Saturday, November 02, 2013

Cruising the Web

James Taranto describes how Obama's lies about Obamacare would have been counted as fraud if he'd been the president of a private company misleading the public.

Stuart Stevens at the Daily Beast compares how Vietnam and Nixon increased American cynicism about government with what Obama's lies about Obamacare have done for a new generation's growing cynicism. Writing at CNN, a former Obama supporter, Nathaniel Morris, writes about how his joy at Obama's 2008 election has changed to despair. While Morris's emotional response to Obama seems extreme, I saw how excited and happy so many of my students were about Obama in 2008. Now I'm teaching a new generation of students and they already seem cynical about politicians' promises, including those of President Obama. These kids, mostly 10th graders, don't know what Watergate was and have little concept of the impact of the Vietnam War. But they do know that they don't believe either party's politicians today in Washington. I happen to think that such skepticism is well-deserved and healthy, but I can see how those who thought Obama showed such promise in 2008 would indeed be in despair at the reality.

As Mark Thiessen reminds us, Obama's repeated lies are much worse than the 16 words in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union that got Democrats so exorcised about Bush's mendacity.

It's not going to help Senate Democrats running for reelection when Republicans start highlighting how they all voted for the rule that allowed HHS to cancel people's individual policies. And it won't help if, as CNN reports, some of those with canceled policies live in one of those states like West Virginia or New Hampshire where there are very few options for people looking to buy health care insurance on the exchanges. And those in rural communities will see the fewest numbers of options.

Robert Laszewski demonstrates the utter fatuousness of claim that people buying their insurance plans on the individual market were getting "substandard plans" sold by "bad apple insurers" by showing how states regulated those plans with dozens of mandates. Not quite the "Wild West" that Jay Carney characterized that market as. His conclusion sums up what a lot of us have come to believe.
Given the President's comments, you really have to wonder just how well the Obama administration understands how the health insurance markets work?
And people are responding to the Obama administration's attempt to convince them that they should have been unhappy with their so-called "substandard plans." Grace-Marie Turner at Forbes links to a letter to the San Diego paper by Joe Seiley.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the ACA eliminates “substandard policies that don’t provide minimum services.” If my policy was substandard and did not provide the services my family needed, I would not have purchased it, or would have dropped it myself. I believe there must be much more transparency and honesty in the true costs of the ACA, both in terms of money and freedom.
Nope, Joe. You're just a substandard sucker who doesn't understand what is truly good for you.

Matt Welch examines why the media were so uncritical of Obama's claims about Obamacare and concludes that Obama was able to "work the refs" by playing into some of their favorite tropes about how the media had been duped by conservatives on Hillarycare.

A new book by Peter Schweizer, Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets details how politicians find legal ways to funnel money to themselves and their family members.


mark said...

While I'm glad to see Thiessen acknowledge that Bush lied when leading us into war, I don't see how Obama's (repeated) lie comes close in terms of consequences to the lies Bush told.

Last, First, MI said...


So you're saying that Bush lied when he followed up on the same intelligence that Clinton, Gore, other Clinton, and Kerry used to come to the same conclusion. I guess you're saying that those esteemed leaders are liars too.

Please provide evidence that all of these people were lying or shut the hell up, Mark.

Obama lied. He knew he was telling lies for over three years. Obama knew that the number of Americans that would lose their insurance coverage - in the pursuit of his sick politics - would number in the tens of millions. He is still telling lies and you're still looking for excuses for him but in the end, you're not about making health care better, cheaper, or even more accessible to more people. Neither is Obama or this mess would never have happened. No, Progressives creeps are about redistribution of other people's wealth and that's all that Obamacare is doing.

mdgiles said...

Would it be possible to challenge the law, on the basis that it requires some people to purchase a product the cannot use? Maternity care for a 55 year old single male, for example.

mark said...

Another meltdown coming, equitus?
Those "esteemed" leaders you mentioned have their own lies, and HC and Kerry were certainly duped by Bush into voting for war. But Bush's lies belong to his administration and to him. Didn't you read Betsy's post about accountability? Or did you think that only applies to democrats?

So, the guy who labeled a dem senator a "rapist" and "pedophile" based on the paid "testimony" of a prostitute is whining about unsubstantiated charges. And to top it off, you refuse to retract the charge. What a silly, cowardly, person you are.

But okay, I'll play along:

orthodoc said...

Mark, with all due respect, it's time to give the evil Boooooosh a break.

First of all, a lie means that you knowingly utter a falsehood. Bush didn't do that. Obama did.

Second, every major Democrat agreed with Bush. No one was "duped" into this.

Third, Democrats were howling for Saddam's head well before Bush's address. Here's a partial list:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

mark said...

I've never called Bush evil, so you're already being dishonest by implying that I have.
The Bush administration has already acknowledged that the infamous 16 words in the SOTU shouldn't have been there. If you want to (pretend to) believe it was an innocent oversight, that's up to you. If you want to (pretend to) believe he didn't exaggerate, cherry-pick and lie to get into war, that's your decision. And if you want to (pretend to) believe conservatives wouldn't be shredding Obama about sitting with a group of children while our country was under attack, that's also on you.
Both Bush and Obama lied to push through what would be a very tough-sell to congress and the people. It really is that simple. You insult yourself to claim otherwise.

Last, First, MI said...


Nice smack down on Mark but unfortunately its a game of whack-a-mole when it comes to presenting Mark with facts: It doesn't matter how hard or how often you hit him over the head with obvious facts, he'll keep popping up to scream "FRAUD! LIAR!". It's what he does - it's all he does. He will not defend Obamacare, a program he once hailed as both necessary and triumphant.

Now we are to believe that Mark was duped into supporting Obamacare. Otherwise, how could he have possibly gone along with such an obvious ruse to increase government dependency while engaging in Progressive fantasies of income redistribution.

Was Mark really that stupid? Could he have believed that Obama was telling the truth? I somewhat doubt that but as a Progressive, he has found that lying is crucial to advancing the political agenda of the left, so he goes along to get along.