Wednesday, September 9, 2009

ObamaCare speech may be a recipe for easy hits.

by Smitty (h/t Memeorandum)

If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out.--BHO

Now, contrast this with the Fourth President, James Madison, who had written in Federalist #62 (Federalism, Mr. Obama: do you speak it?), emphasis mine:
It will be of little avail to the people,
that the laws are made by men of their own choice,
if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read,
or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;
if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated,
or undergo such incessant changes that no man,
who knows what the law is to-day,
can guess what it will be to-morrow.
Law is defined to be a rule of action;
but how can that be a rule,
which is little known,
and less fixed?
I can't really decide which misrepresentation of what's in the plan I prefer. Shall we go sweep left?

Then again, given the Constitutionally indeterminate nature of the entire ball of wax, the gross fiscal irresponsibility of eating this much of the economy when said economy is Tango Uniform, and the sheer disingenuousness of acting this on fire about something that will not be in place until 2013, a pass right might make more sense:

This blog expects to be called out for this grossly bratty act of misrepresentation, Mr. President. And may millions of red, white, and blue flowers of principled disobedience bloom in peaceful opposition to the high-handedness on display, sir.
But let me tell you why none of this is meaningful. Rather, let Carol Tackett explain. The quantity of other Americans who are, or are not, happy with their situation isn't relevant when you're laid out, needing health care, and want your own full value delivered. "They're changing the policy, I'm doing my best, here's a complimentary iPod loaded with Obama speeches to tide you over until we can get that for you."--Ain't. Gonna. Cut. It.

However, the perpetrators of the disappointment shall have long since departed the pattern by the time the true nature of the suck is apparent.

Legal Insurrection points out an accusation of prevarication yelled in the POTUS direction.

Update II:
Fix Director Blue link. Thanks for the boot to the head, Dan.


  1. And what about the heckling? Seems healthy to me. In fact, why not make him answer questions directly, a la Minister's Questions?

    The look on Pelosi's face was priceless, I must say. The mask cracks...

  2. First of all we know the President is BS because even Lawrence O'Donnell called it Bogus.

    Second of all we know the president is worried because he not only released a series of Palin talking points, but called "She who must not be named" a liar.

    Third: The speech might actually serve it's primary purpose to try to put his base in line and encourage them, with CNN trying to back them up with bogus polls.

    Finally he has put himself in a box concerning Cost, Abortion and Illegal Immigrat coverage. The ads are now ready made.

    Short term he will win a day, long term he will be bitten by them bigtime.

  3. Quoted from and linked to at:

  4. How many lawyers, bureaucrats, judges, secretaries, janitors, security guards, IT personnel, and police does it take to administer and enforce 2000 pages of spaghetti on a national scale?