On most things of consequence, the gulf between Obama's words and his deeds is large indeed. But few are so obvious and blatant as listening to Obama demonize lobbyists in the State of the Union Speech only to see his administration on the next day inviting the lobbyists to a private meeting to "discuss issues raised in Obama's speech." This from the Hill:
A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union.
The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.” . . .
This is getting comical.
On a related note, the AP fact checked Obama's speech, finding several questionable Presidential claims. They include
- Obama seeks a freeze on certain items of discretionary spending as a means to lower out out of control deficits. The AP notes that, while Obama made this the centerpiece of his new pose as a fiscal hawk, Obama neglected to mention that, even if fully enacted, his plan will only cut the budget deficit by 1% in ten years. AP doesn't go far enough, though. The reality is that Obama and the Dems already raised discretionary spending by 25% last year, so freezing such spending at current levels is kind of like cutting off the alcohol only after the patrons are already drunk.
- The AP opines that Obama's call for a "bi-partisan" commission to recommend changes to the economy will be "toothless." That said, the AP ignores that this was always about politics rather than fixing the economy. The left wants to tax us so that they can continue to spend. Congress is required by the Constitution to make all binding decisions on taxing and spending. The only reason to toss up a "bi-partisan commission" to duplicate this function is to protect Congressional Democrats - to give them some cover for their decisions. It is not exactly a portrait in moral courage.
- As to Obama's health care claim that "[o]ur approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan," AP gives a post speech shout out of "you lie."
- As to Obama's claims regarding two million jobs saved by the stimulus, the AP notes that there is reason for cynicism. What the AP does not note is that even of the jobs claimed, they are virtually all in the public sector, with a few in heavily subsidised "green jobs" that could not exist in the private sector without government largess. They will fade away the moment the government tit drys up. Update: Gateway Pundit runs to ground Obama's claim of the Phoenix "small business" that is tripling its work force thanks to the stimulus. It is Ecotality, owned by a Democratic donor whose company received $100 million in stimulus funds - for which it added 27 jobs in 2009 and is planning on adding another 15 in 2010. That is well over a $2 million per job. So do you feel stimulated yet?
- Obama shamelessly repeated his calls for "transparency" in government - after giving us a year of the least transparent government in decades. Even hard core Obamiacs had to be doing the face-palm on that one.
- As the AP lastly notes, Obama claimed to have killed far more al Qaeda members than the Bushies did in 2008. But, AP points out, this is a claim that is impossible to verify. They also note that drone attacks, which are likely the basis for the claim, "increased dramatically in the last 18 months." Hmmmm, let's see, eighteen minus twelve . . . . what do you know - the increase started on Bush's watch. So Obama's claim to being superior to Bush in the war on terror is predicated on . . . carrying on a Bush policy.
There were a lot of false or unverifiable claims made by Obama last night that the AP missed. Hot Air notes that Obama's blame of Bush for the deficits is one. Another is Obama claiming credit for "ending" the war in Iraq. It mystifies me that any commander of U.S. troops could sit stone-faced listening to that one. And then there was Obama's claim that the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizen's United would open up the flood gates for foreign influence in our elections when the reality is that the laws pertaining to foreign money in campaigns were explicitly left untouched by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision.