November 7th, 2013

Why lie when it’s so obvious that you’re lying?

America heard Obama promise unequivocally, with no caveats or qualifications, that if you liked your health plan you could keep it, if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor. Period.

So why would he say something as absurd as this?:

“…what we said was you could keep it, if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed.” But that’s not what he said, as even a child with a memory could tell. And the royal “we” is an unhelpful dodge, too.

Obama’s approach is almost incomprehensible—unless you remember that his personality is constructed in such a way as to make it almost literally impossible for him to admit error or wrongdoing.

It also helps to the concept known as doublethink. George Orwell wrote that “doublethink” requires that a person:

…forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.

Obama has been caught in a lie so obvious and egregious and important that he may sense, perhaps for the first time in his life, that he’s in big trouble. So if he can’t fess up, what else can he do? Create a narrative and hope that by doing so he can revise history. If he says it often enough, he can create a new truth for enough people that it gets him off the hook. It also helps to believe that truth is merely relative—although videotape makes that a bit harder to pull off than it used to be.

Obama’s also cuing politicians and pundits on his side, giving them talking points for their public appearances. He’s expecting them to exercise doublethink and get with the program.
But Obama’s face and body language do not convey confidence in this approach, unlike in the past. They are tentative, and he looks shaky and glum.

[NOTE: In comic books, what Obama is doing is apparently called "retconning":

This isn’t just an update. It’s a backwards revision. Obama is not just changing his claim going forward—he’s attempting to alter what he said in the past as well.]

57 Responses to “Why lie when it’s so obvious that you’re lying?”

  1. Henry Bowman Says:

    There are people who continue to lie even though it may be plainly in their best interests to tell the truth. Bill Clinton is an example of such, and BHO is, as well.

    I worked in Iraq in the 1990s (with a UN team), and the Iraqis all lied, all the time. It was almost funny at the time.

  2. leigh Says:

    Why? Because he thinks he can get away with it. Just about no one is willing to call him a liar.

    OT: He just gave a giant carve-out on healthcare to the unions today. How is this “law” even enforceable when it can change on a whim?

  3. Jack Says:

    It’s not a lie until you change your story. Even then it’s not a lie if you intransigently deny you ever changed your story. If however, you’re caught on tape self-evidently changing your story, why then obviously it’s a communication problem…not on your end, but on the part of the listener, of course, who should have been listening more intently or he would have understood that you meant x when you said y…plus the new story is better anyway…I mean the old story…I mean the story which I’ve been telling everyone all this time.

  4. BoulderRick Says:

    Someone needs to tell the most tech savvy president in history about this thing called youtube

    “Period!” “No matter what.”

  5. Steve Says:

    Well, he’s got a friend in McCain who says he has a cordial relationship with Obama. They’re going to meet to discuss a strategy for immigration reform. I wonder if the useless idiot will find a way to provide Obama some relief on health care next.

  6. Mike Says:

    “Obama has been caught in a lie so obvious and egregious and important that he may sense, perhaps for the first time in his life, that he’s in big trouble.”

    The cornered dog barks and will snarl and bite and in the end go savage.

    This is an extremely dangerous time for America (not this moment but the coming 2-3 years).

    Look for more, and more, and more of this: http://weaselzippers.us/2013/11/07/immigration-protesters-storm-offices-of-wa-republican-headquarters/

    It links to a Drudgerie about GOP Headquarters being stormed (by it looks like hundreds) in Washington State. The wife of the (certainly) Democrat Mayor was one of the ones arrested. DO they care? Obviously not.

    This is fangs bared territory.

    America is entering a new phase.

    The Leftists will start the final push and it will not be pretty. Their Commander, in the cruelest twist of fate ever, is the Commander in Chief.

  7. Ymarsakar Says:

    A lot of foreigners look at us funny when we speak of an american civil war.

    Then again, same is true for the locals here.

  8. MJH Says:

    Retconning? Part of it anyway; the second part.

  9. M J R Says:

    “Why lie when it’s so obvious that you’re lying?”

    Henry Bowman (5:08 pm) has already put a finger on it. Mr. Bowman, with Bill Clinton as an example, me now with Hillary!

    - for example, when she said she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, who climbed Everest in the early 1950s [too lazy to look it up again]. Trouble is, Sir Hillary was not a well-known figure until that climb, but Hillary! Clinton was named (I presume) when she was born, which was in the late 1940s;

    - for example, when she was dodging enemy fire at that landing strip who-knows-where-now in Asia. And was greeted by smiling young girls with flowers, also dodging enemy fire, one must presume.

