Truth in advertising

Here is the primary and secondary headlines from a National Journal article:

Health Reform And Truth-Telling
Despite President Obama's good intentions, his deviations from truth-telling compromise his credibility.

Is the secondary headline not a hoot?! "his deviations from truth-telling". What a fancy, smarmy way to say "lies". Can you just imagine the headline if the President were Bush instead of Obama? The main stream media truly are an extension of the Democratic party's public relations team. These people have sold out their profession, integrity, and even their souls for an ideology that has a proven track record of failure time and again. That has failed to do anything but treat the general population as disposable cogs in a false dream. The funny and sad thing is, journalists are one of the first groups to get "re-educated' or eliminated whenever their dream becomes a reality. Why will they never learn?

As to the actual article, here is an interesting paragraph:

As for voters, most seem satisfied with their own health care -- still the world's best in important ways -- and unwilling either to pay more to help less fortunate people or make even small sacrifices to control costs. They also seem oblivious to the real problem underlying the "death panel" demagogy, which is the unavoidable need to hold down the 30 percent of Medicare spending that goes to sometimes-unwanted, often-not-very-beneficial treatments for chronically ill patients in the last two years of life.

Sorry, but contrary to the President, Nancy and most of the media, "the unavoidable need to hold down the 30 percent of Medicare spending that goes to sometimes-unwanted, often-not-very-beneficial treatments for chronically ill patients in the last two years of life" certainly sounds like having a review of the care given to a certain"class" of patient to determine if the prescribed care is truly beneficial both to the health of the patient and the account balance of Medicare. In other (more crass words) a death panel. But that can't be! We have all been told time and again that this is a lie.

The paper then goes on to say that "we can't handle the truth" and it is actually a good thing that the President is not telling us the truth (there is that greater good thing again) as in this section:

So it would be unrealistic to expect complete candor from any president about the costs and risks of extending health insurance to 30 million more Americans. If Obama can meet the truthfulness test applied by Huckleberry Finn to his creator Mark Twain -- "There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth" -- that would be good enough for me.

Translation, we all would be idiots if we took him at his word. If we expect the President to mean what he says. We should expect him to tell us whatever he has to since he is doing it for our own good.

The article overall is reasonably balanced but it is whoppers like those noted above that continue to give people pause whenever they are told "read my lips, I did not... lie of the moment" by their elected officials.