To Read or Not to Read?

We know that he can read, whether it's from the omnipresent teleprompter or, as last night, a TV large enough to be a jumbo tron. The real question is whether he does read, at least when it comes to text that becomes the law of the land.

The whole AIG thing is a case in point. Last night, in his prepared remarks, the President said:

You know, there was a lot of outrage and finger-pointing last week, and much of it is understandable. I’m as angry as anybody about those bonuses that went to some of the very same individuals who brought our financial system to its knees -- partly because it's yet another symptom of the culture that led us to this point.

Fair enough, that is part of the reason he's angry. But there should be another part to the reason; namely, that he promoted and signed legislation just a few weeks ago that specifically protected those bonuses. He should be angry at himself for not taking the time to read what he was signing (line-by-line, as he promised) when the political fallout was so easily predictable.

The same concern for his reading habits also came up last night regarding a completely different issue, federal stem cell research funding. When asked about his controversial executive order, he piously said:

"Now, I am glad to see progress is being made in adult stem cells. And if the science determines that we can completely avoid a set of ethical questions or political disputes, then that's great. I have -- I have no investment in causing controversy. I'm happy to avoid it, if that's where the science leads us. But what I don't want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid, ideological approach, and that's what I think is reflected in the executive order that I signed."

There's (at least) one major problem with this claim: it contradicts his actions. As we noted before, his order specifically withdraws federal funding for adult stem cell research. His order was, in other words, the "very rigid, ideological approach" that he claims to want to avoid.

How can we reconcile last night's words with his earlier deeds? It would be harsh and disrespectful to call him a liar. The alternative, however, is pretty pathetic. The only way that he can be cleared of deliberately lying is if we presume that he doesn't know what was actually in his executive order. He clearly didn't get around to reading the behemoth stimulus bill before adding his signature; perhaps he didn't bother reading his own one-page executive order, either. Pathetic, to be sure; but at least it gets him off the hook.

Perhaps we ought to institute a new rule governing presidential signing ceremonies: nothing can be signed into law until after it has been posted on the teleprompter. That way, at least , we can be sure that the President has read what he is signing into law.