Obama and the L-Word

The president’s habit of telling untruths

Here’s how predictable the president’s slippery relationship with the truth has become: Hours before the State of the Union address, Washington Examiner reporter Timothy P. Carney posted a “pre-emptive fact check” that, among other things, prebutted any presidential claim to have “stopped the revolving door between government and corporate lobbying.” As it happened, that night Barack Obama made an even bolder (read: less truthful) claim: that “we’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.”

In fact, more than 40 former lobbyists work in the administration, including such policy makers as Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn (who was lobbying for Raytheon as recently as 2008), Office of the First Lady Director of Policy and Projects Jocelyn Frye (National Partnership for Women and Families), White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Muñoz (National Council of La Raza), and Treasury Secretary Chief of Staff Mark Patterson (Goldman Sachs). 

When Carney confronted a White House spokeswoman with the falsehood, she conceded nothing. “As the President said,” she wrote, “we have turned away lobbyists for many, many positions.” Just not all of them. 

As such defiance suggests, this was no isolated slip of the tongue. The president, who promised in both word and style to usher in a “new era” of Washington “responsibility,” routinely says things that aren’t true and supports initiatives that break campaign promises. When called on it, he mostly keeps digging. And when obliged to explain why American voters are turning so sharply away from his party and his policies, Obama pins the blame not on his own deviations from verity but on his failure to “explain” things “more clearly to the American people.”

Take the issue he has explained more than any other: health care. In the State of the Union address, Obama claimed that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had estimated that “our approach” to health care reform “would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.” This is, strictly speaking, not true. The Democrats’ “approach” to health care reform includes a permanent change to the Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, colloquially known as the “doc fix.” The CBO estimated that the doc fix, when combined with the health care reform legislative package, actually “would increase the budget deficit in 2019 by $23 billion relative to current law, an increment that would grow in subsequent years.” This is why House Democrats stripped out the doc fix from the health care bill, and passed it separately; it made the CBO scores look bad, making it harder for the president to present bogus claims about deficit neutrality.

That bit of mendacity only scratches the surface of how Congress and the administration gamed the system to produce nice-looking numbers. The CBO, by its own rules, has to take Congress at its word when a piece of legislation promises unspecified future “cuts” in spending, even though an overwhelming majority of promised future cuts never come to pass (a fact that the CBO itself has repeatedly warned in supplementary comments). The Senate promised more than $300 billion in such cuts. Furthermore, the CBO scores bills in 10-year windows. So the Senate delayed more than 99 percent of the reform package’s spending until 2014, thus allowing the decade of 2010–2019 to clock in under the magic $1 trillion number. Add to all that chicanery the fact that every major health care entitlement expansion in U.S. history has vastly exceeded initial cost projections, and you have ample reasons for why Americans believed, by a margin of more than 3 to 1, that health care reform would exacerbate rather than improve the deficit.

Even when addressing black-and-white examples of broken promises —such as his vow to televise each and every bit of health care legislative negotiations on C-SPAN—Obama can’t quite resist the temptation to plead gray. When confronted directly on the broken C-SPAN pledge during a January meeting with GOP lawmakers, the president said: “Look, the truth of the matter is that if you look at the health care process—just over the course of the year—overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN, because it was taking place in congressional hearings in which you guys were participating.”

Presidential defiance, dissembling, and disinformation are nothing new, even if such political perennials are more disappointing coming from someone who still boasts (as he did in the State of the Union address) of “telling hard truths” to the American people and “doing what’s best for the next generation.” Voters pretty much knew that Bill Clinton was a slime ball when they sent him to the White House; Barack Obama held out the promise of being more dignified.

The difference between these two most recent Democratic presidents, substantial to begin with (especially in the crucial area of economic policy), may come into sharper relief in 2010. Clinton’s reptilian relationship with the truth, suffused as it always has been with a catch-me-if-you-can sense of personal preservation, actually turned out to have some uses for the nation when he changed course after the 1994 Republican revolution and began co-opting some of the limited-government policies proposed by his opponents. It’s easier for a chameleon to change his spots.

Obama’s dishonesty, by contrast, seems to spring from a different place. As a man who has spent most of his career wowing people with his words and very little of it converting those words into deeds, he has an activist’s gap between rhetoric and reality and a radio broadcaster’s promiscuous carelessness with cutting rhetorical corners. Sure, it’s not technically true that the administration’s day-one lobbying reforms served “to get rid of the influence of…special interests,” as he claimed in a January radio address (to the contrary: federal lobbying in 2009 set an all-time record), but it’s easy to imagine that the president feels his combination of tighter employment restrictions for ex-lobbyists and stricter disclosure requirements for current ones is, in the context of the Manichean fight between “the people” and “special interests,” good enough for government work. The perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good, and the critics who complain are just opportunistic literalists grasping for any club to beat back the march of progress. No need to give them an inch.

But there’s a less charitable explanation too. During the president’s nonstop gabfests before, during, and after the State of the Union speech, he kept repeating the fiction that the medical industry’s “special interests” were significantly to blame for scotching his health care legislation. In fact, the administration and Congress negotiated with those interests every step of the way, receiving crucial buy-in and millions in campaign contributions. Pro-reform lobbyists outspent anti-reform lobbyists on advertising by a factor of 5 to 1. There’s a three-letter word for blaming the defeat of his bill on health care lobbyists, and it rhymes with pie.

And yet it smacks of something worse still. When a politician cannot fathom opposition to his policies except as the manifestation of wicked manipulation by bad guys, remediable only by more thorough “explanations” from the good guys, it indicates an unseemly paternalism. And if he cannot take the hint that Bush-Obama bailout-and-spend economics are deeply and increasingly unpopular, that indicates something immovable about his core economic ideology. With those two factors as backdrop, it’s hard to say which would be worse: if the president didn’t really believe what he said, or if he did.

Matt Welch (matt.welch@reason.com) is editor in chief of reason.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There is definitely something to be said for a president with a healthy drive to self-preservation. Mr. Clinton's early sense of future legacy probably saved the nineties.

    And one of the problems with Mr. Obama seems to be that he doesn't realize yet that one man can't possibly know what's best for 300 million individuals.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    Come on, he's "The One". If he isn't God, he was sent here by her to make sure that America was healed, that the respect other countries have shown America is restored, and to make sure that the little guy finally has his day.

    Hold on a sec... Why are you all laughing?

  • Federal Dog||

    "And one of the problems with Mr. Obama seems to be that he doesn't realize yet that one man can't possibly know what's best for 300 million individuals."

    That's the danger of putting such a dim bulb into office: He lacks the cognitive capacity to understand that he lacks the cognitive capacity to know such a thing. He lacks the mental stuff to process basic lessons of even recent history.

