Video: Guess who predicted the ObamaCare ruling?

posted at 12:55 pm on February 1, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I’ll give you a couple of hints. First, he’s a famous Constitutional scholar.  Second, he’s rumored to be the smartest elected official evah.  Third, he, er, obviously doesn’t take his own advice.  Gretchen Carlson from Fox & Friends introduces this clip that shows Barack Obama almost eerily framing the very argument that Judge Robert Vinson used to overturn Obama’s signature legislation, from an appearance in February 2008 on Ellen DeGeneres’ daytime talk show (via Greg Hengler, h/t Vayapaso):

Obama was specifically rebutting the individual mandate in Hillary Clinton’s health-care proposal:

She’s have the government force every individual to buy insurance, and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance.  It’s that they can’t afford it …

Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody buy a house, and that, you know, and that would solve, you know, the problem of homelessness.  It doesn’t.

CNS has a longer clip, in case the one above is a little dodgy. It also contains his entire answer, although that shows the edit on the first to be fair:

Nor was that the only time Obama made that argument.  Earlier that same month, he told CNN the same thing:

OBAMA: Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

Judge Vinson actually references the latter example in a footnote in his opinion overturning ObamaCare, warning against an overbroad reading of the Commerce Clause:

The problem with this legal rationale, however, is it would essentially have unlimited application. There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort. The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that — when aggregated with similar economic decisions — affect the price of that particular product or service and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To be sure, it is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not.23

So it turns out that Obama actually is a Constitutional scholar … or, rather, he was.


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 3

0bozo’s entire precedentcy is null and void.

moonbatkiller on February 1, 2011 at 12:57 PM

What’s worse, to be ignorant of the Constitution or to know it but act against it?

JonPrichard on February 1, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Heh.

UltimateBob on February 1, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Man, with principles like that, who needs principles. Right, PR?

*crickets*

Good Solid B-Plus on February 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM

So it turns out that Obama actually is a Constitutional scholar … or, rather, he was.

Indeed. If he were all-knowing and smart he’d realize the irony and his contradictions.

Hypocrisy is indignant.

Schadenfreude on February 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Obama didn’t let the ink dry after rewriting his version the Constitution.

Kini on February 1, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Obama, the man who never met a principle he liked well enough to stick with. I guess he’d call it flexibility, I tend to think of it as screaming hypocrisy.

jeanie on February 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM

It’s a shelf life thingey. Too difficult to fully explain here.

a capella on February 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM

He was for the Constitution before he was against it.

halfastro on February 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM

VOID…

d1carter on February 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM

But by forcing everyone to buy into it, it reduces costs so that everyone wants to buy into it so that the government doesn’t have to force more people to buy into it…You learn to love the Big Brother’s mandates so they become more of a privelege, really.

BlueCollarAstronaut on February 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Is it 2012 yet? I would like someone who is not an enemy of the Constitution to be President. Someone who is qualified would be nice too…..

adamsmith on February 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM

words…just words.

DrAllecon on February 1, 2011 at 1:06 PM

I’ll believe he was a Constitutional scholar when we all get to see his transcripts. He was probably just a lunch lady.

Key West Reader on February 1, 2011 at 1:08 PM

I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available.

Yeah, like Rent Control. Instead of mandating people buy houses, which is dumb, we mandate that people rent out their property below the price they think it’s worth. See how much smarter that is?

Socratease on February 1, 2011 at 1:08 PM

why…it’s almost as if Obama had no idea what’s in the bill he signed.

joeindc44 on February 1, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Rush is talking about this right now.

sicoit on February 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Oh, right, he’s a constitutional scholar…

Does any one have the link to the great big scholarly article he wrote or the book on the law he wrote?

joeindc44 on February 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM

You just know he’s boiling with embarrassment and anger right now. Judge Vinson’s language and quotes of Obama, and FNC replaying that clip shows Obama for the total fool he is. What a laughing stock.

JimP on February 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Asking for thoughts on this – if the Obama administration willfully disregards Vinson’s ruling and proceeds with implementation (assuming they don’t get a stay) – are they proceeding out of stupidity or because they just don’t care what the court’s holding says?

