Obama’s ‘Academically Approved’ Approach to Health Care
From the president’s interview with Katie Couric prior to the Super Bowl:
Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care. And didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it. And just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy.
As you can clearly see, this man’s genius is being terribly underutilized here. All of these brilliant solutions to all of these great problems, but the delivery system is unfortunately quite antiquated. And as a result we have a terrifically wise and benevolent leader who is at the moment a bit hamstrung by a process that could certainly use some streamlining.
Sure, he’s done a pretty masterful job given the restraints that the American system of government have placed on him, but this health care thing has really highlighted the regrettable fact that the Founders really only left him with so much room to maneuver. If only someone as gifted and righteous as The One were able to work freely on behalf of the common good, all would be well. After all, how could America go wrong pinning its destiny to a man that uses the word “elegant” and the phrase “academically approved” in the same sentence? You certainly weren’t going to get that from George Bush.
So you can see where a man of Obama’s brilliance would be a bit frustrated at having to get involved in such a messy legislative process. But you do have to admire his willingness to do so. As he said in his State of the Union address, he “never suggested that change would be easy” or that he could “do it alone.” He knew full well that with the checks and balances the Framers had put in place and with America’s traditional reliance on the rule of law, it was going to take some time to remake this country. Kingdoms simply aren’t created in a day, you know.
In all seriousness, though, this is really quite a statement. First off, Obama puts his freakish arrogance on display, yet again, for those on the left and right to marvel at — albeit for very different reasons. Because, you know, if left to his own devices, our president could come up with a splendid approach to health care, it would receive that all-important academic approval, and it really wouldn’t be all that difficult.
What do you expect from having a Harvard Lawyer
( affirmative action no less) trying to run Healthcare. A disaster.
By the way- I find it supremely ironic that senator Murtha’s death from surgical complications occured at the Navy Bethesda hospital- a government run institution specifically just for the elite politicians. Tells you something about government run healthcare !
It is naive of anyone to think that Obama and his gang are not capable of the same malefactions of a Stalin or a Mao. We the people should be very distrustful of them.
Well,given that Barokeydoke is an alumnus of Dickey Daley’s toilet,his disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law is hardly surprising…for years I puzzled over the nickname that Illinois had…”The Sucker State”….now all is clear.
Andy: great analysis. I agree that the POTUS is straining on his Constitutional leashes and fails to understand the axiom that “people need order, and leaders need limits.” We’re not interested in his untethered benevolence nor academical solutions to problems. Other president’s have figured out ways, Constitutional ones mind you, to tackle the nation’s tough issues within the constraints of the Constitution. In this context, the Constitution is simply another George Bush, another scapegoat and another strawman that is easily blamed for the failures of a man who has never accomplished much yet loves to spread the blame just like the wealth. The first year of his presidency has resulted in nothing but bad fruit. You know what they say about how you can judge a man from the fruit he produces.
Great column–keep it up.
The fundamental flaw that Obama is talking about is that, in his mind the United States of America is evil because it was founded and has been controlled by Caucasians and Jews by savaging blacks and other minorities.
The Constitution, nor Harvard have anything whatsoever to do with the way Obama believes and thinks. His has been a lifetime consumed by hatred; first as a Muslim educated under Islam, then as an avid practitioner of Black Liberation Theology.
Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. What Obama doesn’t understand about America is that even without the original Constitution’s restrictions we are a Representative Nation where the Will of the People, not his that will always prevail. The Constitution, as butchered and flawed as it is, protected our country from Obama and his ilk.
Look at the bright side. Jimmy Carter lived long enough to become the second dumbest and incompetent occupant of the Oval Office.
“Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care. And didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it.”
Ruh ro, more Obama *brilliance* sans ‘Prompter. It’s not too late, you know, to bring forward your idea El Presidente, at the, you know, uh, stage show on the 25th. I’ll wait for the edited transcript, I get distracted by the “you knows” and then you don’t sound elegant or academically approved.
We are SO past the point where where there have got to be more and more public responses along the lines of, “What did you just say? You’re kidding. Right??” when he says this kind of stuff.
Or complete silence. What a piece o’ work, a broken clock he ain’t.
Obama has already freed himself of the Constitution. Namely Article II, Section 1, clause 5.
Patrick @2….we know. But apparently the elected “representatives” we have in the Congress don’t. If they did, they would be using the evidence laying all around Washington to draw up Articles of Impeachment. They either agree with him and are too stupid to identify his failure to fulfill the Oath of Office of President of the United States.