    Put that together with his singular self-adoration and pointed inability to grasp when he is just plain wrong: His pathologies pose a substantial threat that, for some reason, has yet to dawn on many people.

    This is what happens when the presidency becomes an affirmative action appointement.

  • Kolohe||

    ...but enough about Vice President Biden, I thought we were talking about Obama.

  • Kolohe||

    btw, teh president is teh stupid was a stupid meme with both the last guy and this guy.

  • ||

    I don't know if he's stupid, but he certainly doesn't think very clearly in his job capacity. This is perhaps the most inept administration I've lived through. Perhaps.

  • Mike M.||

    It's true that neither he nor Bush was "stupid". It's not possible for a truly stupid person to get elected president these days; the coverage is too ubiquitous.

    On the other hand, Obama isn't anything remotely approaching the genius that his media lickspittles desperately want us to believe that he is.

    He's a fairly typical Chicago thug style politician, but one who operates with a veneer of intellectualism and is much more ideological and inflexible.

  • ||

    I don't think Obama or even Bush are stupid in any real sense, but I think both lack many good executive skills. In some ways, Bush was better at the administrative side of things--the people he surrounded himself with were competent, whatever else one might say about them (and there's a lot to say!). I don't think that's the case with Obama.

    Both, on the other hand, are extremely poor decision makers. I also think both are insanely overrated as campaigners. It shows a positive sickness in our body politic that we even nominated either, let alone elected them. Of course, both benefited mightily from the putrescence that has been presidential candidates in recent years.

  • ||

    I disagree about the competence part.

    From Paulson to Rumsfeld to Alberto Gonzales, the Bush Administration's primary problem was incompetence.

    He gave power, mostly, to people he trusted, above all else, and unfortunately the people he trusted were fundamentally incompetent.

  • ||

    Only relatively did I speak. Relative to the current administration, which appears almost completely incompetent.

  • ||

    I don't think it's about competency at all, but rather personal character and Integrity,which is sadly lacking in these people. It's obvious that most politicians and presidents are self-centered and self-serving. What is done, is not for others(the country as a whole)but for their campaign bankers(the corporations) which benefits the self-serving presidents and congress, which they seem to be quite competent in doing. Their "competency" is for themselves and not towards the people.

  • ||

    the people he trusted were fundamentally incompetent.

    Thank heaven for small favors! Imagine how much worse the damage would be if his evil machinations were carried out by competent minions.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Incompetent? At least he didn't fill his cabinet with socialists/communists. Geez, one wants to give rights to trees to sue humans. (heard the guy say it)

  • JohnD||

    You're a foolish man. Bush's people were far from incompetant. You are too stupid to realize that because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they are incompetant.

    I can however; tell that you are a moron.

  • smartass sob||

    On the other hand, Obama isn't anything remotely approaching the genius that his media lickspittles desperately want us to believe that he is.

    Yeah, and neither are they.

  • Obama||

    And might I add I do have a certain peasant cunning.

  • ||

    Excellent.

  • Check||

    Natural born US Citizen
    - check

    Over 35 years
    -check

    Has lived in the US for 14 years check

    I hate the man too but he does meet the requirements stated in the nations most sacred document. Might want to look up the definition of AA next time.

  • Federal Dog||

    "Might want to look up the definition of AA next time."

    Are you denying that if Barack Obama had white skin, even John Edwards should have beat the shit out of him during the early primaries?

    Seriously: Keep everything about the man, but change his skin to white. He's a nothing who got into office based on sheer racism.

  • ||

    Are you denying that if Barack Obama had white skin, even John Edwards should have beat the shit out of him during the early primaries?

    I'd certainly deny that. Obama is a far better public blatherer than Fluffy the Trial Lawyer could ever hope to be.

    -jc

  • John Edwards||

    But I have better hair...

    Let me save you the trouble
    RACIST!!!!!!

  • ||

    "Are you denying that if Barack Obama had white skin, even John Edwards should have beat the shit out of him during the early primaries?"

    Yes. I love that you folks can't admit that he was a better candidate. It will make it that much easier for him to smoke the opposition in 2012.

    And yes, what you said is racist and vile, and readily explains why the Racist Right is going to get outmanuvered by Obama AGAIN and AGAIN.

  • Steff||

    I might not agree that he was elected because he was black, but I do have to ask: Do you even KNOW what a libertarian is? Since when were libertarians ever considered truly 'right wing'?

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    +12

  • Jamie Kelly||

    He is the very definition of a sociopath. Does health-care reform cover that?

  • ||

    Oh well. At least he closed Guantanamo.

  • ||

    Yes, at least he did that. And got us out of those wars.

  • ||

    And led the charge to repeal parts of the USA Patriot Act.

  • Glibertarian||

    And the stimulus saved us from another depression and put people back to work.

  • ||

    Yes, thank God he focused so much on the economy--the massive spending and tax cuts, the deregulation, the emphasis on the free market--brilliant.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Yeah - as he told us right after Brown got elected in Mass (a mere coincidence) that jobs was his number one focus.

    And so it is - well, except for persisting in trying to jam a healthcare plan that no one wants down our throats and cap and trade legislation that no one wants down our throats, etc. etc.

    I'm sure propserity will be here again in no time.

  • Paul||

    And gave us the Public Option.

    But I am glad he finally stood up to the Unions.

  • ||

    The largest union in the AFL-CIO is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), with more than a million members. Big Labor killed U.S. industry. Big Labor is killing U.S. government. Obama & Co (along with Andy Stern) are out to grease palms for their buddies @ AFL-CIO. Mr. Obama & Co. are ALL about Big Socialist Labor riding on the backs of U.S. taxpayers.

  • ||

    "except for persisting in trying to jam a healthcare plan that no one wants down our throats"

    70+% of the public wanted a healthcare plan. The reason there was "opposition" came largely from the fact that conservative Dems in the Senate wouldn't let the plan go far enough and provide a public option to give the insurance companies an incentive to compete. "no one" must equal "no one that I agree with."

    "I'm sure propserity will be here again in no time."

    If you aren't too lazy, check out a graph of unemployment stats over the last 2 years sometime. The curve bottoms as Obama enters office, and why I do believe that the jobs report out just this week shows 160,000+ jobs being added, a positive number for the first time since 2007.

    If you're going to criticize Obama, start with a reality-based assessment. He HAS most definitely turned this economy around. And he's going to take credit for it in November and he's going to kick the Republican Party's ass sideways.

    Meanwhile, his critics and opponents will run around with doctored or made-up statistics screaming about how unhappy people are with him. You're so busy fighting the last battle over HCR while Obama's got the next task already in the bag, I'm sure.

