The AP's Cognitive Dissonance [John Ennis]

President Obama just broke another campaign promise. Here's a brief clip of candidate Obama criticizing Bush's use of signing statements and promising that he is "not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress." (He also explains what they are for those unfamiliar with the practice).

Here's an AP report from yesterday concerning Obama's signing of the $410 billion omnibus spending bill:

He also issued a "signing statement" in which he objected to provisions of the bill that he said the Justice Department had advised "raise constitutional concerns."

The AP doesn't mention Obama's campaign promise or quote any critics of Obama's signing statement, but they did have time to mention critics of the previous administration:

Bush often issued statements when he signed bills, objecting to parts of the legislation. Critics said the statements often showed government officials how to get around a law if Bush disagreed with it on constitutional grounds.

So, when Obama does something which was controversial for Bush, the AP will sidestep any criticism of Obama, and instead, attack Bush.

This is extraordinarily dangerous; the AP will not hold Obama to any account.

I don't think there has ever been a president who hadn't broken a campaign promise or two. But, we've never had a president whose top qualification for the office was his campaign. Under such circumstances, the broken promises take on additional significance. 

Comments

[BlogChecker]

Here is an AP story that discusses the criticism of the statement as well as earmarks. Convenient that you did not find it. It took me 45 seconds to locate it:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_SPENDING?SITE=FLMYR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

It is dangerous when the press gives a president free reign. They did so on WMDs and Bush's signing statements, and it lead to horrible abuses of executive power.

What I don't understand it why you criticize the press on the grounds that it is dangerous to let a president (Obama) go unchecked, yet vociferously criticize the press for their criticism of Bush. It is philosophically inconsistent to the point of being Orwellian.

But more than that, you have consistently shown a distressing tendency to omit, distort, and falsify facts. Highly ironic in the context of today's post. You never retracted or corrected your previous posting's errors in response to my pointing them out. Even the Ny Times has the decency to do that.

[John Ennis]

BlogChecker,

I finally responded to your earlier request for a "correction." It was you who was wrong about the link, not I. It's one thing to be sanctimonious, but when you're also incorrect, it's an ugly combination. Your criticism was so far off, I had half a mind to take your comment down. I decided to leave it up with my rebuttal. Enjoy.

As for your complaints in this post. I personally don't have a problem with signing statements. I just thought it was absurd for the press to criticize Bush for using them and they couldn't bring out criticism of Obama. I thought it was a laughable double standard. It was an article about Obama issuing a signing statement, and they criticized Bush, alone, for the practice.

I don't buy your argument that I'm being Orwellian. You say because I want Obama held to account, I shouldn't complain when the press criticizes Bush. That's nonsense. You're presenting it as binary (i.e., that there are two options: criticism or no criticism). What about the middle ground of providing fair criticism? Can't I ask for fair criticism of Bush AND Obama? Instead I get unfair criticism of Bush and NO criticism of Obama.

I don't have a problem with signing statements. I was just looking for the AP to mention Obama's campaign reversal. When they mentioned "critics" of Bush's signing statements, could they mention Obama was one of them?

[GIJoe]

You are totally useless as a blogger. The sooner this site goes down the better.

Of course, who's going to notice? Virtually no one reads it, never mind comment on it.

I wouldn't be surprised if you are arguing with yourself.

[John Ennis]

Lucille, errrr... I meant GI Joe,

The Internet is an infinite place, and I have infinite patience. You're unhinged scribblings don't bother me. Go take your medication and have a nice day.

[BlogChecker]

Thanks for clarifying what a binary is. And you call me sanctimonious. Do you really expect anyone who has read this blog to believe you welcome fair criticism of Bush?

Also, I never said you criticized signing statements. I noticed how careful you were not to, because that would have been an implied criticism of Bush.

Anyway, there are plenty of criticisms of Obama. You just need to watch fox news or any number of blogs or listen to Limbaugh. Or, read the AP story I attached. So, what exactly is your point? Is this one brief report evidence of a conspiracy to quell Obama criticism? You can't be serious.

By the way, sanctimonious and wrong would be a great title for this blog? I don't understand the subtitle: you seem to just try to irritate.

[John Ennis]

BlogChecker,

I was hostile because you said I have a "tendency to omit, distort, and falsify facts." I was matching your tone. I'll tone it down if you will.

And, I am open to fair criticisms of Bush.

[Lucille]

BlogChecker:
Please note that John was invited by me to be my counterpoint, but I've been so disappointed in the quality of his arguments that I have stopped even responding to his posts and the site administrator decided to take the blog down in the very near future (with my agreement). The site was SUPPOSED to offer reasoned arguments by both sides, thus the slogan above. But reason is apparently beyond John and he could never get the concept of relying on his own arguments vs. quoting other's verbatim.

You are right on point when you mention his "distressing tendency to omit, distort, and falsify facts." Need I say more?

And, no, I am not GIJoe though it is someone with access to my computer.

But I do agree with him. And, thus, we will bid this blog adieu.

[John Ennis]

Lucille, I'd reply if you said something substantive. You didn't. Your comment is ridiculous.

[Lucille]

Touche, John. That's the equivalent of giving me the finger; the sign of linguistic defeat.