Quotes of the day

posted at 8:01 pm on June 24, 2012 by Allahpundit

With the Supreme Court likely to render judgment on President Obama’s health care law this week, the White House and Congress find themselves in a position that many advocates of the legislation once considered almost unimaginable.

In passing the law two years ago, Democrats entertained little doubt that it was constitutional. The White House held a conference call to tell reporters that any legal challenge, as one Obama aide put it, “will eventually fail and shouldn’t be given too much credence in the press.”…

“It led to some people taking it too lightly,” said a Congressional lawyer who like others involved in drafting the law declined to be identified before the ruling. “It shouldn’t strike anybody as a close call,” the lawyer added, but “given where we are now, do I wish we had focused even more on this? I guess I would say yes.”…

Adversaries said the law’s proponents had been too attentive to liberal academics who shaped public discussion. “There’s very little diversity in the legal academy among law professors,” said Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor and a leading thinker behind the challenge. “So they’re in an echo chamber listening to people who agree with them.”

***

Some prominent legal scholars say a series of tactical decisions by President Obama’s legal team may have hurt the chances of saving his landmark health-care legislation from being gutted by Supreme Court conservatives…

Obama, a former constitutional law instructor, and White House lawyers helped shape a legal strategy essentially portraying health care as a unique marketplace that Congress, under the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause, could regulate by imposing the requirement that consumers buy insurance before receiving treatment or pay a penalty…

The critics say the administration failed to fully develop arguments tailored to the court’s conservative members, who often look to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers for guidance. The critics represent a small but influential group of scholars who believe that this “originalist” thinking — typically dismissed by the left as outmoded and dangerous to modern precedents such as the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling — could be used effectively to defend liberal laws. Some say that Obama, who has criticized the originalist view, and lawyers in his administration may have decided for ideological reasons to steer clear of a conservative-seeming argument — a suggestion deemed absurd by administration officials.

***

[E]ven if the White House is a fortress of message discipline, it cannot disguise the potential heartbreak for Mr. Obama, who managed to achieve a decades-old Democratic dream despite long odds and at steep cost.

If he loses both his law and re-election, many will conclude “that he bet on his major reform, and the Supreme Court defeated it, and he lost his hold on the presidency,” Robert Dallek, the presidential historian, said in an interview…

As the brutal fight continued, the president sacrificed more and more in its name: an overhaul of energy and environmental laws, greater focus on economic issues, some of his own popularity and that of House Democrats, who eventually lost their hard-won majority. “Michelle and I are perfectly comfortable if we’re only here one term if we feel like we really accomplished something,” he told aides…

If the court strikes down the mandate and Mr. Obama wins in November, he could face one last version of his perpetual choice on health care: would he settle, learning to live with a sharply edited law? (Given that Republicans see the bill as a signature piece of big-government overreach, he might have no choice.) Or would he expend yet more precious capital on health care?

***

But the fact is that if the mandate falls next week, nothing will happen. Then the next week, nothing will happen. Nothing again the week after that, and nothing will continue to happen for the next 70 weeks, which is roughly when the bulk of the law takes effect. In the meantime, Congress can do something, or it can do nothing, Democratically controlled states can step in, or not. If lawmakers move aggressively and fix it in advance, great. If they don’t and then in 2014 the reforms start to wobble, Congress will do something, or a lot of states will pass their own laws to broaden the risk pools, and things will settle down. That’s my hunch at least — that if the policy becomes unsustainable, then the politics of not fixing it will be unsustainable too.

Presumably that’s why President Obama’s telling his supporters he might have to “revisit” health care in his second term, rather than, say, in the middle of the campaign, when he’ll probably want to avoid using the word “mandate” altogether. If he loses, then of course the mandate’s probably dead. But in that case, it stands to reason that the mandate and much of the rest of the law will vanish anyway, regardless of what the Court does. Which I guess is a long way of saying there’s an appeal to both approaches but it’s the sort of problem that, perhaps inelegantly, will eventually solve itself.

