Kyl’s Earmark Hypocrisy: Requested $118 Million For Earmarks In Budget, But Railed Against Them In Stimulus
Kyl’s Earmark Hypocrisy: Requested $118 Million For Earmarks In Budget, But Railed Against Them In Stimulus
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) requested $118 million in earmarks in fiscal year 2008. On Fox News Sunday yesterday, host Chris Wallace pressed Kyl about his earmarks, saying it is an example of how Republicans have “lost credibility on the issue of spending restraint.” “Who are you to lecture the Democrats on spending?” asked Wallace.
Kyl deflected the question, saying that they weren’t earmarks because earmarks “have a specific definition“:
WALLACE: And we’re putting up on the screen, Senator, your earmarks, a long list of them, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, totaling $118 million.
Question — I think it’s a fair one — who are you to lecture the Democrats on spending?
KYL: Well, first of all, I don’t see on the screen what you’re talking about. I can defend everything that I have recommended in the budget, and I would suggest that they’re not earmarks under the definition, because we have a specific definition.
Watch it:
Kyl’s “specific definition” defense is ironic given his attacks on President Obama’s economic recovery plan.
Though Taxpayers for Common Sense has said that “congressional leaders had generally resisted the urge to fill the bill with earmarks, according to the strict definitions of the word,” Kyl claimed it had “billions of dollars of earmarks and pork“:
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said that the wasteful spending that Schumer talked about matters to Americans far more than he thinks.
“Sen. Schumer is wrong if he thinks taxpayers don’t care about billions of dollars of earmarks and pork in the so-called stimulus bill. They do care, because it wastes their money,” Kyl said.
In the past, Kyl has admitted that his earmark criticism is “symbolic” and that he complains about “wasteful Washington spending” for political reasons because “the consultants who look at the polls tell us that if there’s anything that drives American taxpayers crazy it’s that phrase ‘wasteful Washington spending.’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well worth your time, “So Much Damned Money”, on CSPAN Book TV:
http://www.booktv.org:80/program.aspx?ProgramId=10196&SectionName=Politics
They’re all a bunch of hypocrits
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 amit’s pretty bad when faux holds someone with a (r) next to their name accountable for their actions. usually it’s a free pass for them.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:48 amKYL: I can defend everything that I have recommended in the budget, and I would suggest that they’re not earmarks under the definition, because we have a specific definition.
_______________
Riiiiiiiiiight… further proof that wingnutters live in their own parallel universe, where up is down. bad is actually good, and yes, that really IS nine inches.
Why else would they need their very own special reference site?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
“The Trustyworthy Encyclopedia”
Funny thing, there. Third most popular pages in Conservapeida, by topic?
Homosexuality (3,270,741)…
Well! Color me NOT surprised!
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 amThat’s different somehow right Tracy_5 etal?
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:59 amHypocrisy still reigns supreme with Republicans!!
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am“Take the goggles off. Fox is Fair and Balanced. With Proof! Thanks for playing”
then i am sure you’ll be able to provide a credible link backing up that statement. correct?
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 amFox News Rules Says:
Take the goggles off. Fox is Fair and Balanced. With Proof! Thanks for playing!
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:06 am
___________
And your proof is?
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 amThey never DEFINE their earmark as an “earmark.” It’s simple. Everyone else’s earmark is an earmark. You are NEVER going to get rid of whatever you want to call them, so save your energy.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 amFox News Rules.
I choose not to have tv so perhaps you can help. Afterall what sort of person selects a monniker like that unless they really like to watch tv. Anyway might you show me the PROOF you speak of? Thanks
Oh and what do you think of other FOX programming. Alll that family values type stuff…
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 amOn Fox News Sunday yesterday, host Chris Wallace pressed Kyl about his earmarks
—
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 amHow do you feel about these earmarks? Do you condemn them? Oh and what about Family Guy do you think it Rules?
Fox News Rules Says:
On Fox News Sunday yesterday, host Chris Wallace pressed Kyl about his earmarks
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
_________
Which only proves that even a blind squirrel can find a nut now and then. Where’s your proof that this one instance is part of a larger pattern of fairness and balancedness?
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 am#3 TRoS
Thanks dude. I TOTALLY forgot about conservapedia. I used to love that site for the lulz. It looks like the mouthbreathers are still churning out ‘content’.
Barack Hussein Obama II (allegedly[1][2][3] born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961)
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 amINAEIYAR?
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:15 amlooks like he’s not the only hypocrite, like we’re surprised
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:15 amRepublicans Criticize, Help Inflate Bill
Ron Paul, John Culberson, R-Houston, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble,John Cornyn,
and Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
http://www.click2houston.com/news/18830586/detail.html
Fox News Rules:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 amCould we dig a little deeper into this Rules thing? Like I said I don’t watch tv. What exactly is it that makes Fox News Rule and why would a person select it as an electronic monniker? Thanks. I find weird stuff intriquing
For anyone interested, here’s the link to Taxpayers For Common Sense to take a gander at whose name is attached to the earmarks:
http://www.taxpayer.net/index.php
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:18 am“On Fox News Sunday yesterday, host Chris Wallace pressed Kyl about his earmarks”
so, reporting the truth is your idea of fair and balanced? that’s fcuked up
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 amAnyone else notice the hypocrisy of the American Taliban by stating they think President Obama is spending money needlessly, is hurting our country, but yet, we find out these reich wingers are adding money to these bills and then voting against it? I mean, really, THEIR HYPOCRISY STINKS. *plugging nose* The stench is unbearable some days!