    This is delicious to watch, frankly.

  • ||

    You do realize that the vast majority of those "160,000" jobs are temporary jobs for the census don't you? Of course not. You voted for this incompetent man. A majority of Americans didn't want this health care plan. Everyone pretty much agrees that something needed to be done. I don't think that a bill that starts the destruction of private insurance is the way to go.

  • ||

    Heh

  • BC||

    If you aren't too lazy, check out a graph of unemployment stats over the last 2 years sometime. The curve bottoms as Obama enters office, and why I do believe that the jobs report out just this week shows 160,000+ jobs being added, a positive number for the first time since 2007.

    Top-line jobs numbers are the last refuge of contemptible liars.

    Yes, the economy has added jobs. The economy nearly ALWAYS adds jobs. The important question is whether it is adding jobs faster than it is shedding them, sufficient to prevent people from dropping out of the workforce.

    Top-line unemployment has "dropped" to 8.5% not because the economy has roared back to life, but because labor force participation is at its lowest level in 40 years.

  • ||

    ..and he ended the Drug War and pardoned all the non-violent drug war prisoners.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Don't forget all that cheap solar energy powering our houses and the electric cars we're all driving now.

  • johnl||

    And he stopped the federal medical mj raids. We have to give credit where it is due.

  • JohnD||

    And we finaly got the Marxist we so badly needed in the White House...

  • Yeah||

    ...and he put an end to warrantless domestic wiretapping.

  • MJ||

    Obama's sense of paternalism is of a piece with his poicies. A health care reform which fines people for not buying adequate insurance is one that assumes the people cannot be trusted to make rational decisions on their own behalf.

  • ed||

    Despite the rhetorical scraps they throw to "the people," Obama and his tribe believe government is what made America great and prosperous.

  • Hank||

    And the obvious point of this article:

    Matt's a racist.

    Why so obvious, Matt?

  • Rich||

    Yeah, it's unfortunate they're not all white lies.

  • ||

    Why does Welch hate the unicorns?

  • Skid Marx||

    Because they refuse to fuck him in the ass.

  • Xeones||

    I agree with Hank and Janeane Garofalo. RACITS

  • .||

    I think it's fair to point out that Obama only received 34% of the white vote, meaning that as recently as 30 years ago, he would have been unelectable.

    In other words, his election wasn't so much accomplished by the "enlightenment" of the citizenry, it was through the systematic disenfranchisement of the historical population of the United States, primarily through immigration policy most of them never supported, courtesy of our "enlightened" elites.

    Thanks, assholes!

  • Some Guy||

    It would be fair, yet stupid, to point out. Even if it were true.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    I'm confused... Who are the assholes this time? The Mexicans?

    Which race or nationality are we supposed to be blaming now again?

  • LibertyBill||

    More Buchanan talking points? Cant these trolls pic up something new?

  • Chris||

    No. "Conservatives" are as predictable as their liberal brothers.

  • roystgnr||

    If we're complaining about demographic changes that got Obama elected, why stop there? McCain polled higher among men; maybe you're having second thoughts about that awful women's suffrage now?

    the systematic disenfranchisement of the historical population of the United States

    Actually, the historical population of the United States voted 80-85% for Obama. McCain only came close because he got the votes of many immigrants and their descendants.

    Oh, wait, that's not what you meant - you were just using "immigration" as code for "non-white people"! Or possibly "non-English"? "non-northern-European"? "non-western-European"? It's nice that you racists keep moving back the goalposts, but you've been taking your sweet time about it, and it's tough to keep track of where, precisely, each bigot stands. Perhaps you would please make it simple for us and just go stand somewhere else?

    It's a shame that the huddled masses yearning to breathe free are bothering you, but I'm afraid America was built on a policy of letting them in, and it's worked for longer than you've been alive.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    To tell you the truth, whenever I hear my wife and her GF's talk politics, I DO have second thoughts about women's suffrage.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Trade up to a smarter wife?

  • anonymous||

    Left shift in women is unavoidable. It's a problem with the distribution of political attitudes and leftover psychology from their historical role as empathetic, maternal quasi-dependents.

  • ||

    This tough libertarian, vocal, informed enemy of the state old broad takes exception to that statement!

  • Steff||

    +1! Thank you, DAnna.

  • ||

    So only white people can be idiots?? Nothing was mentioned about his race. If intelligence is formed by confuring up others thoughts, you are indeed brilliant!!

  • .||

    It's a shame that the huddled masses yearning to breathe free are bothering you, but I'm afraid America was built on a policy of letting them in

    Yearning to breathe free? It's damned odd that as soon as they get here and can do so, they support some asshole who wants to increase the size and power of government, pass more laws, and redistribute other people's wealth. They don't want to be free so much as they want to be the fuckor instead of the fuckee - something that was denied them in their former countries.

  • ||

    I was working in Manila not too long ago, and was having great difficulty getting the trainees to pay attention and learn something. I mentioned this to the woman who organised the training and her complaint went "We were colonised by the Spanish! You can't get people here to do anything without a bullwhip." Much more important that whether you have immigrants is where the immigrants come from. Protestant northern europeans will not only work hard, they will be honest and law abiding. Catholic southern europeans, not so much. And on down until you get to Haitians.

  • ||

    +5

  • ||

    thats +5 to roystgnr

  • .||

    It's a shame that the huddled masses yearning to breathe free are bothering you, but I'm afraid America was built on a policy of letting them in, and it's worked for longer than you've been alive.

    Really? I wasn't aware Emma Lazarus was one of the signatories to our constitution, nor one of our legislators.

    How long have we been making public policy via writing inspirational poetry, anyway? I suspect that's a development that would greatly surprise the founding fathers.

    As I recall, the Jefferson Airplane wrote All your private property is
    Target for your enemy
    . Does that make us a communist country now?

  • ||

    My ancestry is Cherokee, so I am definitely no KKK member or symoathizer. One can honestly disagree with a person's policies without reference to ethnicity. Regarding the "huddled masses" they certainly had no intention of sharing freedom with those of who were here before. Whoever hurls the racist bomb, it indicates they have nothing logical to add to the debate. The word has been abused to the point where it has lost meaning.

  • ||

    Never mind the idea that ancestry determines attitude. The Cherokee owned slaves. Isn't the OK band still fighting with the Feds over the slave descendants they were forced to enroll in the tribe?

  • JohnD||

    roystgnr is a fool.

    What worked so well in the past was an immagration policy that was strictly followed. Not opening the borders to anyone that wants in. Moron.

  • Patrick||

    who was disenfranchised?

  • .||

    Actually, the historical population of the United States voted 80-85% for Obama. McCain only came close because he got the votes of many immigrants and their descendants.