***

I expect, as I think most of us do, an unfriendly decision (from the Democratic point of view) on the health-care law. Can’t yet say how unfriendly; at the very least, an overturning of the individual mandate, and maybe more. Assuming that’s correct, the question immediately becomes how the president and the Democrats should respond. There’s very little they can do legislatively. But I’ll be watching for rhetoric, tone, even body language. And on those counts, they had damn well better dispense with the usual liberal woe-is-me hand-wringing and shoulder slumping and come out swinging. They had better communicate to their base that they stand for something, it’s important to them, and they’re pissed. And if they do it the right way, they can make the Supreme Court an issue this fall in a way that might even persuade some swing voters that the court overstepped its bounds. I’d go so far as to say that an aggressive response can reset and reframe the whole health-care debate, once Americans have had their minds focused on this by a blatantly partisan court…

[Obama] needs to stand up there and get mad. The law may be unpopular, but he and the Democrats are stuck with it, and being stuck with it, they need to stick by it. Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it. If that isn’t legislating from the bench, what is? Mr. Cool needs to get Hot. Against unanimous and ferocious opposition, and in the face of blatant lies about what this bill would and would not do, he and the Democrats came up with a way for people with cancer and diabetes and what have you to get the treatment they need and not be either turned away or gouged. He’s proud of that, he ought to say, and by God, he’s going to fight for it. That provision of the law is wildly popular—85 percent supported that, in a late-March New York Times survey. If you can’t play offense with 85 percent of the people behind you, I give up.

***

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

***

Via Mediaite.


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 9

thank god, koolaid is busy with jojo

RickB on June 24, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Fingers: crossed.

cynccook on June 24, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I hope he fails…

OmahaConservative on June 24, 2012 at 8:04 PM

“Bracing for impact?”

at first, I thought this was a SMOD thread…..

ted c on June 24, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Tomorrow?

The suspense.

Electrongod on June 24, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Some prominent legal scholars say a series of tactical decisions by President Obama’s legal team may have hurt the chances of saving his landmark health-care legislation from being gutted by Supreme Court conservatives…

I blame the messaging./

ted c on June 24, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I have a good feeling about this, plus I have a good roll and a good bracing technique. Kayak talk for those of you wondering.

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:07 PM

I’ve got every part of my body crossed, especially my guts.

Kill this evil edict!

Rixon on June 24, 2012 at 8:07 PM

If this goes down, the Tea Party is vindicated as a political force, no?

ted c on June 24, 2012 at 8:07 PM

I hope it’s tomorrow – the waiting is torture.

gophergirl on June 24, 2012 at 8:08 PM

From the last quote:

I’d go so far as to say that an aggressive response can reset and reframe the whole health-care debate, once Americans have had their minds focused on this by a blatantly partisan court….

…Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it. If that isn’t legislating from the bench, what is?

He conveniently ignores the fact that Americans had their minds focused on the blatantly partisan ObamaCare and vehemently protested it at town halls and other venues.

As for the way the law was passed! Another complete lie. The people’s representatives ignored the will and protest of the people to the extent that Olympia Snowe had to imagine history had called her up, and Harry Reid had to go with the Demon Pass at Christmas time in order to pull this one over on U.S. citizens.

INC on June 24, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Presumably that’s why President Obama’s telling his supporters he might have to “revisit” health care in his second term

good luck with that one champ.

there ain’t gonna be no ‘second term.’

ted c on June 24, 2012 at 8:08 PM

“It led to some people taking it too lightly,” said a Congressional lawyer who like others involved in drafting the law declined to be identified before the ruling.

I know that I’m being petty but I am so tickled by this.

Cindy Munford on June 24, 2012 at 8:09 PM

i’d love to see the taunting melting bunny posted at 0830 in the morning and just played on loop all day……

just for laughs.

or …Ickey Woods doin’ an end zone dance.

ted c on June 24, 2012 at 8:09 PM

gophergirl on June 24, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Yes, it is…

OmahaConservative on June 24, 2012 at 8:10 PM

[Obama] needs to stand up there and get mad. The law may be unpopular, but he and the Democrats are stuck with it, and being stuck with it, they need to stick by it. Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it.


The best chance for an election tsunami rests on Obama and other Democrats being stupid enough to take this advice.

Obama may well be so inclined.

I think the bulk of Democrats will be more pragmatic and begin to openly oppose the President pursuing a demonization of the Supreme Court.

