Sean Davis at The Federalist has a brilliant article describing the many instances where leftist commentators praised Jonathan Gruber as an "architect" of Obamacare.  This directly contradicts many of these same commentators who are parroting the White House line that Gruber didn't have anything to do with the bill.

And he demolishes the argument, currently before the Supreme Court, that Congress intended subsidies to go to everyone, and not just those who purchased their health insurance via state exchanges.  Davis quotes Gruber, who claimed they designed the law so that states would be forced to create exchanges in order for their citizens to receive the subsidies.

Jonathan Gruber was a key architect of Obamacare who was intimately involved in the drafting of the legislation.

That is a fact. It is not arguable. It is not assailable. It is backed up by overwhelming contemporaneous evidence long before Gruber became a controversial figure whose loose lips threatened to sink the Obamacare ship. And the people who pimped Gruber as the all-knowing health care savior who single-handedly built the model that guaranteed a future of health care glory were not Obamacare’s critics. They were its most ardent proponents.

Gruber’s numerous video-taped remarks have caused enormous problems for the pro-Obamacare left. Enormous. And the problems are directly related to the lawsuits challenging the validity of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule that says patients in states without state health care exchanges are eligible to receive federal subsidies to offset the obscene costs of their health insurance plans. The text of the Affordable Care Act repeatedly states that federal subsidies may only flow to those who purchase their plans from an exchange “established by the State” as opposed to one established by the federal government.

[...]

Now, to their credit, they seem to finally understand how bad Gruber’s comments are for the pending Supreme Court case about the IRS rule. And his comments are damaging because they fly in the face of the government’s arguments about the absurdity of believing that the law meant to prevent subsidies from flowing through federal exchanges. But in one of his many videos, Gruber clearly states that what the government says is absurd is actually the precise outcome intended by those who designed the law: the federal government wanted all 50 states to establish exchanges. What better way to coerce them into doing that than by making federal subsidies contingent upon the establishment of a state change? What the Obama administration’s legal briefs say is absurd is exactly what the law’s architect said was the end goal.

Davis then embarrasses lefty commentators by tossing their words hailing Gruber as an "architect" of Obamacare and someone intimately involved in crafting the legislation back at them.

Jonathan Chait recently tweeted that it may be true that "Gruber designed Obamacare conceptually, also true he played no direct role in writing the law."  That's not what the New York Times reported in 2012:

Chait’s claim is great precisely because it’s just so…not believable in any way, shape, or form. Let’s take a look at the evidence. We’ll start with the New York Times:

After Mr. Gruber helped the administration put together the basic principles of the proposal, the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.

The language used in the story is fascinating, since it basically characterizes Gruber as the property of the White House. How else could the White House lend him to Capitol Hill unless it owned him outright?

“But how would the newspaper even know if Gruber helped draft the law?” an intellectually challenged person with a penchant for conspiracy theories and a crippling case of epistemological closure might ask. Fair enough. Here we have the Obama campaign itself declaring in 2012 that Gruber “helped write Obamacare“:

There's more, including a satisfying takedown of Jonathan Cohn of TNR.  Both Cohn and Chait are scoring conservatives, claiming they've gone crazy over Gruber.  You know they don't have a decent counter to Gruber's words when they accuse the right of being mentally unbalanced.