Peter Wehner points out some of the blatant contradictions in Obama’s SOTU speech, and then says:
“It was as if we were being lectured on marital fidelity by John Edwards or Mark Sanford.”
Exactly.
Here’s more:
Perhaps the most striking aspect of last night’s speech, though, was that Obama spoke as if the last year hadn’t happened; as if he had not been president; and as if Congress had not been controlled by Democrats. He sought to portray himself as an outsider and a reformer, an antidote to cynicism, and a post-partisan, unifying force…What we are seeing play out on a very large stage, it seems, is a man of extraordinary self-regard having to deal with punishing political set-backs, with the fact that his high hopes have come crashing down around him. The nation has turned against his agenda. They are turning against his party. And they are tiring of him as well. This is something he cannot seem to process. So the president marches ahead, pretending up is down and east is west, embracing an agenda the country has rejected and that is doing terrible damage to his own party.
Here’s a moment from Obama’s SOTU that’s gotten a lot of coverage:
There are several things wrong with what Obama did here. The first is the questionable nature of his factual assertion, which was the reason Alito shook his head and mouthed “not true.” Law professor Bradley A. Smith writes:
The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.”
Smith goes on to add that Obama’s statement that the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests ”” including foreign corporations ”” to spend without limit in our elections,” was “either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.”
I happen to think it may be both; are they always mutually exclusive? But hey, what do you expect; it’s not like Obama’s a law professor or anything.
What’s more, as many commenters at the law blog Volokh Conspiracy have pointed out, it was crass, unpresidential, and demagogic of Obama to make his criticism of the SCOTUS decision part of his SOTU address, a venue at which the Justices are supposed to sit stoney-faced and not respond. Once Obama called the Justices out, Democrat members of Congress surrounding them jumped up to clap and cheer in the usual jack-in-the-box fashion, compounding the public humiliation of another equal branch of government—the judiciary. And, unlike politicians, the Supremes are not allowed to respond as long as they hold office. They were, and still are, sitting ducks.
No wonder Alito made his silent, small (and probably almost unconscious) protest to what was a cheap and profoundly classless shot by Obama and his follower Democrats.
In addition, in characteristic fashion (and this is the thing that makes Obama’s misrepresentations so fascinatingly Orwellian), the activity that Obama falsely said the SCOTUS decision allowed—contributions from foreign corporations—is somewhat akin (although not identical) to the very method Obama most likely used (illegally) in his own campaign for president: foreign contributions, in his case from small donors.
A final observation: Obama’s disrespect for the SCOTUS began with the remark, “with all due deference.” That phrase (or another very much like it, “with all due respect”) is usually a telling clue that the person uttering it is about to say something nondeferential and downright disrespectful. It’s somewhat like Obama’s favorite, “Let me be clear,” which almost inevitably signals that an especially murky remark is coming up.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s more from Randy Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown:
In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.
One of Obama’s favorite ploys—and one prominently displayed last night in his SOTU speech—is to imply that Republicans are obstructionists who are blocking his agenda merely through desire to thwart the bipartisanship he so magnanimously offers. Of course, to Obama, “bipartisanship” means “my way or the highway.”
I thought this comment on the subject, by “foxmark,” worth highlighting:
Of course the righties oppose Barry’s (and Congress’s) initiatives. That’s what I expect from a deliberative process between camps that have different perspectives and philosophies. Is it somehow implied that to advocate against the majority view is obstructive?
And this claim of obstruction ignores the Congressional majority Barry had to work with for his first year. Again, yes, the righties can contest, but they could not block or prevent the lefties from doing anything.
How is the opposition-party “obstruction” Barry faces any different from any other President? It seems it must be less given the (super)majority in Congress.
Ultimately the claim of obstruction is an attack on the character of the opponents: They’re behaving badly, like petty spoilsports in time of genuine suffering.
It’s ad hominem wrapped in nationalism to advance a socialist agenda.
This sort of story is the reason rescuers will not give up, even though it’s been over two weeks since the quake:
A 16-year-old girl has been pulled out of the rubble in the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince, 15 days after the earthquake struck, rescuers say.
Workers heard a faint voice while clearing away some rubble, and in only an hour they had freed the extremely weak and dehydrated teenager, Darlene Etienne. She is reported to have survived because she was trapped in an air pocket in a bathroom where she was able to drink water from a bathtub.
The mind resists the idea that there are probably many more such stories that will never be told, because the people involved have either died already (or are now dying) despite their heroic and lengthy efforts to survive.
And what of Darlene and her extraordinary ordeal? Although the physical suffering must have been dreadful—and probably required tremendous self-control on her part to ration the remaining water over time, not knowing when (or if) she might ever be rescued—the psychological strength she needed to survive an experience of such profound terror and isolation is almost unimaginable.
This one’s kind of chatty and colloquial, and not quite as obsequious as the usual:
Great article. There’s a lot of good data here, though I did want to let you know something – I am running Ubuntu with the circulating beta of Firefox, and the design of your blog is kind of funky for me. I can understand the articles, but the navigation doesn’t function so great.
I’m not at all sure I’m up for watching Obama’s SOTU speech tonight.
But here’s a thread to talk about the speech, if you’re so inclined.
[ADDENDUM: I got home from dinner at 9:50 PM, turned it on, turned it off immediately as unwatchable. Not just Obama, either; the whole fake spectacle. Then I read some comments here and at other blogs and got the idea: last year was the worst in the history of the country, he’ll do this and he’ll do that, the nasty banks, Bush’s fault.]
[ADDENDUM II: Here’s a good summary of the problem:
There were too many Barack Obamas tonight, making too many promises to too many interests.
The same president who said he wasn’t interested in relitigating the past . . . did exactly that for over an hour.
The same president who yearned for less partisanship also resorted to it without hesitation, often just a few sentences afterwards, blaming his problems on his predecessor one long year into his own administration.
The same president who yearned to reduce deficits also called for hundreds of billions of dollars in expanded government.
The same president who said “we can’t wage a perpetual campaign” just brought in his campaign manager to do exactly that.
And the same president who said he understood that families have to live on a budget said his government would start doing that . . . next year.
Napoleon said, “He who defends everything defends nothing.”
This president defended everything tonight.
I’m not sure America knows who he is.
I agree with everything except that last sentence. I think America knows very well who this president is: a liar.
And you don’t need to know anything of Obama’s past to know he’s a liar, because the lies and contradictions are embedded in the speech itself!]
TNR’s Jonathan Cohn has this to say about Obama’s SOTU speech this evening:
Today Obama faces a dire threat to his presidency: A political backlash threatening to destroy his signature domestic policy initiative and, more broadly, his entire governing agenda. Can he give the speech of his political life–again?
I hope he can. But it won’t be easy.
That last sentence may just be the understatement of the century. What Cohn seems to not understand is the fact that Obama’s words no longer matter.
They never did, actually, except as evidence of his intent. That worked when most of the American public was unfamiliar with his actions. Now we are only too familiar with the profound disconnect between the two.
Whatever Obama says, he is in precisely the position (in the metaphorical sense, anyway) of the alcoholic who has fallen off the wagon a thousand times and promises that this time, this time he’ll really quit for good. Such words are devoid of meaning, because trust has evaporated.
My new piece, entitled “Health care lessons: learned and lost,” is up at the Weekly Standard.
The WS site has no online comments section—only email responses accepted. Feel free to send them glowing laudatory messages, if you hanker to do so. And feel free to comment here, as always.
James O’Keefe, the man who was instrumental in making the ACORN-sting videos featured prominently by Breitbart, has been arrested along with three other men:
A witness told authorities O’Keefe was sitting in the waiting area of [US Senator Mary] Landrieu’s office and appeared to record [alleged accomplices] Basel and Flanagan on his cell phone when they arrived posing as phone workers. Landrieu, who was in Washington at the time, said in a statement that the plot was “unsettling” for her and her staff.
A federal law enforcement official said one of the suspects was picked up in a car a couple of blocks away with a listening device that could pick up transmissions. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the information was not part of the FBI affidavit. Another official said Dai was the suspect arrested outside.