    Oh please - not that tired old bullshit again. Look, we are all of us either immigrants or descendants of immigrants to this country, including the so-called Native Americans or Amerinds - they sure as hell didn't originate here.

  • ||

    Then what is this supposed to mean:

    "In other words, his election wasn't so much accomplished by the enlightenment of the citizenry, it was through the systematic disenfranchisement of the historical population of the United States, primarily through immigration policy most of them never supported, courtesy of our "enlightened" elites."

  • roystgnr||

    Ah, so a few hours ago the "historical population" was people who got here a few hundred years ago, but now people who got here a few tens of thousands of years ago don't count? Apparently racists have trouble with arithmetic - once you can't count up to it on your hands, how can you tell which number is bigger than the other?

    Well, work on the arithmetic thing, and then figure out how to avoid lumping millions of different people together as "they" based on skin color, and then you can move on to figuring out how to use a threaded comment system and pick a username. Best of luck to you!

  • .||

    You have confused me with the other "." , but no matter - you can still fuck off.

  • ||

    " systematic disenfranchisement of the historical population of the United States"

    That is the strangest, most contorted excuse for being a racist that I have yet seen. You feel you're being "disenfranchised" because demographically the (lol) "historical" population of the US is now being outnumbered by "immigrants" that evidently we didn't want? Good lord. I wonder if you'll choke yourself to death in rage if I point out that the "historical" population of this region circa 1492 didn't support the "immigration" policy of being steamrolled by European invaders, either. But that would require not only a vague, misty awareness of history, but also a smidgeon of intellectual honesty.

    I expect neither from a stupid racist jerk.

  • Some Guy||

    he kept repeating the fiction that the medical industry’s “special interests” were significantly to blame for scotching his health care legislation. In fact, the administration and Congress negotiated with those interests every step of the way, receiving crucial buy-in and millions in campaign contributions.

    Well those negotiations and concessions with the special interests were certainly a major reason I didn't support his efforts to create a worst-of-both-worlds health care system.

  • Chrispy||

    I know it's outside the main point of the article, but we have a "First Lady Director of Policy and Projects"? What on earth is that, and why are we paying for it? I'm pissed off and it's too early in the day to even start drinking.

  • Rich||

    Hier is "what".

    For "why" I suppose you'll have to start drinking.

  • ||

    Late again. That's exactly what I wanted to ask.

  • ||

    Define "too early." It's five o'clock somewhere.

  • ||

    Define "too early." It's five o'clock somewhere.

  • ||

    The masses of ignorant, ill tempered, lustful, lazy and filthy peons ( i.e, readers of this blog) must be guided by a wise and ruthless elite of superior minds.

  • ||

    But we can still be ignorant, ill tempered, lustful, lazy and filthy peons this wise and ruthless elite of superior minds, right?

  • Kolohe||

    Treasury Secretary Chief of Staff Mark Patterson (Goldman Sachs).

    To be fair, since Goldman Sachs is practically a fourth branch of government these days, is it really lobbying?

  • Matt Welch||

    Good point.

  • ||

    GS isn't a fourth branch of government.
    Based on priority in the bailout queue, it's the first and maybe only branch. All the rest are subject to its sovereignty.

  • ||

    All fair, all true. But I can't help feeling that Matt is indulging in a bit of "cursing the darkness". Lamenting that a politician lies? Concern that an inexperienced left-winger from the talk-and-pork state may believe in big government or the conventional wisdom of urban liberals?

    Sorry Matt. An enjoyable read but it's hardly news in the US or in any other developed country. By all means point out the lies; it's what journos are for. But I fear you may have inadvertently fallen for the grandiosity that infects US politics by assuming something different is either likely or normal.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    I appreciate your point there sir, but I would note that since it seems that a sizeable chunk of the United States' population believes in this grandiosity and royalty of the presidency - or at least when it's held by a fine, well-meaning, baby-kisser such as Obama - then I think Matt still has a point to make. Even if his "outrage" has to come from a jaded place or even be faked entirely.

  • ||

    The president never lies. He just deliberately misplaces his ontological predicates.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    Obama always tells the truth. The problem is, he's stuck in a interdimensional rift, and what's truth in the reality he just phased out of is not truth in the one he's in. Sad, really.

  • no one||

    He's stuck in a quantum state: What the truth is depends on whether you are looking at him or not.

  • ||

    Ah, so Obama is in a constant state of quantum superposition.

  • ||

    That explains it. In the reality he occupied when he bought his car insurance, one price covered everything. However, by the time he had the accident, he had shifted to a reality where the low, low price only included liability.

  • Tony||

    Wake me up when we start another war based on invisible WMD.

    What a stupid article.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Wake me up when Tony stops believing that non sequiturs are legitimate arguments.

  • ||

    You forgot to say "What a stupid person."

  • Horde4Lyfe||

    Stupid insofar as your unwillingness to realize its truth?

    Grrr, note to self, don't feed the obamabot troll automatons.

  • Comrade Zero||

    Wake me up when people are forced to buy a service as a requirement for existing...

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure the article wan't trying to say that Obama lies, but Bush doesn't or didn't. Shallow interpretation, Tony.

  • RichN||

    You people just misunderstand Tony and the Obamatrons. They are the ones they've been waiting for just ask Barack.

    "We are the ones we've been waiting for" -BHO

  • Soonerliberty||

    Tony's still under the delusion that anyone who opposes brain-dead left-wing ideology is a brain-dead right-wing Republican who supported Bush. Unfortunately, there is no way for him to escape this delusion until he loses hope in hope and change. Even more unfortunate for him is the fact that his philosophy depends entirely on hope and change. The hope that this king will be better than the last and the new king will appease his socialist greed. Alas, Tony is the masses, though he believes he is above the masses. Me sheep! Me follow Great Sheep to cliff edge. If Great Sheep jump, me follow. Hope and change! Hope and change!

  • Tony||

    Thank you for speaking for me.

    Actually I don't give a rat's ass about principles if all they do is fester and rot inside your head.

    I'm for Obama because the alternative is far worse. And there are only two alternatives. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know anything about how politics works in America.

  • ynoT||

    You're a dill hole.

  • Soonerliberty||

    Unfortunately, this is right. There are only two choices: right collectivism or left collectivism. I reject both. There are more possibilities. It is simply a reality that libertarians are cut out from the political process. However, I would rather hold my principles and let them fester and rot in my head than pursue and advocate principles that are immoral and illogical. I will die in peace. The ones who seek the goals of leftists and rightists will leave this life wondering why their policies never work, but they won't look inward. They will only blame the other party, because that is what we have, two idiotic statist parties.