To me this is a serious issue because if they’re willing to disregard Vinson’s ruling, then what happens if they disregard the SC if they concur with Vinson? Something in my gut says that they’ll go forward (because they want to) and force a crisis because to do otherwise would go against Obama’s pledge to “level the playing field” for the “little guy”. Or maybe this is a warning shot to the SC that they plan to go forward no matter what – so in the interest of avoiding a Constitutional crisis – how about just see it our way?

volnation on February 1, 2011 at 1:11 PM

he is going to blame Hillary for this and say that the healthcare garbage was her idea and was the reason she agreed to be Sec of State. And then he will look really bad

ConservativePartyNow on February 1, 2011 at 1:12 PM

He really is the Worst President Ever.

John the Libertarian on February 1, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Obviously just winning the future.

rogerb on February 1, 2011 at 1:13 PM

FNC replaying that clip shows Obama for the total fool he is. What a laughing stock.

JimP on February 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM

he was against the mandate before he was for it.

ConservativePartyNow on February 1, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Obama was specifically rebutting the individual mandate in Hillary Clinton’s health-care proposal:

Oh, the shock! The hypocrisy! A politician making a stoooopid point he later has to walk back. Your ferocious death-grip on the obvious knows no bounds, Mr. HotAirhead.

bifidis on February 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Pinochio LIED?

He will have to tell the court HE LIED when he said that!

Like the idea that the mandate was not a tax!

He LIED!

Now in defense of the unread bill it is a Tax!

Obama Lied! Our healthcare Died!

dhunter on February 1, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Ha! What a hypocrite.

The MSM is gonna hammer him on this!

Or not.

forest on February 1, 2011 at 1:15 PM

You just know he’s boiling with embarrassment and anger right now. Judge Vinson’s language and quotes of Obama, and FNC replaying that clip shows Obama for the total fool he is. What a laughing stock

A symptom of the liberal psychosis is that counter argument or a counter fact does not exist. So, how can they get embarrassed by something that doesn’t exist. It’s just a distraction.

joeindc44 on February 1, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Obama’s opinion sucks.

/crr6

fossten on February 1, 2011 at 1:15 PM

So it turns out that Obama actually is a Constitutional scholar … or, rather, he was.
=================================

Thats a hoot!

Heres his exam questions to his students!!
—————————————–

Barack Obama Lectures on Constituonal Law

To: Students in Con.

Law III From:Barack Obama

Re: The Exam
================

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13516100/Barack-Obama-Lectures-on-Constituonal-Law

canopfor on February 1, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Just words…

Fallon on February 1, 2011 at 1:16 PM

So it turns out that Obama actually is a Constitutional scholar … or, rather, he was.

He isn’t and wasn’t.

Akzed on February 1, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Rush is talking about this right now.

sicoit on February 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM

sicoit:Affrimitive!

canopfor on February 1, 2011 at 1:17 PM

DrAllecon on February 1, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Oops.

Fallon on February 1, 2011 at 1:17 PM

bifidis on February 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Nice try. But that apple just doesn’t look like that orange.

John the Libertarian on February 1, 2011 at 1:17 PM

dear leader not liking you tube right about now

heh

cmsinaz on February 1, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Say what you will about Gov. Palin — can anyone imagine her ever being caught in such a contradiction?

horatio on February 1, 2011 at 1:19 PM

He was for the Constitution before he was against it.

halfastro on February 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Ding! Ding! Ding! My sentiments exactly. The only thing he’s rock steady on, is the march to socialism by hook or crook.

AH_C on February 1, 2011 at 1:19 PM

forest on February 1, 2011 at 1:15 PM

definite chirping crickets at the blm….they don’t want to drudge this up…

cmsinaz on February 1, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Just makin’ up the rules as he goes along. Anyone who thought barack had any moral compass was sadly mistaken.

DuctTapeMyBrain on February 1, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Rush is talking about this right now.

sicoit on February 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Pretty much the gold standard for ignoring something.

bifidis on February 1, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Rush was saying that some are trying to ‘Joe the plumber’ Judge Vinson! They are trying to find out anything they can on him to discredit his ruling.
L

letget on February 1, 2011 at 1:21 PM

The fact he knew it in 2008 but ignored it 2010 exposes him as the caviar he is. Can’t wait to say “good riddance” in January 2013…

CCRWM on February 1, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Obama was for opposing Obamacare before he was against it.

pedestrian on February 1, 2011 at 1:22 PM

the blm is crying judicial activism forget what dear leader 3 years ago…no mention of severability as well….

shocka

cmsinaz on February 1, 2011 at 1:22 PM

That prediction had an expiration date.

stevezilla on February 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM

My iPhone changed facist to caviar after trying to change it to racist!

