Obama's Utterly Bogus and Insincere Attack Against Big Pharma

The D.C. Examiner's Timothy P. Carney spells out how "Emails show Obama fake-fighting the drug industry" before, during, and after passage of ObamaCare. Excerpt:

Obamacare emails made public last week show that Obama is skilled at publicly pretending to fight a supposed bad guy -- the drug lobby, in this case -- while ensuring neither side actually gets hurt, both sides get paid, and everyone can be chums afterward.

Throughout his campaign and while pushing his health care law, Obama regularly spoke as if he were sticking it to the drug industry. But these were phantom punches. Sometimes, the emails show, the drug lobbyists didn't even blink an eye.

"If the drugmakers pay their fair share," Obama said in a weekly radio address in June 2009, "we can cut government spending on prescription drugs." […]

But top PhRMA lobbyist Bryant Hall, a former Democratic Senate staffer, had an advance copy of the script and emailed his colleagues the night before Obama's address aired. "Background is that the Pres's words are harmless," Hall wrote. "He knows personally about our deal and is pushing no agenda."

Whole thing here. The brazen mendacity with which the administration advocated, passed, sold, and defended its signature legislative accomplishment has been breathtaking.

Comments

[Lord Humungus]

Venezuela here we come, right back where we started from.

[tarran]

"I'm going to stick it to those Health Insurance Company Fat Cats by making everyone buy their products!" 😀

[Brett L]

Is "Don't throw us into that briar patch" still racist?

[?Ex Nihilo?]

Is "Don't throw us into that briar patch" still racist?

Not racist, but obscure. Because the book is racist and not read anymore.

[Brett L]

Yeah, I forget that I'm old enough that I had to read the all of the racist Canon, and young enough that I had to read too much of the indulgent tripe they tried to replace it with.

[Mensan]

Yeah, but it's still a ride at Disney World.

[John]

And remember when asked about these e-mails, the Obama administration bold face lied and said no such deal existed.

[Suthenboy]

Bald faced....not bold faced....but the meaning is essentially the same.

Way back when, merchants who were especially good liars would shave, thus bald faced. Not so good liars would grow beards to hide their faces, much like cops today who wear sunglasses to hide their eyes.

[fried wylie]

Actually, as the emails were all in bold type, the lie really was bold-faced.

[DesigNate]

SSDD

[R C Dean]

I have the feeling we'll be hearing more about these, say in September-October.

The devastating anti-Obama ads just write themselves, and there's no need to be anything but factual. Of course, the usual suspects will howl about racism and personal attacks and dirty politics, but man, has there ever been a President whose record (legislative, political, ethical) was more attackable?

[tarran]

If I had several million dollars to burn, I'd do ads which consisted only of excerpts from the candidates public speeches where they contradicted themselves.

Regardless of who wins, it's very important that a majority of Americans recognize they've got an untrustworthy scumbag running the executive branch.

[Suthenboy]

I dont think 'scumbag' really covers it tarran. But then, English doesnt have words that do.

R C, the anti-obama ads that are writing themselves are writing themselves daily in full view of the entire world, yet he still has millions of ardent supporters. I wonder if replaying them in full view of the world will have much effect.

[The Overfiend]

It won't. Obama will be reelected with a fairly large portion of the vote.

Idiots never learn, the media has yet to really kick in for him, and Romney sucks.

So yeah, we're fucked, but just like last time, we're gonna get fucked even harder because people are stupid.

[Suthenboy]

Perhaps I am too much of an optimist, but see Carter/Reagan 1980. Carter was leading in the polls right up until people started to vote. I think Carter was leading 60+ % on the day before the election.

[Brett L]

Nobody will tell the pollsters that they aren't voting for Obama, or just staying home.

[Rasilio]

Yeah but I'n not sure that would make you optimistic, cause then you'd have Romney and pretty much the exact same policies we have today, with just a slightly different list of favored corporate entities.

[The Hammer]

Dammit, need to refresh more.

[The Hammer]

If you see Romney winning in the best case, it's hard to call you an "Optimist."

[R C Dean]

I dunno, OF. The media is starting to turn. Maybe its just a headfake, so they can resume their usual kneeling position later.

And ads can be helpful in pulling together and juxtaposing the contradictions and lies.

On this one: open with a clip of Obama talking about "no more business as usual", no lobbyists in the White House, cut to their denials that they were cutting a deal with pharma, and end with quotes from the emails.

The tag line for this series of ads "If you want more of this, vote for Obama." For the cognitive dissonance.

I'm also thinking you could do a takeoff on the hilarious satellite TV commercials (the "don't end up in a roadside ditch" ones).

[The Overfiend]

I still expect most of the media to fall inline. Perhaps not as acolyte-like as usual, but still there.

[Brett L]

Just remember, you go too far in the tank and none of the new guys' people trust you to leak things confidentially. Access is more critical than loyalty to the political media.

[PS]

I'm still on the fence about whether or not it's a better long-term solution for Obama to fuck things up even worse rather than have things go pear shaped, or get worse, under a 'free-market' president.

[?Ex Nihilo?]

...has there ever been a President whose record (legislative, political, ethical) was more attackable?

Nixon, but that is probably a toss up.

[Kaptious Kristen]

I have an elderly friend who keeps sending me these kooky birther Muslim emails about Obama, and I just keep saying "dude, attacking him on his actual policies is like shooting fish in a barrel - why not do that?" But he is incapable of citing any policies he disagrees with. Sad fact is, people on both sides don't know or care that much about policy. Personality and party are all that count.

[?Ex Nihilo?]

Personality and party are all that count.

That's because actually finding out what policies he disagrees with would take work and he would have to pay attention and think. Unfortunately those traits are in short supply today.

[Rasilio]

The problem is that guy probably supports the policies or at least a reasonable fascimile of them. He probably was generally favorable towards them when George Bush initiated them and would have supported them had it been McCain to continue them and only opposes Obama now because he hasn't bothered to look at what Obama has actually done and Obama is on the "other team".

[Anonymous Coward]

But he is incapable of citing any policies he disagrees with.

Kristen, if your friend can't find anything on this list he disagrees with, he's got a serious problem.

[aelhues]

I'd like to say I'm shocked, but that would be a lie.

[BarryD]

It wouldn't be a lie, apparently. It would be "utterly bogus and insincere".

Let's just up and say: "Obama, the lying sack of shit, attacks..." from now on, because even something like "utterly bogus and insincere" is a whitewash at this point.

[PS]

I know a lot of libertarians or libertarian-minded people who bitch about Big Pharma. I wrote about this a while back.

[fried wylie]

just a reminder that Big Gov't has been meddling in Big Health for quite some time.

[Mensan]

Wait a minute. Are you saying Obama is a lying liar who lies? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

[BarryD]

"Obama's Utterly Bogus and Insincere..." is a redundant preface for anything BO says. It certainly has more flair, but a simple "Obama's" would have the same meaning.

[Tulpa the White]

This administration is faker than WWE SmackDown, and far less entertaining. I want to see Holder take out Geithner with a folding chair.