The St. Petersburg Times‘ Politifact site has a special section devoted to Barack Obama’s campaign promises and keeping track of whether or not he has kept them. Make sure to bookmark it and check it often. I’ve linked up to it in my “Obama Links” section located on the far left column of this page.
At this early stage of the game, they’ve documented one campaign promise they feel has been outright broken, and that is President Obama’s promise (which he called “Sunlight Before the Signing“) to give the public five days to be able to review a “non-emergency” bill before he signs it into law. He did that when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law on January 29th, and he did it today when he signed off on expanding SCHIP (yes, the liberal domestic policies are movin’ right on along).
So … what was the White House’s response when they were questioned about this broken campaign pledge?
The White House issued a statement Wednesday saying Obama was committed to the pledge, and “we will be implementing this policy in full soon.”
“Currently we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar,” the statement read. “In the meantime, we will continue to post legislation on our website for comment as it moves through Congress over the next few weeks.”
In other words, “just let us pass these few things first before we get started.” Sound familiar?
Interestingly enough, I see on Politifact’s site that they have Obama’s promise on lobbyists listed as a “compromise” rather than as a “broken promise” – and here’s why:
The executive order Obama signed includes a waiver clause. The executive order says a waiver may be granted if “the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction” or “it is in the public interest … . The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy.”
LOL. In other words, that “waiver” can include just about anything. This doesn’t come as any surprise to readers of this blog, who already know about Obama’s deeply duplicitous nature on the issue of lobbyists. He’ll call other people out on their associations with lobbyists, but when critics turn around and accuse him of the same he just tells them to “read the fine print on that promise.”
What’s good for he, you see, is not good for thee (another example) …
Update/Related: Same old fudges and loopholes in Obama’s new era of ethics