Skip to main content

From It Affects You

Today's press gaggle lasted 32 minutes. For Scotty, it must have felt much longer. You see, in that 32 minutes, reporters repeated essentially the same question twenty three times. For those wishing to calculate such things, that's once every 83 seconds.

Reporters wanted to know why the administration is peddling Miers' religious beliefs, and when he refused to answer, they asked again. And then they asked again. And then again. They kept this up practically from start to finish, 23 times, once every 83 seconds. They had to repeat the question 23 times, and still they received no straight answer.

That's quite pathetic, and it brings avoidance to new levels. But that's not really the interesting part, of course, because avoidance is why he's there. What's really interesting is reporters actually followed up. Rather than just letting it go, or worse dutifully reprinting the administration's talking points, they hounded him 23 times.

Below the jump read the 23 questions Scotty refused to answer:

  1. "Scott, the President has said that religion was part of Harriet Miers' life, and the White House's outreaching has mentioned the fact that she does go to this conservative Christian church ... No such efforts were made, not to this extent, anyway, in terms of Chief Justice Roberts. No one in the White House even mentioned his religion, as best we can tell. Why is this case"
  2. "I know, but it was never -- it never was brought up at this podium, and the President never mentioned it."
  3. "Do you think Harriet Miers' religion is being emphasized more by this administration than Chief Justice Roberts' was?"
  4. "what relevance does it play in a conversation between Karl Rove and James Dobson? Why would he bring it up, even?"
  5. "Also that she's a member of a very conservative church."
  6. "But in the context of the conversation between the President's Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor and the head of a very conservative Christian organization, it sounds like code."
  7. "Back to Miers for a moment. When you say that Ms. Miers understands that religion has no role in the business of the Court, at the same time the President has said he knows her heart, her beliefs, her character; he talked today about people wanting to know about her life and, therefore, her religion. How are we not to interpret that her religion was one of the factors in his selection?"
  8. "So her religion played no role in her making it to the final group and then, ultimately -- "
  9. "All right. So there was no -- no role at all in the President's decision-making of Harriet Miers' religion?"
  10. "Why is Karl Rove calling up religious leaders telling them it's okay, she belongs to an ultra evangelical church?"
  11. "Wait, wait, wait. What relevance does how a person prays have to the judicial philosophy?"
  12. "So why are you peddling it?"
  13. "But you just said it was relevant to judicial philosophy."
  14. "It seems that what you're doing is trying to calm a revolt on the right concerned that Harriet Miers isn't conservative enough, by saying, it's okay, she is conservative enough, because she goes to this church."
  15. "Why is his top aide going around and telling people how she prays?"
  16. "Scott, isn't -- the bleed-over here, though, is that if we understood the account correctly -- and it doesn't sound like you're disputing it -- that Karl was making an argument that her religious faith and her membership in the evangelical church was evidence of what her judicial philosophy -- conservative judicial philosophy would be. He was using it to buttress the question of how she would rule -- am I misunderstanding that?"
  17. "Scott, if that's the case, then, wouldn't Karl's statement to Mr. Dobson have been, "you know, what church she belongs to is completely irrelevant to how she would serve on the Supreme Court; I'm not even going to tell you what church she went to because it doesn't have anything to do with her philosophy." Wouldn't that be the consistent statement?"
  18. "So there was no effort, to your mind, that it was not Mr. Rove's desire here to use her church background as evidence of how she may approach cases from the bench?"
  19. "If personal views don't have a role to play, then why would anybody from the White House talk about what church she goes to and what the beliefs are of the people in the church?"
  20. "I'll try to ask an earlier question a bit more directly. Did Rove talk to Dobson about Miers' religious beliefs to signal in any way how he thought she would vote on an issue before the Court?"
  21. "Okay, but part of the discussion -- you talked earlier about it -- part of the discussions was about her religious beliefs."
  22. "Did he -- I haven't heard an answer. Did he bring that up to signal -- "
  23. "I don't feel I have an answer. Can you just say yes or no, did he try to signal -- was he trying to signal how she might vote on any particular -- "

(Note: In the first question I edited out Scotty's interruption. Other questions seem to end abruptly - that marks the point Scotty cut them off.)

From It Affects You

Originally posted to up2date on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:22 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip jar (3.98)
    If you think it's worthy, of course.

    If you like this comment, please visit It Affects You -- Ross

    by up2date on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:19:09 PM PDT

    •  what is tip jar? (none)
      •  a tip jar... (4.00)
        a tip jar is a comment a person puts on their own diary to allow people to rate the diary by rating the comment. diaries can't be rated, only recommended. the ratings help one's mojo. don't ask what that is, please.
      •  Diarist is looking for ratings!!! n/t (none)
      •  it is a place (none)
        where people can rate me with 4's if they think the diary is worthy (or less if it stinks.) Basically, I'm insecure and like the encouragement. Getting a lot of 4's is a good way for me to tell my diary is appreciated.

