November 11, 2014

The tell-tale establishment heart [updated]

I meant to post yesterday on revelations that one of ObamaCare’s chief architects, during a panel discussion at U Penn (which esteemed Ivy League institution pulled the video after certain conservative activists uncovered it* — because intellectualism is a cloistered and precious thing, you see, and shouldn’t be broadcast to the braying masses, dim-witted mobs of phony self-sufficiency who couldn’t possibly suss out its nuances, a point some on the left have sought to reinforce today, to derisive snorts), literally seemed to brag about how a “stupid” American electorate, along with an arm of the government (the CBO), were both led astray by the language of the ObamaCare legislation, intended, it now appears, to problematize transparency in order to sneak the legislation through.

— Which, thanks, Justice Roberts!

But since Darleen already beat me to it, let me just repeat what I wrote about the subject in an email to geoff B, who tied this kind of brazen veil-dropping by leftist social engineers to the manufactured narrative of the Innocence Project that coerced a false confession in order to drive its anti-death penalty agenda, the ends justifying the means and all that: to wit, nothing the left does now surprises me. They’ve got their agenda all but permanently institutionalized (they believe) and on auto pilot, with reform out of reach by way of the ballot box.

Still, they can be beaten back. And the way to do that would be for the RNC to cut an advertisement that shows this smug jaggoff Gruber admitting that an already wildly unpopular — and soon to be more so, as lesser than expected enrollment figures force dramatic increases in premiums and deductibles — “signature” piece of Obama legislation was written precisely to fool them, to take advantage of their lack of political sophistication and to tout an intentional lack of transparency as a stroke of policy genius.

Boasting about the political efficacy of misinforming voters in a representative republic is akin to boasting about the relative ease of the velvet coup they “progressive” left has engaged in to overthrow it: that, after all, is what fundamental transformation is, and what it was always intended to be.

The GOP, in concert with this ad I believe should be cut, should, after all waivers expire, begin sending repeal bills to the President weekly, forcing him to veto and then justify his veto to an American public made newly and widely aware that they were not only lied to — but that the lying was part and parcel of the plan to get the legislation passed and institutionalized. I suspect such a campaign would put pressure on vulnerable Democrats and lead even to some crossover, turning repeal into a bipartisan cause.

This leaves Obama (and a sycophantic media whom people are beginning to see as protectors of the President, not antagonists of the powerful) alone on a political island: I suspect even many in the legacy media, relying on an intuitive imperative for self-preservation, will be loath to provide the President with too much cover, particularly after the effects of the unwieldy, unworkable, unconstitutional law are felt on a wider scale by the public.

Each time the repeal bill is passed and Obama vetoes it, the leadership from both Houses should call press conferences highlighting Obama’s obstructionism in service to a law one of its architects boasted only passed thanks to the stupidity of American voters and a concerted effort by those who drafted it to keep it confusing and to make its redistributive attributes as non-transparent as they could. They should note that sweeping GOP gains in the House and a comfortable control of the Senate — along with changes in governorships and state asssemblies favoring the GOP — represents a mandate to repeal the unpopular and financially devastating law, with many of those who unseated Democrats having run on the repeal of ObamaCare. They should refer time and time again to the denigration of the American electorate by one of the law’s main architects (who also was an architect of RomneyCare, for those of you who are interested in such things), and reprising the key phrases Gruber used, first, about the “stupidity of the American voter” and second, how a “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” when trying to fool the electorate.

That none of this will happen is proof the GOP establishment has no plans to repeal the law, and that they’re own campaign promises were also lies. The truth is, many parts of this law benefit their business cronies; and having redefined the relationship between the citizen and the government, with the citizen now a subject, tremendous new institutionalized power rests with the governing elite, who now will vie for who controls the balance of power and so whose favorited constituencies get to benefit in any given governing cycle.

The GOP will tell us they need full power before they attempt repeal. And this is a strategic appeal: they feel they will be rewarded politically if the people suffer, and that’s all they care about.

It is already easy enough to tie ObamaCare to Hilary; so there’s no reason, politically, to wait. But wait they shall, passing a few show votes, attempting to repeal small bits of the law beneficial to their heaviest lobbyists (the medical device tax), and hoping that they’ll be swept into presidential power — holding the Senate — on the coat tails of Obama’s unpopularity.

— all of which is why a coalition of TEA party groups, conservative and free market groups, private health care professionals, and, say, the Senate Conservative Fund, should take up the burden and fight for repeal now in the way I’ve outlined. Not only is it the right thing to do, but from a “pragmatic” and tactical view, it would bolster the chances of constitutional conservative candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries.

The time to stop talking and start breaking through the wall of ignorance the media and the left cultivate as a way to control voters is here. The proof of their arrogance and disregard for representative republicanism is on full display in a clip that cannot be undercut by pomo revisionism or dismissed as “old news.”

Strike while the iron is hot. That is, assuming the goal really is to rid ourselves of this disastrous law.

****
update: read the comments section to the video, posted here. It appears that I and my stinking evil kike Hebe kind are the real villains in this saga. Nuke the Yids and all will be well.

Welcome to the Big Tent.

If anyone needs me, like Gulliver, I’ll be sleeping in the barn with the horses.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 5:08pm
40 comments |

Comments (40)

  1. (which esteemed Ivy League institution pulled the video after certain conservative activists uncovered it — because intellectualism is a cloistered and precious thing, you see, and shouldn’t be broadcast to the braying masses, dim-witted mobs of phony self-sufficiency who couldn’t possibly suss out its nuances, a point some on the left have sought to reinforce today, to derisive snorts),

    Not exactly. Surely, conservatives ran with it. But it wasn’t necessarily one who found it. And then a Jernalist found the dude who found it and learned some things about jernalizm that he did not know before. Like research and stuff.

    It turns out that the guy in his pajamas in his mother’s basement with his tinfoil hat does have a motivation for listening to hours of this douchebag Gruber. He liked his plan but couldn’t keep it.

    Weinstein dates his accidental citizen journalism back to the end of 2013 and the first run of insurance cancellations or policy changes. He was among the people who got a letter informing him that his old policy did not meet ACA standards.

    “When Obama said ‘If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period’—frankly, I believed him,” says Weinstein. “He very often speaks with qualifiers. When he said ‘period,’ there were no qualifiers. You can understand that when I lost my own plan, and the replacement cost twice as much, I wasn’t happy. So I’m watching the news, and at that time I was thinking: Hey, the administration was not telling people the truth, and the media was doing nothing!

  2. >Railroad

    A tell-tale, also known as a bridge warning, is a series of ropes suspended over the tracks to give warning to a person on the roof of the train that the train is approaching a low-clearance obstacle, such as a tunnel or a bridge.<
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell-tale

  3. Pablo —

    Based that off a hat tip from Levin’s show yesterday, which I just listened to. Thanks for the fuller explication.

  4. I just stumbled across the Weigel piece myself and was amazed at him making himself useful. God willing, he’ll do it again one day.

  5. geez some dude in his pjs practicing citizen journalism

  6. From the Comments section of the David Thompson post that NR linked to…

    Herbert:

    Shorter version of Gruber:
    “We were willing to use any means necessary to get what we wanted.”

    How psychologically far are people like Gruber from imprisoning and even executing dissenters if they ever have the power to do so? Obedience is the only virtue recognized by the true Statist.

    America was warned and did not listen in 2008 and 2012.

  7. can you measure creativity and if so how creative are folks like gruber?
    “go along get along” might be high iq but it is not creative.

  8. America was warned and did not listen in 2008 and 2012.

    – In 2008 the Left captured the yoot vote with pander-gush, the black vote with more pander-gush, and the wimins vote with war drums. In 2012 the sycophant media/press was able to hide enough shit to drag asshole over the finish line.

    – As the duechebag professor said, the electorate is largely political morons.

  9. read the comments section to the video, posted here. It appears that I and my stinking evil kike Hebe kind are the real villains in this saga. Nuke the Yids and all will be well.

    I’m disgusted, but not surprised. YouTube comments are typically an avalanche of appalling ignorance, these even more so because politics are involved.

  10. – Oh, and Jeff, if you imagine that the GOP has any kind of goads to aggressively utilize this and other pieces of bad Lefty PR that mysteriously seems to be dropping out of the ceiling at a time when the Left is gnawing at the bone to escape Bumblefucks clown car three ring circus, I have some NY bridge property I’ll let go of cheap.

    – The only thing orange tears and company will be interested in pursuing is undermining T party influence. Cruz and Lee will probably piss in their corn flakes and limit that bs, but that’s about all you’ll see happen, other than some public posturing by McOldFart. So far it looks like you were dead on about the RINO’s really stalling any meaningful hit thru Issa.

  11. creativity and iq led me to ponder the period 1880 – 1930. credentialism is a guild scam. so you get a gruber clinton with some psaki.

  12. At Powerline.

    Krugman’s column is titled “Death by Typo: The Latest Frivolous Attack on Obamacare.” His theory is that the Affordable Care Act suffers from a “typo” that should be corrected by the courts.

    Krugman calls it an “obvious typo,” as a result of which:

    if you look at the specific language authorizing those subsidies, it could be taken — by an incredibly hostile reader — to say that they’re available only to Americans using state-run exchanges, not to those using the federal exchanges.

    Funny thing, though: Krugman never quotes the language that represents the “typo” that could lead an “incredibly hostile reader” to think that subsidies are limited to state-run exchanges. Gee, I wonder why? This is what the relevant portion of the Affordable Care Act, 26 U.S.C. § 36B(b)(2), says:

    The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—

    (A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act….

    Now, you don’t have to be an “incredibly hostile reader” to think that “an Exchange established by the State” means an exchange established by the state. But Krugman never acknowledges that he wants the courts to rewrite the relevant provisions of the ACA. As always, those who don’t see things his way–here, those who read plain English to mean what it says–are malevolent dopes.

    Without ever making a legal argument, Krugman engages in his usual bombast:

    It’s a ridiculous claim; not only is it clear from everything else in the act that there was no intention to set such limits, you can ask the people who drafted the law what they intended, and it wasn’t what the plaintiffs claim.

    The incorrigibly ill-informed Paul Krugman may be the last person in America who doesn’t know that the principal architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, is on video saying:

    I think what’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.

    In other words, the Halbig court was correct. You can watch Gruber explain why the ACA means what it says here.

    But more fundamentally, the whole point of the rule of law is that the law is written. The law means what it says, not what some politician claims, in an interview after the fact, he had in mind but forgot to mention. If the words of a law don’t govern, and instead bullying “interpretations” by crude partisans like Paul Krugman supersede the language of statutes, we no longer live under the rule of law.

    This, too, is relevant: where statutes are ambiguous (although this one doesn’t seem to be) courts look to legislative history, in the form of committee hearings and floor debates, to shed light on what legislators intended. But in the case of Obamacare, that normal legislative process wasn’t followed. The bill, as passed, never went through any committee in either the House or the Senate, nor was there any substantial floor debate. No one ever asked the question, “So, I see here that only participants in the state-run exchanges will be eligible for subsidies. Why is that?”

    The reason is that the Affordable Care Act was drafted in secrecy by lobbyists from the health care industry and Congressional aides. It was presented–1,000 pages or whatever the total came to–as a fait accompli and voted on before anyone in Congress had an opportunity to read it. Various representations were made about what the law would do, but what it actually said, no one knew. In Nancy Pelosi’s immortal words, we had to pass it to find out.

    Words, written words, meaning, history and intent. Damn strange concepts, who’d ever come up with them?

  13. > You can watch Gruber explain why the ACA means what it says here. <

    high iq liars. no creativity.

  14. the “ruining class” – high/low iq liars with no creativity

  15. – Krugman is the designated pin-the-tail on the narrative party whore. He proclaims, and all the Proggies nod in unison, working hard to protect the movement one lie at a time.

  16. BBH wrote: – As the duechebag professor said, the electorate is largely political morons.

    Which is why a serious contemplation of who should be given The Franchise is needed. The Founders did in the debates over their state constitutions.

    Now, of course, it would be impossible to get any major debate going, but we can start by contemplating the dilemma in forums like PW and in our own minds, for I believe that any Restoration we bring about will not be long-lasting if The Franchise remains so Democratic. People who have no vested interest in the preservation of a Constitutional Republic should not be given The Franchise by The Sovereign People, from whom all Rights and Privileges come.

  17. John Hinderaker, via GeoffB: If the words of a law don’t govern, and instead bullying “interpretations” by crude partisans like Paul Krugman supersede the language of statutes, we no longer live under the rule of law.

    Hate to tell ya, John, but The Rule Of Law died some time ago.

    This is the problem: People on our side still haven’t woken the f’ up.

  18. If I was as stupid as the left thinks I am, I would start using their “I misspoke” strategy.

    Me: “Wow! How did a moronic mouth-breather like you get to be a manager? Who did you sleep with?”

    Supervisor: “Excuse me?”

    Me: “Oh, I’m sorry. I misspoke.”

  19. And the way to [beat back leftist social engineers] would be for the RNC to cut an advertisement that shows this smug jaggoff Gruber admitting that an already wildly unpopular — and soon to be more so, as lesser than expected enrollment figures force dramatic increases in premiums and deductibles — “signature” piece of Obama legislation was written precisely to fool them, to take advantage of their lack of political sophistication and to tout an intentional lack of transparency as a stroke of policy genius.

    Sure. If by beating back leftist social engineering you mean taming leftist social engineering so that it’s more palatable to Republican leaning business interests.

    He cynically observed.

  20. There’s too much money in it now. It’s never gonna go away. All those fresh faces in congress are going to be taught by the old dogs how to get their nut without letting on. Like Liberace.

  21. – At least Liberace was a good dresser.

  22. – Philae has landed on the comet – History is made, and in the words of Edward R. Morrow, you were there.

  23. There’s too much money in it now.

    What’s the money worth? What will it be worth in 2016?

  24. – Rut roo….Although it has been confirmed that Philae had a very soft landing on the surface of the comet, the anchors failed to deploy, which means the probe is not necessarily firmly on the ground and could be drifting slowly. The anchors will be tried again shortly.

    The next event on the schedule is for pictures taken during the landing procedure to be received and processed for viewing. It takes approximately 28 minutes for the radio signals to reach earth, and the same for radio commands to reach the lander from earth.

  25. – An album of pictures taken so far during the Rossetta mission.

  26. – Opps, Gruber did it before. He really, really thinks we’re stupid. Looking at the asshole sitting in the WH I’d be hard put to argue with him.

    – BTW, apparently there is some evidence the CBO may also be complicit in the scam.

  27. “All those fresh faces in congress are going to be taught by the old dogs how to get their nut without letting on. Like Liberace.”

    I don’t get it.

    Help, please.

  28. The CBO is always complicit.

    They’re good servants of their masters that way.

    Perhaps even non-partisan.

  29. “Sweet Rosetta Fart she thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan…”
    ~ j lennon ~

  30. Pingback: On Saving America — What To Do? | The Camp Of The Saints

  31. All the geese around her head created cumin, so she has retired her van.

  32. geoffB,

    His theory is that the Affordable Care Act suffers from a “typo” that should be corrected by the courts

    Isn’t that what the Proggies have been saying about the 2nd Amendment for decades?

  33. Pingback: From Around the Blogroll | The First Street Journal.