"It's getting difficult and slinking toward impossible to defend the Affordable Care Act. "

That’s Ron Fournier in the headline, and I assume he already knows Mr. Pink pictured above.

Actually I shouldn’t be making too much fun with Fournier, especially when he writes things like this:

Not coincidentally, the delays punt implementation beyond congressional elections in November, which raises the first problem with defending Obamacare: The White House has politicized its signature policy.

The win-at-all-cost mentality helped create a culture in which a partisan-line vote was deemed sufficient for passing transcendent legislation. It spurred advisers to develop a dishonest talking point—”If you like your health plan, you’ll be able to keep your health plan.” And political expediency led Obama to repeat the line, over and over and over again, when he knew, or should have known, it was false.

Defending the ACA became painfully harder when online insurance markets were launched from a multi-million-dollar website that didn’t work, when autopsies on the administration’s actions revealed an epidemic of incompetence that began in the Oval Office and ended with no accountability.

Well, isn’t that refreshingly honest — which is something I’ve come to delightfully expect of Fournier of late.

But then… this:

Advocates for a strong executive branch, including me, have given the White House a pass on its rule-making authority, because implementing such a complicated law requires flexibility.

Excuse me, Mr. Fournier, but what we’re witnessing is precisely the sort of flexibility you have long argued that Professor Ditherton Wiggleroom requires.