Saturday, 07 December 2013


Ken Berwitz

Was President Obama involved in the creation and follow-through of ObamaCare or wasn't he?

Evidently, it depends on who you ask on what day.

-For three years Mr. Obama made speeches telling us how ObamaCare would work - and, countless times during that period, assured us that anyone who wanted to would be able to keep his/her current insurance, and continue seeing the same doctors.  Obviously the President was on top of things - hardly a surprise given that ObamaCare was his signature piece of legislation and 100% the creation of he and his fellow Democrats.

-Then, when the disastrous web site rollout occurred, Mr. Obama assured us that he had no idea things were going so badly.

-Then information surfaced that, despite having 277 meetings with various cabinet members during his presidency, Mr. Obama had exactly one face-to-face meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius - at which Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was present, suggesting the subject matter was related to costs, not the nuts and bolts of how ObamaCare was being constructed.

-Then the White House claimed that its own visitor logs were not telling the true story; that President Obama had met with Ms. Sebelius dozens of times.

Now - hardly an enemy of this President or his administration - has put out a commentary, written by Peter Schweizer, which thoroughly debunks this claim.

Here are a few excerpts (but be sure to use the link and read it all...there's a lot more):

Amid the Obama administration's endless rounds of finger-pointing and blame-shifting, scant if any attention has been paid to the amount of time and executive leadership the president personally devoted to implementing his signature legislative achievement.

"Nothing frustrates me more than when people aren't doing their jobs," Obama has said. So, with so much riding on the line, one would assume he held weekly, if not daily, one-on-one meetings with his Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to isolate problems, challenge assumptions, apply executive pressure where needed and successfully manage a project of scale.


That did not happen, at least not according to Obama's own official White House calendar.

A new Government Accountability Institute (GAI) analysis finds that from July 12, 2010, to Nov. 30, 2013, the president's public schedule records zero one-on-one meetings between Obama and Sebelius. Equally shocking, over the same period, the president's calendar lists 277 private meetings with his other Cabinet secretaries (excluding full Cabinet meetings).

To be sure, presidents exchange emails and phone calls that are not recorded on White House calendars. Still, why would the White House calendar list by name one-on-one meetings with 16 other Cabinet secretaries but omit Sebelius if other meetings with her occurred? Wouldn't Obama want to catalog for all to see his personal devotion to the law that bears his name?

UPDATE: The White House's response to the GAI calendar investigation is absurd and alarming.

Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday, "Cabinet secretaries don't regularly get entered into the visitor logs." The GAI report was not based on visitor logs; it was based on the White House's own calendar and the POLITICO presidential calendar.

Obama's calendar lists 277 one-on-one meetings between the president and his other Cabinet secretaries, including 73 with former Secretary Clinton and 57 with former Secretary Geithner. If, as Carney claims, Secretary Sebelius "is here a lot and meets with the president with regularity," why aren't they listed? How many meetings took place and when did they occur? Carney said he doesn't know.

And if Obama and Sebelius worked together closely and regularly, why did the president publicly state he did not know about the problems with

In the name of transparency, Americans deserve to know how much time President Obama personally spent over three-and-a-half years leading, managing and working alongside Secretary Sebelius on his signature achievement.

President Obama is lying to us again.  As he has lied to us about so many things during his presidency.  

He either did not meet with. Secretary Sebelius, which - given the fact that ObamaCare is his personal legislative baby and that it encompasses roughly one sixth of the total US economy - is an astounding dereliction of duty...

...or he did meet with Secretary Sebelius, which means that he is as responsible as she is for the cataclysmic disaster that is ObamaCare.

Which is it, Mr. President?

When do you stop lying to us?

And when do your Accomplice Media start honestly reporting about your, in this particular instance, has done?


Ken Berwitz

Today's Quote Of The Day honoree is none other than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had this to say about ObamaCare:

"...there are 150 million different families that get their health care through their employees," Reid said. "So should all federal employees, although under Obamacare, my insurance costs me about $4,500 more that it did before. Yes, because it is age-related and it wasn't like that before."

Fascinating, Harry.

Let's forget about the fact that the total number of households in the USA is about 120 million - and a great many of them do not have employee insurance.  Hey, what's tens of millions of people between friends?

Let's just settle on the fact that you have no problem paying $4,500 a year for your problem because, as a US senator on a US senator's salary, you have become fabulously wealthy. 

Maybe you'd like to tell us about some of those oderiferous land deals - occasionally involving your sons - that got you there.

And when you're finished dodging that issue, maybe you'd like to explain why you think that if a raise of thousands of dollars a year for insurance is as easy for someone your age (73) as it apparently is for you, it's just fine for other people your age.  Because most people your age who I am aware of would find it a tad problematic.

A combination of ignorance and obtuseness like this cannot go unrecognized.  So congratulations, Mr. Reid;  Quote Of The Day honors are yours.


Ken Berwitz

Did you know that Senate minority leader Mtch McConnell (R-KY) is a worse man than F. W. de Klerk, South Africa's last head of state during apartheid?

He must be, because yesterday, after that noted wellspring of racial and religious tolerance al sharpton said as much, Chris Matthews gushed out his effusive agreement.

Think I'm kidding?  Well, don't.  Here is the exact Matthews quote:

"I want to point out something. I haven't heard anything as smart as what I heard Reverend Sharpton say a couple minutes ago in five years. That is the most perceptive thing I've seen. It just rocks me. The difference between the way F.W. de Klerk handled the need for change and inevitable election, democratic election of Nelson Mandela, a legitimate election, truly legitimate for the first time. He was never legitimately elected. For him to recognize his role in history, which was to be a patriot at that point, is so different than the way Mitch McConnell handled the election of Obama. So different. To set it up that way, the juxtaposition, they were willing, the McConnell people onto the far right were willing to destroy the country in order to destroy Obama, whereas to succeed in a country he loved, F.W. de Klerk was willing to see it transformed to Black rule so that it could be done successfully so that he would have his country have a better future. Reverend, I owe it to you. I think that is the key statement about what happened yesterday, the loss of Mandela and what his history was about and the key statement of why this has been so poisonous the last five years. We have real people in this country with real power and status who have used that status of power to hurt the country so they could hurt the president. That's the most damning assessment I've heard and I think the truest."

Let me get this straight:  If a leader of the opposition party is against the policies of the guy who won, and works to prevent him from implementing the program he just ran against, that makes him not only a despicable human being, but even worse than an apartheid proponent.

I wonder if Chrazy Chris has a word or two to expend on how Democrats reacted when George Bush became President.

Or, since he's so hot on racial tolerance, a word or two million on al sharpton's vile history of racial intolerance and offensive comments relating to gay people and Jews.

Not for nothing do I call Matthews Chrazy Chris.  And not for nothing does Matthews' apparent political love affair with al sharpton, who disgraces MSNBC every day he appears as a show host (if MSNBC is capable of disgrace anymore, that is) sicken me to the core of my being.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!