        If you like this comment, please visit It Affects You -- Ross

        by up2date on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:45:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A tip jar is where they keep... (4.00)
        ...what's left after a bris.

        After it's full, the essence of the collected donations is distilled into a very powerful, smoky liquid - known as 'mojo.'

        Highly-placed members of the DNC have been known to offer over $400/gram for this liquid - said to greatly enhance the pleasure of ripping Republicans apart verbally - but it has so far only been offered to left wing bloggers, and others pure in heart.

        There is rumored to be a second distillation, of such immense power that even those administration officials with the courage to tell President Bush the truth tremble at its mention - Jerome a Paris wrote a Diary about it some time ago, as our resident expert in such distillates - but this is unconfirmed.

        JF

        Invest in your future - VOTE DIEBOLD!

        by Jaime Frontero on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:25:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Excellent (none)
          ... a four for making that comment on Yom Kippur...

          I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain

          by route66 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:46:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You work with what you've got... (none)

            Invest in your future - VOTE DIEBOLD!

            by Jaime Frontero on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:11:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  God Forgive Me... (none)
              but I hear they take the foreskins after the bris, sew them into wallets - if you rub them, they become suitcases.

              OK...it's an old one.

              "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

              by mayan on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:34:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A guy went fishing... (none)
                and saw a man with many fish.

                He said "what's your secret?"

                The fisherman replied, 'I'm a doctor, and when I perform a tonsilectomy, I keep the tonsils and use them for bait"

                The guy moved along the pier and saw another fisherman with even more fish, so he asked "what's your secret?"

                The fisherman replied, 'I'm a doctor, and when I perform a appendectomy, I keep the appendix and use it for bait"

                The guy moved along and saw a third fisherman with yet even more fish. The guy says, "Don't tell me. You're a doctor?"

                The fisherman says "No, I'm a Mohel. Why do you ask?"

        •  bris is the son of hubris? (none)
          •  hmmm.... could be! (4.00)
            In classical Greek morality, the inevitable downfall associated with "hubris" was known as "nemesis".

            For an eight-day-old penis (or newer, if you're just doing the goyishe hospital thing -- "he should look like his father!!"), a mohel (the snipper) might be very much a nemesis!

            Loyalty comes from love of good government, not fear of a bad one. Hugo Black.

            by Pondite on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:00:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  What the heck...? (none)
      I'll rate you a '4', UpToDate.  This really is a good story to illustrate just how restless the Press are getting.  They are beginning to smell blood and are beginning to do what they should have had the courage to do back on September 12, 2001 (instead of cravenly promising GWB a free ride a la Dan Rather).

      Thanks for posting this.  It should give us all heart for the struggle ahead.  These bastards will NOT go quietly into that good night.

      "Saying it's your 'job' doesn't make it right." -- Cool Hand Luke

      by aybayb on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:38:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Doesn't the constitution... (4.00)
    ...forbid the selection of officials using religion as a basis?

    America is suffering from Roverian cancer. I am really afraid Bush will prescribe radiation for it...

    by waztec on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:26:27 PM PDT

    •  It did in the America I grew up in... N/T (4.00)

      Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

      by ilona on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:28:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep (4.00)
      Check out Pounder's current recommended diary for a pull-out of the relevant Article.

      (Unless you meant this to be a rhetorical question, which is also cool.)

      I decline to accept the end of man. -- Faulkner

      by red clay dem on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:37:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, yes (4.00)
      but the Constitution is quaint and obsolete now.  
      •  the constitution (4.00)
        'is no longer operative'
        •  Well.... (4.00)
          What we enshrine mentally as the constitution has never, ever been operative.

          I used to think we had equality here.  I really did, until my vote got stolen in 2000 and a little research showed how much of a joke voting rights have always been in the world's oldest democracy.

          Huge chunks of us have never had equality.  Right now nearly 35% are in abject poverty.  The constitution means nothing to them, I assure you--or at least quite a bit differently than we see it.

          The answer is that this eternal struggle has always been with us and we have really delivered on some of the promises in the constitution.

          I dunno, I got all quitty lately.  I'm very tired and I'm on a medical leave from my corporate traipse through the fucking tulips of life job.  I might be a little bent, so what (so what, so what's your fucking problem?)?

