Michelle Malkin » SOTU open thread: Blame the lobbyists! Fund high-speed rail boondoggles! Spending freeze plan met with near-silence, laughter; disses SCOTUS in front of SCOTUS

SOTU open thread: Blame the lobbyists! Fund high-speed rail boondoggles! Spending freeze plan met with near-silence, laughter; disses SCOTUS in front of SCOTUS

By Michelle Malkin • January 27, 2010 07:40 PM

Scroll for updates/liveblogging…

We’re an hour and a half away from President Obama’s Swagga Recovery Speech. He’s going to get his mojo back, we’re told, by acknowledging missteps — and then dumping the blame on lobbyists. Seriously. I know a lot of folks are organizing SOTU drinking games. But I don’t need the headache. This White House’s rhetorical writhing provides enough hangover to last until 2012.

From excerpts of the speech posted at NYT:

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time for something new. Let’s try common sense. Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let’s meet our responsibility to the people who sent us here.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.

That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we cannot stop there. It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

I’m also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

Obama lied, transparency died. That was clear a year ago. From my May 6, 2009 column, here’s a reminder of how committed Obama is to disclosure and the public trust:

[H]ostility to transparency is a running thread through Obama’s cabinet:

• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for years fought disclosure of massive donations from foreign governments and corporations who filled her husband’s library and foundation coffers.

• Top Obama advisor David Axelrod ran fear-mongering astro-turf campaigns in support of a huge utility rate hike – and failed to disclose that the ads were funded for Commonwealth Edison in Chicago.

• Labor Secretary Hilda Solis failed to disclose that she was director and treasurer of a union-promoting lobbying group pushing legislation that she was co-sponsoring.

• Attorney General Eric Holder overruled his own lawyers in the Justice Department over the issue of D.C. voting rights (which he and President Obama support) and refused to make public the staffers’ opinion that a House bill on the matter was unconstitutional.

• And as I reported last month, Obama’s nominee for the No. 2 official at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, former King County, Wash. Executive Ron Sims, has the distinction of being the most fined government official in his state’s history for suppressing public records from taxpayers.

President Obama set the tone, breaking his transparency pledge with the very first bill he signed into law. On January 29, [2009] the White House announced that Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act had been posted online for review. One problem: Obama had already signed it – in violation of his “sunlight before signing” pledge to post legislation for public comment on the White House website five days before he sealed any deal.

Obama broke the pledge again with the mad rush to pass his trillion-dollar, pork-stuffed stimulus package full of earmarks he denied existed. Jim Harper of the Cato Institute reported in April 2009: “Of the eleven bills President Obama has signed, only six have been posted on Whitehouse.gov. None have been posted for a full five days after presentment from Congress…”

It’s this utter disregard for taxpayer accountability that prompted hundreds of thousands of citizens to take to the streets on Tax Day 2009 for Tea Party protests. The trampling of transparency inspired signs that read: “No legislation without deliberation” and “READ THE BILL FIRST.” Obama’s response was first to claim that he hadn’t even heard of the Tea Party movement and then, on his 100-day celebration, to deride all those Americans he is supposed to represent of “playing games.”

Projection, anyone? When it comes to toying with transparency, President Obama is a master at “playing games.”

Hey, President Obama, how about your pal SEIU president Andy Stern’s illegal lobbying activities at 1600 Pennsylvania? Let the sun shine in.

How about Alston and Bird lobbyist Tom Daschle’s undue influence in your Oval Office? Drain the swamp.

***

9:07pm Eastern. Instead of drinking, I’m going to do a push-up every time O says “I,” “change,” “jobs,” “investment,” or “clear.”

Obama arrives. There are more forced smiles in the room than at a Miss World beauty pageant.

Obama clunkifies Tom Paine: “These are the times that tested the courage of our convictions.”

He blames failures of Washington DC. “Numbing weight of politics.”

Has someone clued him into the fact that HE is Washington DC. HE is the numbing weight.

O: “We all hated the bank bailout…it was as popular as a root canal.” Biden grinning from ear to ear. Quickly moves on to rationalizing the bank bailout. “I supported the last administration’s efforts…we made it more transparent…we recovered most of the money.”

Except for the money that Geithner allowed AIG to fork over to its counterparties in secret, of course.

Obama lambastes Wall Street for a few minutes more, then pats himself on the back for cutting taxes. Not mentioned: Massive tobacco tax hikes to pay for SCHIP expansion.

