You know who's to blame for the fact that you weren't warned about Obamacare? Republicans!

It's funny to watch Obama-loving websites like Politico attempting damage-control not just for their hero and party, but also for the Lying Media.

Specifically, they're trying to explain why the elites in the media didn't recognize the oh-so-obvious flaws in Obamacare and warn Americans about 'em.

So which excuse would y'all like to go with:  That those in the media were too stupid to recognize the consequences even after all conservative analysts carefully explained 'em to ya, or would you rather go with "Oh, obviously we recognized the probable consequences but it was decided to keep those quiet and just praise the hell out of the thing so the Dem-controlled congress would pass it and our WonderKing would look even more fabulous."

Damn, that's a tough decision.

So here's Politico's latest effort, cleverly titled "Now they tell us":

the problem with Obamacare’s stumbling start is that it shined a harsh light on intended consequences — more costs and more government regulation — that were always embedded in the ACA [implication: "we knew all along"] but were deliberately downplayed by Obama and Democrats [something we had NO hand in] on the way to passage.

Backers hoped the costs of the ACA and its roster of losers would remain obscured after launch in a rush of good feeling about the law’s benefits and its roster of winners.

It is, in many respects, a classic social welfare program.  [Are there any respects in which it *isn't* a "social welfare program"?]  Like other social programs, it involves transferring from haves to have-nots. Healthy people are going to have to pay to help sick people get coverage. People who had skimpy coverage before — and in some cases, not-so-skimpy coverage [clever euphemism for the forced cancellation of excellent health-insurance policies]— will have to upgrade to insurance that covers more things [interesting that you don't say what things] but costs more. And young people will have to pay so older people don’t face sky-high premiums.

So far--considering their real purpose is to cover for Democrats--it's pretty candid.  But then come the excuses and rationalizations:

You’re hearing a lot of comments from people who are saying, ‘I’m 60 years old and I don’t need maternity coverage,’” said Ginsburg.  Supporters of the changes, however, say those complaints show a misunderstanding of how health insurance works — because benefits are only affordable to the people who need it if a large group of other people share the costs.

Actually most of the piece is devoted to rationizations.  So the bottom line is "You stupid clingers just don't understand that you all gotta pay more for your health insurance because...well, because we insist.  Oh, and (ahem)...it's the law.

Ace of Spades has a summary 'graf ostensibly from Politico, but I can't find it in the article linked above.  But if accurate it's a beauty:

Republicans in Congress have been quick to say that they warned of the dangers of the law. But the truth is that they sounded the alarms about so many threats, including dubious assertions about death panels and the slippery slope to a Canadian-style single-payer health care system, that they never put any sustained focus on the very specific tradeoffs people are seeing now.

So there it is, folks:  The failure to warn the American people about the bad consequences of Obamacare isn't the fault of the elite media, but of...Republicans.

You knew they'd get around to that eventually, right?

Oh, and for a great look at Great Lies from Obama and company, click to see videos here and here.