RUSH: It looks like my shaming of the Drive-By Media yesterday has had an immediate impact. Wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Snerdley? Because now everywhere in the Drive-By Media they are dissecting the Gruber videos. Everywhere! CBS This Morning, Good Morning America, the Today Show. The New York Times is saying it’s no big deal, everybody lies in politics. But they’re still talking about it. The Washington Post has their second story on it. And yesterday, 24 hours ago, there was not one mention of Gruber in the Drive-By Media.
Oh. Oh. And Ron Fournier today has the cherry on top of the silken swirl of whipped cream in his outrage, in his sadness, in his disappointment, in his shock, in his disbelief over what has — in fact, I didn’t have that at the top, but let me go ahead and give you that story, give you an example of what I’m talking about. It is everywhere. And Fournier, by the way, just to remind you who he is.
He’s now at the National Journal, which publishes The Hotline. It’s an Inside-the-Beltway for political professionals publication. They do sell subscriptions to the general public, but they basically, Hotline especially, is almost like a trade paper. It’s been around for decades. National Journal owns it, and they’ve got their own online magazine and Fournier works there. He used to be the White House correspondent for AP, and then used to be the bureau chief, maybe Washington bureau chief, I forget his exact title.
But he was a ranking member of the AP journalist masthead. He was up there near the top, and I guess he went to National Journal. Why do journalists change jobs? Is it for more money or they just want a different… (interruption). That’s right. They don’t like money. It can’t be for money. So why would journalists change jobs? Stature? Well, anyway, it doesn’t matter. He’s there now and here’s his piece: “Obamacare’s Foundation of Lies.”
By the way, folks, just as a little precursor, the news is all over the place about Obama’s intended amnesty, $4.5 million to start, DREAMers or what have you. And I think, in truth, that story is bigger than Obamacare. Because that’s irreversible. If that happens, if amnesty is granted… you know, Obama’s sitting out there, he’s actually saying things like, if the Congress won’t do what he wants to do, he’s gonna have to do it himself. That’s not how our system works. The president doesn’t get to do whatever he wants.
If Congress doesn’t go along, that’s tough toenails. He’s gotta go out and persuade them. That’s why presidents have legislative aides and assistants and liaisons. If he can’t convince Congress to put parts of his agenda into play, then that’s tough toenails. But what Obama’s out there saying quite openly while wearing his Mao jacket visiting with the ChiComs, he’s openly saying if Congress won’t do what I want done, I’m just gonna do it myself. And again, the Republicans have taken every mechanism for stopping it off the table. Spending, impeachment, you name it, so you can’t blame him, knowing exactly who he is.
But the point about amnesty is that it is irreversible. Obamacare remains something that could be stripped item by item or all at once, it could be repealed, even years from now. It will be tough, but amnesty, that’s a genie out of the bottle. You don’t put that back. It’s huge. There needs to be a way to tie these two stories together with Gruber as the transitional link. Because what the Gruber story illustrates is that the left lies about everything and they will lie about everything in order to get what they want, and they will assume that you’re either too stupid — I actually think they think you’re too smart. They can’t be honest with you because you would reject it, that makes you too smart, not too stupid.
If you were really as stupid as they think, they wouldn’t have to lie. If you were as stupid as Gruber runs around saying, they could say whatever they want, you’d be too stupid to believe it or understand it, and they could get done what they wanted. The fact that they have to lie, predicated on the fact that you’re too stupid, actually means that you’re wise to them. You’ll see through what they want to do, even though they’re trying to cover it up. But it doesn’t, nevertheless, mask or eliminate the belief that they do think you’re stupid. They do think we’re all stupid.
This guy Gruber, the economics professor at MIT, do you know that Jonathan Gruber has never spent an hour in the free enterprise economy? He’s never had a job in the sense that you and I have jobs. His job is a professor, but he’s tenured, ranking. He’s automatically considered a genius and untouchable. He’s never worked a day in the economy. I’m trying to avoid saying “private sector” because I’m beginning to hate that term. I think that term is a negative to low-information voters. Well, because of the word “private.” “Private” means exclusive, you can’t get in.
Private versus public, people are always gonna prefer public over private. Romney kept talking about how he was from the private sector so much, that the private sector experience is — I don’t think it worked. So what it really is, is the free market economy. The free enterprise economy. That’s where the American dream is. The American dream for everybody is in the free market, free enterprise economy, which is shrinking and getting smaller as government gets bigger and bigger.
But my point is that Gruber has never spent a day. He’s a professor and he’s instructing students at MIT or wherever else on economics, and he has no real-world experience with the practical application of his philosophies or theories or beliefs or knowledge whatsoever. Everything is theory to him. He has no experience. Meeting a payroll, being part of a payroll, those daily concerns, either being paid as an employee or making payroll as an owner, he has no knowledge. He has no experience. He cannot relate to it, and he looks down on it, in addition. He’s an elitist! All of these academics are arrogant and condescending elitists. Not all of them, but a good number of them are, and particularly all the leftists.
