Breaking the media code on spending

Don Surber:

Dana Milbank’s page two-er today, “Senate’s Bold Proposal for Iraq: Sugar Beets and Rural Schools — in the U.S.” in the Washington Post, broke down some of the items added to the emergency spending bill for the war on terror.

Milbank did not tell readers the Democratic Senate used this bill to ladle out its annual $20 billion in pork.

In fact, the word “pork” did not appear even once in his story.

He called it “pet projects.”


Milbank is not alone in the media shilling for congressional Democrats.

Conservatives Oppose Pet Projects” read the headline over the March 27 story by Andrew Taylor. The word “pork” was never used.

Senate GOP Will Not Block Iraq Bill” by Ann Flaherty of AP on March 26 also called the waste “pet projects.” She too did not use “pork” once.

Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times also deployed the “pet projects” euphemism in his March 27 story, “Republicans to Rely on President Bush’s Veto to Block Troop Withdrawal Plan.” He did use “pork” once, but only in a direct quote from one of those bitter Republican senators.

So there you have it. When Democrats lard up an emergency bill, Washington reporters say it is for “pet projects.”

When Republicans do it, it is pork.


Perhaps they are just trying to suppress the Republican Jewish and Muslim vote. But, I think Muslims are not to keen on Pets either. Another theory gone to the dogs. Pet project is si amorphous anyway. Sen. Coburn has a pet project of fighting pork, but clearly his pet project was not honored in this bill.


Popular posts from this blog

Shortly after Nancy Pelosi visited Laredo, Texas and shook hands with mayor of Nuevo Laredo this happened

US, Britain and Israel help Iranian nuclear scientist escape