The truth hurts


Barack Obama got caught on tape making a Kinsley gaffe.

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

To be fair, what he said was true – it’s true for every president. Once they are termed out they don’t have to worry about kissing butts or raising money to get reelected. But his statement implies what we’ve known since the NAFTA/Goolsbee incident in 2008, where Obama told the voters of Ohio one thing while his emissary was telling the Canadian government something different.

Obama lies. About everything. He was telling Vlad the imPutin he should wait to make a deal because he’ll get a better offer in December. The question is, what’s he secretly telling other world leaders?



About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to The truth hurts

    • Lulu says:

      So Tubin is saying Obama’s lawyer is crappy? Another brilliant, genius constitutional Ivy League lawyer bites the dust. So who is surprised?

      • votermom says:

        I think they are preparing to throw Verelli under the bus just in case, so they can still claim Obamacare is good, it just had an unworthy defender.

        • Lulu says:

          I am listening to the arguments as I type. Elena Kagan has drug his ass through the arguments. She has not just asked leading questions she argued it. She is more aware of the mentality behind this mess than he is and it is obvious to me that she was in the middle of it while it was being hatched. She may have showed her bias and why she should recuse. Virella has done as well as anyone could with this mess.

        • votermom says:

          I have no respect for Kagan now; she’s proved that she’s just a tool of the O-admin by not recusing herself.
          Maybe one day when O’s no longer Prez she’ll become an actual independent voice on the bench and not just an enforcer.

        • WMCB says:

          @votermom, I agree, she should’ve recused. From what I’ve heard today of the proceedings, she was shameful in how she tried to prop up and make Virella’s arguments FOR him as he floundered.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Ruth Bader Ginsberg was no better. What frustrated me so much was these women were arguing about the damage I cause to the insurance market as an underinsured/uninsured person. Here’s what I say to that: IF I COULD FUCKING AFFORD INSURANCE, I WOULD ALREADY HAVE IT. IF PEOPLE OF YOUR ILK HADN’T TANKED THE ECONOMY, I’D STILL HAVE MY FUCKING JOB AND THE INSURANCE THAT WENT WITH IT.

          Just keep pushing, you over-privileged assholes. Keep on pushing. We will have enough at some point, and I won’t lift a finger to stop the coming defenestrations.

        • myiq2xu says:

          Speaking of which, I just applied for VA benefits. With my income I may qualify for free medical coverage.

        • Lulu says:

          miq2xu, excellent. I hope you have a clinic/hospital nearby.

  1. DandyTiger says:

    Trust me, I’ll lower the seas. I will heal the sick. I will fix our economy. I will end racism and sexism. I am what I’ve been waiting for.

  2. DandyTiger says:

    Kennedy: “Can congress create commerce?”

  3. gram cracker says:

    Is there anyway the supremes can uphold the mandate, but limit it to healthcare? Or if upheld does that set a precedent, like the 1942 wheat case did, that can be used for other mandates the feds deem in our best interest?

    • myiq2xu says:

      They could uphold it and then order the case depublished. That basically means it has no precedential value because of the unique facts and circumstances.

      But it would still be a precedent and the same arguments would be used in other cases, they just wouldn’t cite that case.

  4. votermom says:

    Watch Obama’s’ body language when he leans forward and says “After my election I have more flexibility.” and he does that hand roll thing.
    Isn’t that a classic deal-making gesture?

    • catarina says:

      didn’t Don Corleone do that it The Godfather?

      • threewickets says:

        Reminds me more of Hyman Roth talking to Michael in Godfather II..

        I’m going in to take a nap. When I wake, if the money’s on the table, I’ll know I have a partner. If it isn’t, I’ll know I don’t.

        • myiq2xu says:

          Vladmir Corleone: You can have my answer now, if you like. My final offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.

  5. DandyTiger says:

    Of course we don’t know what the SCOTUS will do. Sometimes they ask the hardest questions on the side they’re leaning to make sure they haven’t missed anything. For example, Kennedy might be leaning towards upholding, but wants to make sure he won’t screw things up, so he grills the government side.

    But if it’s overturned what happens? Does that take the steam out of a lot of Republican arguments for voting Obama out? Some it seems. Of course it could add arguments that Obama is incompetent and just cost us tons of money by this crappy bill.