CCRWM on February 1, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Asking for thoughts on this – if the Obama administration willfully disregards Vinson’s ruling and proceeds with implementation (assuming they don’t get a stay) – are they proceeding out of stupidity or because they just don’t care what the court’s holding says?

To me this is a serious issue because if they’re willing to disregard Vinson’s ruling, then what happens if they disregard the SC if they concur with Vinson? Something in my gut says that they’ll go forward (because they want to) and force a crisis because to do otherwise would go against Obama’s pledge to “level the playing field” for the “little guy”. Or maybe this is a warning shot to the SC that they plan to go forward no matter what – so in the interest of avoiding a Constitutional crisis – how about just see it our way?

volnation on February 1, 2011 at 1:11 PM

I suspect that if they persist then the Plaintiffs can ask for an injunction as it will become necessary at that point. The Feds can avoid this by asking for a stay of the ruling pending appeal.

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:24 PM

bifidis on February 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Nice, Larry. When will you be starting your blog back up again? We all miss it.

fiatboomer on February 1, 2011 at 1:24 PM

My iPhone changed facist to caviar after trying to change it to racist!

CCRWM on February 1, 2011 at 1:24 PM

I LOLed.

fiatboomer on February 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Oh, WordsMatter, don’t they… hehehe.

WordsMatter on February 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM

PrecedentLongLeggedMackDaddy.

davidk on February 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Youtube is acting stupidly

NY Conservative on February 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM

volnation on February 1, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Re your question, my guess, to compress things, is we will see demonstrations like Egypt if they ignore the rulings in your scenario. With this ruling the cat is out of the bag so to speak about the unConstitutionality of this law. I don’t think people will go along with a jam down.

JimP on February 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Charlatan.

BuckeyeSam on February 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM

I was against Health Care Reform, before I was for it.

Republicans eat babies.

Paul-Cincy on February 1, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Pro-tip: Authoritarians lie to your face.

lorien1973 on February 1, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Not to mention in an interview (with Stephanopolous, I think), Obama insisted the penalties for non-compliance with mandate were not taxes. (Because he had promised no new taxes for anyone below 250K year).

In the Florida suit, the government tried to rely on the taxing power, rather than the commerce clause. I think the judge brought this conflict with Obama’s statement up at oral argument.

Gotta love those Admissions by Party-Opponents.

Wethal on February 1, 2011 at 1:29 PM

karma bites Barry Hollywood. Sweet! Cameras don’t lie but politicians sure do!

GrannySunni on February 1, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Rush was saying that some are trying to ‘Joe the plumber’ Judge Vinson! They are trying to find out anything they can on him to discredit his ruling.
L

letget on February 1, 2011 at 1:21 PM

But maybe, just maybe if a lot of good American Rush listeners band together by typing a lot of crap on blogs that other good American Rush listeners read, maybe then, Judge will be saved from the commie smear campaigners?

bifidis on February 1, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Say what you will about Gov. Palin — can anyone imagine her ever being caught in such a contradiction?

horatio on February 1, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Yes, when she ran as VP she had to support McCain’s positions. They will hammer on that.

Paul-Cincy on February 1, 2011 at 1:31 PM

I’m a little suprised this clown in search of a parade isn’t over in Egypt giving a TOTUS reading to the assembled millions ala Tuscon!

The clown in search of a parade can’t draw a crowd suprised he didn’t try to hijack this one!

dhunter on February 1, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Ed, this might be one for the Obamateurism of his Presentcy.

CTSherman on February 1, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Uh, yeah, while we’re pointing things out. . .

Kettle, meet pot. Seems Skippy isn’t the only one with a memory deficit, here, as in

All Obama statements come with an expiration date

Or did someone forget that one, too, all the better to apply shock and snark, perhaps? Hmmmmm.

Wind Rider on February 1, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Youtube is acting stupidly

NY Conservative on February 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Obama to advisers: “Where do we stand on that Internet kill-switch legislation?”

BuckeyeSam on February 1, 2011 at 1:32 PM

“I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.”

HAHhHhaHAhaHAhahAHahAHaAHhaHAhaAahnhhahHAhahA….(wipes tear)

NeoKong on February 1, 2011 at 1:32 PM

“BARACK OBAMA IS A RACIS….er…shiite.”