    - plenty more, believe me. That stupid video (re Benghazi), the cattle futures (oh, I just read the Wall Street Journal), bla bla and bla

    WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE??

    The same with respect to our disaster-in-chief.

    leigh (5:15 pm) has it right: “Why? Because he thinks he can get away with it. Just about no one is willing to call him a liar.”

    Rep. Joe Wilson (R- SC) did to his smug face. Helluvalotta good it did him. Pilloried for telling a simple truth. Decorum, decorum. TO HELL WITH DECORUM.

    And I’ll be happy to do it now: *YOU LIE, MR. PRESIDENT*

    (to his smug face, and to all the useful idiots applauding his latest whopper — Steve (5:39 pm) has it very right: “useLESS idiot”s)

    Helluvalotta good that’ll do *me.*

    We need A LOT more “the emperor has no clothes”. A lot more truth-telling. /END RANT

  10. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    Retconning, eh? I’ve been thinking for a while now that what’s going on is more like a cartoon than real life. But now it turns out it’s a comic book!

  11. parker Says:

    I see this, the public disaster of Obamacare, as a possible turning point. Yes, the MSM, the die hard leftists, and the want something for nothing crowd will stick like glue to BHO. However, millions who find that not only can they not keep their policy/doctor, but they must now pay 2-400% more for coverage that they simply do not want to keep Obamacare afloat; these people will become more and more angry and distrustful of DC each month that they must pay the tab of Ocare.

    This angry mob will include the young, the old, and the soccer mom league. They will get really POed as they learn more and more about who gets exceptions, exemptions, and undeserved subsidies (unions). This is a win-win for the right. Too bad we can’t send people like McCainiac on a permanent junket to Waziristan.

  12. oldschooltwentysix Says:

    According to CNN, Obama is now at least saying he is sorry.

    Guess politics and the Democrats have forced him to face reality.

    It’s the first time I’ve seen him make close to an apology for something, and it is well past due.

  13. leigh Says:

    That was no apology. That was a classic CYA with a friendly reporter.

  14. oldschooltwentysix Says:

    I said it was close to an apology as I believe I’ve ever seen him make.

  15. Mike Says:

    He did not apologize. There is no such thing as something being “close” to an apology.

    As usual, the fiends have all kinds of people who will make excuses for them.

    My theory about that is that many people simply cannot look evil in the face and believe it. My theory about that is not a theory. It’s because they know they will be harmed if they catch the eye of the devil, and they are rightly afraid to simply say the truth.

    But the reality is that they are going to get harmed anyway. Excusing away the devil only means he’ll be stronger when he finally gets you.

  16. Cornhead Says:

    The entire Obama administration is Orwellian.

  17. miller Says:

    Did you notice that Obama had to keep looking down to check his notes to be sure he had his story straight? Someone probably had to write it down for him so he could keep track of what he was supposed to say. He really seemed confused.

  18. Bob From Virginia Says:

    Parker, you are applying logic and clear thinking to the situation and therefore your conclusion is probably flawed. Obama’s appeal is emotional, hence anything that goes wrong is rationalized by his supporters. The Obamacare disaster will hurt him, but not much and not for very long and not enough too make a difference. See Rasmussen at http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
    if you don’t believe me. The fact that he just made somewhat of apology will reassure some, if not most of any wavering supporters. As I wrote earlier, this will assure them that dear leader is wise, conscientious and caring master.
    BTW I am sure that most of the people who lost their insurance did not vote for Obama. His appeal was never to the personally responsible. He really does not have to worry about their feelings.

    M J R: Barry Rubin wrote about Obama being the emperor with no clothes years ago. But in his version no one cared even after it became apparent he had no clothes. They just kept pretending he was dressed royally.

    Ymarsakar; A civil war may be the best option to keep America free. It wonder how long it will take to incubate?

  19. Dan Melson Says:

    >Why lie when it’s so obvious that you’re lying?

    Because he knows that the vast majority of the media in the country will continue to cover for him, no matter what. Because he knows that all those people who voted for him because they thought they’d get “free stuff” will continue to invent any story, any excuse, in order not to lose their faith.

    Any resemblance between these facts and any other abusive relationship is probably purely intentional on Obama’s part.