Honestly, considering the things that this president has said, the things he apparently believes regarding the country, religion, and morality is it possible for any self-respecting Republican to get on board with whatever he might sell, now or in the future? I think not.
Impeach, NOW !
“freakish arrogance”!
Thank you for the phrase. Apt.
But get used to it. He’s just the expression of the 60s radicals and the generations of their Federal Programs engendered look-alikes whose cascaded avalanches have buried us since the 80s.
Far too late to expect anything but worse.
One has to wonder if President Wee Wee will try to suspend the Constitution to get his way. Maybe for the 2012 election? For our own good, of course.
Y’know, Barry, maybe it would have helped if you had actually *submitted* a healthcare plan, brilliant or not, rather than subcontracting the whole thing to Nancy and the Sausage Factory.
Barack Obama is shabbily educated. He attended the Ivy League schools after they had abandoned their previous high academic standards. The affirmative action polices of the mid to late 1960s did enormous damage to the softer sciences. Obama is also a Progressive in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. He is adamantly convinced that the Ivy leagues are somewhat akin to secular monasteries. Their graduates are non-celibate priests and nuns selflessly devoted to the betterment of the overall society. The more power handed over to them will merely result in fantastic results. They obviously would never abuse it.
Of course he has disdain for the Constitution…after all, a couple of years ago he said something to the effect that the Constitution was the problem to be worked around.
This you know for sure, if it’s academically approved it automatically means it lacks even the slightest shred of practicality. If that bunch of reality hicks has anything to do with health care the US is in for more problems than they ever bargained for.
Let’s not overlook the biggest wrench of all in that elegant, academic plan — “We, the people.” Obama really needs to cut that element out of the agglomeration of negative liberties.
Obama would by no means be the first president to have a problem with the Constitution.
A quick look at the Pentagon Papers shows a string of presidents from Truman to Johnson who were accused of abandoning their oath to the Constitution in the fight against Vietnam.
Mind you, it’s not the defense of the United States that is an issue, it’s lying to the American people and subverting the rule of law. Historically from Nixon’s escalation of the war in Vietnam, to Reagan’s Iran Contra dealings to Bush’s ginned up WMD charges this has occurred.
Compared to the actions of former presidents, Obama’s musings seem quaint and refreshingly honest.
“Historically from Nixon’s escalation of the war in Vietnam, to Reagan’s Iran Contra dealings to Bush’s ginned up WMD charges this has occurred.”
1.) Nixon did not have to be deceitful to argue for the escalation of the war in Vietnam. It was in our interest to prevent a Communist takeover over that county.
2.) Reagan should have more blunt with the American people regarding our need to support the opponents of Communism in Central and South America. Instead, his administration often lied—and that cannot be defended.
3.) Bush did not lie about WMDs in Iraq. This was the consensus viewpoint held by all of the major Western countries. Furthermore, Saddam later admitted to conning them.
WTF? It was LBJ who escalated the Vietnam War, using as his initial justification a wholly fabricated ‘incident’ in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Nixon’s policy was one of “Vietnamization”- the Narrative keeps forgetting that the majority of US combat forces were already out *before* the Paris Accords.
“It was LBJ who escalated the Vietnam War”
That is not accurate. The Communists escalated the war in Vietnam. Their goal was always to forced the people of Vietnam to live under Communism. We were doing the morally right thing in defending them.
David Thompson –
1. Nixon didn’t have to be deceitful, but he was because he ran on a ticket to end the war. The facts are very clear that at the same time he publicly promised to bring troops home he secretly green-lighted operation Menu which escalated the massive bombing campaign of neighboring Laos and Cambodia. Besides being a secret (way to go MSM) from the American people, the bombing had the unintended consequence of destabilizing Cambodia with disastrous results.
3. The record is clear that US intelligence (CIA, State Department) did not originally corroborate the Bush administration’s “gut” on Iraqi 9/11 involvement nor WMD. In the face of this Cheney and the administration tapped the Office of Special Plans (OSP) to produce intelligence favorable to their goal of proceeding with an Iraqi invasion.
Much like Tonkin, the WMD issue doesn’t need to be true nor false. It’s simply propaganda to fulfill the will of the president and steamroll over any opposition. There was ample reason to support a regime change in Iraq, these facts were discarded in lieu of questionable intelligence and knee jerk political patriotism.
“…the bombing had the unintended consequence of destabilizing Cambodia with disastrous results.”
1.) You completely fail to comprehend the danger and vileness of Communism. Cambodia was the next domino to fall. It was just a matter of time. There was also no such thing as “ending the war.” The Communists never had the intention of living up to any peace agreements.
2.) Your point is absurd. Moreover, we also invaded because Saddam was playing games with the inspectors. We also know that he was merely bidding his time until able to devote more resources in developing WMDs.
In neither case did the American administration rely on lying propaganda. That is a figment of your imagination.
It’s shocking, the disdain for the Constitution evidenced by Barack Obama and his crowd of hangers on and surrogates.
You don’t even have to read very hard between the lines to catch the vibe.
If B+arack has contempt for “legislative process” (cough) relative to healthcare, he absolutely despises process in the third branch of government, the judiciary, particularly when it does something stupid like move to uphold free speech in declaring parts of McCain-Feingold unconstitutional.
When you’re arrogant and don’t really grok your own limitations, (of analysis, of insight, of job description, of capacity to make good executive decisions), you might be inclined to think it would be ever so much easier if all those other little Constitutionally mandated branches of government would simply get out of your way.
After all, how could America go wrong pinning its destiny to a man that uses the word “elegant” and the phrase “academically approved” in the same sentence?
How could America go wrong under the tutelage of an intellecktewal who doesn’t know how to pronounce “corpsmen”, thinks there are 57 states, notes he doesn’t speak “Austrian” and instructs We The Peeps to solve the oil crisis through proper inflation of our damned car tires ?
“How could America go wrong under the tutelage of an intellecktewal who doesn’t know how to pronounce “corpsmen”, thinks there are 57 states, notes he doesn’t speak “Austrian” and instructs We The Peeps to solve the oil crisis through proper inflation of our damned car tires ?”
Barack Obama is merely another mediocrity who graduated from Harvard University. He is par for the course. A Harvard soft science credential is usually a joke.
Hey,
1. WellEducatedCadMD:
“I find it supremely ironic that senator Murtha’s death from surgical complications occured at the Navy Bethesda hospital- a government run institution specifically just for the elite politicians. Tells you something about government run healthcare !”
For those of us with a cross-to-bear against Murtha, we had 999 cuts to go!
I missed that “flawed Constitution” quotation.
Unbelievable.
Oh my.
From the link at the end of this article:
“But,” Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.”
You might find a clue in the Preamble, Barack.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The federal government is constrained to serve these ends of We The People, we who ordain and establish that government and lay out its structure & function in the Articles of its Constitution.
The central idea dominating the creation of a federal government was one of delineated, limited and circumscribed, powers…what you, Barack, refer to as the “essential constraints…placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.” The notion of highly limited federal powers is not simply an “interpretation” offered up a Supreme Court at some point in our history, Barack.
…(the Constitution) doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
Perform its designated duties, stay out of the peoples’ way as they pursue their own (not your) version of happiness under protections and freedoms guaranteeing freedom from any attempt to curtail those under those nasty “negative liberties” listed in the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights.
Simple stuff, no ?
The Founders would freak out if they knew that a 21st century President was even mentioning redistribution of wealth or his own personal version of “political and economic justice” in the context of his duties serving the peoples’ ends outlined in the Preamble.
You’re just the wrong man for the job, Barack.
You need to head up a country that puts no constraints at all on your ideas as to how the people should live and work and be regulated in all aspects of their lives by some benevolent and enlightened dictator.
Obama’s main flaw is that he’s unfit to be President of the U.S.
As to his touted oratory skills, that’s a big joke. I personally with someone would tell him to quit saying “ta” for “to”.
Like LeighB and others have posted, I’m tired of hearing his “uhs” and “you knows”, his worn-out phrases, e.g. “Let me make myself…”,
and the annoying pointing finger. And there’s his windy speeches.
“… Through all, I have neither assailed, nor wrestled with any part of the constitution.
–Abraham Lincoln, October 30, 1858
For someone who claims to admire Lincoln so much, he doesn’t know the first thing about him.
A Harvard education? And this is what you get?
Harvard should be embarrassed, humiliated and take their degree back. It obviously means nothing
Slightly different take on the statement. First, “legislative fingerprints.” That’s what happened to the “stimulus” bill, which POTUS left up to congressional leaders so it wound up full of interest-group pork. That’s what happened with the latest attempt at “health care reform,” when votes had to be bought in egregious fashion (e.g. Nelson and Landrieu). And I think that’s kind of what he meant by it. No problem there.
Then he blows it: “but that’s not how it works in our democracy.” Yes, it is. The President has the ability to “come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care,” present it to Congress and ask them to pass it as is. He just won’t, because he knows they wouldn’t. He wants Pelosi and Reed to do the heavy lifting for him, and they want some kind of ‘bipartisanship’ so the democratic party doesn’t have to take all the heat.
Obama has made Constitution-disparaging statements as Andy notes. This may be one of them. Maybe not so much disparaging as just ignorant, but hard to believe he’s that ignorant. Really he’s just trying to cover his own ass with his supporters.
[I have to admit that "academically approved" bit really chaps my ass. I'm as big a fan of book learning as anyone, but does this guy honestly think the world can be ruled from the ivory tower? Even Plato wanted his philosopher-kings to live among the hoi-polloi for ten years.]
Obamanation has all the leadership skills and character of Chavez. The president sounds like a 3rd rate volunteer school crossing guard. (please excuse insult to crossing guards). Mayor David Dinkins-like one term president and then retire to the treadmill of speeches on the rubber chicken circuit and the land of forgotten men, with Bubba Clinton and Jim Carter. Big disappointment to all American citizens. With all the wonderful black Americans its a shame to have had this guy the first elected president. Shame on the Democrats.
“Although I do know that America is a republic, not a democracy.”
In a Republic, only property owners can vote.
Thus we dont have a Republic.
Tancredo touched on this at the Teaparty Convention.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but, if Mrs. Pappas idea is on target, this thing could really have legs. Have sent below to Rush, where I’m a 24/7 member. If you agree, and you have a premium membership with Sean Hannity and/or Mark Levin, please email them. Thanks
THE WAY to Really Call the Democrats’ Bluff and Save Us in the Process
Don’t just give granny a pain killer. Introduce and pass legislation that would prevent the Federal government, or any of its agencies, from harming us, killing us, or otherwise prevent us from receiving life-preserving treatment, as a matter of its operating any sort of health care system (to include the murdering of infants in the womb). Call it the Anti-Forced Euthanasia Bill, or some such.
Push for a constitutional amendment. Really raise as much stink as possible.
Credit Mary Pappas, senior citizen, Chicago, Illinois.
Thus we dont have a Republic.
The United States fits the definition of a (representative) Republic at Merriam-Webster.com, especially lb:
(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
There were, of course, restrictions on who was “entitled to vote” or serve as electors at the discretion of the individual states, while some amendments to the Constitution have moved towards universal suffrage.
Currently, the Left has various initiatives to lift the ban on voting by prisoners. And, of course, individuals in the country illegally who will be counted in the census.
Pretty soon, the voting rolls will be swollen by even more dead goldfish (not to mention dead people) than ACORN succeeded in signing up for the 2008 election.
Correction to #35 above. Should be Rose Pappas, not Mary Pappas.
Well, class: now that I have your undivided attention, let me explain:
In over 40 years in business I always admired someone with a Harvard degree. I just never hired them because they thought their degree was more important than their experience and the impression they left in the interviews.
Barack only reinforces my assessment of Harvard graduates. And who are the fools that hired him? Not me!
“But that’s not how it works in our democracy.”
He meant constitutional republic, right? He’s a constitutional lawyer (so we’ve been told) so he knows our form of government is not a democracy, it’s a republic. Right?
Regarding 29′s comment about his annoying finger-pointing gestures, it is strangely similar to Malcom X. Youtube search Malcom X giving a speech and see for yourself.
Did he not refer to terrorists as “folks”. Now my definition of folks is family, nieghbors, or friends. Where do terrorists fit in this definition. What else does this President have to say or do for the American folks to realize his true agenda.
Obama apparently missed the part where the Founding Fathers weighed in on the notion of property and wealth, etc… that part never seemed to make it into his education or was conveniently left out. To wit… it speaks volumes about the lazy lack of research on his part as a “Constitutional Professor” when he makes such statements about the Constitution not including “redistribution of wealth”… bottom line is, the reason it isn’t in there is because they didn’t believe it.
From the same site in the story above, check this out: Obama’s Thesis, Redistribution of Wealth and the Founding Fathers