It Depends On What the Meaning of "Excluded" Is

Peter Suderman | February 3, 2010

Who needs a nap? In last week's State of the Union address, President Obama declared that his administration has "excluded policymakers* lobbyists from policymaking jobs."

Which is true! Well, it's true except for the 40-plus lobbyists that Washington Examiner columnist Timothy Carney has documented as holding jobs in the administration.

The White House, however, is standing by its claim. Here's Carney:

Did Obama speak falsely?

Well, it depends on what the definition of "excluded lobbyists" is.

I asked the White House if he chose his words poorly, but the media affairs office defended the president's statement: "As the President said," a spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail, "we have turned away lobbyists for many, many positions."

So, the country may have heard, "we haven't hired lobbyists to policymaking jobs," but the White House tells us Obama meant, "we only hired some of the lobbyists who applied for policymaking jobs." In other words, they've excluded some lobbyists.

As Carney notes, "Using Obama's grammar, we can say George W. Bush avoided wars in the Mideast (he didn't invade Iran), and Bush's father refused to raise taxes (repeatedly, for months)."

Not that this should come as much of a surprise. Obama's administration has been a boon to energy lobbyists and the health care industry's Washington advocates. Politifact noted way back in March of 2009—almost immediately after Obama took office—that the president had broken his promise not to hire lobbyists to work on policy. Indeed, at this point, Obama hasn't just broken that promise, he's thrown it to the ground, stomped on it, strapped it with M-80s, and chucked it into a bonfire. But why admit any of this when you have misleading grammatical technicalities at your disposal?

*Correction: I meant to type "lobbyists," but typed "policymakers" instead.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Rich|2.3.10 @ 1:44PM|#

But why admit any of this when you have misleading grammatical technicalities at your disposal?

Upon reflection, I believe the famous quote "I can no more disown [the Rev. Jeremiah Wright] than I can my white grandmother," was garbled -- the last word was really "grammar".

John Tagliaferro|2.3.10 @ 12:31PM|#

Just focusing on this quote:

"excluded policymakers from policymaking jobs."

How, exactly, do you do that? It sounds like anybody with any experience needs to get out of the way for the people with new ideas.

John Tagliaferro|2.3.10 @ 12:56PM|#

Thank you, the correction makes more sense. Marginally more, but more. I would have though mistake first but I considered who was quoted.

|2.3.10 @ 12:38PM|#

his administration has "excluded policymakers from policymaking jobs."

I think that's been pretty clear for awhile now.

If he would only exclude lobbyists from policymaking jobs, that would be Change I could Hope for.

|2.3.10 @ 12:53PM|#

Actually, the first version was more truthy.

Xeones|2.3.10 @ 12:47PM|#

Did Obama speak falsely?

Well, were his lips moving?

Peter Suderman|2.3.10 @ 12:50PM|#

Re: policymakers. Yeah, that was a stupid typing mistake; thanks for pointing it out. Corrected.

|2.3.10 @ 12:56PM|#

My question is that if Obama has the fewest employees with private sector experience ever, just where are all these lobbyist/policymakers coming from?

John Tagliaferro|2.3.10 @ 12:57PM|#

They were sent down from heaven with Obama.

John Tagliaferro|2.3.10 @ 3:31PM|#

He was telling the truth that time. He tossed them both into the bin.

|2.3.10 @ 9:58PM|#

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski.

It depends on what the meaning of is, is.

Reason.com