  20. leigh Says:

    Via Glen Reynolds:

    The GOP has to deal with the problem posed by a hostile media. It’s like trying to mount an invasion when the enemy has air superiority.

    This is what we’re up against. A lying president with a complicit media. The only thing to do is refuse to comply.

  21. Mr. Frank Says:

    If someone apologizes for stepping on your toes, you assume he will remove his foot. Will Obama now arrange to have people’s health policies restored?

  22. stan Says:

    Liberal rule #1 — those who disagree with liberals are evil. Liberals are wonderful because they work against evil. There isn’t anything that a liberal can do which is worse than the evil that liberals oppose. Therefore, liberals will never fail to support another liberal because such support is ALWAYS the moral thing to do.

    #2 — there are no other rules.

    Obama’s personality is merely a reflection of his belief in himself as the ultimate transformational liberal. He defines what is good. He doesn’t do anything wrong because he is incapable of wrong. His liberalism is his essence and that essence is what defines what is moral.

    Obama doesn’t do apologies because he can’t do anything that would require an apology.

    It’s almost a return to sovereign immunity — the sovereign is incapable of being wrong. Except in the cases of Bill, Hillary, and Barack, it applies even if they aren’t president.

  23. sdferr Says:

    Why lie when it’s so obvious that you’re lying?”

    Xenophon’s Heiro (the tyrant) explains:

    When Simonides had listened to all this he asked: “Pray, how comes it, Hiero, if tyranny is a thing so vile, and this is your verdict, that you do not rid yourself of so great an evil, and that none other, for that matter, who has once acquired it, ever yet surrendered tyrannic power?”

    “Simonides,” said he, “this is the crowning misery of tyrannic power, that it cannot even be got rid of. For how could any tyrant ever find means to repay in full all whom he has robbed, or himself serve all the terms of imprisonment that he has inflicted? Or how could he forfeit a life for every man whom he has put to death? Ah, Simonides,” he cried, “if it profits any man to hang himself, know what my finding is: a tyrant has most to gain by it, since he alone can neither keep nor lay down his troubles with profit.”

  24. rickl Says:

    I knew we were headed for a civil war the moment Obama was elected, and said so at the time. My reasoning was simple: You can’t have half of the population trying to ram Communism down the throats of the other half without bloodshed, one way or another.

    I honestly believed that it would start in 2009. While it’s not something I welcome or look forward to, I find it troubling that open resistance hasn’t yet broken out. Normal, traditional, patriotic Americans have endured one insult after another, the Administration openly flouts the law and the Constitution without consequence, and the government grows ever more rapacious and vindictive towards its opponents.

    Yet here we sit, like deer in the headlights. Many of us know the history of totalitarian governments, and the fate that awaits us if we do not act, and yet we do not act.

    There’s a popular phrase: “Our forefathers would have been shooting by now.” Well, yeah. They would have been. Our current government insists on controlling and micromanaging our lives in ways that would have been literally unimaginable in 1775 or 1860.

    At some point, and I don’t know where it is, the opportunity will pass, and our fate will be sealed. The increasingly universal surveillance of the populace and the purging of officers from the military will eventually render meaningful opposition impossible.

    While my timing was off, I stand by my original prediction. We will either have civil war or we will have death camps.

  25. n.n Says:

    Dissociation of risk. The question is not why lie, but why not lie? It’s progressive corruption under a progressive morality, and it seems to be an inevitable, recurring aspect of human existence.

    That said, at what point, if ever, will Democrats reject him?

    Someone suggested that Republicans, in the majority, are too principled. They will reject anyone representing their interests when there is even an allegation of immoral behavior. The implication is that since no one is free from sin, we are cannibalizing our ranks at our oppositions’ behest.

    So, where do we draw the line? There are few people perfect in principle and far fewer in practice. Not to mention that it is difficult to impossible to discern the truthfulness of an allegation or accusation; and it is far too easy to manufacture and perpetuate a destructive narrative. We have lost more than a few candidates and leaders in this manner.

  26. Otiose Says:

    I talked to someone recently who voted for Obama twice without apology and this time they declined to defend him. Not yet ready to sign up as a Republican or anything, but not defending him.

    This Obamacare debacle will be treated differently by the normally very compliant media because this time there are just too many people getting hit with reality of losing old coverage and paying much more for the new. There are too many people who just can’t go along for the fantasy ride this time and media types who attempt it will lose credibility. When they could defend him cost free to themselves they did. Many will choose not to this time.

