Presidential Correspondence

I received this email from FactCheck.org, right after the President’s speech:

Fact-Checking Obama's Speech
February 25, 2009
The president gets facts wrong about oil imports, mortgage aid and the transcontinental railroad, and more.
Summary

President Obama's first speech to a joint session of Congress was stuffed with signals about the new direction his budget will take and meant-to-be reassuring words about the economy. But it was also peppered with exaggerations and factual misstatements.

He said "we import more oil today than ever before." That's untrue. Imports peaked in 2005 and are substantially lower today.

He claimed his mortgage aid plan would help "responsible" buyers but not those who borrowed beyond their means. But even prominent defenders of the program including Fed Chairman Bernanke and FDIC chief Bair concede foolish borrowers will be aided, too.

He said the high cost of health care "causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds." That's at least double the true figure.

He flubbed two facts about American history. The U.S. did not invent the automobile, and the transcontinental railroad was not completed until years after the Civil War, not during it.

He claimed that his stimulus plan "prevented the layoffs" of 57 police officers in Minneapolis. In fact, it's far more complicated than that, and other factors are also helping to save police jobs.

The president also repeated some strained claims we've critiqued before.

Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:

Shortly afterwards, I sent it along to everyone on my blog distribution list. Not long after that, my friend and tor-mentor, Ron, responded thusly:

One has to wonder why his speech writers don't run their material by these checking folks BEFORE the speech is delivered.

I thought about this for a few moments, and offered these thoughts in return:

As a Dem, I would have to jokingly remark that that "would take all the fun out of it".

As a Repub, I would have to feign outrage, and yell, "You're goddam right!"

As a cynic, I would only ask, "Well, what do you expect? He is a politician"

As a skeptic, I would say that "You have to expect this sort of sloppiness in politics".

As a Libertarian, I guess I would call it "ongoing government fraud and a waste of tax payer money".

As an Oklahoma redneck, I'd have to say that "that damn n#@&^%r is lying again”.

Ron seemed to enjoy this:
Oh, shit! This is great writing! Always a pleasure to read you when you hit this level--p.s. stop drinking that coffee now before it's too late and you are unable to sleep again, forever.

Then I realized that I had missed a salient observation. I had neglected to include:

The lawyer: "Certain liberal allowances were made and concessions granted in the interest of expediency and the public good".

This all could have been avoided if President Obama had simply said:” Americans can do anything, which is how Henry Ford was able to invent the modern automobile industry in this country, enabling workers to afford responsible mortgages . This has played a significant role in making our heath care costs less than we had originally thought and helped reduce our oil consumption since 2005, because of the railroad we built right after the Civil War, which has dramatically affected the employment status of Minneapolis police officers. “

But I guess it wouldn’t have had quite the same ring to it, then, would it?