  • ||

    I'm for Obama because the alternative is far worse

    Care to tell us about how Obama has undone all of Bush's mistakes? Oh, wait! He hasn't. Not only that, he hasn't even fucking tried.

    -jcr

  • Chris||

    Not only has he not tried, but he has actively tried to defend some of Bush's worst policies like the fucking Patriot Act.

  • JohnD||

    No, you're for Obama because your a black racist

  • ||

    Ever hear of a bacterium or virus they make the perfect invisible WMD. In fact I can step outside by door and culture some that gave the FEDS fits a number of years ago. I even am competent enough to weaponize them if I ever wanted to go postal. So get a clue WMD's encompass more than nukes.

  • ||

    Bravo, Matt. Although expending so many words to describe the manifold ways a politician lies seems a little much, in this case I think they were well spent. Now, how to extend their reach beyond the eyes of this choir and use them to enlighten the heathen?

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Yes, do tell...

  • james e pricer||

    "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

  • BakedPenguin||

    So is this the beginnings of Barack Obama: The Myth of Hope and Change?

  • Paul||

    We need a new bumper sticker for the Obama Presidency:

    Arrogance and Ignorance is bad Domestic Policy.

  • LibertyBill||

    He isnt much better on foreign policy either. Granted he hasnt taken us to Iran....yet

  • ||

    Yet being the key word. People who trust the Democrats to be pacifists are wrong for the same reason that free marketeers who trust the Republicans are wrong.

  • Horde4Lyfe||

    +1

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Don't various trade wars count as foreign policy?? Looks like we've just started a new one with Brazil.

  • ||

    This complements our current trade wars with Canada and Mexico. A sort of circular firing squad.

  • ||

    The lying is getting worse. Those with eyes see. Those with Obama blinders say "baa".

  • JoshInHB||

    Does Obama know when he lies?

  • ||

    He lies, he tells the 'truth' ... pointless.

    What he thinks the 'truth' is, and what he is willing to do to impose that 'truth' on others who think otherwise, that is the issue.

    Representing the electorate and defending the constitution ... if these do not come before HIS truth, then we need to get him out of there asap.

  • Ratko||

    A third rate confidence man telling untruths, that seems a little unlikely. It's sure funny how some honkey can be a habitual liar and no one ever accuses him of possibly being untruthful, but when it's a brother, look out he's guilty before they even decide what it is he's accused of.

  • some honkey||

    Who you talkin about, Willis?

  • B.J. Clinton||

    It's sure funny how some honkey can be a habitual liar and no one ever accuses him of possibly being untruthful

    Yeah, it's a real laugh riot, bro.

  • ||

    as the Symbolic Emperor of the United States since 1996 when I overthrew the
    country and installed myself as Emperor of the USA.and renamed it Turtle Island, I've also had movie stars sent to me by their doctors because of my expert advice in health issues ,I have know that the very first person that is responsible for their health care is the one that looks in the mirror almost every morning of your life, then come the 6 to 7 genetic defects we are all born with and that's where some of our troubles start, MY EXPERT OPINION SAYS what the money controlled media will never say or let me say without interruption or censor!,
    and that is that the HEALTH BILL IS A
    Complete PREFECT LIE! on the American Public, and if you don't believe me just watch Michael Moore's movie SICKO
    you'll believeme at least a little bit
    but what is worse is to expect & force the American public to pay some blood thristy Crappy Insurance company to
    be involved, there is a better way and the public had better act now,assuming they really care to REVOLT against this oppressive health care just to make the crappy insurance companies richer, now I'm not totally against insurance,but remenber when the people in calif. were supposed to get a insurance refund and the people voted on it and WON! opps or did they?
    the laywers for Insurance appealed it like slipping on a Banana peel or Teflon Don strategy because they did not want to pay what they owed, I will never trust them completely, they like other big business pratice word trickery all the time, so it behoves the american public to revolt do not allow any bill of any kind to force you to do something that is wrong peroid! it reakes of monetary despotisim, if anyone wants to stop this insanity before it is even attempted to be voted
    on much less making it to the presidents desk for signature stop it!
    we deserve the same kind of health that
    other countries are enjoying, it's up to you and I hope you make the right decision!(818) 912-3888

  • ||

    A third-rate confidence man ... yep.

    I didn't say that. But, it fits.

    And 'honky' ... and 'brother' ... enough of this racist horsexxxx.

    Ratko speaks pure racism.

    And worse, he doesn't even see it.

    Blind.

  • ||

    A third-rate confidence man ... yep.

    Oh, come on, be fair: he's a second rate con-man at the worst. Possibly even a first-rate con man.

    -jcr

  • Indierock||

    Matt states in his article that the President “routinely says things that aren’t true…”, and “When called on it, he mostly keeps digging”. C’mon Matt. When Obama addressed the Republican caucus last month, any honest observer could see that the President coherently and factually defused the many honesty-challenged Republican “sky-is-falling” talking points. Even if I accept your article as only an opinion piece, the hyperbole is a turn-off and the lack of underlying substance and impartiality does not allow for persuasive appeal based on fact and reason.

    Oh…and regarding health care reform? Forget it. It will not happen now, and after this failed effort, it likely won’t happen for at least a generation, if ever. The Democrats – burned yet again – will certainly avoid it in the future. The Republicans have never wanted to get near it, and won’t ever get near it.

    The Republicans/Conservatives have the ideal paradigm. The paradigm: the Federal government is inept, bloated, and untrustworthy, and needs to be much smaller and out-of-the-way of private enterprise. Why is it ideal? Because as a Republican in Congress, rather than proactively govern, the logical and straightforward approach is to do little or nothing on policy or legislation, and simply criticize and obstruct any government-generated solution, because then the inaction and gridlock allows easy fulfillment of the prophecy. It’s perfect. Why change the ideal paradigm?

  • some honkey||

    There you have it. Indierock has gotten the whole thing figured out.

  • ||

    Except for the part," Matt states in his article.....".

  • ||

    Easy fulfillment of the prophecy? You must be the prophet for the Dems then? Do they have a prophecy or a paradigm? By the way, I'm pretty sure the Federal government didn't get smaller or out-of-the-way of private enterprise under Bush. Actually, the opposite happened. Sounds like you need a new prophet and paradigm.

  • ||

    Yes, the Democrats are never the obstructionists. That's why we have partially privatized Social Security accounts now. Oh wait....

  • BC||

    Concern troll is concerned.

  • RichN||

    Obama suffers NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) and truly believes the following concept: I said it therefore it is true. Ipsedixitism is a symptom of NPD.

  • ||

    You need you add," and if you didn't hear me. I'll say it louder. So you must agree with me, or else."