Praises his recovery/stimulus behemoth. Here we go: Jobs, jobs, jobs.

Gotta do my push-ups.

9:30pm Eastern. Oh, no. Here comes the high-speed rail boondoggle. Unions rejoicing.

Clean energy boondoggle. Unions rejoicing.

9:38pm Eastern. Obama tosses a bone to the Right — paying lip service to support nuclear power and offshore drilling — before championing cap-and-tax. Pelosi bolts to her feet. O downplays the ClimateGate scandal (Republicans boo) and argues that massive intervention should be pursued despite the junk science.

9:51pm Eastern. Time for a Blame Bush interlude.

9:54pm Eastern. Snort: Obama’s spending freeze proposal falls totally flat. Not even a smattering of applause. A smittering. Is that a word?

Obama says the freeze won’t take place until next year.

LAUGHTER from the chamber. LOLOLOL.

Snippy Obama: “That’s how budgeting works.”

More laughter.

10:05pm Eastern. He’s lambasted GOP obstructionism, lambasted permanent campaigning (“We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions”) and political ambitions, and lamented the loss of unity after 9/11.

“I’m not interested in re-litigating the past.” Just in litigating jihadis in American civilians courts!

10:18pm Eastern. In one breath, Obama promises to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” guarantee gender pay equity (he did this last year already with passage of the Lily Ledbetter Act), and to push for shamnesty. Phew.

Wrap-up summary of final speech remarks: People are cynical. Don’t blame me. I never promised you peace and harmony. Let’s fight. Let’s get things done. Forget about all my missteps over the last year. CHANGE (the subject)!

***

The full text of the speech is here.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Barack Obama

Printer Friendly

comments (529)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

« Older Comments

#501

On January 28th, 2010 at 4:56 pm, Ragspierre said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r5MfEG9xmE&feature=player_embedded#

FISK-tastic
#502

On January 28th, 2010 at 5:52 pm, Ragspierre said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9XklfcVZU&feature=player_embedded

Cuffy Miegs allows THE ONE to respond to THE ONE.

True, that…
#503

On January 28th, 2010 at 5:59 pm, Ragspierre said:

Obama’s Shameless Demagoguery [Bradley A. Smith]

The full story is this:

(1) The Citizens United case dealt with a blanket ban on corporate expenditures. The Court struck down the ban, which is part of 2 USC 441b.

(2) A separate section of the law, 2 USC 441e, prohibits “foreign nationals” from making expenditures or contributions. “Foreign nationals” includes corporations that are not incorporated or headquartered in the United States. This is an extremely broad prohibition that applies to any U.S. election (including state and local elections) and to any activity “in connection with” an election. The Citizens United ruling doesn’t touch this prohibition and specifically notes that it makes no judgment about foreign corporations.

(3) This would allow a U.S. corporation, incorporated and headquartered in the United States, to make expenditures (Obama, remember, referred to “foreign corporations”). But . . .

(4) FEC regulations at 11 CFR 110.20 further delineate the prohibition:

A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person’s Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.

Additionally, the FEC requires that any funds so spent come from U.S.-generated income (in other words, the parent corporation cannot send capital to the U.S. subsidiary and then have the subsidiary spend that in connection with U.S. elections). Therefore . . .

(5) You could have a foreign-owned but U.S.-incorporated-and-headquartered subsidiary, using U.S. funds, controlled solely by U.S. nationals, make expenditures. However, bear in mind that . . .

(6) Such a corporation is already eligible to operate a PAC — which can make unlimited expenditures and also make contributions directly to candidates (under the same restrictions of U.S. funds managed by U.S. nationals) — and to spend unlimited sums from any source. Its executives and managers who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (i.e., the same people who would have to decide on any corporate spending) are already eligible to spend unlimited sums on U.S. elections.

So claiming that the Citizens United decision will allow “foreign corporations to spend without limits in our elections” is as misleading as saying that “Obama and the Democratic Congress have allowed foreign corporations to spend without limits in our elections.” The corporate ban is not about foreign contributions, and the government never tried to defend it as such. To suggest that this ruling allows foreign expenditures in elections is wholly misleading.

We might say that the president’s statement is not a lie, because it contains a small kernel of truth. But that kernel of truth is what separates lies from demagoguery. The president’s statement was shameless demagoguery.