          We're always supposed to keep fighting, no matter how bad the losses or Democrats voting for Reoberts.  I dunno, always fighting for nothing just stopped working lately.  Maybe it will come back.

          •  Pull Yer Socks Up (4.00)
            Little bit of a lapse of confidence, paradox?

            Sorry to read. Bout medical leave, bent. etc ...

            love yourself, paradox. You say some beautiful things and I think you got every single thing it takes to be  beautiful, to be god, to be yourself. In fact, you already are.

            Traipse thru the tulips means bullshit.

            walk on the wild side or where ever you feel like walkin
            me too

            be well!
            peace&love

            real leadership is more than costume changes. --M.Dowd

            by ksingh on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:52:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  For gay people... (4.00)
            The constitution reads a little differently.

            (Not to dismiss the others, this is only one example.)

            The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

            by Shapeshifter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:52:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Have a 4 for your phrase (none)
            corporate traipse through the fucking tulips of life job.

            I am traipsing similarly right at this moment.  Still sort of hopeful I will get that phone call this week from the company I interviewed with recently, but I'm beginning to feel like a jilted lover ("WHYYYY doesn't he call me?")

            Good luck to both of us.

        •  mbc, I guess they aren't as old as we. n/t (none)

          I'm a devout believer in irreverence. - JW -

          by John West on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:19:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Why did the Founding Fathers hate America? (nt) (4.00)

        Remember New Orleans

        by Rat on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:27:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Too funny (4.00)
          These idiots say America is a Christian nation.  Well, if the guys who developed our govt wanted it to be Christian, why didn't they just say so?  They wrote the Constitution, they could easily have just plopped down the Ten Commandments rather than that pesky Bill of Rights.  Is it possible that our founding fathers wanted a government free from religious entanglements?  Nah, I guess you're right.  The FF hate America-- at least the Christian Conservative version of it.
          •  A bunch of them weren't even Christian. (4.00)
            Thomas Jefferson, for example, was a Deist, who did not believe in the divinity of Christ.

            There are a bunch of other examples, but I'd need to look them up.

          •  Yes! Commandments instead of Amendments! (none)
            I believe you have hit on something here. This whole "Bill of Rights" thing has been one big misunderstanding. It is obvious that the founders really meant to allow commandments to be added to the Constitution! Not some silly "amendments."

            The Bill of Wrongs, so to speak. Thou shalt not... whatever. Call Roy Moore! Tell him he has won.

    •  That's part of Old America (4.00)
      not our newfound allies in New America.

      Give me Liberty or give me death!

      by guyermo on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:09:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No it did not (4.00)
      I am sure because when I last checked it, it only said something about some animals being more equal than others.  
    •  No (none)
      if forbids anyone from making a rule or law about what religions can serve.  
      Bush is stupid to have admitted what he did and it is particularly unamerican, but not illegal.

      Liberal, Christian, Feminazi, Mom.

      by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:41:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree... (none)
        No religious test means no religious test.  It's not illegal only if it happens more than once.  It's illegal if it is ever done; if a person is appointed or refused appointment on the basis, grounds, or excuse of religion.

        Miers religion is an out of bounds consideration.  Period.

        In violating it, Bush unavoidably makes it an issue that the legislature, courts and people have to consider.  And yet... it's inappropriate to do so.  But the problem is that if her appointment was vetted as suitable because of her evangelical faith, Bush took the appointment out of bounds.

        The remarks about her religion proving her conservatism is acceptable, sufficient, real... prove that there is a de facto religious test.

        The constitutional bar is no test.  Not no law.

        No test.  None.

        "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

        by ogre on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:28:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well, there are oodles of threads on this already, (none)
          but wouldn't the evidence for a "test" be that a candidate failing the test was denied office?

          Sure, the point of having a test is that you can screen for that characteristic "but for" which, you wouldn't appoint them.  But simply picking someone with a certain quality, even if you trumpet it like an idiot, is not, OF ITSELF, evidence that there's a test.

          I mean, look at the position of gays in the Republican hierarchy.  The leadership routinely fights to see who can "hate homos the most", and then award prizes to idiots like Santorum.  But it doesn't keep gays out of positions of power.  In the ascendant wing of the GOP, homophobia is, to their eternal shame and discredit, a highly laudable virtue.  But, if the dope on Dreier, Mehlman and others is to be believed, homophobia is not a "test".

          Same, I would posit, with evangelical fundamentalism on SCOTUS.

          Loyalty comes from love of good government, not fear of a bad one. Hugo Black.

          by Pondite on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:09:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ask a lawyer (none)
          Come on, how do you know what reason someone is being givin the job unless the idiot president opens his mouth and tells you?  

