If so, standards are slipping. Consider this from a Washington Post editorial (boldface mine):
The legal or constitutional case for each is different, but the rationales overlap: Congress is broken, so Mr. Obama must act. Two-thirds of Americans did not vote in the midterms, and the president must represent them, too. He has tried compromise, and the Republicans spurned him.
We will not relitigate that last contention except to note that behind the legislative disappointments of the past six years lies fault on both sides.
Regular readers will know that I’m not a water carrier for the Obama administration. But as a logical premise, the two highlighted sentences contradict each other. The Post editors are such poor writers, they didn’t even bother to stuff filler between the two contradictory propositions.
I blame the teachers unions.
mikethemadbiologist
Yep. And I’m also really tired of the “Well, we all know that Republicans won’t be reasonable, so it’s completely on the Democrats’ shoulders to find a way to make something happen,” line.
In their words: “It would not be rational for Republicans to spurn compromise in these areas just because Mr. Obama acts unilaterally in others; but it is entirely foreseeable..”
Look President Obama has had six years to figure out some way to be unilaterally bipartisan (actually, as I read that phrase that’s exactly how he has governed. Much to my dismay.)
The sentences in the first paragraph represent statements that Washington Post writer regards as rationales for President Obama’s action. The second paragraph is the writer’s opinion of those rationales. I think the writer’s opinion is wrong, but it is not self-contradictory.