Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies

July 1, 2009

President Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office with a veritable halo over his head, writes Shikha Dalmia in her latest Forbes column. In the eyes of his backers, Obama could say or do no wrong because he had evidently descended directly from heaven to return celestial order to our fallen world. Oprah declared his tongue to be "dipped in the unvarnished truth." Newsweek editor Evan Thomas averred that Obama "stands above the country and above the world as a sort of a God."

But when it comes to health care reform, Dalmia notes, with every passing day, Obama seems more like a demagogue, uttering not transcendental truths, but bald-faced lies.

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

Flying Jackos|7.1.09 @ 1:54PM|#

There is a name for such a health care approach: It is called TonySporanoCare

in fairness, the Dolphins did have a pretty good season last year

The Angry Optimist|7.1.09 @ 1:57PM|#

"dipped in the unvarnished truth"

WTF? So, the truth is like an anti-varnish? Is his tongue varnished in the unvarnished truth?

Come on, Oprah, channel your inner Lit major.

|7.1.09 @ 2:00PM|#

Shit, Ted Rall ripped him a new ass yesterday:

Ted Rall

So where did Obama go right?

|7.1.09 @ 2:01PM|#

Heathen! Blashphemer! Apostate!

Xeones|7.1.09 @ 2:06PM|#

Holy shit, henry. Michael Jackson dies, joe comes back, AND Ted Rall makes sense? I'm pretty sure those are three of the seven bowls of God's Wrath that Revelation says will be poured out on the earth at the End Times.

|7.1.09 @ 2:08PM|#

"Shit, Ted Rall ripped him a new ass yesterday:

Ted Rall"

If Obama has lost Ted Rall, he has lost Anti- America.

proud libitard|7.1.09 @ 2:08PM|#

Obama lies, Health care dies

|7.1.09 @ 2:10PM|#

That Ted Rall collumn is absolutely frightening. When I am reading Ted Roll going "hey this guy makes some sense", the world has really gone to a fucked up place. I will give Rall credit, no matter how loathsome some of his views are, he is not part of the cult of personality.

|7.1.09 @ 2:11PM|#

"Obama seems more like a demagogue, uttering not transcendental truths, but bald-faced lies."

I can't take any journalist seriously who accuses a politician of "bald-faced lies". Why don't you report (1) what the politician said and (2) the reality it differs from. Let me make the extra step of deciding whether it is a lie or something else. Do Forbes readers really need the childish insults?

|7.1.09 @ 2:15PM|#

Lamar,

When a politician says something that is so demonstrably untrue that it had to be known to him to be untrue, what is that if not a "bald faced lie"? What is your problem with truth in jounralism?

..|7.1.09 @ 2:19PM|#

Jounralists lie too.

Xeones|7.1.09 @ 2:22PM|#

What is your problem with truth in jounralism?

..

Jounralists lie too.

There's a simple way around this seeming conundrum. Take any politician. Is his/her mouth moving, and are words coming out of it? If the answer is yes, they are lying. No jounralistic intermediation required.

..|7.1.09 @ 2:29PM|#

FOX News has some nice-looking blondbot jounralists. I watch them with the sound off.

|7.1.09 @ 2:34PM|#

"When a politician says something that is so demonstrably untrue that it had to be known to him to be untrue, what is that if not a "bald faced lie"? What is your problem with truth in journalism?"

(1) Journalists who accuse somebody of lying, then paraphrase the lie should raise suspicion.

(2) Changing your mind is not a lie.

(3) It is an utterly absurd style of journalism. For example, Dalmia say that "Lie #4" is that "public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly."

Now how the hell are you going to tell me that such a statement means anything? And "Lie #5" talks about "fear". How the hell does that mean anything? Did Obama personally say that we have to fear rationing? Or are you really steeped in opinion and analysis that you happen to agree with that you don't see how much bullshit is floating at the top?

Barry O\'Bama|7.1.09 @ 2:36PM|#

Lie number 1), I'll still love you in the morning . . . .

|7.1.09 @ 2:39PM|#

Let's think about this a moment. Our political system rewards people who can deceive enough people to vote for them, because the reality is that most of the things promised either can't be done or won't have the effects promised.

As a result, we have a disproportionate number of dishonest and deceitful people in power. That mattered less before we decided to remove the concept of limited government, but now we've got a real problem.

|7.1.09 @ 2:39PM|#

"When a politician says something that is so demonstrably untrue that it had to be known to him to be untrue, what is that if not a "bald faced lie"?"

I should have said it this way: After reading Dalmia's article, it was apparent that none of the "lies" were things that could be characterized as "so demonstrably untrue that it had to be known to him to be untrue." While I agree with much of the politics, the rhetorical style is bush league.

kinnath|7.1.09 @ 2:40PM|#

Come on, Barack, smirk! Truth in advertising!

