XPost: alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys, alt.sports.footba   
   l.pro.phila-eagles, alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots   
   From: commies@cnn.com   
      
   It must be nice, having national newsrooms to run full-time   
   damage control pro bono.   
      
   Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said a stupid thing   
   recently during a one-on-one interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.   
   That she said something ignorant is not news at all. What is   
   newsworthy is that Newsweek felt the need to protect her where   
   she is clearly in the wrong.   
      
   The congresswoman was asked last Friday what lessons she learned   
   from studying former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal,   
   for which her preposterous "Green New Deal" is named.   
      
   “I think there’s a couple of lessons. One is that when we look   
   into our history, when our party was boldest, time of the New   
   Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act, and so on. We had   
   and carried supermajorities in the House, in the Senate. We   
   carried the presidency,” Ocasio-Cortez said, adding her   
   colleagues today need to overcome “fear within our own party”   
   about being “too bold.”   
      
   This is where her response goes awry: “They had to amend the   
   Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not   
   get reelected."   
      
   Close, but no cigar.   
      
   The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1947. FDR died in 1945. Though   
   there was indeed talk of such an amendment during FDR’s   
   lifetime, the rule wasn’t introduced and passed until after the   
   GOP took both chambers in the 1946 elections, one year after he   
   died. And even then, it was worded so as not to apply to the   
   sitting president.   
      
   This was a simple error on the congresswoman’s part. But   
   Newsweek apparently thought her a damsel in need of rescuing.   
      
   “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attacked on Twitter for constitutional   
   mistake – but was she actually right?” read the original   
   headline to the magazine's defense of the New York lawmaker.   
      
   The story adds, “The dates appeared to leave the argument cut-   
   and-dried … [but] some eagle-eyed social media commenters   
   pointed out that the original architects of the 22nd Amendment   
   were inspired by Roosevelt’s monopoly on the White House and   
   began campaigning long before his death.”   
      
   It's a huge stretch, but let's just say this is what Ocasio-   
   Cortez meant when she said the GOP “had to amend the   
   Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not   
   get reelected.” Let’s pretend for a moment the congresswoman was   
   really referring to early efforts to limit presidential terms   
   via a constitutional amendment and see where the Newsweek   
   article goes:   
      
   FDR did die in office in ‘45 and the 22nd amendment did come in   
   ‘47 but Congress did start the legislative process in 1944 prior   
   to his death so that he would not be reelected,” another Twitter   
   user wrote in Ocasio-Cortez’s defense. “It was not ratified soon   
   enough and he won in ‘44. AOC did not misspeak, friends.”   
      
   The National Constitution Center also had Ocasio-Cortez’s back.   
   On its website, the nonpartisan organization explained: “Talk   
   about a presidential term-limits amendment started in 1944, when   
   Republican candidate Thomas Dewey said a potential 16-year term   
   for Roosevelt was a threat to democracy. “In March 1947, a   
   Republican-controlled Congress approved a 22nd Amendment, with   
   an exception that would exclude a president in office from term   
   limits during the ratification process.”   
   Oh, come off it, Newsweek. You're embarrassing yourself.   
      
   The 22nd Amendment, which wasn’t even finalized until 1951,   
   specifically exempted presidents who were in office during the   
   ratification process, meaning it wouldn’t have applied to FDR   
   even if it had passed years earlier. Yet, this is the “well,   
   actually” defense Newsweek went with on behalf of Ocasio-Cortez,   
   who favorably cited the article this week as she was justifiably   
   mocked on social media for being both ignorant and arrogant   
   enough to make claims about which she was ignorant.   
      
   Perhaps realizing its cleanup attempt was as obvious as it was   
   ridiculous, Newsweek has amended the story headline to something   
   a bit more subtle: “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attacked on Twitter   
   for constitutional mistake – but here’s the full story.”   
      
   "The full story." Sure.   
      
   https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/newsweek-does-damage-   
   control-for-ocasio-cortezs-constitutional-ignorance   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)