Could a Politician have been less than up front? No…

This, it would seem to me, is important. It might underscore the depth of Obama’s hypocricy, or it might simply show that the health care plan we were offered was 1. a disaster, and 2. not what Obama said it was. I can’t see how it can be seen favorably unless the writer is simply wrenching the statement from its context.

Follow this link: Obama’s Stunning Admission 

And let your mind dwell for a few minutes on the implications. I think they are quite profound.

4 Responses

  1. Thomas,

    Thank you. The worst thing we can do is to attack him for things that are not deserving of attack, so I take your response into account and resolve to withhold judgment on the matter.

    I feel I should leave my post on line to hold myself accountable and to leave our dialogue in place. I appreciate the way you showed that something can seem so clear and turn out not to be so.

    The principle I was not giving due attention to is context – in this case, the context or circumstance of change.

    One benefit to me of this exchange is that it forces me to examine the problems I really have with the health care bill and forces me out of knee-jerk reactions.

    So again, thank you.

    Does anybody care to content with Thomas? Be warned, he unfairly combines knowledge with intellectual skill.

  2. I’m unclear on what Obama is being hypocritical on here. He’s saying that some of the provisions in the health care bill may have possibly made it difficult to keep your insurance plan or your doctor, and that his administration has been working to remove those provisions. He didn’t write the bill, the legislators did (and actually the legislators had others write it). It’s not as though he himself snuck provisions into the bill; after all the most obvious example that he’s talking about is the pro-life Stupak amendment.

    It’s hardly stunning, or profound; it seems like a fairly candid assessment (for a politician) of the complex legislative process.

    • Except that he was arguing all along that this health care plan should have been passed and that it wouldn’t interfere with those relationships. I appreciate the candor too. It’s just not consistent.

      • It wasn’t the case that there was one bill the whole way through the process. The bill itself was changing, amendments were being added, the senate bill and the house bill were markedly different, and so on. Additionally, if you look at what Obama said, the provisions that would affect health insurance plans or doctor choice were taken out by his administration. Meaning that the bill he was pushing had those “stray cats and dogs” excised. He’s not admitting that he broke his promise on health care, but that he kept it by removing the objectionable provisions from the bill despite legislative resistance.

        It would help if he would be more specific, but my guess is that he’s mostly talking about the Stupak amendment, which prevented federal money from going to insurance plans that cover abortions. He’s been against that all along.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: