« Ahmadinejad Cancels UN Trip | Main | Vilsack to endorse Clinton »

CNN Laments Democrat Pork

I rarely watch CNN's American Morning, but Newsbusters has an interesting report including a transcript of an exchange on the program that almost makes me consider watching. Here is a portion of the transcript:

M. O'BRIEN: "In Washington this morning, Democratic leaders are scrambling for votes on a measure that would put the brakes on the war in Iraq. The vote is going to be tight, and that means it is time to pry the lid off the pork barrel, unfortunately."

AMERICAN MORNING'S Bob Franken joining us now with the grim details. Good morning, Bob."

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: "Well, I don't know. Some people would think that they're really delightful details. The recipients of the pork..."

M. O'BRIEN: "Because of which side of the pork you're on."

FRANKEN: "That's right. One person's pork is another person's badly-needed money. In any case, we all remember that the Democrats came in with all this idealism about a new way to do things just a short time ago, but now they're getting their first big test. And what we're finding out is that they're doing things the old-fashioned way."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) HOUSE SPEAKER: "With today's convening of the 110th Congress, we begin anew."

FRANKEN, (voice over): "That was the rallying cry from the newly in-charge Democrats, the wheeling and dealing and hidden pork barrel spending would be no more. Fast forward just 10 weeks. Democratic leaders face their biggest challenge so far. The legislation providing $124 billion in war funding, combined with a troop pullout from Iraq next year. And they're using every tool at their command. The same tools they criticized the Republicans for using -- good, old fashioned pork."

Read the rest at Newsbusters.


Comments (24)

Term limits for all!... (Below threshold)

Term limits for all!

I was so upset I called bot... (Below threshold)
UncleZeb:

I was so upset I called both Nancy P and my local reps office, who voted with her, to tell them how upset I was with their pork and run bill. What a load of crap while at war. Imagine if this had happened during WWII.

The Dems new slogan: "No M... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

The Dems new slogan: "No Money for the Troops, only for Pork!"

"Shrimp Farmers or Troops? Only Shrimp Farmers Deserve our Support!"

Now people, Popeye Peeelosh... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Now people, Popeye Peeeloshi needed the spinish really bad. Hope it's still poisoned.

The comedy by the hypocrites continues. Can we stand two more years of the comedy or will we all die at the hands of the democrats friendly terrorist or starve to death because they used all the money for pork and some of us can't eat (don't get) any pork barrel money?

ROFL at the fools and especially the fools that are trying to make excuses for all the lies they told before the election. Everyone send they're congress critter the dictonary definition of 'ethical'. Copy the page from websters.

Well I think whatever the d... (Below threshold)
Lee's Sockpuppet:

Well I think whatever the dhimmis do is just super-dooper. Just wait until we get the White House back.

Wow, CNN decrying pork...lo... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Wow, CNN decrying pork...look at the pigs flying by!

First, the pork was to insu... (Below threshold)
Mike:

First, the pork was to insure that Bush vetoed the bill. That way it's Bush who won't support the troops. Hell, that's a known fact he doesn't support the troops, but this really proves it.

Second, our elected people are just going to add more pork to it. Just as bad as cutting taxes while we are at war, right. Either way, more money not coming in. But who cares, none of us will have to pay for it, just our children and grandchildren.

Steve has the right idea about term limits, but let's take it a step further, 1 senator, 1 representative from each state, making the minimum wage from that state, no perks, etc. Each serve for two years, then all new ones elected at the same time. The savings alone from that would pay the war debt off. Just think about it.

After watching John Stossel... (Below threshold)

After watching John Stossel's Enough! 20/20 program tonight, we need more Senators like Tom Coburn.

Mike: "First, the pork was ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Mike: "First, the pork was to insure that Bush vetoed the bill."

Patently false. The pork was a payoff to help offset the political hit some members will absorb in going against their campaign persona.

This is not, to my mind, that big of a deal however. Many votes on principle are larded up with extras. It's often simply the going price for fully securing the votes you need.

Be honest, how many of you actually think that the Blue Dogs had "No Intention" whatsoever of supporting this kind of an effort? I'll bet some of them knew they would, but held out for an extra payoff. Not shocking. It's called politics.


Mike: "That way it's Bush who won't support the troops."