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School.

From The Corner
#504

On January 28th, 2010 at 6:10 pm, WarEagle82 said:

Rags,

Thanks for taking the time. I had a very busy afternoon and just couldn’t dig into this.

Obama lied, veracity died. Or maybe he quoted himself out of context. Or lied to his teleprompter…
#505

On January 28th, 2010 at 6:14 pm, Ragspierre said:

Obama lied, veracity died. Or maybe he quoted himself out of context. Or lied to his teleprompter…

Or…This is not the Messiah I thought I ~~knew~~ was…
#506

On January 28th, 2010 at 6:24 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

On January 28th, 2010 at 3:38 pm, Ragspierre said:

I think most Americans…certainly this one…saw it as outright thuggery

That’s exactly what I thought.

Chicago thuggery.
And it was totally inappropriate in a SOTU address.
#507

On January 28th, 2010 at 7:25 pm, Ragspierre said:

What the President really seems to regard as the defense of high principle Americans increasingly see as the most raw machine politics, replete with party payoffs.

This moral dissonance increasingly imparts a sense of the thuggishness to the administration’s communications.

What the President really seems to regard as the defense of high principle Americans increasingly see as the most raw machine politics, replete with party payoffs.

This moral dissonance increasingly imparts a sense of the thuggishness to the administration’s communications.

If you’ve never visited that site, do.
#508

On January 28th, 2010 at 7:28 pm, T-Bone said:

What about Gitmo?

That closed last week didn’t it?
#509

On January 28th, 2010 at 7:42 pm, Ragspierre said:

OOpsie…

forgot the link…

http://www.capitalismbetrayed.com/
#510

On January 28th, 2010 at 8:33 pm, WarEagle82 said:

Well, now the NYT, that bastion of conservative thought and original intent, says Obama and Chappy are wrong…

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/?scp=5&sq=supreme%20court&st=cse

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

But this was a populist night and the target was irresistible. There are a variety of specific proposals floating around to address the Citizens United decision. The president offered no specifics and did not endorse any of them. Just as the decision doesn’t lend itself to a sound bite, neither do the fixes.
#511

On January 28th, 2010 at 9:03 pm, T-Bone said:

You can’t handle the truth.
#512

On January 28th, 2010 at 11:30 pm, chapoutier said:

Are you that retarded WarEagle? You don’t think Tillman Act is now dead?

Again, you have zero concept of the difference between the narrow scope of a ruling and it’s practical consequences.
#513

On January 29th, 2010 at 8:47 am, yohannbiimu said:

It took me a while to think about it, but when you boil it all down it wasn’t “the state of the Union” that he was talking about, but rather “the state of Barack Obama’s agenda.” In other words, it isn’t about the country anymore, it’s about HIM (as I’m sure it’s been pointed out by many others).

What perhaps others haven’t said; however, is the possibility of Obama acquainting his fortunes with that of the country, in other words, Obama BEING the state of the country. This attitude is of course the same as your typical despotic tyrant, such as Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, or Hugo Chavez.
#514

On January 29th, 2010 at 9:27 am, spaceycakes said:

yohannibiimu, indeed.

Obama is the State. A legend in his own mind.
#515

On January 29th, 2010 at 10:44 am, WarEagle82 said:

For crying out loud, Chappy, make up your mind! Just a few posts back you stated that Tillman didn’t apply. Now it does again.

Guess what? I am going to accept the interpretation of Alito and the Yale law professor and Ragspierre over you and wiggy ziggy.

Evidently, you should stick to chasing ambulances because you appear to way out of your depth on constitutional law like your buddy Obama. Then again maybe he one of your profs, “grasshopper”…

On January 28th, 2010 at 3:54 pm, chapoutier said:

What specific sections of the decision to you think overturns Tillman?

Tillman may not even be the applicable law right now. Doesn’t matter. The point is that ever since that law, we have sought to limit corporation’s campaign contributions by treating them as a separate class. Until January 21st, that is.
#516

On January 29th, 2010 at 11:00 am, DBNinKY said:

Again, you have zero concept of the difference between the narrow scope of a ruling and it’s practical consequences.

I generally respect though seldom agree with your opinion, but this time I think you’re really grasping at straws to excuse Obama for his obvious gaffe in not editing out that part of the speech before reading it aloud; as a constitutional lawyer, that should have jumped out at him as patently misleading and outright false before he ever uttered a word of it.

