The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin makes that case for White House aide Dan Pfeiffer's Sunday morning talk show tour yesterday. We noted in previous posts how Pfeiffer's answer for just about everything was "irrelevant."
The Law? Irrelevant.
Where was the President during Benghazi? Irrelevant.
Who changed the talking points? Irrelevant.
This is exactly what Rubin goes after:
This line of argument is untenable and, frankly, embarrassing. If the Obama flacks don’t have answers or won’t give them, then they should not send Pfeiffer out to instruct newspeople on what is and isn’t relevant. And if you want to talk about relevance it’s probably a good idea to stop throwing out red herrings (e.g. George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Republicans). There was something especially childish and ham-handed in the sort of defense Pfeiffer mounted when the question of the day is whether the president is either malicious or totally out to lunch. His defense personifies the very arrogance that leads the White House to overreach in the first place.
You know you're in trouble when a guy who worked for Bill Clinton is left sputtering "You don't really mean the law is irrelevant, do you?"