    Plus we may be reaching a tipping point for Obama’s credibility – just like Carter crossed some invisible line that he couldn’t ever get back to.

  27. rickl Says:

    Otiose Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 11:14 pm

    I talked to someone recently who voted for Obama twice without apology and this time they declined to defend him. Not yet ready to sign up as a Republican or anything, but not defending him.

    I bet you a dollar he or she will happily vote for Hillary in 2016.

  28. Otiose Says:

    Sadly, you got that right on target.

  29. parker Says:

    Bob – “The fact that he just made somewhat of apology will reassure some, if not most of any wavering supporters. As I wrote earlier, this will assure them that dear leader is wise, conscientious and caring master.
    BTW I am sure that most of the people who lost their insurance did not vote for Obama. His appeal was never to the personally responsible. He really does not have to worry about their feelings.”

    An apology does not mitigate the increased costs, faux assurances do not migate the increased costs, and a caring master does not mitigate the increased costs and inconvenience. And while his appeal was never to the personally responsible, a large percentage of those who voted for the messiah were actually middle class, white soccer moms and dads who wanted to believe they were doing the ‘right thing’ by voting for the half-black messiah twice.

    Obamacare is theft. Many (most?) robbed will realize who has picked their pockets. Politics realy trumps the pocket book.

  30. sdferr Says:

    Where do we draw the line?

    Start with a duck.

    Or by another name, call the duck the most massive domestic public policy fraud ever perpetrated on the nation by its trusted public servants. And if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck — it’s a duck.

    Then let the Americans find the principle somewhere that commits them to remaining passive while being fleeced and defrauded by their servants, the oath-takers for office — or not. And if not, then demand that those false oath-takers be removed from office, in lieu of simply taking their lives for commission of malicious treason.

    Else, wait until the play-out of StalingradOCare brings forth the laughable claim of total victory the great leader ClownDisaster asserts will be his, or, in the alternative, the catastrophic debauchery of the nation’s political life we know damn well is next.

  31. parker Says:

    “If someone apologizes for stepping on your toes, you assume he will remove his foot. Will Obama now arrange to have people’s health policies restored?”

    ;-)

    No, he will not because Obamacare quickly swamps the system unless it siphons billions from the productive class. This is why I think many millions who have voted for the messiah and his sycophants in the past will remember exactly who stepped on their foot and in fact stepped down harder.

  32. parker Says:

    “While my timing was off, I stand by my original prediction. We will either have civil war or we will have death camps.”

    While some will gather a single suitcase of belongings and stand in line for the cattle cars; millions will hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats. After the throat slitting at the local level, the shooting war will begin. There are not enough goons in the alphabet soup to turn back the tide as the sworn officiers of the military stand aside.

  33. Lurker Says:

    The rubicon has not yet been crossed. The die has not been cast. Ozymandias might have just reached his end instead. That is of course if the Stupid Party doesn’t find a way to bail him out.

  34. Beverly Says:

    Oh, they’ll just change the subject.

    Amnesty for Illegal Aliens! that’s the ticket.

  35. Mike Says:

    @Lurker: “The rubicon has not yet been crossed. The die has not been cast. Ozymandias might have just reached his end instead. That is of course if the Stupid Party doesn’t find a way to bail him out.”

    You blame on a “party” – which does not exist as a moral agent – what belongs to people.

    The “blame” for Obama goes on every man and woman who voted for him and who voted for all those who support him. Period, as the great Obama might say.

    Let us not forget that. Period! They are at fault. Not the substitute scapegoat you have named.

    I am going to never stop saying that we will never right the ship until we start calling things what they are and assigning blame where it belongs. It is so horrible because it belongs on people you know and love dearly.

    Tough. They did it. No one else did.

  36. Conrad Says:

    The reason Obama continues to lie when it’s “obvious” he’s lying is that it’s NOT obvious to the people whose support he is trying to hang onto. Keep in mind the target audience: That audience is NOT the people who read this blog, or similarly-minded conservatives. Sorry, but Obama is not trying to win us over by telling these untruths. The people Obama is trying to reach are low-information folks who are still basically disposed to like and support Obama, but who are now — really for the first time — hearing MSM criticism relating to Obama’s promise of “you can keep your health plan.”

    Obama didn’t want to let those media rumblings go unanswered by him, so he needed to put out some sound bites in which he says, in effect, “No, I wasn’t lying; this was just a misunderstanding. Sorry if I wasn’t more clear, but everything is still on track as far as Obamacare is concerned.”

    The aforementioned low information supporters will accept this and thus start to tune out the negative media attention to this issue as “he-said-she-said.”

  37. Lurker Says:

    Mike,
    Sir Lies-a-lot has deeply wounded himself with his own mouth. If the stupid party weren’t stupid he and his whole rotten gang would be looking out from the grey bar hotel. Instead they will help fix things for a piece of the action. They are just dying to.

    Still we are not at the Rubicon. I don’t know if we can even see it from here. Now if the gang of thieves grabs private pensions to make public pensions whole os something…

  38. JuliB Says:

    rickl says: “I honestly believed that it would start in 2009. While it’s not something I welcome or look forward to, I find it troubling that open resistance hasn’t yet broken out.”

    After reading a lot of Selco’s blog (http://shtfschool.com/) – he survived the Balkan wars, I shudder to think of civil war. I pray for a religious revival, or a leader who can overcome the media, etc. We’re such a soft society now (and I don’t mean that in a bad way – who wants utter poverty and misery – I prefer niceties) that I fear it will be devastating for our country. And who’s to say that even if ‘our side’ triumphed that we’d get what we’d want?

    Where are our George Washingtons?

  39. leigh Says:

    Beverly,

    They are churning up the “War on Women” meme again.

  40. Harold Says:

    There are people for whom lying is the first and primary defense. I can attest to the fact that yes Virginia there are people for whom reality and facts have no meaning and provide no bar from concocting stories.

  41. notherbob2 Says:

    Conrad said above:

    “The reason Obama continues to lie when it’s “obvious” he’s lying is that it’s NOT obvious to the people whose support he is trying to hang onto. Keep in mind the target audience: That audience is NOT the people who read this blog, or similarly-minded conservatives. Sorry, but Obama is not trying to win us over by telling these untruths. The people Obama is trying to reach are low-information folks who are still basically disposed to like and support Obama, but who are now — really for the first time — hearing MSM criticism relating to Obama’s promise of “you can keep your health plan.”

    Obama didn’t want to let those media rumblings go unanswered by him, so he needed to put out some sound bites in which he says, in effect, “No, I wasn’t lying; this was just a misunderstanding. Sorry if I wasn’t more clear, but everything is still on track as far as Obamacare is concerned.”

    The aforementioned low information supporters will accept this and thus start to tune out the negative media attention to this issue as “he-said-she-said.”

    I would add to that:

    There are also many high-informatiion folks (media folks) who are waiting for marching orders so that they can continue their job of maintaining the Liberal Narrative.

    Here’s how it works: The various liberal think tanks and other Obama henchpeople come up with the best story they can (forget the truth; the question is “does it support the narrative?”) which is then announced by President Obama.

    Narrative maintainers know that what he says is not necessarily what he believes (or even understands) but is what the henchpeople believe will best support the narrative.

    The criticism they are currently voicing with President Obama is not for what he has done or how he did it. They are acting out their frustration with the script he is giving them to use in support of the narrative . They are saying: “How the hell can I sell this stuff?”

    They are not complaining that his statements are not or were not true – truth became irrelevant to them long ago. They are complaining that they cannot support the narrative with what he is giving them.

    “Yes,” they are saying, “we can use your stuff to get the low-information folks to the “he-said-she-said”,point that they are eager to reach, but they are not stupid enough to buy into the “he said” stuff you are giving us to use in this endeavor.”

  42. neo-neocon Says:

    notherbob2:

    Yes, that’s what I was referring to when I wrote:

    Obama’s also cuing politicians and pundits on his side, giving them talking points for their public appearances. He’s expecting them to exercise doublethink and get with the program.

  43. Bill West Says:

    Joan Walsh of Salon.com is annoyed at the media’s “obsession” with President Obama’s non-apology.

    Like most progressives, she cares very little for individuals, but rather thinks in terms of masses. She thought he was being much too conciliatory in expressing concern for the disruption he has caused in the individual insurance market.

    “The president’s desire to be as ‘undisruptive’ as possible was understandable, but futile. The individual market needed to be disrupted, and profoundly.”