-confused lib

Bishop on February 1, 2011 at 1:35 PM

BuckeyeSam on February 1, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Gulp. Tyrants, they always follow the same playbook. People forget that our Founders were intimately familiar with tyrants. That is why the Constitution protects us, and we should do everything in our power to protect it.

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:35 PM

But maybe, just maybe if a lot of good American Rush listeners band together by typing a lot of crap on blogs that other good American Rush listeners read, maybe then, Judge will be saved from the commie smear campaigners?

bifidis on February 1, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Why are you here?

fossten on February 1, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody buy a house, and that, you know, and that would solve, you know, the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.

Isn’t that a policy argument, not a legal argument? So why on earth was the judge using a policy in support of the proposition that the mandate is unconstitutional?

That aside, it wasn’t a wise move by the judge. It makes him look petty, and political.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM

That aside, it wasn’t a wise move by the judge Obama. It makes him look petty, and political.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM

FIFY

fossten on February 1, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Why are you here?
fossten on February 1, 2011 at 1:37 PM

She’s here to show off her new high-horse and calling everyone else here “fools”. She’s uber-smart, you know.

Bishop on February 1, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Isn’t that a policy argument, not a legal argument? So why on earth was the judge using a policy in support of the proposition that the mandate is unconstitutional?

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Where in the Constitution is the legalese for the government being able to force people to buy insurance. Clause and section only, please.

fossten on February 1, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Bishop on February 1, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Bifidus (spelled correctly) is bacteria found in the stomach. How appropriate.

fossten on February 1, 2011 at 1:42 PM

the problem Obama is facing is he actually had nothing to do with this health care bill, he outsourced it to Pelosi and Reid. He saw his participation as the “salesman” of the plan.

In one of the debates he and Clinton had, she described the role of the president to be like a CEO, Obama said he sees the role of the President to “inspire” people (or some crap like that).

This is the reason he keeps getting caught off guard when a crisis happens (BP oil spill, Egypt, etc) or when things don’t go his way (overturn Obamacare). He really isn’t involved…and this isn’t a snide, snarky comment I am making. I seriously don’t believe the man is actively engaged in the job of the Presidency. His job is to give the speeches and inspire people, while others actually do the work and make the decisions.

ramrants on February 1, 2011 at 1:46 PM

That aside, it wasn’t a wise move by the judge. It makes him look petty, and political.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM

You have a point to a certain extent. However, mentioning Obama by name is relevant in that Constitutionally he is the Executive Branch, pure and simple. I don’t recall if he is a named party, but his departments are.

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Here’s thinking he will throw Pelosi and congress under the bus on this one.He had to go along to get the bill passed.It’s not his fault.The videos prove he was against it.This will be his biggest spin yet.

docflash on February 1, 2011 at 1:48 PM

I blame the messaging.
– Axelrod

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Schadenfreude can be a beautiful thing. But it is only temporary. Real victory against the tyranny of ObamaCare™ will transcend schadenfreude and instead manifest in deep satisfaction and hope for the future.

There’s still a hard battle to be waged. Remember they shoved this down the throats of the American people because they knew if they didn’t, they would not have another chance for many years. They will defend this legislation to even more egregious lengths than they went to to pass it.

IronDioPriest on February 1, 2011 at 1:48 PM

That aside, it wasn’t a wise move by the judge. It makes him look petty, and political.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Seems to me that a couple of months ago you were telling us there was no such thing as an “activist Judge”.

Del Dolemonte on February 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Bifidus (spelled correctly) is bacteria found in the stomach. How appropriate.
fossten on February 1, 2011 at 1:42 PM

“Bifidis” in Japanese means “Woman who has never had a date”.

Bishop on February 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Where in the Constitution is the legalese for the government being able to force people to buy insurance. Clause and section only, please.

fossten on February 1, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Congress can mandate the purchase of health insurance pursuant to the Commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, clause 3).

Alternatively (and virtually no one disputes this) pursuant to the Tax and Spending clause (Article , Seciton 8, clause 1) Congress could tax citizens at a higher rate in order to fund and create its own social insurance program that it administers itself (basically, Medicare for everyone). The effect would be the same as a mandate except people would pay for government administered insurance through taxes rather than being mandated to purchase it themselves.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM

ramrants on February 1, 2011 at 1:46 PM

I think this will be Obama’s spin on why this whole thing fails if ultimately the SC upholds this ruling. He wasn’t to blame, Pelosi and Reid were. Plausible deniability or in other words, voting present. He will try, but he signed it quite happily.

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Seems to me that a couple of months ago you were telling us there was no such thing as an “activist Judge”.

Del Dolemonte on February 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM

I still don’t think that, because you’re incapable of coming up with a consistent, workable definition of one.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM

But they didn’t do it under the tax authority, even if they could have. It never would have passed that way so they tried to bootstrap it in another way and FAILED.

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Good point docflash….don’t blame me, it’s their fault

cmsinaz on February 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Congress can mandate the purchase of health insurance pursuant to the Commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, clause 3).
crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Can congress mandate that I buy brocolli? Can congress mandate that I join a health club? Can congress mandate that I buy from GM?

No? Why one and not the other?

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM

In other words, a judge AGREES with Candidate Obama said, and Obama’s handlers are saying that the judge is “outside the judicial mainstream”?

crushliberalism on February 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Congress can mandate the purchase of health insurance pursuant to the Commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, clause 3).

Alternatively (and virtually no one disputes this) pursuant to the Tax and Spending clause (Article , Seciton 8, clause 1) Congress could tax citizens at a higher rate in order to fund and create its own social insurance program that it administers itself (basically, Medicare for everyone). The effect would be the same as a mandate except people would pay for government administered insurance through taxes rather than being mandated to purchase it themselves.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM

So, if you really believe this argument, what could the government not mandate? Couldn’t they in effect mandate ANYTHING THEY WANTED, as the footnote quoted above warns.

***********

It is hilarious watching lefty commenter torture themselves into a corner over this ruling.

Keith_Indy on February 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM

“Bifidis” in Japanese means “Woman who has never had a date”.

Bishop on February 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Bishop:Bifidis must be a Community Organizer,(it)is covering
all its bases,from Jordan Next Thread!
============================================

canopfor on February 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM

canopfor, no offense, but I often don’t read your comments because it takes me too long to understand what you’re trying to convey.

You often have ======’s and *******’s and headlines, etc., and I don’t know what to focus on. If it confuses me, then it might confuse others, too.

The formatting styles used by other commenters on here seem much more intuitive.

blink on February 1, 2011 at 1:43 PM

canopfor on February 1, 2011 at 1:59 PM

In other words, a judge AGREES with Candidate Obama said, and Obama’s handlers are saying that the judge is “outside the judicial mainstream”?

crushliberalism on February 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM

I can’t wait to see the spin they put on his own words. But, what else do you expect from a crowd that speaks before thinking.

Keith_Indy on February 1, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Crushliberalism

+1

Excellent

cmsinaz on February 1, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Keith_Indy on February 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Why are you so upset about this, don’t you trust a small number of self-appointed ‘Special People’ to not overreach?

Bishop on February 1, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Another 2 points:

so, he was against it before he was for it

and, yet another broken promise from the President

Keith_Indy on February 1, 2011 at 2:05 PM

So it turns out that Obama actually is a Constitutional scholar … or, rather, he was.

Only when it comes to others policies. Not his own. Then the constitution is just a pesky, antiquated piece of paper, that no one understands anymore.

capejasmine on February 1, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Is anyone really shocked by this? He’s a lying politi-bot. Period.

Claypigeon on February 1, 2011 at 2:07 PM

So it turns out that Obama actually is a Constitutional scholar … or, rather, he was.

Perhaps he still is, Ed.
Only this would actually make him nothing more than a stinking bald face liar & con man.

Badger40 on February 1, 2011 at 2:08 PM

So he was against it, before he was for it.

Where have I heard something similar to that before?

av8tr on February 1, 2011 at 2:08 PM

BWAAAAHAAAA!!!!! Muhhuuuhaaaaaaaaa!!! AAHHHHHAAAAAA!!!!

Ahh man, the poetic justice it burns!!!!

frakkers knew AHIP would NEVER agree to waiving preex without the mandate, he spun BS all thru the primaries to take HRC down and then rammed the mandate thru after ‘closed door!!’ deals with AHIP and Big Pharma..and know his JUST WORDS are back to haunt his axx…

BWAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!

ginaswo on February 1, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3