CARNEY: The president spoke in answer to a question, relatively briefly, and in the context of this case, made the statement that there is no judicial precedent—that there is long judicial precedent which would argue that the court should not overturn this law. I totally grant to you that he did not refer to the commerce clause. He did not refer to the whole context. I think he believed that that was understood. Clearly, some folks—notably the person sitting in that chair and others—missed that. And, uh, and, uh—no, no, look. There’s a lot of—it’s kind of ridiculous to believe that the president wasn’t talking about the context of the case, but I completely concede that he did not describe the context when he took the question and answered it on Monday. He then, when asked again Tuesday, provided the full context. And so, did he clarify his comments? Absolutely. Did he expand on them? Absolutely. Yes, Scott. God, you guys. It’s your job to come up with clichés—game on, and things like that. But I’m not going to engage in that.
Wouldn't you just hate to be Jay Carney? I mean, every day he's got to wake up and say to himself "What the heck do I have to say today? How much longer is this going to go on?".
I'll give the guy credit... he keeps trying. And God bless him (I hope that doesn't offend anyone), he's trying his hardest. But really, what's he got to work with? A boss who keeps tossing out lines that he's got to 'clarify'. But man, he keeps opening his mouth and inserting his foot. He can't tapdance very well.
But, he sure is earnig his pay!