  • Bill Thule||

    Isn't it a little funny how the left portrays their political opposition with such black-hat rhetoric? You'd think the republican party constituted some sort of "axis of evil" by the way they go on about it. And this from the same folks who chided George Bush as a knuckle-dragging simpleton for describing Iran/Iraq/NK in such simplistic terms.
    Maybe they should ask the secretary of state to enter negotiations with the repub's in the senate - I should think that relationship could use a push of the reset button, right?

  • ||

    The premise of all this is that Obama is operating in good faith for what he thinks is the good of the country. But he is not. He hates America and holds its people in contempt. He is a criminal fraud, probably not even a citizen, working to lay the groundwork for a socialist dictatorship.

  • Glenn Koons||

    The worst prevaricator as Prez in my 71 years( perhaps Carter, Clinton , LBJ) would be a joke in the Europe that he so loves. This socialist pacifist naif in the WH and his DEM minions in Congress have lied on all of the bills that they have shoved, exploited, dropped, not written, done on Obama's notes not legislation, and not read even themselves as Pelosi admitted today. She said, we have to pass this to see what is in this ....Can you imagine ? Tyranny, my friends.

  • Alex Scipio||

    If Obama's lips are moving - he's lying.

    Most of America agrees with this, whether or not Obama, Liberals, Progressives or the MSM are willing to admit it.

    Liar, dissembler, arrogant, nihilistic, rude, far-left ideologue -- only begins to scratch the surface of applicable adjectives for this clown.

  • ||

    Obama is what's known as a sociopath. The Talented Mr. Ripley. He says what ever sounds good at the time, to the applause of the idiot electorate flanking his podium. As a narcissist and congenital liar, he is not bound by the normal human constructs of truth and honesty. Since the entire world exists to further his historic life, whatever he does/says/believes is of course true, no matter how devoid of fact or reason. I'm not kidding, that's who you fools put in the white house. Nice job.....

  • ||

    When Obama says that the reason people do not support his policys, is his failure to “explain” things “more clearly to the American people”, he menas that we are too stupid to understand him and he really believes it!

  • ||

    get over yourself, you know that is not what he meant.

    He was talking about letting all the death panel crap take root. He failed to explain the bill at the time to dispel that and other myths.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    That's a great theory and all, but the death panel crap was a minor point made by fools which Obama-friendly media largely ran with specifically to avoid dealing with more substantive critiques. Obama and his people WANT to "waste" their time on shit like that, because it gives them the opportunity to create strawmen opponents that are complete buffoons who are easily taken down.

    Even suggesting that he'd rather be spending his time on real debate is clearly a lie.

  • JohnD||

    You are wrong about death panels, Sean. You may not like the term, but the fact is that every country that has this health care model (Canada, Briton for example) routinely denies needed health care to it's senior citizens and to the chronically ill, based on cost. That, my moronic friend is the death panel we are talking about. If you don't believe that, you are truly a kool-aid drinking fool

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    Funny...when I read that whole quote in context from his SOTU speech it reads like this:

    Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)

    Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"
    ------
    Nowhere in the quote did he reference death panels...he quite clearly stated that the issue was "too complex" for people to understand and "the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became."

    It's great that you're a fan of the President, but don't take his words out of context and read into them whatever meaning you'd prefer...

    of course that is what got him elected...

  • ||

    Oh come on, do your research on the lobbying thing. When asked during the campaign about this claim he repeatedly stated that certain key positions would get waivers if they were lobbyists in prior life but that the rule would be in place to limit lobbyist influence in his administration. Compared to the last several administrations who averaged hundreds and hundreds of lobbyists, 40 or so is not all that bad. And those were at least scrutinized as they came in.

    Fiscal impacts of any legislation are always slippery, and if the CBO reported on it's cost, it is not untruthful to site the CBO numbers. It is dissappointing if what author asserst about the manipulation of numbers is actually true, I just doubt it since the author clearly did not check his facts on the first part of his claim.

    I knew the televised thing would bite Obama in the butt, because he was campaigning to restore the constitution, which sort of meant that Congress would draft the legislation, he would consider it and sign it. Knowing that, I always had my doubts this would happen because congress people don't roll that way.

    Modern politics in America have strayed so far from the Constitution it is scary. Presidents are not supposed to draft legislation and present it to Congress for passage, Congress is supposed to draft (starting solely in the House if the budget is affected) legislation, pass it, and present to the Presidetn for signature. This lead to most of the political nightmare the administrations finds itseld in over healthcare.

  • ||

    "Modern politics in America have strayed so far from the Constitution it is scary."

    Starting with the fact that Congress is even considering a public health bill. That is so far away from the enumerated powers it is breathtaking.

  • ||

    Congress acutally is granted the power to legislate.

    And the fact that this involves private businesses that conduct business in more than one state means health insurance falls under interstate commerce which in fact is the perview of the federal legislative body and not the states.

    I could possibly see making the claim that if the plan on the table was single payer that that would be beyond the bounds of Congress' enumerated powers, but since the plan is legislating, effectively, the activities of interstate commerce it does fall under federal purview.

  • JohnD||

    My God, what a stretch. There are quite a few constitutional scholars that will take issue with that statement.

  • ||

    Nope. By Federal law, health insurers are prohibited from competing across state lines. Congress had already removed medical insurance from interstate commerce.

    Better try another excuse - I'm sure you can gin one up.

  • ||

    "That is so far away from the enumerated powers it is breathtaking."

    Really? I guess it's pointless arguing with a libertarian about the contents of the Constitution. I have this image that you people wear special glasses while reading it that allow you to ignore the sections of it with which you do not agree.

    Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

    I don't expect any moment of intellectual honesty from you regarding this, as you've no doubt cherry-picked some obscure letter from one of the lesser-known signatories to the Constitution that you believe invalidates "providing for the General Welfare" of the United States.

    The fact that an explicit mention of public healthcare is omitted from the Constitution is possibly, wait for it, a consequence of the fact that the field of medicine as we know it basically didn't exist 230 years go. But the Founders were smarter than every Libertarian on the planet put together and knew that as a nation's needs changed, the rules under which it operated would also need to change. Tacking 10 amendments onto the document right out of the gate was kind of a tacit admission that modifications would need to be made, and provided a model for doing so.

    But we don't need to modify the Constitution to regulate healthcare. As I've already demonstrated.

    Final note: I love it that you guys think Obama is stupid and dishonest. You will continue to underestimate him. We gave your ideas (via the Republican Party) 30 years to bear fruit, and after 30 years of lower taxes and deregulated economic activity we have the most out-of-control mess of an economy and financial system in almost a century. So, we tried it your way. OUR turn, fellas. The adults are in charge.

