earmarks. How many times does that have to be repeated? Well, I guess as often as it is stated by the idiots at Faux "News". What Obama should do is go on television with a LIST of all the lies and distortions and refute them one by one by showing clips of his speeches and public comments. IN PRIME TIME! Enough, already!
I hope it's on prime time. It would sure show Faux news who is the smarter one. I think Media Matters has done a comendable job showing that Obama only promised to stop some earmarks. The government wouldn't be able to perform it's job if all earmarks were eliminated.
We can expect "lousy 'journalism'" from FOX. That's what they do. But haven't we put up with lousy journalism from ALL the rest of the Media? There used to be a tone of pride to say, "I am a journalist."
You'd think with all the republicans who have been on air defending 100% of their earmarks that this would go away. But no, because as has been noted, the press never talks to democrats about it. When this is said and done, republicans will have defended 100% of their earmarks, democrats will have yet to be questioned, and the press will illogically conclude that this means only democratic earmarks are the problem.
The way to get rid of most but not all earmarks would be to limit admendments to a bill to thing directly related to the topic of the bill.
By now, anybody who claims to be a journalist while claiming that Obama promised to ban all earmarks is not only making an unsubstantiated story (i.e., without any reference to an initial quote), but is also brazenly ignoring all of the rebuttals of this meme that have gone out the past week.
I can only conclude dishonesty is at work.
Capt. it doesn't do any good to keep correcting them. They know they are lying when they say these things,it just goes to show you ,they are much more interested supporting their republican asses than they are the welfare of the country
That link didn't work, but I found it using "obama bans earmarks" in the search area and found this titled "Obama bans earmarks, talks tough". Wow, I wonder if Media Matters knows about this? It was probably made after this article came out so there is really no conflict or honesty. Try to keep this quiet because there are those who still think Obama NEVER said that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue1I0O5l85E
He was talking specifically about the stimulus bill, not generally.
Another dishonest argument.
If you actually watched the youtube video, (1) Obama said that the banning of all earmarks was with regards to the recovery package. Open your ears; (2) the video is obviously the creation of a partisan hack. The video was obviously doctored (notice how the last 10 seconds are repeats of Obama saying, "We will ban all earmarks"? I'm curious as to what he said after that. Context is everything.
I swear, CONS just don't have it in them to understand the intricacies of educated, contextual speech...
Don't worry, CSL. Floyd said he's a fan of journalistic integrity, so I'm sure he'll be back any minute now to acknowledge his mistake.
Actually, can you provide a link to the actual statement, so I can read for myself what was said completey IN context of his statements? It would probably be better to not take anything out of context, since your opinion on his 'meaning' and my opinion differ slightly. I'm sure journalistic integretists would do the same thing.
Perhaps you could Google it the same way you Googled up the hacked video, then present it, since it's your argument to support.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/obama.stimulus/
Thanks Craig.
"We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review," Obama told reporters after a meeting with his economic advisers.
That's how the article started. This is the headline of this story: Forbes on Fox's Asman falsely claimed Obama "once pledged to ban all earmarks". Obama did IN FACT pledge to ban all earmarks in the link Craig provided. So, either this headline (and story) are missleading or the supporting article lied.
Except, of course, he was talking only about the stimulus package.
Which is perfectly acceptable. Show me where Media Matters or Forbes specifally referred to this stimulus package as being the 'context' of either Obama's statement or Media Matters complaint with the statement made by Forbes. What I see is that Media Matters is saying Obama never campaigned to eliminate earmarks, while using the headlines that Obama did not say 'he would eliminate earmarks'. When in fact Obama DID say he would eliminate earmarks. Whether he said that about the stimulus package or not is NOT what this article is about. In fact, I don't see the words 'stimulus package' even used in this article, so how are we supposed to assume that is what this article and Obama's statement are about?
Forbes??? Man are you confused.
The show. Whatever. What am I confused about, I'm not making the inacurate claims of Obama speaches?
During his campaign Obama pledged to reform the earmark process, not eliminate earmarks. Asman and others claim he did promise to eliminate earmarks and has changed his position. That's not true. All of that is explained in this MediaMatters article.
Some people have used the out-of-context quote from that youtube clip to suggest that Obama did promise to eliminate all earmarks. But Obama was talking specifically about banning earmarks from one specific bill, the stimulus package, not all earmarks from every bill. So again, it's not true.
Craig--But Obama was talking specifically about banning earmarks from one specific bill, the stimulus package, not all earmarks from every bill.
Maybe, but, neither Media Matters or anyone else has been able to point out that aspect in this article. Look, Media Matters is doing a fine job of pointing out missinformation, but even they are not immune to mistakes. I'm sure they aren't too proud to admit an error when they make one.
Again, that's fine, Craig. But, you didn't show me where either mentioned the stimulus package. Show me where EITHER of them use that phrase to express that Obama only said that 'in regards to the stimulus package' and I'll admit you are right. Until then you, captfoster2, commensenseliberal and Media Matters are wrong. Obama DID say he would stop all earmarks. The context isn't critical, the FACT is he said it. Besides, even your context shows what I am saying.
Are you trying to say Media Matters never makes a mistake?
