Dumb White House Spokesman Cannot Even Answer Simple Question What A Jerk
During Thursday's press briefing, this one journalist lady asked the question that has been on everyone's minds, the kind of question that really demonstrates the steadfast dedication to the integrity and duty of the Fourth Estate, ensuring we have all the information we need to make serious decisions about our democracy.
"Would you say that Tuesday night was a big loss for Democrats?”
That is one excellent question, journalist lady! Thank you for serving your country! Especially because the president has yet to speak any words whatsoever about the results of Tuesday's election.
Obviously, Republicans had a good night. And they deserve credit for running good campaigns. Beyond that, I’ll leave it to all of you and the professional pundits to pick through yesterday’s results.
Besides those words, those words do not count. Yes, the president said it was a good night for Republicans, but he did not say it was a bad night for Democrats, so we have no idea what he thinks, and Americans have a right to know. Which is why the press corps MUST insist that the White House answer that question. But just watch how that sneaky Obama lackey, aka press secretary Josh Earnest, refuses to answer the question by not simply saying, "Yes, I would say that Tuesday night was a big loss for Democrats."
EARNEST: In terms of the punditry and analysis --
"JOURNALIST: No, it’s no punditry. It’s a real question.
Oh, right. It's a real question. Except that it is not. Except that it is if you are a member of the White House press corps, in which case, yes it IS TOO a real question, it is the most realest question ever asked, and no, they cannot move on to other more serious questions, like "Boxers or briefs?" until they force Earnest to say the words they need to hear. For journalism. And democracy.
“So you’re saying it could be good for Democrats?” another "journalist" asks. Which is obviously what Earnest just said even though he did not just say that.
“Well, no. That’s not what I’m saying,” Earnest answers, and then they all laugh and laugh, ha ha ha laugh some more, hilarious, they so grilled him SO HARD.
“You can say it’s good for Republicans," the second "journalist" persists because she NEEDS AN ANSWER, DAMNIT, "but you can’t pass judgment on whether it’s bad for Democrats?”
Christ, we are already so bored with this line of questioning, but we are not serious journalists, so maybe we just don’t understand how very important this question is.
“I’m certainly disappointed in the outcome of the election, and the president is too.”
Then they all start groaning because that is NOT AN ANSWER, JOSH. The question -- the real, important question -- was whether Tuesday's election was bad for Democrats. If he doesn’t say it, if he does not say the words “Yes, journalist lady, it was bad for Democrats,” he is dodging and lying to America, IMPEACH.
Now, if they had asked whether Tuesday night was a tectonic skullfucking, that would have been a real question.