  • Contrarian P||

    Okay, I realize pretty much everyone has stopped commenting on this thread which is why such a ridiculous and flaccid comment as this has been allowed to stand. Allow me to disassemble your arguments.

    "I guess it's pointless arguing with a libertarian about the contents of the Constitution. I have this image that you people wear special glasses while reading it that allow you to ignore the sections of it with which you do not agree."

    No, we actually give a damn about what it means, not chalk up any program we want as "Oh, those Founders could just never imagine such a world", as you seem to do.

    Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

    Several issues with your interpretation of this. One, it says Congress may levy taxes to provide for defense and welfare. In other words, to raise money for. So Congress would (and does, regretably) have the legal authority to levy a tax to pay for a social program. Congress does not, however, have the authority to levy taxes to penalize Americans for not buying products it endorses. The distinction is very clear. The argument that the general public must buy health insurance for "the general welfare" is shaky to begin with as the logic is "we would have to pay for your hospitalization if you didn't have insurance". If everyone has insurance, then everyone still pays for my hospitalization. It's a zero sum game. No alteration in the general welfare.

    By your definition, the government can levy a penalty on you for not doing anything that it might consider harmful, whether you agree or no. That is so clearly not what the framers had in mind from reading any of their writings. Making it fiscally impossible to engage in any behavior I don't like is dictatorship, which even a cursory knowledge of the founders would show would be anathema to them.

    "The fact that an explicit mention of public healthcare is omitted from the Constitution is possibly, wait for it, a consequence of the fact that the field of medicine as we know it basically didn't exist 230 years go. But the Founders were smarter than every Libertarian on the planet put together and knew that as a nation's needs changed, the rules under which it operated would also need to change."

    So amend the Constitution to provide for your health care, if that's what you want. Unfortunately, it's doubtful such an amendment would ever make it off the ground.

    By the way, the people who wanted the Bill of Rights wanted it precisely for Libertarian reasons: to serve as a bulwark against government power. In other words, they wanted it to protect against the very ideology you are promulgating: that good intentions and "the general welfare" require discriminatory and unjust public policy.

    "Final note: I love it that you guys think Obama is stupid and dishonest. You will continue to underestimate him. We gave your ideas (via the Republican Party) 30 years to bear fruit, and after 30 years of lower taxes and deregulated economic activity we have the most out-of-control mess of an economy and financial system in almost a century."

    You clearly have no understanding of what the ideals of the Libertarian movement are. The Republican party is not nor has it been an expression of them. Lower taxes, yes, but accompanied by lower spending,in which the Republicans in no way, shape, or form have been remotely interested. We haven't had deregulated economic activity either. The mortgage mess is at least partly because of regulations encouraging a relaxation of lending standards. Your precious Democrats were at the forefront of demanding such legislation. You are either woefully uniformed or willfully dishonest...perhaps you are both.

    And by the way, by any realistic measure the current mess is not even as bad as the recession of the late 70s. You should go look up the facts as opposed to regurgitating what you've been told.

    In summation, you are completely wrong on many of your opinions and ignorant of much of what you speak. I feel sorry for you honestly. Obama is absolutely and demonstrably dishonest. But he's not stupid. It's you that are stupid for believing that he's so different from every other politician, that he's going to change the world, and that his policies are anything but yet another unconstitutional, ineffectual and expensive government attempt to create some utopian ideal.

  • Chris||

    Libertarians have been in charge? Why the fuck did no one tell me? If you think that we have been in a "deregulated" economy, you need to go look up the meaning of deregulation.

    Go troll against conservanuts elsewhere you libertard.

  • ||

    Love the audio reading! It allows me to listen to insightful thoughts while I work and surf!

  • ||

    Really!? Untruths is the word your using? Perhaps you are referring to assertions that only provide half the story, and are therefore misleading like your article?

    First, the doc fix is going to pass in some form regardless of health care reform. The 10 year fix would in no way balloon deficits to 23 trillion. You are referring to the deficit in the absence of any significant reform to health entitlements.

    Second, the 10 years taxing 6 year benefits is bogus. The bill does benefit in 2011 (tax cuts for small business) and in the Senate bill the excise tax only kicks in 2014. In the president's bill that is postponed until 2019. Regardless, by 2019 the annual growth of revenue far exceeds the annual growth of costs, and that is predicted to continue throughout the second decade of the bill.

    Be careful with your own "truthful" assertions. It does not take much to tear them down.

  • ||

    Obama has knows that the President of the United States, by his very office, is vested by the people of our country with immense credibility. He is given the automatic presumption that he is telling us the truth. And Obama uses that. He comes out in public and calmly and apparently authoritatively tells us things that are blatantly false. What's more he has to know they are false when he says them. And the people of our nation are catching onto the fact. People listen to Obama and believe him less and less. He has seriously damaged his credibility. How much damage he has done to the Presidency remains to be seen!!!

  • ||

    Obama has no working relationship with the truth, he lived in Chicago where lying to the citizens is a way of life for the politicians and leaders like Jesse Jackson.

  • Ernie the Bear||

    He had to. It's Illinois state law.

  • ||

    Barack Obama has yet to make a statement about any substantive issue that was not a simple, plain, lie.

  • ||

    While Ronald Reagan may have been the "Great Communicator", Barack Obama is the "Great Prevaricator"

  • ||

    "While Ronald Reagan may have been the "Great Communicator", Barack Obama is the "Great Prevaricator""

    Barack Obama is the "Great Dissimulator" and the "Great Obscurantist".

  • ||

    Yup...Reason's well on its way to asking the ultimate question: "Oh sh*t! Did we help elect a narcissistic sociopath by taking his campaign at face value?"

  • CosmicConservative||

    Hmm... seems to me there's a much easier explanation for Obama's serial dissembling, mendacity and outright lying. Obama is an ideologue who says whatever he feels necessary to get the rubes to believe him and vote the way he wants them to. I have been pointing out for over a year that Obama's words have virtually no connection whatsoever to Obama's actions. His actions are in pursuit of a radical far left agenda that he knows the American people would reject if it were presented truthfully. So his words are designed to hide that agenda as long as possible.

    In other words, to put it bluntly, to Obama lying is simply a rhetorical tool to advance his agenda. He does it deliberately, carefully and in full knowledge that he has no intention whatsoever to fulfill it.

    Reconciliation is a perfect example. Once the House passes the existing Senate bill, Obama will sign it and it will be law. His pursuit of reconciliation is nothing but a gambit to get naive and gullible members of the House to pass the Senate bill. He has no intention whatsoever of following through with the reconciliation process. If it happens, he'll sign that too, but he doesn't give a fig for whether reconciliation happens or not. He will already have his goals met.

