As a candidate Barack Obama opposed economic commissions, but as president he created four of them

Senator McCain’s first answer to this economic crisis was – get ready for it – a commission. That’s Washington-speak for ‘we’ll get back to you later.'” “Folks, we don’t need a commission to spend a few years and a lot of taxpayer money to tell us what’s going on in our economy,” he continued. “We don’t need a commission to tell us gas prices are high or that you can’t pay your bills. We don’t need a commission to tell us you’re losing your jobs. We don’t need a commission to study this crisis, we need a President who will solve it – and that’s the kind of President I intend to be

Those words were spoken by then presidential candidate Barack Obama back in September of 2008. Barack Obama’s sarcastic and mocking remarks towards John McCain’s suggestion that a commission needed to be formed to look into the economic collapse were meant to show that instead of forming a commission to investigate the collapse, he would be the “hands on” president that would lead us out of the economic crisis, while John McCain would basically punt the issue to a commission.

He claimed that by forming a commission John McCain was saying, “we will get back to you later” but that he would be the kind of president that would be hands on and make the decisions himself– thereby saving time– and would lead us out of the crisis faster than John McCain’s commission could.

He specifically stated, “we don’t need a commission to tell us gas prices are high or that you can’t pay your bills. We don’t need a commission to tell us you’re losing your jobs. We don’t need a commission to study this crisis, we need a President who will solve it.”

So what did Barack Obama do as president to address the economic crisis? What did he do as president to solve the economic crisis in light of the fact that he considered it obvious what the problem was? He formed four economic commissions. As president he apparently thinks it is okay to “get back to you later.” This is 180 degrees opposite of his campaign rhetoric.

We have seen the difference in Barack Obama’s rhetoric and his actions countless times now; whether it is signing a bill laden with thousands of earmarks while claiming that it is time for earmark reform, or whether it is claiming that he did not want to run automobile companies while taking over GM, or whether it is campaigning against wireless wiretaps but continuing them as president, or whether it is GITMO, Iraq, or claiming that he wants to trim the deficit while expanding it, the list goes on and on so this should come as no surprise to anybody.

Barack Obama campaigned as the candidate who would reform Washington; part of that reform would be to eliminate commissions that in his words were meant to delay decisions on important issues such as the failing economy. But as president he has fallen into the same trap that he was so violently opposed to as a candidate.

Barack Obama went to Washington and Washington has changed him, he has not changed Washington. So what happened? Reality set in. It is easy to be against something when you have the luxury of opposing everything, it is not so easy when you actually have to make decisions and are suddenly thrust into a position of responsibility that you were obviously not ready for.

As a candidate his positions did not have consequences– he could say whatever he wanted to– but as president his decisions do come with consequences so he is no longer able to blindly and irresponsibly make claims that he can’t follow up on. Now he has to consider the consequences and that is a consequence that neither he nor his supporters who bought into the whole notion of Barack Obama being a reform candidate bothered to think about.

I am sure that if Barack Obama was ever asked about this change of positions, he would reply “we will get back to you later.”