So this is the guy that we’re talking about here. All of the suffering that people are going through because of his ideas, he’s not even aware of it. He doesn’t know the reality. The theory is that Obamacare will do A, B, C, and D. When they get it passed, in their world, that’s what is happening. The theory of Obamacare becomes reality simply with Obama’s signature.
When it goes wrong — and when the theory doesn’t pay out, and when the law starts to fall apart and the health care doesn’t work — the last thing they think is, “Well, it’s wrong,” or, “We got it wrong,” or, “It needs to be fixed.” There’s always some other excuse for it, like the people are too stupid or the insurance companies are purposely screwing it up or whatever. They just have…
This guy, particularly. I’ll stick with Gruber. He has literally no experience in the free market economy. He has not spent an hour there. Yet he disdains it. He impugns it, insults it, and thinks that the people who are involved in it have to be tricked, have to be manipulated. They can’t be trusted to make the right economic decisions. Paul Krugman’s the same way.
You can’t be trusted to make the right life decisions.
They have to do all this for you.
It’s not an exaggeration. So the primary architect of this thing will never have to live under it, either. The primary architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, will never be subject to it. He’s always gonna have a health care plan that has nothing to do with the bill that he wrote, and all of his buddies will likewise not have to play ball by their own rules. Those are for us.
So all of this dawned on Ron Fournier. Now, I find it fascinating that two intelligent people — Fournier’s not stupid — can watch the same events for six years, and one person (me) can accurately and with great competence predict what’s gonna happen before it happens; and another guy, for six years doesn’t see a thing, and then finally it all dawns on him and he still doesn’t know why.
And he is sad and is let down and can’t figure it out. “Obamacare’s Foundation of Lies.” This is Fournier. This is how his piece starts. “A lie is apolitical, or at least it should be.” Why should a lie be apolitical? What an assumption to start with! Look, I could probably parse every sentence, and that would take way too long here. “If there’s one thing that unites clearheaded Americans, it’s a belief that our leaders must be transparent and honest.”
“If there’s one thing that unites clearheaded Americans, it’s the belief that our leaders [are not] transparent and honest!” That’s what’s dawning on people. Yeah, in theory we would hope that they govern as they campaign. We would hope that they’re telling us the truth when they tell us who they are and what they believe. The sad reality is “clearheaded Americans” are more and more beginning to doubt that their leaders are honest with them, nor are they transparent.
“And yet,” says Fournier, “there seem to be two types of lies in our political discourse: Those that hurt ‘my party’ and ‘my policies;’ and those that don’t. We condemn the former” lies that hurt my party “and forgive the latter,” the lies that don’t hurt me, “cheapening the bond of trust that enables a society to progress.”
So here you have a utopian, an honest-to-God utopian who really believes that government running everything is gonna make everything better than it’s ever been. It’s blind faith, and then when it doesn’t happen, there’s almost an inability to absorb it and cope with it. “This truism came to mind when I read a Washington Post story headlined, ‘Who Is Jonathan Gruber?’
“It was an important and workmanlike report on the Obamacare adviser who bragged about the political advantages of [lying to] voters, whom Gruber called stupid. ‘Those comments have struck a nerve on the right,’ wrote Jose A. DelReal, ‘with some of the law’s critics pointing to Gruber’s comments as evidence that the administration intentionally deceived the American public on the costs of the programs.'”
Now, I read this guy’s piece to you so I’m not gonna dissect him again. But Fournier’s “reaction was, ‘No! No! Not just on the right!’ I strongly support bipartisan efforts to expand the availability of health coverage to the working poor, and bending the cost curve that threatens federal budgets for years to come.” Well, see, here’s the problem. Obamacare was never gonna do either of those things.
It was never gonna cost less, it was never gonna best the cost curve down, and it was never gonna expand availability of health insurance and treatment to the uninsured. There’s an easy way to do that would have cost smidgens, a smidgen of what this cost. That’s not what this bill was about. This bill was about the federal government gaining control over one-sixth of the US economy, gaining control over the health care apparatus that the American people interact with because that gives the federal government control over people.
But look at the rose-colored glasses that Mr. Fournier says is the reason he supported this. “I strongly support bipartisan efforts to expand the availability of health coverage to the working poor and bending the cost curve that threatens federal budgets for years to come.” That was never, ever the goal. They said that wasn’t gonna happen, but it wasn’t possible, when you read the bill.
RUSH: Anyway, Ron Fournier, National Journal, talks about how he really believed that Obamacare was gonna lower prices, lower the cost curve, and grant insurance to the uninsured. He really believed it. That’s why he supported it. He had high hopes for it, and was unable to recognize that it had no prayer of doing that. It was never even in the cards to do any of that.
It was not possible to lower the cost curve, and insuring the uninsured still isn’t happening. Anyway, he writes, “While I think President Obama and congressional Democrats helped contribute to the 2009 standoff over what became the [Obamacare], I’ve openly rooted for Obamacare’s success.” Even though he thinks Obama and the Democrats “helped contribute to the 2009 standoff over” the bill?
What do you mean, standoff?
The standoff was the result of legislative trick after legislative trick.
There weren’t the votes for this bill. “Standoff” doesn’t even come close to describing what happened. Anyway, he goes on to say here, “I’ve denounced the knee-jerk opposition from the GOP, a party that once embraced key elements of Obamacare.” That is another straw dog that’s thrown out there blaming the Heritage Foundation for originally supporting Obamacare, and that’s been refuted.
But it’s one of these myths that everybody in the left lapped up and ate, swallowed and believed, and it wasn’t true. It was a mechanism for blaming the Republicans for cutting-and-running when the ideas Obama instituted were none that they got credit for even though they were there. It was just outrageous.
Anyway, he goes on here, ladies and gentlemen, to express shock and outrage that he was lied to, that he was insulted, that he was treated the way he was, that everybody cannot believe that anybody in the Democrat Party would do this. He couldn’t believe that Gruber called people stupid. He couldn’t believe the White House would lie to people. Everybody… He can’t believe it! He doesn’t know how to come to grips with it.
RUSH: The Ron Fournier piece. You know, here we have a guy, the AP bureau chief in Washington, DC, who just bought hook, line, and sinker everything that came out of the Regime on Obamacare, just bought it, ’cause he wanted it to be true. He didn’t read the bill. He believed what Obama and everybody was telling him, wanted it to be, wanted the uninsured to get treated and wanted costs to go down. Well, who doesn’t? But it was never going to happen. And there were plenty of places Mr. Fournier could have checked to find that out. It would have required courage to believe it.
What I’m thinking here, though, is, Gruber’s out there saying that we had to lie because the American people are too stupid to understand what we’re doing. You know, it sounds to me like what Gruber’s actually saying is, they had to lie in order to keep from blowing up the relationship they had with the media. If you read Fournier’s piece, it’s clear he was all-in, ’cause he wanted this. He’s a good liberal and he’s got compassion and he cares about the poor, and he cares about the budget, and he wants the uninsured to be covered. It’s the only fair thing to do! We can’t bust the budget, and there’s the Democrats running around saying it’s exactly what it’s gonna do.
And so he believes it. It sounds to me like what Gruber actually is saying, they had to lie because of the stupidity of the media. They had to lie so as not to blow up the media bubble that they had created. The media was all-in. The media was thinking it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. The media and the left thought it was compassion central, gonna take care of the poor and the downtrodden, the hungry and the thirsty. And if the truth had come out… look at Fournier’s reaction today. What if Fournier had this reaction in 2009? What if others in the media had this reaction they had yesterday and today in 2009?
What if in 2009 the media: “Wait a minute, you guys are lying to us”? Arguably it wouldn’t have made any difference, but it might have. So I think, as we dig deeper and pull back this intricately woven web of deceit, what we’re actually learning here is that Gruber and the boys had to lie about this, and they relied on the stupidity of the media to accept the lie. He’s out there getting yuks and laughing and everything by telling his economics buddies that the American people are stupid and that they had to lie so the American people wouldn’t figure out what was going on.
But the truth of that is, they figured if they were honest, the American people would figure it out. Stupid people don’t do that. I think, when you strip everything away, what Gruber’s actually doing and what Kerry and all these other associates of Gruber did, they lied to keep the media on their side ’cause they knew the media wouldn’t look, the media would trust them, the media wouldn’t care about transparency. If Obama says it’s gonna cost less and if Obama says the uninsured are gonna get covered, that’s all they need.
So they had to lie about what was in it to keep the media from looking at it. They relied on the fact that the media was a bunch of slavish groupies. That’s what was going on here, folks. And the Ron Fournier piece today actually demonstrates that. I think that’s one of the reasons why it took the media so long and required them to be shamed into getting it ’cause they know they were the ones who were duped. Now, I know, I know, “Rush, they’re not duped. They’re willing accomplices.” Well, they are ideologically. No question about that. But they’re just like these voters in 2008 who saw Obama as a messiah and he could do no wrong.
So whatever he said they automatically believed, and there’s evidence that he’s lying, they had to cover that evidence he’s lying up. They couldn’t afford that. There’s too much goodwill. They loved Obama. So it was clear, and it’s also clear that people like Gruber and these others, they really believe that the media is the way that they reach the low-information voter and create public opinion the support. So the media is who they had to convince first, and they did. They could not in any way, shape, manner, or form bring in their media buddies and wink at ’em and say, “What we’re really gonna do is raise costs. What we’re really gonna do…” da-da-da-da-da. Couldn’t take that chance. So they lied on purpose in order to maintain idolatrous suck up media support.
Now, Gruber has been discovered to have lied yet again, ladies and gentlemen. There’s a third Gruber video that has been discovered by this citizen in Philadelphia, not a member of the media, just a listener of this program on WPHT in Philadelphia who lost his health insurance. He’s trying to figure out why, what’s going on here. He doesn’t believe anything he’s being told, and he starts looking at YouTube videos. These videos have been out there for anybody to find. He’s found some YouTube videos of Gruber telling these lies and then insulting the American people, calling them stupid. One thing leads to another and he releases them and keeps discovering them.