All four were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
“It was poor judgment,” Flanagan’s lawyer, Garrison Jordan, said. “I don’t think there was any intent or motive to commit a crime.”
My response is: since we don’t know what really happened, it’s hard to say what really happened. But here’s my startlingly bold official statement anyway: if they did something illegal, they should be prosecuted and denounced for this act. If they didn’t, they should be acquitted and the matter put to rest.
Of course, there’s political hay to be made in the meantime:
Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan said Republicans once praised O’Keefe as an American hero, “yet today, in light of these deplorable and illegal attacks on the office of a United States senator by their champion, Republicans have not offered a single iota of disgust, a whisper of indignation or even a hint of outrage.”
Disgust and outrage don’t seem all that appropriate; I seem to have noticed people saying to wait for the facts, which does. Rushing to judgment, as Hari Sevugan does in the above quote (“these deplorable and illegal attacks”) isn’t exactly the American way, is it? But I think I can safely predict that, if it is proven that James O’Keefe was bugging the offices of a US Senator, Republicans and other previous supporters will be quick to condemn his actions as both illegal and stupid, and disassociate themselves from him.
As for what we know of the facts so far, Patterico (who is a lawyer) has this to say:
When I first read a news story about this yesterday, it sounded to me like O’Keefe and company were being accused of an attempt to wiretap or bug Landrieu’s phones. Indeed, that’s the way I characterized the Government’s claim in my post based on a news story. But now I have had a chance to review the affidavit. And it doesn’t say that.
The link to the affidavit is here. I challenge you to find me the language that accuses O’Keefe et al. of a “plot to bug” Landrieu’s office, or an “alleged wiretap scheme.”
It isn’t there.
Read the rest of his piece. And then let’s all wait to see how this one develops, shall we?
Other than the first interview, the FBI’s focus was on ensuring that any statements obtained from Abdulmutallab could be used at trial. Intelligence gathering was, if thought of at all, considered a sideshow. It is deeply unsettling, but not at all surprising, that the FBI did not consult with counterterrorism experts in other agencies. The FBI was not about to invite other agencies onto its turf.
This is highly reminiscent of the much-criticized firewall that made it difficult for us to connect the dots before 9/11.
The FBI is part of the Justice Department, which comes under the aegis of Attorney General Eric Holder. In his execrable Congressional testimony (and please read the whole thing, if you’ve got the stomach for it), he has already made it clear that the focus of apprehending terrorists on our soil would be their conviction, rather than intelligence-gathering. He even had this to say when given a hypothetical about whether we’d read Osama bin Laden his Miranda rights, if we were so fortunate as to ever capture him:
Attorney General Holder: …The conviction of Osama bin Laden, were he to come into our custody would not depend on any custodial statements he would make. The case against him, both those of those cases that have already been indicted, the case that we would make against him in the 9/11 cases, would not be dependent on custodial interrogations, so I think that in some ways, you’ve thrown up something, with all due respect, is a red herring.
Sen. Graham: With all due respect, every military lawyer that I’ve talked to is deeply concerned that if we go down this road, we’re criminalizing the war and we’re putting our intelligence-gathering at risk, and I will have statements to back up what I’m saying.
So the treatment of Abdulmutallab should come as no surprise. It is in league with the entire thrust of nearly every relevant act and utterance of both the president and his appointee as head of Justice, Eric Holder.
[NOTE: For background on the firewall—how and why it came to be, and the manner in which it functioned—please see this extraordinarily insightful article on the subject by Andrew McCarthy, the prosecutor of the 1993 WTC bombers.]
Paul Krugman is very angry at President Obama for his spending freeze proposal.
And when I say “very,” I mean very. Krugman’s most recent piece is short, only 214 words. But it contains a surprising amount of death imagery—mostly in a quote from blogger Jonathan Zasloff, but also in the title of Krugmans’s piece: “Obama liquidates himself.”
Wow. I have been impressed by the growing rage of the left towards Obama, eclipsing almost everything I’ve seen from the right. But this is chilling. The right never believed in Obama and so feels neither surprised nor betrayed. Krugman, on the other hand, quotes “a correspondent” as having written to him saying, “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”
I would imagine Krugman is speaking obliquely of himself as well.