QFMFT!

|7.1.09 @ 2:43PM|#

"Lie number 1), I'll still love you in the morning . . . ."

Of course he'll love her in the morning.....from behind.

|7.1.09 @ 2:43PM|#

FOX News has some nice-looking blondbot jounralists. I watch them with the sound off.

Trying putting on a nice Barry White soundtrack, too.

(2) Changing your mind is not a lie.

No, but it can be a broken promise. As in "I promised not to raise taxes, but I changed my mind." Of course, Obama hasn't done that. If you say one day "I won't raise taxes" and then you do, without explanation, I think its fair to call you statement a lie.

If your view of the facts changes, then I think some explanation is in order. "I thought we could both cut what we pay for health care and increase supply, but I now realize that never in the history of mankind has the supply of anything been increased by reducing what we pay for it."

..|7.1.09 @ 2:44PM|#

I can't take any journalist seriously who accuses a politician of "bald-faced lies"

Words don't have meanings, Lamar? Reality is flexible? Or more precisely, politicians get to make up new meanings for words and concepts? It's the journalist's job to call them on it (when they themselves are not part of the hoax).

|7.1.09 @ 2:49PM|#

Lamar,

I agree with RC's point above. If Obama thinks differently now than he did during the campaign, he ought to come out and say "I thought this before but now I have changed my mind". But he is not doing that. Instead he is just changing his positions and pretending like he had always thought that way. That is telling lies.

Ska|7.1.09 @ 3:08PM|#

Our political system rewards people who can deceive enough people to vote for them, because the reality is that most of the things promised either can't be done or won't have the effects promised.

Which is one more reason why I love Fallout 3 - the book that increase your speech skill is titled Lying, Congressional Style.

|7.1.09 @ 3:28PM|#

Too true, Ska. I may head back over to the Capitol tonight with a load of mini-nukes, just to work off some frustration.

|7.1.09 @ 3:31PM|#

"I agree with RC's point above."

So do I. Obama is on the fast track to failure if transparency and accountability are the benchmarks. But using the "lie" angle diminishes the credibility of the writer because, if the writer is making such a strong case that these things are lies, why does he have to declare them such? And why does Obama lie using the exact words and phrases the Dalmia does? What a marvelous coincidence!

|7.1.09 @ 3:35PM|#

"Too true, Ska. I may head back over to the Capitol tonight with a load of mini-nukes, just to work off some frustration."

Imagine if the plane on 9-11 instead of hitting the Pentegon had hit Congress and killed all 535 members or some large majority thereof. It would opened up our political system in so many ways. As bas as this sounds, I really have a hard time seeing how it would have been a bad thing.

Ska|7.1.09 @ 3:49PM|#

Watch out John, your neighbor 2 doors down just might get raided all of a sudden.

kinnath|7.1.09 @ 3:53PM|#

As I have suggested in the past, we need a modern version of the lottery. When public confidence in Congress falls below a certain threshold, a member of Congress is executed at random.

|7.1.09 @ 4:04PM|#

Obama doesn't lie, he is just prone to ayers in judgement.

|7.1.09 @ 4:05PM|#

"won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly"

Yes it will and it will also be a Trojan condum for fucking us in the ass.

|7.1.09 @ 4:06PM|#

Imagine if the plane on 9-11 instead of hitting the Pentegon had hit Congress and killed all 535 members or some large majority thereof.

It'd be a national freakin' holiday. Independence Day 2.

Ben Kenobi|7.1.09 @ 4:12PM|#

Sorry bookworm. Condoms will be rationed once the government controls all healthcare. You get fucked in the ass condomless.

|7.1.09 @ 4:23PM|#

As I have suggested in the past, we need a modern version of the lottery. When public confidence in Congress falls below a certain threshold, a member of Congress is executed at random.

As attractive as that sounds, there is no need to kill congresscritters. I've thought this propoasal out for 10 seconds longer than it took to type this comment, so you know I've put more into it than your average representative did with the cap and trade bill.

Since incumbents have the advantages of name recognition, years of free advertising, franking privileges, and delivered pork to campaign on, it's time to give challengers an advantage.

After a represtative serves a two year term he or she would have to best the nearest challenger by 1.5%. If not, the nearest challenger wins the seat. Each additional term raises the victory threshold by another 1.5%. A ten term congressman would thus require a 15% victory margin to retain his seat.

Due to longer terms in the senate we'll make the victory margin requirement 3.0%. Ted Kennedy would be required to win the election by a 24% margin the next time he runs.

Brett Stevens|7.2.09 @ 1:42AM|#

Who is really surprised he is a liar?

He comes from a corrupt political machine, worked with corrupt groups, sold race guilt with a soft-shoe, and got elected when the voters had a tantrum over George W. Bush.

So we elected a corrupt politician, and now he's doing what those do. Democracy ftw!