Gay Patriot Header Image

Is Obama speaking more candidly with Russia’s president than with the American people?

That thought came to my mind shortly after I read this:

At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”

It is good to see the legacy media give this story as much coverage as they have as it shows Obama for the showman that he is, masquerading as a moderate, yet governing in an entirely different direction on foreign as well as domestic policy.

I do hope that on January 20, 2013, Obama gets the flexibility he longs for, the flexibility ex-presidents enjoy.

More often that not, our friends in the legacy media are hesitant to report/investigate the president’s “gaffes” in front on open mikes as law professor William A. Jacobson reminds us of those the legacy “media won’t release, like CBS refusing to release the full audio of Obama’s comments about Paul Ryan, and the LA Times holding back the Khalidi tape.”

John McCain minces no words in taking the president to task for his remarks to Mr. Medvedev.

A couple of thoughts (which I’ll try to flesh out if I get a moment, but may not as one of my nephews and a cousin are visiting LA right now).  First, a question:  what does it say about Obama that he’s oblivious to the fact that his candid remarks could be picked up on an open mike (did he really think the media would cover for him?).  And a thought:  striking the leader of a democratic republic would tell the leader of a nation which has banned a number of political parties that he can act differently once he no longer needs concern himself with making his case to the people he supposedly serves.

UPDATE:  “One message to the voters at home,” quips Jim Geraghty, “an entirely different message to leaders abroad… from a president who declared in 2008 that his true rival in the presidential race was cynicism itself.”

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Benjamin in WeHo offers some insightful quips:

1. When a Russian politician admits to deceiving voters to win an election, it’s “managing democracy.” In the USA, it’s accidentally speaking into a live microphone.

2. Contrast Reagan walking out on Gorbachev over missile defense to Obama lying to American voters about it.

Read the rest.

UP-UPDATE:   Over at the National Review, Peter Kirsanow offers:

What, precisely, are “all these issues” (besides missile defense) that President Obama plans to solve in his second term? Why has he shared them with the Russian president but not the American people?

Why the reference to his “last election?” Would he not be able to do what he wants if he had to stand for reelection?

Emphasis added.

Today’s SCOTUS Oral Obamacare Arguments

I’ve been listening and thought it would be cool to post this. Here’s the link to the oral & text from today’s events at the Supreme Court.

LISTEN NOW.

From what I’ve heard and read about today, it sounds like the case will be decided now on its merits; SCOTUS will not wait until “harm” occurs per the Anti-Injunction Act.

Also, here’s a nice summary from today’s proceedings by Phil Klein at the Examiner.

On the first day of oral arguments in the case challenging President Obama’s national health care law, justices seemed skeptical that the individual mandate should be considered a tax — one of the main consitutional defenses being offered for the law.

To be clear, today’s 90 minutes of oral arguments did not concern the underlying merits of the case, but whether an 1876 law called the Anti-Injunction Act bars the Court from ruling on the suit at this time. Under the Anti-Injunction Act, people cannot challenge a tax in court until after they have paid it. This would effectively punt the issue until at least 2015.

Read the whole thing… and listen to the arguments directly.  Very cool stuff.

UPDATE:  To me, a key question from Justice Sotomayor:Assuming we find that this is not jurisdictional, what is the parade of horribles that you see occurring if we call this a mandatory claim processing rule?” 

She said it with quite a tone of saracasm and found herself agreeing with Justice Scalia & Alito on this point of the Anti-Injuction Act applying to Obamacare.  I’m very interested to hear her questions over the next two days.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)