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 amIn defense of Kyl, he is a moron.
http://www.pufferfishblog.com/
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 amThere it is, the winning(not) logic of the righties. If he gets flagged 50 times and he flagges one person, he somehow thinks the mods will listen to him…..funny shit.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 amThe definition must be something along the lines of:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 amLine items inserted into spending bills by Democrats = earmark which is always pork.
Line items inserted into spending bills by American Taliban = an investment in small government.
In other words, it’s “wasteful government spending” when other people do it but not when he does?
Personification of Republicantism = being a hypocrite.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 amLike Republican’ts, Fox News’ ’standard’ is double.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 amSenator Jon Kyle: Another Hypocritical Discredited Republican
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 amAmericans need to stop funding the states connected to the American Taliban members (especially those who voted against the stimulus bill and who will most likely vote against President Obama’s budget). We are tired of funding terrorists who hate Americans while wrapping themselves in the flag saying they love our country and it’s people. We are done. No more money for the terrorists.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:33 amWALLACE: And we’re putting up on the screen, Senator, your earmarks, a long list of them, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, totaling $118 million.
Question — I think it’s a fair one — who are you to lecture the Democrats on spending?
Wow,Fox News actually decides to do REAL reporting for once? That’s a shock.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 amFox News Rules Says:
Take the goggles off. Fox is Fair and Balanced. With Proof! Thanks for playing!
___________
Fox claimed they had a Constitutional right to lie as a news outlet in court and WON. Ailes must be so proud of himself.
Fox: Fairly UNbalanced!
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:41 amI read a post somewhere this morning where someone was complaining because their tax dollars were being spent in other states. Funny thing, though, the poster was in a red state that receives much more Federal Tax dollars than they put into the Federal government. Maybe we need to pass a law that says that no state can receive more Federal money than what they contribute to the Federal government. Then the blue states would no longer have to support the red states. Let them survive on their own without my tax dollars going to help support them.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 amThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
Fox claimed they had a Constitutional right to lie as a news outlet in court and WON. Ailes must be so proud of himself.
Fox: Fairly UNbalanced!
Also, let’s not forget that they had three Republicant’s on one of their shows to attack President Obama’s budget but not ONE Democrat. That sounds real fair and balanced to me. NOT!
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 amTeowens Says:
Wow,Fox News actually decides to do REAL reporting for once? That’s a shock.
News Corp (owner of Fixed News) lost 4.4 billion dollars last quarter. It is quite possible that Rupert Murdoch sees the demise of Fixed News on the horizon if he doesn’t do something to make it relevant. And daily spewing lies to the American public is not going to make them relevant. I think that Murdoch’s huge losses and President Obama’s popularity polling (67% to 71% depending on poll) have both scared the hell out of Murdoch.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 amBill O’Reilly said so.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 pmKYL: Well, first of all, I don’t see on the screen what you’re talking about. I can defend everything that I have recommended in the budget, and I would suggest that they’re not earmarks under the definition, because we have a specific definition.
Definition:
Democratic spending proposal= earmark
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 pmRepublican spending proposal= something else (not earmark)
Oh, this whole transparency thing is gonna be real embarassing to these morons.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 pmThat shows how much the right-wing, Republican owned, corporate news media is willing to spend in order to spread Republican propaganda.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 pmCoulter was defending Republican earmarks. That’s different.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:12 pmYesterday on Face the Nation, Bob Sheiffer relentlessly attacked Rohm Emanuel about the Democrat’s earmarks. He acted as if Republican earmarks don’t exist. This is now the narative for the mainstream news media.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:18 pmThis locksteppin fool is an embarassment to my state, I don’t know why these people keep votin for his @$$!
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pmyou link to obermanwatch and want us to defend? Are you a crack baby?
Those are your loons, you defend them if you can.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:30 pmDefend this my some to have a new name friend
“I know for a fact that you traitors would like nothing more than to see more terrorists go free, but,this is not news!”
You’re sort of screwed…
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:36 pmKyl is right up there with Pat Roberts from Kansas. He’s always been one of the supreme arsewhipe-Republicans.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:13 pmI’m not much of a fan of Rove and Fred Barnes’ fishing buddy Chris Wallace, but didn’t ThinkProgress yesterday declare this segment unbalanced based on the appearance of 2 Republicans?
What happened? TP probably watched the segment AFTER its post and found that it wasn’t so unbalanced after all, since Chris Wallace can surprise you from time to time with his questioning. Next time, TP should hold back on its claim of unbalanced segments until it actually watches and studies the program in question.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 am