It was nearly two minutes of babbling double-speak and nonsensical platitudes. And, strangely, these confoundingly evasive words did not come from our beloved Nancy Pelosi, or that Democratic Gem Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. When NBC correspondent Kasie Hunt asked the Georgia Democrat Senate hopeful, Michelle Nunn, whether or not she would have voted for the “Affordable” Care Act, verbal chaos ensued.
“At the time the Affordable Health Care Act was passed, I was, uh, working for Points of Light, so, I think it’s hard to go back…to look back retrospectively, but when I look at it, I think about “what do we need to do going forward?” I look at it, I come at it from the perspective of someone who made payroll, who saw rising healthcare premiums, who believes we actually need to work together to make changes where it’s not working and improve the things that already are working.”
For another mind grinding minute the Democrat politician trudged her way through non-committals, platitudes, and circular logic. Her unprepared attempts to verbally stumble out of the question kinda makes the viewer think she doesn’t really want to approach anything resembling an actual answer.
Through her complex web of unmarried half-thoughts, she managed to brush upon the few things within Obamacare that she apparently thinks are universally praised. She managed to profess her admiration for platitudinous concepts, such as coverage for preexisting conditions, and parental sponsored healthcare for “kids” up to the age of twenty-six. (Ok… Seriously: We live in a world where people in their mid-twenties can’t be expected to take care of themselves? If we’re considering 26 year olds to be “kids” on their parent’s health insurance, then maybe we shouldn’t let them vote…)
When pressed by the reporter for a slightly more coherent response, her train of thought continued the scenic route to a non-answer:
“I think it’s impossible to look back retrospectively and say, ‘what would you have done if you were there?’… But what I can say, ultimately, because I wasn’t there, and we now have hindsight, what I can do is say, here’s where we are today, and here’s what we should do today, which is to move forward.”
Ok… So, to be clear: You want to move forward? And, by “forward”, you mean that you would like to inject more government, regulations, restrictions, mandates and dictates on the healthcare system (because that worked out so well every other time we’ve tried it)? Can we have a clarification of directional platitudes? Because I don’t really see more intrusive government monopolization of healthcare to be a “forward” step toward improved care… And there are probably a handful of VA victims who would agree with my assessment.
To be fair, she did make one accidental observation of some validity: We do have hindsight. And, if we are to judge by the outcome thus far of Obamacare’s implementation, it has been an unmitigated disaster. (And yet, she’s still unable to say “no” to the ACA… Of course, let’s face it: She’s unable to say “yes” as well…)
As awesome as the two minutes of mental gymnastics were, they did more to let voters know who she is than any direct answer ever could have done. After all, what’s more revealing than watching a politician verbally tap dance in search of a politically palpable alternative to the truth? She’s well on her way to being a Washington Politician... Which is the worst insult I can currently muster given the obvious limitations of the English language. (It is however an insult that was well earned.)