President Obama promised during the campaign that he would not use presidential signing statements to alter the will of Congress, a procedure President Bush's critics likened to shredding the constitution. In what has become the identifying characteristic of his young administration, Obama walked away from another campaign promise today by using signing statements in an attempt to change the omnibus spending bill he signed yesterday.
As with every Obama campaign promise reversal, there is the ubiquitous invocation of crisis decision making:
"We can't have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery," Mr. Obama said. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."
The Equivocator in Chief is setting new standards for hypocrisy every day.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Barack Obama
Comments (15)
Obama: "Quick, I need anot... (Below threshold)1. Posted by GarandFan | March 11, 2009 9:44 PM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Obama: "Quick, I need another bus!"
1. Posted by GarandFan | March 11, 2009 9:44 PM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2009 21:44
2. Posted by Aye Chihuahua | March 11, 2009 10:10 PM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
It's OK now.
He is, after all, "The Won".
2. Posted by Aye Chihuahua | March 11, 2009 10:10 PM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2009 22:10
3. Posted by hpb | March 11, 2009 10:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
3. Posted by hpb | March 11, 2009 10:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2009 22:11
4. Posted by RB | March 11, 2009 10:14 PM | Score: 14 (16 votes cast)
I was a pretty ardent W supporter, particularly on national security/terror/Iraq/Gitmo...and my support for those policies/actions has not wavered. I disagreed with much of his domestic policy activity, as too much of it was Democrat Lite, not conservative.
However, I never had a sense of betrayal. He pretty much governed as he said he would. (Note to lefty trolls reading this: Yes, he said he wasn't into "nation building." But his change was dictated by a catastrophic terrorist attack (an act of war) on the U.S. Yes...it DID "change everything," in his opinion and mine.
4. Posted by RB | March 11, 2009 10:14 PM |
Score: 14 (16 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2009 22:14
5. Posted by JLawson | March 11, 2009 10:14 PM | Score: 13 (13 votes cast)
"Get two! And make sure they're stretch!"
Let's see - he couldn't touch the earmarks in the spending bill he signed today. Why? Because... um. No real reason I could see - he certainly could have told Congress to clean the thing out.
Politically, however, it would have pissed off a lot of the Democrats. He could have gotten some much-needed credibility, however, by pointing out that there were Republican earmarks also, and though it was 'right and proper' to pull those, it wouldn't be appropriate without pulling the Democrat earmarks also. Presto - earmarks gone, credibility bolstered, money saved to throw down other rat-holes.
But it wouldn't have made the earmarkers happy. "WTF you pullin' my earmarks, man?!" - and suddenly all his good Democratic 'friends' are unavailable when he calls...
Right now, he's weak politically, and he doesn't DARE alienate any of them. He's finding out that about all he can do is what they let him do - and the real power is likely in Pelosi's hands... for now.
5. Posted by JLawson | March 11, 2009 10:14 PM |
Score: 13 (13 votes cast)
Posted on March 11, 2009 22:14
6. Posted by Gmac | March 12, 2009 12:49 AM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Yep, he's 'present' and hatin' it.
6. Posted by Gmac | March 12, 2009 12:49 AM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2009 00:49
7. Posted by hermie | March 12, 2009 8:13 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
He claimed he was 'Ready to Lead', but he meant he was 'Ready to be Lead'. He chickened out on his earmark pledge, he backed a 'stimulus' bill filled with pork, he waives his 'strenuous' anti-lobbyist requirements over and over again, he is a walking disaster.
Where is this so-called 'leadership'? He can't even make a simple speech without depending upon his teleprompters.
7. Posted by hermie | March 12, 2009 8:13 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2009 08:13
8. Posted by biggie | March 12, 2009 10:16 AM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
WORM alert (from the campaign run, What Obama Really Meant): He voted present.
I have a project for you, try to find the earmarks for Illinois in there.
Step 2:
For fairness, find who had the most earmarks on the (R) side.
8. Posted by biggie | March 12, 2009 10:16 AM |
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2009 10:16
9. Posted by hyperbolist | March 12, 2009 10:26 AM | Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
Did you see the clip of Lindsey Graham (sp) on the Daily Show last night? He's opposed to earmarks, except the ones that involve building shit in South Carolina.
What an a-hole.
9. Posted by hyperbolist | March 12, 2009 10:26 AM |
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2009 10:26
10. Posted by TOhio | March 12, 2009 11:56 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Forget the axis of evil, folks! We have the agents of evil right here in our midst - Obama, Pelosi and Reid. You can't trust anything that they say, ever.
10. Posted by TOhio | March 12, 2009 11:56 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2009 11:56
11. Posted by wohho | March 12, 2009 12:17 PM | Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
Did you actually read the article you linked? There is no alteration to "the will of Congress," the signing statement made a few objections a matter of public record.
Manufactured outrage is the bastion of the desperate.
11. Posted by wohho | March 12, 2009 12:17 PM |
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2009 12:17
12. Posted by 914 | March 12, 2009 12:55 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Smearmarks are all these assclowns amount to..
12. Posted by 914 | March 12, 2009 12:55 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2009 12:55
13. Posted by marc | March 12, 2009 3:32 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
wohho - "Did you actually read the article you linked?"
Why yes I did. Including the part that states: "declaring five provisions in the spending bill to be unconstitutional and nonbinding, including one aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers."
If that's not changing the "will of Congress" I don't see what would be.
That aside, since when is obama a SC Justice that can declare something "unconstitutional?"
13. Posted by marc | March 12, 2009 3:32 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2009 15:32
14. Posted by 914 | March 12, 2009 6:53 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
"Obama shreds the constitution."
And thats just for starters.
14. Posted by 914 | March 12, 2009 6:53 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2009 18:53
15. Posted by SPURWING PLOVER | March 12, 2009 10:54 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why else do liberals have always rejected the constitution that what BILL CLINTON did when he was our dictator
15. Posted by SPURWING PLOVER | March 12, 2009 10:54 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2009 22:54