Thank You, Bret

Thank You, Bret
David Limbaugh
Friday, March 19, 2010

I pray that President Barack Obama's interview with Fox News' Bret Baier is replayed repeatedly on Fox News Channel and circulated widely on the Internet for all to see. The more who watch it the more people will realize just how drastically the unscripted Obama varies from his projected image as God's gift to bipartisanship, compromise, congeniality and democracy.

What came across most glaringly was that there is little he wouldn't do to force Obamacare on us, from lying to evading to concealing to abusing the legislative process to violating the Constitution to dividing the nation. Consider some highlights.

Baier asked Obama whether he would support the use of the "Slaughter Rule," which would deem the bill passed so as to avoid an actual up-or-down vote. Instead of answering the question, Obama mouthed his tired talking points about his plan, most of which were just outright propaganda. He said that his plan would reduce deficits and that costs would decrease for small businesses and families because they would be in the same type of pool congressmen have. But there's not a chance in Hades that any ordinary American would have such a Cadillac plan.

For starters, in counting costs, I'm sure he's not factoring in hidden costs, including taxes. In addition, care would be rationed. Is it for congressmen? People wouldn't have choices congressmen have and would be forced, eventually, out of their private plans. That's what would happen under the Senate bill; who cares what would happen under some fictionalized scenario Obama promises under his plan? He has none. This is maddening.

The closest he came to answering the question was, "I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate." Neither did members of the Soviet Politburo when they promulgated their five-year plans. Those rules, Mr. President, are there for a purpose: to protect the interests and the will of the people.

Without letting Baier follow up, Obama slinked into another whopper: Those who vote against the measure will be voting against health care reform and in favor of the "status quo." Well, it's only natural that a guy who doesn't care about constitutional and legislative "procedure" would so grossly misrepresent this process. First, if he has his way, there will be no vote; that's what Baier was asking him about. That aside, those who oppose this disaster are not opposing reform and are not safeguarding the status quo. And Obama knows it; he just admitted it a few weeks ago at the health care summit.

Republicans have put forward numerous plans to reform the system and have always been summarily shot down. Their plans might actually help to curb costs and increase choice and would not involve restructuring and socializing one-sixth of the American economy and tampering with the best health care system in the world and its unparalleled quality of care.

But Obama couldn't even be straight about that. He said: "For the vast majority of people, their health care is not going to change. ... Yes, it's one-sixth of the economy. But we're not transforming one-sixth of the economy all in one fell swoop. ... The vast majority of people who have health care -- they're going to be able to keep it."

Precisely wrong. He is trying to change it all in one fell swoop. In fact, he condemned Republicans at his summit because they were only offering piecemeal changes while his plan is comprehensive. Truth be told, universal coverage is not Obama's goal; that's just a smoke screen. His goal is to expand government -- massively and permanently. That's what he lives for; that's what he lives on. It's his oxygen.

And let's not forget his absurd misstatement that "the ideas embodied in this legislation are not left (and) they're not right." He said they basically track the recommendations of Democrat Tom Daschle and Republicans Bob Dole and Howard Baker. What?

Bob Dole and Howard Baker might have expressed support for some of this, but they are hardly domestic policy conservatives. But more importantly, the Democrat he cites, Tom Daschle, would be his health and human services head right now but for his tax scandal. Daschle's 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis," contains many insidious ideas that found their way into Obamacare. Among those are his notions that doctors must give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners" (read: obey orders from bureaucrats) and that seniors will have to learn to deal with conditions arising from their age rather than receive treatment. And this is centrist, Mr. Obama? I suppose it's centrist if you consider the federal funding of abortion, which you also lied about, centrist.

It's amazing that there is anyone left who can't recognize the magnitude of his pernicious vision for this country -- against which he obviously has an unquenchable grudge.

Thank you, Bret, for helping to expose it.