Bashir: ‘Gingrich Lies Repeatedly’ – ‘More People Were Collecting Food Stamps’ Under Bush
MSNBC's Martin Bashir spent a good part of his on air time Monday calling Republicans liars as he foolishly confused two extraordinarily simple pieces of economic data thereby making it he that was commiting a falsehood.
After calling Tea Party Express founder Judson Phillips a liar on his 3PM program, Bashir said the same thing about Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on The Ed Show roughly five hours later while in both instances wrongly claiming there were more food stamp recipients when George W. Bush was president than there are now (video follows with transcript and commentary):
MARTIN BASHIR: Gingrich lies repeatedly. First of all, we know today that more people were collecting food stamps under George W. Bush than are under President Obama. So, that’s the first, something like a difference of about a half a million people.
What's amazing here is Bashir made exactly the same mistake as he did about five hours earlier.
As previously reported, the number of food stamp recipients is currently at an all-time high having grown 44 percent since Obama was inaugurated.
Unfortunately, much like his colleague Al Sharpton did on Saturday, Bashir is confusing two pieces of data and seems incapable of getting it right even with five hours to do so.
Having seen NewsBusters article about his mistake earlier in the day, Bashir responded via Twitter:
![]()
As USA Today reported Wednesday:
Newt Gingrich claims that "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history." He's wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.
That's correct. Although we only have numbers through last October, food stamp recipients have grown by 14.2 million under Obama. During Bush's two terms the increase was 14.7 million.
This is what Bashir was referring to when he said "something like a difference of about a half a million people."
But, much as he did earlier, Bashir confused the two pieces of data saying "we know today that more people were collecting food stamps under George W. Bush than are under President Obama."
Not true. What "we know today" is that as of October 2011, there were 46.2 million people on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as compared to only 32 million when Obama was inaugurated.
We also know that 500,000 more folks joined SNAP during Bush's eight years than in Obama's first 32 months.
Unfortunately, the overbearingly smug and condescending Bashir seems incapable of differentiating these two pieces of data and properly reporting them to his albeit tiny audience.
As Scarlett O'Hara said at the end of Gone With the Wind, tomorrow is another day.
![]()
Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
What does 'under Bush' actually mean?
Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 1:23am.
I am thinking under the 111th congress, which Bush signed on to. Sooo Bush and Democrats both suck!?
Really?
Submitted by Marcus Porcius on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 4:19am.
You don't know what "under Bush" means?
Try...the 8 years he was president.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton
www.theconservativereview.com
Yeah, Really!
Submitted by ArcherB on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 8:16am.
The first six years of Bush under a Republican controlled congress was a LOT different than the final two years of Bush under a Democrat controlled congress. For example, at the end of Bush's first six years in office, unemployment was a 4.7% and there had been no stimulus packages and no bailouts.
So, if you had a clue about extremely recent history, you wouldn't have had to show your ignorance by asking, "You don't know what "under Bush" means?"", especially since the author pretty much explained what he meant. Remember, Congress writes the laws. The President just signs them.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Senator Jim Jeffords
Submitted by Injest on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 6:20pm.
The first six years of Bush under a Republican controlled congress was a LOT different than the final two years of Bush under a Democrat controlled congress.
The Senate for most of the first 2 years of the Bush admin was controlled by the Dem's.
June 6, 2001: Senator Jim Jeffords, previously a Republican, declared himself an independent and announced he would join the Democratic caucus, giving Democrats control in the Senate with a one-seat advantage. Democrat Tom Daschle became Senate Majority Leader.
In other words
Submitted by Marcus Porcius on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 4:26am.
Bush saw more people added to the rolls than Obama has...so far.
The difference of course being that Bush added 14.7 million in 96 months...about 153,000 per month.
Obama added 14.2 million in only 33 months...about 430,000 per month.
In other words, Obama is adding people to food stamps at almost TRIPLE the rate. At this pace, if he were to go all eight years, Obama will add 41.3 million people in 8 years to Bush's 14.7 million. As it is, he's on pace to break 20 million in his FIRST term.
He is absolutely the food stamp president.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton
www.theconservativereview.com
MSNBC
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 7:31am.
A Super Pac for obama.
except
Submitted by Tjexcite on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 8:25am.
The candidate and team can not influence a Super Pac. So it is more like part of the reelection campaign.
Super Pacs don't need to be
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 8:35am.
Super Pacs don't need to be influenced by the candidate. They are on his side already.
He don't need no stinking facts!
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 8:39am.
Adding 14.7 million over 8 years is worse than adding 14.2 over 3??
At 4.7 million per year, if he had 8 years, (God forbid!) Obama is on pace to add approx. 35 million people to the rolls in that time.
OK, let's just call Obama the "Unemployment President" and watch Basher try to spin that into being worse under Bush.
Mr. Bashir
Submitted by John21 on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 8:57am.
This man has proven over the last year that he has nothing to do with journalism; he is merely an "Obama Booster".
When on the rare occasion that I bother to listen to this man’s babble I begin on the premise that anything coming out of his mouth is one of two things
1. An unmitigated lie
2. A DNC talking point (yes, I know they are almost the same thing)
His proven lack of integrity and his playing fast and very loose with facts have proven beyond a doubt that he is a PR shill for the administration. Can anyone remember when he made one of his foolish statements that it was not easily proven wrong with about two minutes of fact checking? I am sure that he receives adequate reward from the DNC for his lack of comprehension and I wish him luck on whatever his next employment opportunity is (no doubt in the PR department of the DNC).
Martin, since you read NewsBusters, here's a tidbit for you.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 10:04am.
Since you profess to be a Christian, your faith must (not "should," not "can") inform every area of your life.
There is overwhelming evidence that, as things stand, such is not the case with regard to your professional demeanor.
Whether that is because of immaturity or disingenuousness on your part I cannot say, nor can anyone else. But if you're insistent that your declared Christian values will not invade your public persona, I ask you to examine the reasons you say you're a Christian in the first place. As a friend of mine used to say, either Christ is Lord of all or He's not Lord at all.
Think it over.
--Mike
Bashir went
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 9:59am.
Bashir went to the Baghdad Bob School of Journalism.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
⇒ Big school
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 10:15am.
Jay Carney mastered in Bagdad Bobiology.
Thanks
Submitted by AlbertThomas on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 6:37am.
The information is very interesting with great pleasure i read your blog.Its really nice and interesting.I recently came across your blog and have been reading along.I think i would leave my first comment but don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading.And its a nice blog.I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Check out for more cheap generic drugs : http://www.samrx.com/
With this in mind, your
Submitted by AlbertThomas on Tue, 08/14/2012 - 1:35am.
With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. http://www.genericviagra.info/