Richard Mourdock’s campaign had an operational failure by uploading a video about the Supreme Court overturning Obamacare. The campaign also uploaded other versions depending on outcome.
That’s an embarrassment, but really, who has not come close to that?
You mean to tell me the newspapers don’t have templates already written depending upon which way the decision goes? Or the television stations don’t have varying scripts written? Or Politico, which broke the story, doesn’t have all-purpose analyses ready to go?
Really, while Mourdock’s staff never should have uploaded it, I don’t blame him for filming it.
Everyone wants to be first.
I’ve already prepared an all-purpose generic blog post:
In a decision sure to have long-lasting and wide-ranging implications for politics and the economy, the Supreme Court today (overturned/upheld) the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare.
The (sharply) divided Court (struck/upheld) the law which had been a focus of the first two years of the Obama presidency.
Justice (_______), writing for the majority, ruled that the mandate to purchase insurance did (not) exceed the limits of federal power expressed in the Commerce Clause. The Court held that forcing individuals to purchase health care insurance was (not) within the plain language and judicial interpretations of what it means to engage in commerce.
[add in event mandate stricken] As to other parts of the law, the Court ruled that the lack of a severability clause was (not) fatal to other parts of the law. In so holding, the Court found that the failure to included the clause did (not) reflect a congressional intent to allow the law to stand if one provision fell.
Justice _____, joined by Justices ________, filed a stinging dissent.
It is fair to say that while the legal battle over Obamacare is done, the political battle continues.
19 years of schoolin’ sure is payin’ off.