  • ||

    "His pursuit of reconciliation is nothing but a gambit to get naive and gullible members of the House to pass the Senate bill."

    Close enough. Obama's gambits are always directed at naive and gullible voters; fear of whom in turn influences the targeted members of the House.

  • ||

    Everything pertinent has been said, I just wanted to post this.

  • ||

    So much for my HTML skills...

  • ||

    Barack Obama is a inveterate liar. He's been bred by the Chicago system to be a liar. His problem is that people outside of Chicago are not as stupid as they are back home.

    Well, half of them, anyway.

  • ||

    The basic pathology of Narcissim is rooted in lying; one has to lie consistently in order to prop himself up, not just for his audience, but in particular...himself.

  • ||

    The curtain has been pulled back and now the empty suit is on display. No longer is there any reason to believe in the "hope and change" mantra and people are experiencing buyers remorse. It's kind of like after the last dance and the lights come and you wonder, well what do I do now? Or better yet, you wake up, after a long night of drinking, and gasp at what's laying in bed next to you. Oh God, how do I get out of this, and fast? This is an Obama nightmare, to be sure.

    Whether or not, this unwanted health care bill passes, is a moot point. Democrats are going to be spanked hard this November and BarryO is going to be a neutered dog for the next two years.
    My warning to Congress - put some restraints on the presidential purse strings, because Barry and his luberly wife Micky are going to go on a spree like drunken sailors, knowing full well that this "liberty call" is a one time stop and will soon expire.

  • ||

    It is perfectly acceptable in Islam for Muslims to lie to the "infidels" to achieve their ends. They even have a word for it: taqiyya. I'd say that Barry is batting 1000 in this area.

  • ||

    Great article! Puts the legion of howlers marching across Obama's teleprompter in useful perspective.

    I was wondering when (and if) Obama's chickens would come home to roost. During his campaign, Obama successfully put progressive ideas into simple, attractive language that fit well with the national mood and character and turned voters on. Ronald Reagan did the same thing with classical liberalism.

    So once Obama gets the job, I wondered, how is he going to square his soaring rhetoric with the actual implementation of progressive policies, e.g. socialized medicine, Cap and Trade, tax hikes, Card Check and the unconstrained growth of government and spending? Progressive policies offend the national character, which has become far less tolerant of government activism due to the financial meltdown, Wall Street bailouts, and the $860 billion Stimulus Package that didn't stop job losses or slow the recession. Hence, my theory has been that Obama believes his own rhetoric, and those of us who don't are rejecting Obama rather than his rhetoric.

    Slick Willy, for all of his faults, and they are many, never allowed narcissism to blind him to political realities. Obama needs to learn this lesson mighty quick, or he's certain to be America's first black one-term president.

  • Mark||

    It would a lot less work to count the number of times Obama told the truth.

  • ||

    An entire article dedicated to prove only one thing: politicians lie.

    Thanks for enlightening us.

  • ||

    Well, this is a high-spirited bunch, isn't it? The bottom line seems to be -- in bumper sticker format -- "When Bush Lied, people died" "When Obama lied, people are going to live". That's pretty much it. People are dying because health care is very broken. They are dying! Dying! Dead! Leaving crying children and broken spouses. The process may not have been pretty, and there might have been a disturbing amount of hypocrisy and even untruths but This Had To Be Done! We're judeo-christians and we just don't stand by while people are dying. We don't.

  • JohnD||

    What a moron. A hell of a lot more are going to die under this sorry assed "health care" system. Denial of care will become the standard because the government sees this as a way to save medicare and social security.

  • ||

    Hey poesis: I'll let you in on a little secret: We're all going to die, Obamacare or not.

  • ||

    truth,,,,obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led."
    "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."
    "All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it."
    "Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."pelosi don't see much future for the Americans ... it's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities ...obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance ... everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it's half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries... Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit… The media's justification is apparently “because it's out there”, truth be damned. STOP THIS COMMUNIST OBAMA ,GOD HELP US ALL .THE COMMANDER ((GOD OPEN YOUR EYES)) stop the communist obama & pelosi.((open you eyes)) ,the commander

  • ||

    truth,,,,obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led."
    "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."
    "All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it."
    "Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."pelosi don't see much future for the Americans ... it's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities ...obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance ... everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it's half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries... Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit… The media's justification is apparently “because it's out there”, truth be damned. STOP THIS COMMUNIST OBAMA ,GOD HELP US ALL .THE COMMANDER ((GOD OPEN YOUR EYES)) stop the communist obama & pelosi.((open you eyes)) ,the commander

  • ||

    Is it too early to be concerned that some "crises" will occur resulting in the delay of our next presidential election? Maybe a nuclear issue?

  • ||

    Impeach this Liar in Chief! Presidents are often deceptive and slippery. This one lies or says meaningless nonesense ALL OF THE TIME! Our culture of image, fantasy and deceit has caught up to us and is destroying our society. All liars have their part in the Lake of Fire. This Liar in Chief needs to get saved as do MOST Americans, left and right. God help us

  • abercrombie milano||

    I don't got your point. But thank you all the same.

  • nfl jerseys||

    ghfd

  • political forum||

    I think a lot of the talent in Washington has served as lobbyists at one point in time. Does having worked as a lobbyist for 5 years and a professional job (i.e. the military or CIA) for 15 years make one a "lobbyist"?

    Reggie's political forum

  • SheepskinUGG boots||

    we say that these Ugg Sheepskin Boots can absorb its power across the bottom phonetics of the day. It seems as access Sheepskin Boots Sale us achieve access album this winter. ?

  • SheepskinUGG boots||

    As apperceive Cheap Womens Uggs may be the designation of origin issued in the name acclaimed all added compared with the world. without achieving any vision or not you like it or not, Women Uggs is really an alarming array

  • SheepskinUGG boots||

    The prestige of negotiating bulk Uggs Australia Outlet cloud has evolved into the current day can fit into Ugg Boots On Sale boots and stores up.

  • Rimini hotels stay||

    Exceptional - I really should certainly pronounce, impressed with your site. I had no difficulty navigating signifies all the tabs also as associated info ended up being really simple to complete to entry. I lately discovered what I hoped for prior to you understand it in any respect.

  • Bo Villafuerte||

    The emulator available within the Android SDK is not only a tool that allows you to easily test applications without having to install it to a real device, or even having 1.

  • ||

    This sounds really great.
    "friend finder""http://www.4xfriends.com"
    "http://www.4xfriends.com""http://youraustintxhome.com/lake-travis-real-estate"

  • cheap wholesale||

    so perfect

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement