“I would enact a bold energy policy because I think that we could save so much money, engineer such a resurgence in our economy and solve climate change all at one time. And it would improve our national security posture. So you get a three-fer. It helps our environment, our economy and our national security and it would free up resources over time to deal with what I think is the most important domestic issue which is health care, and I think it would help us strategically on the international stage.”Health care is in there, but only after the economy booms, freeing up money over time to make it workable to deal with health care.
Were we warned that leading from behind his party's majority in Congress, he would push through a massive health-care reform — without persuading the majority of Americans, without gaining support from the minority party, without prior economic recovery, and while plummeting hopelessly and incomprehensibly deeply into debt?
Was he stumped by that Loaf-and-Ladle question, or did he pause to carefully frame a bizarre lie? Notice that he claims his energy policy will be a "three-fer" and health care isn't one of the 3 things. The 3 things are a resurgent economy, the solution to climate change, and stronger national security. Health care is tossed in as an afterthought, and he's calling it an "important issue," not saying how he will solve it, only implying that money needs to be amassed before the issue can be approached.
As an independent who voted for Obama in 2008, looking back at that crafty answer, I feel defrauded. Maybe back then those thoughtful, elaborate answers inflated us with hope, but pulling that one apart this morning, I feel anger and disgust. What a horrible squandering of 2 terms of presidency!
"Nobody's madder than me," Obama says now. That can't be true.
No comments:
Post a Comment