Since Mike's first premise was wrong, it's not surprising that this laughable lefty talking point is wrong as well. (this is akin to the lefts new-found "pride" in having "helped defeat the Soviet Union" that the lefties touted from the '90's on, after spending 30 years undermining every challenge to the Soviets that the Conservatives engineered.)

Mike: "Hell, that's a known fact he doesn't support the troops, but this really proves it."

More of the same. The "troops" by and large know exactly who "supports" them and who doesn't.

Mike: "Just as bad as cutting taxes while we are at war, right."

Well, wrong actually. Since cutting taxes leads to stronger economic performance and activity, which lead to greater tax receipts, which leads to greater ability to fund efforts.

For the reverse of this scenario, see "Western Europe".

Mike: "Either way, more money not coming in. But who cares, none of us will have to pay for it, just our children and grandchildren."

Of course, "more money" is coming in, but why let that stop a good rant.

Where are all the rejects f... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Where are all the rejects from kos kiddies? Oh I know what it is, they like pork better then "crow". snicker snicker

The comedy by the hypocr... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The comedy by the hypocrites continues.
...
Everyone send they're congress critter the dictonary definition of 'ethical'.

But if the Dems are "hypocrites", that must mean they're doing what they complained about Republicans doing. So not only do you admit the Republicans were doing it, but you also claim it's "unethical". Is that your position now, Scrappy? That when the Republicans were in power they engaged in unethical pork spending?

It's so amusing watching you contradict yourself. That's where the real "comedy" is! Keep it coming!

CNN is not nearly as bad as... (Below threshold)
jaymaster:

CNN is not nearly as bad as most Republicans make it out to be.

Yes, they have their left leaning analysts, but when it comes to actually reporting the news, CNN isn't so bad.

FOX is not nearly as bad as... (Below threshold)
jaymaster:

FOX is not nearly as bad as most Democrats make it out to be.

Yes, they have their right leaning analysts, but when it comes to actually reporting the news, FOX isn't so bad.

Yes CNN is as bad as Repubs... (Below threshold)
UncleZeb:

Yes CNN is as bad as Repubs say it is. I watch it along with FOX and MSNBC and FOX is the only one that doesnt make we scream at the TV. Way too biased on the other two.

CNN critical of Democrats? ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

CNN critical of Democrats? But I thought they were part of the liberal media?

Publicus, they are. Just b... (Below threshold)
Wiley T. Stoner:

Publicus, they are. Just because they (CNN) criticise the ethics of the democrats does not make them conservative or even balanced in their approach to new reporting. But then you are too bias to understand that. Persons such as your self make me wish dueling was not illegal.

Dissecting CNN's second st... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Dissecting CNN's second string infotainment product because it seems to agree with the RNC. Lookin' for love in all the wrong places, indeed.

Pork for Surrender. Obviou... (Below threshold)
kim:

Pork for Surrender. Obviously after the thinking person's vote.
===========================================

FRANKEN, (voice over): "Tha... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

FRANKEN, (voice over): "That was the rallying cry from the newly in-charge Democrats, the wheeling and dealing and hidden pork barrel spending would be no more. Fast forward just 10 weeks. Democratic leaders face their biggest challenge so far. The legislation providing $124 billion in war funding, combined with a troop pullout from Iraq next year. And they're using every tool at their command. The same tools they criticized the Republicans for using -- good, old fashioned pork."

You can see from the above the dimmers and the MSM made a big deal about how open and honest this "New Leadership" was going to be. Well, 10 weeks later and they are back to very old form. ww

Isn't it interesting that b... (Below threshold)
epador:

Isn't it interesting that both the Hebrew and Islamic systems eschew pork? I guess our kind of legislative system is simply a function of our Christian foundations that encourages porcine mastication.

If CNN wasn't biased, they ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

If CNN wasn't biased, they wouldn't let the Democrats away with calling this a Funding Bill, when in fact it is a Defunding Bill.

I've heard the public healt... (Below threshold)
kim:

I've heard the public health rationale, e, but also one that demonstrates that in a desert environment, pigs competed too closely with us for the same ecological niche.
===============================

I keep hearing about the "N... (Below threshold)
Burt:

I keep hearing about the "New direction for America" This seems to show that I have misunderstood the phrase. It is actually a "Nude erection for America.

Newt's Insurrection?<... (Below threshold)
kim:

Newt's Insurrection?

Condom for America?
==============




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy