White House: ObamaCare opponents lying by … using Obama’s own words

posted at 11:15 am on August 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The White House has decided to fight back against the release of a video by Naked Emperor News with some video warfare of its own to defend Barack Obama on his health-care reform plans.  Entitled “The Truth about Health Care Insurance Reform,” itself a change from what used to be called “health-care reform,” the video features former news reporter Linda Douglass accusing Obama’s opponents of scare tactics.  Politico’s Mike Allen reports that Douglass and the White House accuse NEN and others of “cherry picking” quotes to make Obama look as though he favors single-payer systems and wants to use the public plan as a Trojan horse to implement it:

“Hi. I’m Linda Douglass. I’m the communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform, and one of my jobs is to keep track of all the disinformation that’s out there about health-insurance reform. And there are a lot of very deceiving headlines out there right now, such as this one — take a look at this one. This one says, ‘Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will Eliminate PRIVATE Insurance.’

“Well, nothing can be farther from the truth. You know the people who always try to SCARE people whenever you try to bring them health-insurance reform are at it again. And they’re taking sentences and phrases out of context, and they’re cobbling them together to leave a VERY false impression. The truth is that the president has been talking to the American people a LOT about health-insurance reform and what is at stake for them.

“So what happens is that because he’s talking to the American people so much, there are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time, and they take a phrase here and there — they simply cherry-pick and put it together, and make it sound like he’s saying something that he didn’t really say.”

Douglass seems to have taken to her role as a propagandist rather well for someone who worked as a supposedly objective reporter for so long. How difficult is it to look through the first 64 seconds of the video Douglass attempts to rebut to find what Obama really had to say about single payer in 2003, while Obama prepared to run for the US Senate?

“I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care plans.”

Or perhaps this at 50 seconds, from 2007 while Obama was running for President:

“But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”

What did Obama say here? He says that he wants to eliminate employer coverage over a transition period, and that he favors a single-payer system. If Obama has ever walked back either of those two statements made as a candidate for two national political offices, I’ve yet to hear it. Instead of explaining some sort of evolution in Obama’s thinking on these points, Douglass attempts to propagandize by claiming that people who saw these clips didn’t hear Obama say exactly what he did. It’s the equivalent of a Jedi mind trick, only it’s the weak-minded trying to conduct the trick.

I’ve received a lot of e-mail this morning about this article, with ire directed at Mike Allen for not making more clear the disconnect between Douglass’ attack and the clips of Obama supporting single-payer health-care systems. Earlier, I contacted Allen for his response to the criticism:

The article was a news account disclosing the White House’s video response to a video that had been posted on Breitbart.tv and linked on the Drudge Report. I transcribed the part of the Breitbart video referred to in Drudge’s headline a) for clarity — so readers could see what was being debated; and b) for balance, so that we wouldn’t just have the White House side of it. And we linked to both videos, so people can make up their own minds. We’ll continue to report this story as we learn of new developments.

I think it would have helped to get more of the NEN video transcribed and into the Politico piece. However, the focus of the story was the White House pushback, which was newsworthy in itself (and a feather in NEN’s cap, needless to say). Politico could have hosted both videos as well, but that wouldn’t have been Allen’s call, anyway. They did link directly to the NEN video to give readers access to the argument.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And rather than tamping down the scandal situation, they’ve only fanned with flames with another week’s worth of questions and denials to come.

Sweet. How sweet it is.

Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“We’re not crooks – we’re incompetent” is their battlecry. The water is circling the drain, Barry.

Philly on May 19, 2013 at 3:46 PM

This.

When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

ear relevant…

driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.

kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.

savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.

However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)

What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.

(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)

AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM

I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.

Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.

tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM

Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…

Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Perfect!

lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.

bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM

If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!

SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM

If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)

He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.

Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2