    The profound dislocation of millions of people means nothing to these people if that serves their ends. Of the individual insurance market, Ezra Klein says:

    “The individual market — which serves five percent of the population, and which is where the disruptions are happening — is a horror show. It’s a market where healthy people benefit from systematic discrimination against the sick, where young people benefit from systematic discrimination against the old, where men benefit from systematic discrimination against women, and where insurers benefit from systematic discrimination against the uninformed.”

    In other words, those affected are too few to matter; they are unfairly expected to pay their own way and they are too stupid to see to their won interests. Progressivism in a nutshell.

  44. Dennis Says:

    Easy. They are staking their existance on true believers and the low information voter. The true believers exist on the faith that “come the revolution”, they will be rewarded for their loyalty by being cast among those giving the orders, not taking them. The low information voters believe just because…well..because they’re dumbasses.

  45. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    Why does everyone keep playing along with the pretense that only 5% of Americans will lose insurance under Obamacare? The grandfathering issue is not limited to the individual market. The only reason that group policies aren’t being canceled by the millions right now is the one-year delay in the employer mandate. That can was kicked down the road, but it’s not gone — it’s lying in wait. Here’s Forbes on October 31, commenting on those 2010 comments in the Federal Register regarding the impact of the regs that narrowed the grandfathering clause:

    “The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.”

    This could be changed, but no one is even hinting at that possibility, which is, I think, because most people don’t realize what’s coming. Every time Obama or Carney says that only 5% of us are affected — which is bad enough — they are lying. Lying again. Lying still. Lying constantly. And nobody is calling them on it.

  46. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    Link to the Forbes piece — sorry —

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

  47. neo-neocon Says:

    Mrs Whatsit:

    I had just been thinking of writing a post on that very subject.

    It’s an excellent example of how the MSM have merely become tools of the administration. Every now and then they rouse themselves to do some real reporting just to show they can. But it’s very very rare.

  48. Sharon W Says:

    Interesting that this 5% number is being bandied about as, “So what? Who cares?” Wasn’t it indeed a smaller percentage of the population that was cited as the reason for why healthcare needed to be overhauled? And let’s not even visit the reality that a good many of the people in question were exercising their choice. Who of us in that 5%, paying all those premiums and percentage of costs weren’t making sacrifices in our personal budget to do so? They are idiots, all!

  49. artfldgr Says:

    Obama pledged, however, to fix the malfunctioning Healthcare.gov website, and took a veiled jab at Louisiana’s Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, who was in the audience, for failing to support a key plank of Obamacare

    lie, because a communist has planks…

  50. Ann Says:

    Mrs Whatsit said…
    Why does everyone keep playing along with the pretense that only 5% of Americans will lose insurance under Obamacare? The grandfathering issue is not limited to the individual market. …This could be changed, but no one is even hinting at that possibility, which is, I think, because most people don’t realize what’s coming.

    And it’s really a pretty simple message to get out there; they could start by noting that all a plan has to do is raise copayments by $5 and it will lose its grandfathered status. That would open more than a few eyes, I would think.

  51. southpaw Says:

    It’s quite interesting that he was raised to be a person without any moral standards to guide him. The glumness is no doubt disappointment nobody believes this lie. It has nothing to do with what he’s done to the millions of families who are adversely affected, and the many millions more about to be. . About them, he could care less. It’s all about him poor Barry.
    I can hardly imagine the the family that raised such a selfish, immoral, conscienceless, sociopath. Way to go Stanley and company. If you were alive today, you would be so proud of your handiwork.

  52. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    Neo, I hope you will do a post on the 5% lie — though you must have quite a backup of possible posts about Obamacare problems by now! Mr Whatsit and I were just discussing the extraordinary job you have been doing in covering this thing, day after day, in dogged, intelligent, ruthless detail. What you’re doing is a public service now, and will be for future historians as well. Thank you.

  53. DaveindeSwamp Says:

    And while his appeal was never to the personally responsible, a large percentage of those who voted for the messiah were actually middle class, white soccer moms and dads who wanted to believe they were doing the ‘right thing’ by voting for the half-black messiah twice.

    The above mentioned are what we ignorant rednecks called damned fools .

  54. blert Says:

    Folks…

    He has to stay in practice.

    It really is that simple.

    I once had a business partner that lied like Barry. When pinned to the ground… he admitted that he spun lies… just to stay in practice.

    Lying was at the core of his personality. He couldn’t go a single day without cranking out a fresh whopper.

