Congressional and presidential exemptions from ACA (Obamacare)

The opponents of Obamacare continue to use the exemptions afforded to congress and the White House as evidence that even those who passed the law don't think it will work.  The problem (one of them, rather) is that this claim is simply false.  Nevertheless, opponents continue to use this canard as a talking point that their followers can use unquestioningly (such as Erick Erickson over at redstate.com).  The conversation is too important for us to allow it to be high-jacked by empty rhetoric (at best, lies as worst).

RedState.com is seeing red.

Erick Erickson over at RedState.com objects to the recent CNN.com article which includes RedState and Erickson personally on its list of arch-conservatives who are in denial over Obama's reelection.  Indeed, Erickson shows clearly that he and his blog have not only not denied the reelection, but that he has explicitly claimed there was no fraud, and that Obama won the election "fair and square".  Nevertheless, Erickson's reading of the CNN article is superficial at best.  The CNN article does discuss actual deniers (those who claim the election was rigged, unfair, unconstitutional, etc.).  But there is a deeper sense of denial--denial not merely of the fact of Obama's reelection, but denial as to the reason for his reelection.

The problem is that Erickson, though he accepts the reelection itself, denies the reason for Obama's reelection.  Claiming that conservatives did not communicate their principles clearly is not supported by the evidence: ask Todd Akin.