PolAgnostic on June 24, 2012 at 8:12 PM

[E]ven if the White House is a fortress of message discipline,

Hahahahahahahahaha!! Stop you’re killing me! Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Cindy Munford on June 24, 2012 at 8:12 PM

6-3 the mandate is unlawful.
5-4 to strike the whole thing down.

SouthernGent on June 24, 2012 at 8:12 PM

1 word: Kelo

Rio Linda Refugee on June 24, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it.

Did these Dems represent the People?

Apparently not…hence the reason we are having this debate.

Jeeze.

Electrongod on June 24, 2012 at 8:13 PM

If this is gutted, that monstrosity of a gavel Pelosi marched around with should be used to light a celebratory bonfire in the middle of the Mall.

INC on June 24, 2012 at 8:13 PM

I’ll believe they side with Individual Liberty if/when I see it.

….after all, at it’s core Obamacare would grow the power/scope and influence to nothing ever seen in American History.

Every single part of our lives can/will be regulated in the name of the health of the collective.

Biden was right, if upheld this dwarfs the achievements of Wilson and FDR. It’s on par with the Civil War or maybe even worse.

How ironic that if Obama wins his signature battle and he could lose re-election.

PappyD61 on June 24, 2012 at 8:14 PM

So why are all these “quotes” from liberal sources???

WryTrvllr on June 24, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Thursday is the last day the court is in session until October. My gut is that the AZ immigration case is announced tomorrow and Healthcare will be Thursday.

Dear Lord, please uphold AZ and strike down the O-care.

Rixon on June 24, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passedbeen so unpopular and yet shoved up the peoples asp by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it.

Rio Linda Refugee on June 24, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court Congress taken never even read a law duly passed rubber stamped by people’s representatives a single political party using extraordinary procedural maneuvers to get it passed and in just two years’ time invalidated it been struck down by the people.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 24, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Big week for Sh!tlerMcSandTrap
ObamaCare ruling coming in.
Arizona immigration ruling coming in.
Erich Meerkat vote for contempt in the House.

Gird your loins.

the new aesthetic on June 24, 2012 at 8:15 PM

once Americans have had their minds focused on this by a blatantly partisan court…

So the majority of citizens who never wanted this bill in the first place are all of the sudden going to hate SCOTUS? That doesn’t make sense. Besides the Left has been beating that horse for a long long time.

Cindy Munford on June 24, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Biden was right, if upheld this dwarfs the achievements of Wilson and FDR. It’s on par with the Civil War or maybe even worse.

How ironic that if Obama wins his signature battle and he could lose re-election.

PappyD61 on June 24, 2012 at 8:14 PM

If upheld it’s on par with the Enabling Act and Nuremberg Laws. It is evil. Maybe not on par with Hitler’s Germany, but it is evil and the road to immiseration and hard tyranny. Kill it!

Rixon on June 24, 2012 at 8:16 PM

In passing the law two years ago, Democrats entertained little doubt that it was constitutional.

That’s odd, I seem to recall Republicans shouting at the top of their lungs that it was unconstitutional.

John the Libertarian on June 24, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Here is the fundamental way that you are wrong, Tomasky:

Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it.

The “people’s representatives” had very little to do with the shaping and passing of that atrocity. It was written behind closed doors by partisan hacks, misrepresented in its entirety, crammed down American citizens’ throats, and “deemed” passed. The whole way that the abortion of Obamacare was executed was invalid.

onlineanalyst on June 24, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Will it go down … all the way ?

stenwin77 on June 24, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Please let it be tomorrow-both Spawn and I are off and can hopefully savor the victory!

annoyinglittletwerp on June 24, 2012 at 8:18 PM

This country is maximum 20% liberal. And 2/3 of the country hate this law.

Do the math, MFM.

Rixon on June 24, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Won’t be until Thursday. They will release the other 4 tomorrow, saving the big one til last. They know there will be a big uproar no matter the ruling.

Barred on June 24, 2012 at 8:19 PM

If he loses both his law and re-election, many will conclude “that he bet on his major reform, and the Supreme Court defeated it, and he lost his hold on the presidency reality and constitutionality,” Robert Dallek, the presidential historian, said in an interview…

These are not historians but rather Obama excusers.

History is what happened, not what one wishes would have happened.

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2012 at 8:20 PM

I hope this crap sandwich lands hard on his plate at the same time that Eric Holder gets charged with contempt.

Merry Christmas backatcha!!

ted c on June 24, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Meanwhile, JugEarMcPurpleLips played his 101th round of golf today.

Bush played a total of 24 from 2001-2003 and never played another round after 2003 because he felt it would be disrespectful to our troops fighting in combat.

the new aesthetic on June 24, 2012 at 8:22 PM

I think the decision will be 7-2 to affirm the trial court’s decision in part and 5-4 to declare the individual mandate and the Medicaid portion cannot be severed. I still wouldn’t be surprised if Breyer thinks the Medicaid portion is unconstitutional, but I suspect he is okay with the individual mandate.

txmomof6 on June 24, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Leftists care about popular opinion as they care about free speech…only when it is in unison with their Utopian idiotic ‘dreams’.

They consider judges the same way.

This is America, circa 2012, for utter shame.

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2012 at 8:24 PM

In passing the law two years ago, Democrats entertained little doubt that it was constitutional.

More accurately stated, they didn’t seem to care if it was Constitutional or not.

FloatingRock on June 24, 2012 at 8:24 PM

I pray that this clownish administration embraces the Michael Tomasky response.

NotCoach on June 24, 2012 at 8:24 PM

“legislating from the bench” is not striking down unconstitutional law but allowing unconstitutional law to stand. Maybe you forget the purpose of the Supreme Court is to ensure that laws do not violate constitution rights and to settle legal disputes based on the constitution !

alQemist on June 24, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Supporters Slow to Grasp Health Law’s Legal Risks
By PETER BAKER

“Are you serious?”

Yes we are.

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:25 PM

More accurately stated, they didn’t seem to care if it was Constitutional or not.

FloatingRock on June 24, 2012 at 8:24 PM

They see the constitution as a medium for yeast.

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2012 at 8:25 PM

FloatingRock on June 24, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Are you cereal??

NotCoach on June 24, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Wow..Early QOTD thread!!..:)

Dire Straits on June 24, 2012 at 8:25 PM

If One-bama Death Care is defeated then it shows that God still smiles on our country. It shows that we have not extinguished the light of liberty.

There will be no time for gloating as the hordes of angry Left-wing barbarians will be fired up to see One-bama reelected so he can take another crack at killing our healthcare system.

Never
Give
Up.

NickDeringer on June 24, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Hillary Rosen pretty much summed up the leftist line. They’ll be sticking with their Dreams of single payer…and they’ll sabotage everything else…that’s what they’ve done for 50 years, so they’ll continue course

btw…just so everyone doesn’t start doing any end-zone dances wrt barry in Nov, there’s this

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obama-s-victory-plan_647787.html

the left has a strategy of Coalitions of POWER…okay?

there are a bazillion ways to manage/lever power…take Phrama. cronyism and patronage are Powerful tools. our county has become pretty much a clientele driven country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clientelism

A key to understanding clientelism might lie in stressing not only the mutually beneficial relationships of exchange but also asymmetries in power or standing. Implied is a certain selectivity in access to key resources and markets. Those with access, the patrons (and/or sometimes sub-patrons or brokers) rely on the subordination and dependence of the clients. In return for receiving some benefits the clients should provide political support. Clientelism as a strategy of political organisation is substantially different from other strategies which rely on appeals to wider programmatic objectives or simply emphasize higher degrees of competence.

r keller on June 24, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Heads are sure to explode all over the place. Wish I could be a fly on the wall in dingy Harrah’s and Nanzi’s offices when the ruling coes down. Good Times…

OmahaConservative on June 24, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Obama, a former constitutional law instructor

Yeah, ain’t “Affirmative Action” wonderful? No wonder our institutions of higher learning SUCK so much.

GarandFan on June 24, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Cindy Munford on June 24, 2012 at 8:16 PM

OT:..What is/was your opinion of former Governor of Virginia Jim Gilmore?..:)

Dire Straits on June 24, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Obama’s legal tactics seen as possibly hurting chances to save health-care law

By Peter Wallsten, Published: June 23

gutted by Supreme Court conservatives.

Like a fish.

After the oral arguments

Ah, the all the way down part. Wasn’t quite sure what stenwin77 was talking about until I read the whole article. Dang stenwin77 you are a very fast reader. ; )

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:31 PM

ObamaCare hanging by a thread – Islamists Take Control of Egypt – Attorney General Held in Contempt… Obama Goes Golfing…

idesign on June 24, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Wow..Early QOTD thread!!..:)

Dire Straits on June 24, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Its still light, your computer glitch fixed? Cause this site is still screwy with java issues.

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:32 PM

First!

minnesoter on June 24, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it.

The idiocy from these foaming-at-the-mouth liberals would be laughable if they didn’t wield such influence.

All this talk of “heartbreak” and “sacrifice” for Obama is ridiculous too. It’s as if nobody was alive when this law was passed. Nobody remembers how politically impossible it would have been to squeeze through anything anymore big-government than what they did.

Don’t let them forget – they’ve always been in the wrong. Whatever SCOTUS says this week doesn’t change that.

JDF123 on June 24, 2012 at 8:34 PM

I’ll bet 5-4 narrows the Commerce clause also.

NaCly dog on June 24, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Are we still reading it to see what’s in it. Or did we just give up on that? Sounded to me last time I checked the SCOTUS wasn’t too smitten with all that reading.

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Good evening sir!!..My computer problems are solved!!..:)

PS..Where were you last night??..:)

Dire Straits on June 24, 2012 at 8:36 PM

The suspense is killing me.

Terrye on June 24, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:35 PM

That may have p!ssed em’ off more than anything…

OmahaConservative on June 24, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Let this be a lesson to any future president to never diss a SCOTUS decision during a state of the union address. Big mistake. Huge.

TxAnn56 on June 24, 2012 at 8:37 PM

I think they will reveal it on Thursday!!..:)

Dire Straits on June 24, 2012 at 8:37 PM

In passing the law two years ago, Democrats entertained little doubt that it was constitutional.

Poker face.

Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it.

Well then they failed in those cases where they should have been involved sooner.

If that isn’t legislating from the bench, what is?

Nobody light a match . Lots of strawmen here.

CW on June 24, 2012 at 8:38 PM

The White House held a conference call to tell reporters that any legal challenge, as one Obama aide put it, “will eventually fail and shouldn’t be given too much credence in the press.”…

That’s right, Washington politburo press corps. Don’t worry your pretty little heads over it.

minnesoter on June 24, 2012 at 8:39 PM

“Michelle and I are perfectly comfortable if we’re only here one term if we feel like we really accomplished something,” he told aides…

And we hope you both are one term AND accomplish nothing.

We’ll be perfectly comfortable with that.

kim roy on June 24, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it.

And the political memes continue to flow.

Everyone who was older than the age of “d’uh” when “Ocare” was “passed” knows it wasn’t read before being voted on by members of Congress — that their votes on this was by political party and political favors owed or expected and not based upon what the legislation actually contained.

And now the Democrats poised to condemn the Supreme Court “if” their mess is thwarted is the essence of pitiful incompetence, and that includes Barry The Dog Eater threatening his need of a second term to resurrect one of his monsters (“OCare”).

Whatever the outcome, decision tomorrow or soon after by the S.C, we the people have certainly been provided with so much evidence that the Left, Obama, the Democrats, the Maine sisters and a few others among the GOP, that they’re scurrilous people without the best interests of this nation among their goals. I’ve never witnessed such unbridled suckage by members of the Left and that’s saying a lot, given their abundant history of being often irrational and predictably misleading.

Lourdes on June 24, 2012 at 8:40 PM

PS..Where were you last night??..:)

Dire Straits on June 24, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Glad you got it fixed up. Beer in the keyboard is tough. Lol! ; ) It is such a pain in the arse to comment from the ipad thingy with the java issues I just turned java off and read along with you all. I was here but only as a lurker. I wish the site would get the code for their ads with java straightened out. Tonight, at least for a bit I’m hanging down at tone of the machines.

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Write and think as we say.

minnesoter on June 24, 2012 at 8:41 PM

tone=one, apparently machines don’t help my typing skills : )

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Let this be a lesson to any future president to never diss a SCOTUS decision during a state of the union address. Big mistake. Huge.

TxAnn56 on June 24, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Of all the classless things Obama has done – and he’s done a lot – I think that one will rank right up there with the top 2 or 3 when it’s all said and done.

gophergirl on June 24, 2012 at 8:42 PM

This Weeks roundtable. Anybody catch Becerra saying “In his memory” about Justice Stevens? And this is one of the liberals best and brightest?
Bacerra finished the show by asserting he cared more about families then most men in America. To which George Will replies “Who says?”. It was classic.

lowandslow on June 24, 2012 at 8:42 PM

That may have p!ssed em’ off more than anything…

OmahaConservative on June 24, 2012 at 8:36 PM

We know it did one of them. LOL!

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Good deal!!..I hope you can keep the ipad working tonight!..:)

Dire Straits on June 24, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Nobody light a match . Lots of strawmen here.

CW on June 24, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Come on CW, I’ve got a can of gas, we could burn the whole thing down. Could be fun.

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:44 PM

[Obama] needs to stand up there and get mad. The law may be unpopular, but he and the Democrats are stuck with it, and being stuck with it, they need to stick by it. Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it.

As one of the owners of the casino called The American Electorate, please, please take this advice, Team Obama. It’s time to double down, and I mean, double down. Don’t believe that crap about the odds being in favor the house, you know you can win this if you’ll just double down.

Oh, guys, Gina’s here. Need re-fills, and how do you like those legs, boys? Gina, Angel, bring ‘em some more cocktailios, on me. Gotta take care of these guys, baby, they’re big spenders.

TXUS on June 24, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Presumably that’s why President Obama’s telling his supporters he might have to “revisit” health care in his second term

This is exactly why Obama must be defeated.

Another Supreme Court Justice pick and he might feel empowered to “revisit” 0care II.

redridinghood on June 24, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Something I heard John Stossel say yesterday on his broadcast on FOX that I’ve often thought about exclaiming myself under the very same conditions was this…

– an obviously Leftwing physician, minority ethncity, who expressed happiness in the OCare conditions, from Stossel’s audience complained to him in a question, thus:

“Why is it being called ‘Obamacare’ and not called by it’s real name, ‘The Affordable Care Act’?”

Stossel responded:

“Why not just call EVERYthing by names such as that? (How about) the Happiness Law or…”

Lourdes on June 24, 2012 at 8:44 PM

I hope you can keep the ipad working tonight!..:)

Dire Straits on June 24, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Me too, but its not the ipad thingy, its the site. ; )

Bmore on June 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM

But I’ll be watching for rhetoric, tone, even body language. And on those counts, they had damn well better dispense with the usual liberal woe-is-me hand-wringing and shoulder slumping and come out swinging. They had better communicate to their base that they stand for something, it’s important to them, and they’re pissed.

And the voting public will be convinced… that such politicians are Stuck On Stupid and flooring it, in overdrive, with nitrous.

And going NOWHERE.

But, please, do self-identify so those doing such ranting can be seen for what they are.

You can’t fix stupid, but you can vote it out of office.

ajacksonian on June 24, 2012 at 8:46 PM

So when/what time do they hand down the decisions each day? Right away in the morning right?

gophergirl on June 24, 2012 at 8:46 PM

“Michelle and I are perfectly comfortable if we’re only here one term if we feel like we really accomplished something,” he told aides…

And we hope you both are one term AND accomplish nothing.

We’ll be perfectly comfortable with that.

kim roy on June 24, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Ha! Yeah, that is one grueling quote. They’re perfectly comfortable! I daresay. And that all that this is about right? Obama and his missus being regularly amused & comfortable.

minnesoter on June 24, 2012 at 8:47 PM

So when/what time do they hand down the decisions each day? Right away in the morning right?

gophergirl on June 24, 2012 at 8:46 PM

( AM Central time I believe…

OmahaConservative on June 24, 2012 at 8:47 PM

( AM Central time I believe…

OmahaConservative on June 24, 2012 at 8:47 PM

9

OmahaConservative on June 24, 2012 at 8:48 PM

More idiocy from Becerra on this week. Will reads a section of an article by some columnist bitching about how hard women have it. Becerra answers by claiming that that wasn’t what she was saying, Will again replies “It was a direct quote”. Man that guy is stupid.

lowandslow on June 24, 2012 at 8:51 PM

The basics about “OCare” that the Left either is too dumb to understand or is intentionally omitting from all discussions about their demands for “free healthcare” is…

“More” people may be “insured” but they won’t be getting any more medical care. One can (and via OCare, if it stands, will) be walking around in “Affordable Care” land with knowledge of being insured, but they won’t find any actual medical care to speak of, or if found, be able to receive it.

OCare promises “insurance for more people” but it reduces if not eliminates a great deal of opportunities for actual medical care for them.

THUS, the few doctors who were on Stossel’s show yesterday on Fox who were enthusiastic about OCare were all trying to keep pushing the “preventative care approach.”

More people with that “insurance” will be being advised and pulses checked and similar but they’ll not be being fully informed about their possible cancers or how to treat them, or, if informed, those treatments won’t be available.

Thus, those “insured” will go away knowing they’ve received “preventative care,” some aspirins and perhaps a prescription for meditation at Joe’s Med. Shop and a list of possible books they may find “helpful,” but that’ll be the extent of the “medical” response by a foreign-educated physician.

Lourdes on June 24, 2012 at 8:51 PM

brand new government run health clinics opening up brand new buildings, with more to come in different cities. the dems are spending the obamacare bucks like drunken sailors.

where are mcconnel and boehner?

renalin on June 24, 2012 at 8:53 PM

“Michelle and I are perfectly comfortable if we’re only here one term if we feel like we really accomplished something,” he told aides…

A CRESCENDO of applause will greet those two leaving the White House this January 2013. The applause will be in happiness and thankfulness that these two are leaving.

Lourdes on June 24, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Wow..Early QOTD thread!!..:)

Dire Straits on June 24, 2012 at 8:25 PM

I know! It’s like they’re trying to hurry us or something.

minnesoter on June 24, 2012 at 8:54 PM

If this is gutted, that monstrosity of a gavel Pelosi marched around with should be used to light a celebratory bonfire in the middle of the Mall.

INC on June 24, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Nice idea but I have some rougher ideas involving the more visible dems who were gloating. Is drawn and quartered too nice?

arnold ziffel on June 24, 2012 at 8:54 PM

“Michelle and I are perfectly comfortable if we’re only here one term if we feel like we really accomplished something,” he told aides…

And isn’t that special. And he still has h*ll to look forward to.

Lourdes on June 24, 2012 at 8:55 PM

If he loses both his law and re-election, many will conclude “that he bet on his major reform, and the Supreme Court defeated it, and he lost his hold on the presidency,” Robert Dallek, the presidential historian, said in an interview…

No, ultimately the left will conclude, wrongly, that the law was struck down because he’s black. In the end, it will be about race, bigotry and right~wing radicalism fostered by activist SCOTUS judges.

Even now, Obama is oblivious to the fact that the election is about the economy, NOT his insane health mandate.

Hope that clarifies things for the confused.(As if you didn’t already know).

DevilsPrinciple on June 24, 2012 at 8:55 PM

OmahaConservative on June 24, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Thanks my friend

gophergirl on June 24, 2012 at 8:56 PM

– an obviously Leftwing physician, minority ethncity, who expressed happiness in the OCare conditions, from Stossel’s audience complained to him in a question, thus:

“Why is it being called ‘Obamacare’ and not called by it’s real name, ‘The Affordable Care Act’?”

Stossel responded:

“Why not just call EVERYthing by names such as that? (How about) the Happiness Law or…”

Lourdes on June 24, 2012 at 8:44 PM

“Why is it being called ‘Obamacare’ and not called by it’s real name, ‘The Affordable Care Act’?”

Because it’s anything but affordable…

DevilsPrinciple on June 24, 2012 at 8:59 PM

gophergirl on June 24, 2012 at 8:56 PM

You are welcome, darlin’

OmahaConservative on June 24, 2012 at 9:00 PM

The whole way that the abortion of Obamacare was executed was invalid.

onlineanalyst on June 24, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Good point but the fact that Heller (2nd amendment case) was 5-4 leaves little arnold scared sheetless.

arnold ziffel on June 24, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Jesus Christ, if it ain’t joana, it’s Lourdes.

Lanceman on June 24, 2012 at 9:00 PM

And isn’t that special. And he still has h*ll to look forward to.

Lourdes on June 24, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I hope it’s the more fun part of Dante’s story.

arnold ziffel on June 24, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Lanceman on June 24, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Lourdes is okay.
joana’s a twit.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 24, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 9