    By such continuous practice, he was able to inject deceits into ordinary conversation without any pangs at all.

    His craft reached such art that hardened professionals couldn’t spot his lies — even when they’d been previously informed as to fact and truth — and to his deviant personality.

    When their folly was brought to their attention — the self-shaming was so drastic that they’d run away — withdrawing from their professional association.

    At the end of the day, the audience has to come around and admit that they’ve been had. Very, very few people can bear that self-revelation. This is why you see true believers hanging on to the ’cause’ — even when it’s as vile as Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism.

    Which leads directly to “Does Stalin know?”

  55. Matt_SE Says:

    For lefty supporters of Obama, there are two conditions for their support in any issue that causes harm:
    1) Does it affect me, or somebody else?
    2) Is the harm obvious or more hidden?

    This leads to four cases:
    1) Affects somebody else, Obvious harm: Met with rationalizations or “at least is wasn’t me.” (Which shows that many lefties are bad people)
    2) Affects somebody else, Hidden harm: “I don’t see a problem.”
    3) Affects them, Hidden harm: “I don’t see a problem.”
    4) Affects them, Obvious harm: “This is an outrage!”

    The problem for Obama is that Obamacare is class 4. Lefties would like it “tweaked” so that it doesn’t harm themselves, but as these attempts fail it will become obvious that you can’t fix a trainwreck. And you can’t lie your way out of one, either.

  56. Michael in Pennsylvania Says:

    Southpaw,

    “I can hardly imagine the family that raised such a selfish, immoral, conscienceless, sociopath. Way to go Stanley and company. If you were alive today, you would be so proud of your handiwork.”

    Interesting point…

    Here’s an interpretation, penned by “Spengler” (David P. Goldman), which appeared in Asia Times Online on February 26, 2008.

    “Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother’s revenge against the America she despised.

    ***

    Michelle Obama speaks with greater warmth of her mother-in-law than of her husband. “She was kind of a dreamer, his mother,” Michelle Obama was quoted in the January 25 Boston Globe. “She wanted the world to be open to her and her children. And as a result of her naivete, sometimes they lived on food stamps, because sometimes dreams don’t pay the rent. But as a result of her naivete, Barack got to see the world like most of us don’t in this country.” How strong the ideological motivation must be of a mother to raise her children on the thin fair in pursuit of a political agenda.

    “Naivete” is a euphemism for Ann Dunham’s motivation. Friends describe her as a “fellow traveler”, that is, a communist sympathizer, from her youth, according to a March 27, 2007, Chicago Tribune report. Many Americans harbor leftist views, but not many marry into them, twice.

    ***

    Dunham’s experience in Indonesia provided the material for a doctoral dissertation celebrating the hardiness of local cultures against the encroaching metropolis. It was entitled, “Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: surviving against all odds”. In this respect Dunham remained within the mainstream of her discipline. Anthropology broke into popular awareness with Margaret Mead’s long-discredited Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), which offered a falsified ideal of sexual liberation in the South Pacific as an alternative to the supposedly repressive West. Mead’s work was one of the founding documents of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and anthropology faculties stood at the left-wing fringe of American universities.

    ***

    Barack Obama received at least some instruction in the Islamic faith of his father and went with him to the mosque, but the importance of this experience is vastly overstated by conservative commentators who seek to portray Obama as a Muslim of sorts. Radical anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household.

    ***

    Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother’s milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.

    There is nothing mysterious about Obama’s methods. “A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is,” wrote Karl Krauss.

    ***

    America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought, he has sought out their sore point.”

    The full essay is at: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html

    DaveindeSwamp, I would tend to agree with you.

    The way I saw (and see) it, much of the support then (2008) candidate and later (2012) President Obama received among middle- to upper-middle class “professionals” had nothing to do with his politics or policies, as such. Equally, it had absolutely nothing to do with “guilt”, an idea oft suggested over the past six years. There was no such guilt. Rather, I think that much of his support among that group was – and doubtless still is – a kind of narcissistic validation of one’s social status: Politics as a form of fashion, or a way for members of the government-media-academic (ruling class?) to dissociate themselves from the hoi polloi.

  57. Ymarsakar Says:

    Politics as a form of fashion, or a way for members of the government-media-academic (ruling class?) to dissociate themselves from the hoi polloi.

    They used to call that court politics used by courtiers, where the power was during the reign of a Divine King.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge