Friends Obama denies |
Featured Commentary

Friends Obama denies

Thanks to the work of a citizen journalist in Philadelphia, over the past few weeks “stupid” Americans have gotten to know ObamaCare architect and MIT professor Jonathan Gruber pretty well.

In video after video Gruber is seen admitting that ObamaCare is essentially a scam and detailing how the White House went through “tortuous” measures to manipulate language in order to get the legislation passed in 2010.

But Gruber isn’t the only one who is a master at manipulating language to fool voters. His former boss and friend President Obama is pretty good at it too.

When asked about Gruber’s role in ObamaCare and whether Americans were lied to about the impact the legislation would have on the country, Obama referred to rule No. 1 of the Obama scandal playbook: play dumb and deny.

“I just heard about this,” Obama said during a press conference overseas this week. “The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”

He just heard about this? Some consultant? Despite Obama’s technical claims Gruber wasn’t “on staff,” he was paid more than $5 million in taxpayer money at the state and federal levels as a consultant for ObamaCare. He was praised by Sen. Harry Reid and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the go-to expert on the health-care overhaul.

Back in 2006 during a Brookings Institution event, then-Sen. Obama praised Gruber as someone he “liberally steals ideas from.” When ObamaCare was being written, Obama met with Gruber multiple times at the White House and relied on him to solve political problems by deliberately “mislabeling” the taxes and redistribution of wealth from healthy to sick in the legislation.

As predicted, ObamaCare has done incredible damage on so many levels. It has caused a major shift not only in the economy, but in the course of the country moving forward.

Unfortunately, Gruber isn’t alone in the men Obama has befriended, used to alter policy and then ditched once controversy went public. We’ve seen Obama distance himself from friends and mentors Bill Ayers, the Rev. Wright, Derrick Bell and other influential figures who have had a direct impact on American culture.

“The suggestion that Ayers was a political adviser to Obama or someone who shaped his political views is patently false,” Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in 2008.

“When I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts what I’m about and who I am,” Obama said about Wright after sitting in his pews and listening to his anti-American, hate-filled sermons for 25 years. “It is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country.”

You get the point.

All of these people — Ayers, Bell, Wright and Gruber — have shaped Obama’s worldview and their ideas are carried into his decision-making process. The big difference this time is that Gruber has shaped the lives of every American through a massive, government-mandated program.

The bottom line is that associations matter. The people a president is influenced by and surrounds himself with matter. The impact those people, like Gruber, have on the lives of individual Americans matters because the consequences of the policies they implement are so severe.

Katie Pavlich is news editor of Her exclusive Trib columns appear the first and third Fridays of each month.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.