.
... in the free agency era...
... as a right-hander...
... in the American league...
... not named Pedro Martinez...
They are given a shovel and they just keep digging and digging.
Yesterday, White House spokesperson attempted to clarify the President's remarks regarding the Supreme Court's "unprecedented" actions were they to overturn the individual mandate in ObamaCare.
What you are about to hear is one of the most painfully qualified explanations that remind us that being a White House spokesperson is most likely the most stressful jobs on the planet... that is, when the press is doing its job as it is here and you have to cover for some impertinent and factually incorrect comments made by your boss.
.
.
OK, we get it. In sports, all-time lists and trivia questions are often framed with respect to "since the (AFL/NFL) merger (in 1970)" or "in the modern era (since 1900 for baseball)" but that's for convenience's sake and an attempt to provide some commonality across a time span; we're talking the law of the land now, however, which is not constrained by eras.
Central to this argument is a document that was put together and ratified over 220 years ago and which is still very relevant and which was also very clear in its letter and intent with respect to the limited powers it granted the federal government. And we're pretty sure those folks that put together that document would frown disapprovingly upon that federal government forcing its citizens to purchase a good or service from a private entity.
The hubris and pride of this administration prevents them from just dropping this issue altogether rather than continuing to look the fools they are with their continuing lame attempts to clarify and qualify a rash, petulant and factually incorrect statement.
.
Posts
2 comments:
Why does this position even exist? He can't speak authoritatively and everyone knows he's just making stuff up. It's worthless.
Wow, and we thought Dee Dee Myers had a rough job during Monica-gate.
The quote where, "everybody knows" now tying this into the commerce clause puts the blame squarely on the President's shoulders. Jeesh, do you think 1% of the people listening to his remarks know this info?
The president's credentials were at stake and his press secretary had an enormous task to cover.
I know we need to challenge all of this in the arena of ideas, but this whole rise to power, with questionable credentials stinks.
We want to be noble and fight our fight, and give no credence to the "birthers" or question his credentials or rise to power.
Now we see the back peddling for a statement by a “constitutional scholar”, because “everyone knows what he meant”
My clients expect me to determine cause and origin. There is a reason we have such a bumbler at the helm, and attempting to solve the problem and ignoring the origins seems to be a stumbling block in our effort to solve the problem.
Post a Comment