There. He was talking specifically about the economic recovery and reinvestment plan (aka the stimulus plan).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06text-obama.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
again, that's all fine and good. I understand what Obama was talking about. The point being made is that this article does NOT mention what Obama was talking about. The failure lies with Media Matters and Asman. Neither said this article is in relation to the stimulus package. When Media Matters changes the story to include 'he didn't say it about the stimulus package' then you will be correct. However, that is NOT being said so Media Matters is incorrect when they assert that Asman falsely claimed Obama "plegded to ban all earmarks". Because links I've provided and links you provided both demonstrate Obama did IN FACT say what is being claimed was never said.
No, in context they don't. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
1. Obama was clearly talking about the economic recovery plan only when he said he would ban earmarks.
2. Asman was clearly saying Obama promised to ban earmarks across the board.
So Asman was wrong. What don't you get?
What I don't get is that Obama DID say: ""We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review,". That is from YOUR link. Do you notice the words; 'ban all earmarks'? Then Media Matters headline is; 'Asman falsely claimed Obama pledged to ban all earmarks'. Neither Media Matters nor Asman said anything about the stimulus package.
Now, this may be hard for you to understand, but; how is Media Matters correct when Obama clearly DID state "to ban all earmarks"? As proven using YOUR link. I don't need to drag this on any longer. You are obviously wrong and refuse to acknowledge it. So, I'll let you continue living with your head in the sand.
You forgot the sentence directly before that one. "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."
Only a liar or a moron would say Obama wasn't talking about the economic recovery and reinvestment plan. I know Hannity is a liar. Which are you?
Actually, I see from an earlier post that you do understand:
"You are right." - Floyd in reply to Craig
Sorry I missed that.
but you take that out of context and ignored the actual point. Is that your normal mo? so far, it seems to be.
Hahahahaha! This whole discussion you have been taking Obama out of context and ignoring the actual point. I just wanted to see if you could understand the concept.
Actually, I've been using facts and evidence. Even evidence that you brought into this discussion. My point is clear and understandable. What you choose to do with facts/evidence is your own choice.
Show me where Obama said he would ban all earmarks.
"We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review," Obama told reporters after a meeting with his economic advisers.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/obama.stimulus/ and here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue1I0O5l85E
We usually means the person speaking and others, doesn't it? He didn't say they, did he? Pay close attention to who is actually speaking. It looks like Obama.
Again, here's the quote with the immediately preceding sentence:
So, as I've said repeatedly, he was speaking about the stimulus bill. You can get even more context by reading the complete remarks. He never said he was banning earmarks except in the context of this one bill.
Yes, I know that. I've never said that wasn't the context he said it in. Media Matters claims he never said it, yet I've proven over and over again that he did say it. There is nothing mentioned in this article that specifies this one bill as the criteria for Obama's statement. They say he never said that, which has been proven over and over that he did say "ban all earmarks". I provided the proof that he said "ban all earmarks". You have not proven your case with the 'context' aspect. The context aspect never entered into Media Matters claims or they would have mentioned the stimulus package in their article. They did not do that.
In context he didn't say it.
Asman claims he wanted to ban earmarks completely. That's untrue.
The thing that has me angry with the mainstream media in the hullaballoo over earmarks is that the mainstream media have completely ignored the fact that President Obama does not have the authority to eliminate them.
To eliminate the earmarks requires a line-item veto -- a power that 38 of the nation's 50 state governors have, but the president does not.
Remember back in 1993 when President Clinton lobbied Congress for a line-item veto? Congress responded with a complicated piece of legislation that allowed him to impose "rescissions" in budgetary items passed by Congress, subject to a two-thirds majority override vote.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the law violated Article I of the Constitution, which gives Congress exclusive authority to control the federal purse. The only way that Congress can give the president authority to veto individual budget line items, the court ruled, was to pass a constitutional amendment.
Amazingly, neither Clinton nor his successor, George W. Bush, have called for such an amendment. Neither, for that matter, have Obama and his GOP opponent, John McCain.
I'm utterly dumbfounded by the media's historical and constitutional amnesia on the subject of earmarks and the budget in general.
it's hard for me to blieve that you wingnuts are truly this intellectually dishonest - peace4all
Unfortunately, it's not hard for me to believe that wingnuts are that dishonest...they have been dishonest and unamerican for at least the last 15 years...
I'm going to have to agree with you--I don't think that the neocons have ever limited themselves to being honest.
Cracks me up when the shoes on the other foot. Can You Say Newt?
"....wiether on the vine..." Im sure you said the same thing then as well.
Thanks for acknowledging that the youtube clip you referred to is dishonest. You're a step ahead of Floyd there.
You're counterexample is pretty weak -- a political ad from 1996. I can't speak for peace4all, but if I had been aware of this ad at the time, I would have opposed it.
It's hardly the same a news channel lying though.
No, he does not have the line item veto but he does have the ability to veto a bill. What the President did promise is that he would go through the pork, line-by-line. But he did not do this. It would not only take nothing for him to do but it would also send a strong message if he said "the following items that are in this bill are unacceptable and I will not sign this bill if these items are included."
How hard would that be?
Going through the budget line-by-line to determine what to keep, what to change and what to eliminate will be a huge job, but one that Obama promised to take on for his budget.
If we take the run to the Presidents aid at face value then how do we defend that the White House made a statement on clarifing this whole issue by saying that this is the 2009 budget and he will live up to the peldge in 2010 when it is his budget.
"I will go line-by-line..." I guess congress had a different laungage they used and he could not find a translator.
Obama already has people complaining that he hasn't focused enough on the economic crisis. He didn't have the luxury of the time to rework last year's business.