    And what if it’s upheld, does that also take the steam out of the Republican arguments? That might rally the base because they want to overturn it sure. But some of the arguments against it have always been that it’s unfair and unconstitutional.

    • yttik says:

      I think cost is going to play a huge role in whether or not it is ruled “constitutional.” All the Constitution in the world isn’t going to change the fact that the thing has to be paid for. Mandating that people buy insurance only works if they have money to buy it with. Mandating that states put people on medicaid only works if states have money to provide services.

      Nobody has any money.

    • jeffhas says:

      There’s just no way in spinning his ‘crowning achievement’ is anything more than a failure if it gets overturned. He spent his first two years in office chasing this down and cutting every slimy, backroom deal all the while Rome (the US) burned in the background. The cost, time of JUST THE LEGISLATION alone is staggering – but when you factor in what could have been done on Jobs, the Economy, Energy, etc., then you’re talking MONUMENTAL Failure (do they have a Mount Rushmore for failed Presidents?)

      OTOH, if it is upheld, I think Repubs will fire up their base with an ‘only way to repeal’ message. Although at least with the legislation upheld, he has ‘some success’ to run on (by success, I mean SCOTUS let it stand)

      I don’t see how this is a win for Obama either way, but overturning has to be the bigger calamity.

      • Lulu says:

        A Democratic congress passing an unconstitutional nightmare is very bad politics. There are very few ways that they can spin it in the upcoming elections. Very good arguments can be made that they simply do not know what they are doing. One of the first tenets of writing legislation is will it stand up in the courts. If there is any doubt don’t do it. Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership were told repeatedly that there were constitutional issues and they ignored any nay-Sayers. They drank so much Kool-aid they were delusional. The sneering dismissals are coming back to bite them.

  6. zaladonis says:

    The thing about Obama is he’s a liar. And the reason you can’t deal with a liar is you never know who he’s lying to, only that his lies are intended to advantage himself.

    • DandyTiger says:

      During the ’08 primaries, the Obama supporters always knew he was a liar. They bragged about it. He was lying about what he thought and what he would do to appeal to Republican’s they would say. The problem with that of course, as we all expected and turned out to be the case, he was mostly lying to them.

      So they established that he was a big fat liar, they just didn’t imagine he would lie to them. Idiots.

      • DM says:

        Obama has not changed. I haven’t forgotten the NAFTA incident during the 2008 primaries, when Obama told the Canadians not to believe his campaign rhetoric. The good thing is that now he can’t blame the Hillary camp for his problems, as he did in 2008.

        Obama cannot be trusted.

        • Erica says:

          Repeat that about 10 million times: Obama cannot be trusted.

          Maybe then the Obots will get it.

  7. HELENK says:

    since the primaries, I have believed this should be one of his theme songs. the other should be “Don’t Blame Me”

  8. WMCB says:

    Even “liberal” justices seem to realize that there is precedent at stake here.

    • WMCB says:

      What the govt side needs to do is be able to articulate some reasonable standard whereby limits on federal govt via the commerce clause will still exist if the mandate stands.

      If they can’t come up with some plausible (or at least plausible-sounding) argument for why limits will still exist if Obamacare stands, then it’s very difficult. So far, the govt has been floundering to explain what the limit would ostensibly be, other than “Well, govt would never do that, because…..just because!”

    • DandyTiger says:

      I listened to more of that and think Sotomayor is actually being patronizing. She seemed very much on the side of the mandate and was treating those arguing against it like they were children. I could be wrong, but that’s the sense I got from her.

      • Lulu says:

        Me too. Ginsberg and Sotomayor sounded like snotty elitists (not that they really are). Kegan was acting as co-council and forcing the Solicitor General into her argument which sounded like it was throwing him off. The three ladies in questioning the states counsel sounded like they had already made up their minds. These three did not impress me.

  9. WMCB says:

    http://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149465820/transcript-supreme-court-the-health-care-law-and-the-individual-mandate

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, then your question is whether or not there are any limits on the Commerce Clause. Can you identify for us some limits on the Commerce Clause?

    GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes. The — the rationale purely under the Commerce Clause that we’re advocating here would not justify forced purchases of commodities for the purpose of stimulating demand. We — the — it would not justify purchases of insurance for the purposes — in situations in which insurance doesn’t serve as the method of payment for service –

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: But why not? If Congress — if Congress says that the interstate commerce is affected, isn’t, according to your view, that the end of the analysis.

    GENERAL VERRILLI: No. The, the — we think that in a — when — the difference between those situations and this situation is that in those situations, Your Honor, Congress would be moving to create commerce. Here Congress is regulating existing commerce, economic activity that is already going on, people’s participation in the health care market, and is regulating to deal with existing effects of existing commerce.

    That’s a very shaky and specious argument, IMO. He’s saying that Congress could not, say, require everyone who buys a car to buy a particular make of car in order to stimulate demand. But why? Isn’t that also economic activity that is already occurring? These people are buying cars, and maybe certain car companies are deemed to be crucial employers, crucial to the overall health of the economy, and therefore govt. could decide to “regulate” that already existing commerce to force people to buy a designated product. If the mandate stands, where is the legal argument that the govt could not do so?

    • threewickets says:

      SG initially made a case for the mandate being essentially a health care tax. Well if you’re going to approach it like a tax, why not move to single payer entirely instead of subsidizing private insurance intermediaries.

  10. WMCB says:

    THIS. THIS. THIS.

    From an AoS commenter named Mikey:

    Justice Alito said:

    “…what this mandate is really doing is not requiring the people who are subject to it to pay for the services that they are going to consume? It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else.”

    And that is the entire Sandra Fluke episode in short. The mandate will now be the source of much lobbying as every pressure group will lobby Congress and the agencies to have their particular concern mandated; and every pharma company or medical care company will want their particular treatment mandated.

    It will be the perfect place to be if you like corruption – making lots of money off of the bribes; and power – the ability to punish enemies by denying them the mandate they seek. Socialism Chicago-style: Skip the idealism and go straight to the racketeering.

    This is what many of us who wanted single payer said from the beginning. That doing this via insurers was an invitation for more murky melding of Corp and Govt power, and massive corruption waiting to happen, as govt channeled the very lucrative contracts to their favored companies (or withheld approval of policies for players they dislike.)

    It is a DREAM SCENARIO for corruption and abuse. Tailor made.

    • Oswald says:

      Congress has already acted to prop up our auto industry. All of us travel. Imagine if congress required everyone to buy a new car every five years.

      That’s definitely interstate commerce.

      • WMCB says:

        I want the govt and big business OUT of bed with each other. Obamacare tucks them in and tells them “Nighty night, and be good” with a wink.

  11. Lulu says:

    During the primaries Obama went after Hillary about the insurance mandate. This has been noticed. http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/supreme-irony-obamacare.html “At issue today was the so-called ‘individual mandate” – the federal government’s act of compelling Americans to buy health insurance. It is the centrepiece of the Affordable Health Care Act – aka Obamacare – which is the signature achievement of Obama’s presidency thus far.

    But back during the 2008 campaign, Obama argued strenuously against the individual mandate. In a debate in South Carolina, he said: “A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. … But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can’t afford it. And that’s why my plan emphasises lowering costs.”

    In February 2008, he said that you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home.”

    What goes around, comes around. The conservative justices today were saying the same thing Obama was saying.

  12. r u reddy says:

    If President Obama is so smart, why would he say ANYthing “confidential” to another high government figure next to a microphone? Isn’t every microphone on the way that every gun is loaded? Even I’m smart enough to suspect that, and I’m nowhere near politics.

    As to the Roberts Court’s ultimate decision on the Baucus-Obama health-insurance bill, I will predict that the Roberts Court rules the Forced Mandate to be comPLETEly constitutional. Roberts himself will vote to call the Forced Mandate constitutional. I don’t know which other four or more justices will agree, but at least 4 will. I suspect that
    Scalia and Thomas (or at least Thomas) will vote against the constitutionality of Forced Mandate. If I am wrong I can be mocked or laughed at or whatever happens. If I am right, I will be happy to say why I predicted this.

  13. foxyladi14 says:

    how long before they rule?? 🙂

Comments are closed.