You said your area of expertise is tax law so hopefully today you will reconsider your position, given the large number of constitutional law professors and attorneys who have stated Obama was factually and explicitly wrong about the SC’s decision and its implications.
#517

On January 29th, 2010 at 11:15 am, WarEagle82 said:

And now the NYT and The Heritage Foundation seem to agree with Alito and not Chappy and wiggy ziggy…

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/28/the-truth-about-president-obama-and-citizens-united/
#518

On January 29th, 2010 at 11:39 am, Ragspierre said:

Apropos my post back a ways, this is an EXCELLENT suggestion.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/01/challenge-to-obama-request-special.html

Now, this could lead to impeachment material…
#519

On January 29th, 2010 at 11:46 am, WarEagle82 said:

Geez, Rags, now Chappy will argue that you are either broadly interpreting the narrow intention of the decision or narrowly interpreting the broad intention of the decision while ignoring the unintended consequences of the decision and he will simultaneously claim that the Citizens United decision both destroys Tillman and does not apply to Tillman.
#520

On January 29th, 2010 at 12:03 pm, Ragspierre said:

War;

heh.

Chaps is reminiscent of very smart kids I knew in law school (where I was an old guy). They would argue anything, on any side. In law school, that is considered a virtue. It has its uses as a forensic exercise, but it does become wearisome after a point. It is also not a way to run a life or a nation.
#521

On January 29th, 2010 at 12:08 pm, WarEagle82 said:

I think it fascinating that a Yale law professor writing for the NYT and The Heritage Foundation both agree that Obama was blowing smoke on this issue.

One doesn’t see that happen very often…
#522

On January 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm, Ragspierre said:

I think it fascinating that a Yale law professor writing for the NYT and The Heritage Foundation both agree that Obama was blowing smoke on this issue.

But, War, this isn’t just blowing smoke; consider–

No competent lawyer would make that kind of assertion in pleading. We are required to research case-law, and accurately cite it to a court (tho you’d be surprised how rare that is in practice). But lawyers don’t generally cite a court to something that is flat-footed untrue.

This is the nation’s first citizen, somebody to whom the rule of law should be paramount. He has ENORMOUS resources upon which to draw for research and fact-checking.

This was not…could not be…the result of presidential gas-blowing.

It was an intentional, demagogic torturing of the truth by a guy who HAD to know what he was saying was just a lie.
#523

On January 29th, 2010 at 12:26 pm, WarEagle82 said:

Rags,

I didn’t mean he was only blowing smoke. I have stated, repeatedly, that Obama was lying and he knew he was lying and he had to know the decision didn’t do what he claimed it did.

And, for the record, I have never claimed Obama is a competent lawyer…
#524

On January 29th, 2010 at 12:39 pm, Ragspierre said:

I keep looking for something at which the guy really is competent.

So far, snake-oil marketing maven seems the sole category…

still looking, though.
#525

On January 29th, 2010 at 12:43 pm, WarEagle82 said:

I heard one guy who claimed to know Barry Soetero from high school and he said Lil Barry could roll a mean joint…
#526

On January 29th, 2010 at 1:12 pm, Ragspierre said:

Byron York has a very interesting piece about THE ONE’s tendency to become bored at about this point in any job he’s had.
#527

On January 29th, 2010 at 1:17 pm, WarEagle82 said:

Well, that may be better for us. If we are lucky maybe he’ll just retreat to the Rose Garden and spark doobies all day…

That may go a long way to explain his “State of the Narcissist” speech we heard earlier this week.

On January 29th, 2010 at 1:12 pm, Ragspierre said:

Byron York has a very interesting piece about THE ONE’s tendency to become bored at about this point in any job he’s had.
#528

On January 29th, 2010 at 4:13 pm, WarEagle82 said:

This is the link Rags has mentioned in two separate threads but for some reason not provided a link…

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Has-Obama-become-bored-with-being-president_-82978332.html
#529

On January 29th, 2010 at 4:43 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

I think if I was one of SC judges I would have just stood up, turned my back on Obama and walked out right in the middle of his recital hoping the other justices were right behind me.

Did Obama, a ‘Constitutional scholar’ ~forget~ that the SCOTUS is an EQUAL branch of the government? It would have been an educational experience for our whiner in chief – dis those of equal standing to you and they just might dis you back!