In an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, President Obama stated he’s ‘happy to admit’ he didn’t change Congress the way ‘he would have liked.’ That’s an interesting choice of words; “happy.”
Let’s just clarify, I didn’t make a bunch of deals. There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked.”
If he didn’t make a bunch of deals ($80B to Big Pharma, $270B to lobbyists for physicians, exemptions from the ‘Cadillac tax’ for Union members, the New Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Florida Flim-Flam) what’s this ephemeral “change” he’s not been able to achieve with Congress? This is a classic example of double-speak.
He then goes on to say this:
I think your question points out to a legitimate mistake that I made during the course of the year, and that is that we had to make so many decisions quickly in a very difficult set of circumstances that after awhile, we started worrying more about getting the policy right than getting the process right
Several things jump out at me here:
- If the process isn’t right, how can you know or trust that the outcome is right?
- What other processes will be thrown under the bus in order to achieve the right outcome?
- Who defines what is the right outcome?
- What is a legitimate mistake and who defines that legitimacy?
Similar Posts:
- Obama And More Of His Broken Promises
- Debunking Obama’s debunkery
- Democrats
Weasel TowardsRegain Supermajority - Stimulus Indeed: Highest Number Below Poverty Line In 50 Years
- Presidential Address to Joint Session
- Punishing Traders For Being Traders
- Lobbyists Dictate Congressional Statements
- Obama’s broken promise
- Krauthammer on The Age Of Obama
- GMAC is lapping up more tax dollars