          Test, clearly means you can't make a law requiring people be of a certain religion.  Otherwise you are stuck trying to read minds.  

          Liberal, Christian, Feminazi, Mom.

          by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:49:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Some one - in the newly alive press corp (none)
            needs to ask Bush if he would have chosen some one for this position who was not a christian. If he says no then he had a religious test. Boing! violation.
            sam

            The critical Office is Secretary of State; they run the elections. Let's find superb candidates ! Sam

            by samddobermann on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 01:02:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm guessing he'd say yes (none)
              The man's an idiot, but he's an idiot within boundaries. While we know he used a test now, and just about every time he's appointed anyone to anything, and we know the test is a religious purity one, it's not something anyone could ever prove. It's only proveable when someone gets DENIED a job because they turn out to have the wrong religion, or no religion. They they can take action and try to prove there's a test. But this case? No.

              Better just to let the Repubs beat up on Harriet some more, then join those who vote against her in saying that, sadly, regretfully, while a very nice woman, and while we'd love to confirm her, she wasn't aware we had a Constitution until the most brilliant president ever offered her this job, and that makes her a little, uh, unqualified.


              by J.D. Crowe, The Mobile Register - via Daryl Cagle

              "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." - Harry Truman

              by journey man on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 06:50:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Of course (none)
      the problem is that the Constitution provides for Congress to be the check on the Executive. They are the ones who decide when the President has forsaken his sworn duty to preserve and defend the Constitution. If they look the other way, he rules with impunity.
    •  The statement you are looking for is; (4.00)
      The following in the Constitution;

      but no religious Test shall ever be
      required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
      States.

      Jefferson made sure that one got stuffed in there to stop the use of religous tests (i.e. are you Anglican?) to restrict who could hold a government job.

      Up to that point most of the state Constitutions/articles/etc. had a statement that one had to be a member of the Church of England (Anglican) to hold a public office.  

      In fact up until fairly recently (last 30 years) politicians really didn't stress the religion part and most people were rather leery of those that did.  Carter and Kennedy both had to reassure folks that their religion would not rule the nation/decisions.

      We have no official religious test but woe to the candidate these days for any gubmint position who states he is not a Xian of some sort or admits to being a "Godless Atheist".

      I seem to have lost my nation, I appear to have stepped through the Looking Glass into a "Homeland"

      by mdgluon on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:45:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not quite true (none)
        Carter had to assure the liberal end of the Democratic base his religion wasn't a factor. Other folks thought it was great.

        And Kennedy had to assure folks, not that his religion wasn't a factor, but that his religion wasn't a factor. His non-Protestant religion, in other words.

    •  We're not using the Constitution anymore... (none)
      Now we just go by what God tells W.

      Certainty generally is illusion, and repose is not the destiny of man. - OWH

      by blockbuster on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:42:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  First... (4.00)
    Thanks for the hard work in putting this together.  Second, thanks for giving us a glimpse of the press as they beat their tiny little, nascent beaks against the calcium shell.  Peep...peep...peeep

    "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

    by mayan on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:27:02 PM PDT

    •  for the low low low price of free! (4.00)
      you too can watch todays press gaggle from the comfort of your own real player window!
      10/12/05 gaggle real player link
      •  Damnit! Real Player... (4.00)
        I wish CSPAN would switch to a non-sucktacular format.

        I guess there is a Real Player for Linux now, but still... Real Player...

        The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

        by Shapeshifter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:14:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  .u. (none)
          what i find really funny, the front page used to have a 'most watched vids' in addition to 'most recent vids' section of links. around the time real opposition to bush started to grow it vanished.

          cspan, after all, is brought to you by america's cable companies. you think comcast, cox, et al give a damn about spyware? hah.  

          •  Real paid them off, perhaps? (none)
            Hard to come up with any other reason why people would go with Real...

            The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

            by Shapeshifter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:37:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Believe it or not, the whole world (none)
              does not use Windoze and its media player, for example (this is especially true for many universities). I love Linux and use it home. Real Player can be used more or less just as easily on multi-platforms.  
              •  Heh! (none)
                Typing this (and my other posts) from Firefox on Slackware Linux :P

                I don't even have Windows installed on this (or any other) machine; for much the same reason i don't use Real.

                I can, also, play .wmv (can't remember how i set that up, but it's through Totem) but Real still requires me to install their nasty software. I uninstalled it (and then burnt the hard drive i had installed it on--didn't want to take any chances!) very quickly the last time i tried to use it.

                It's not a question of platforms (there are plenty of open formats for video that can be multiplatformed easily--without requiring a nasty proprietary player) but rather a matter of principles.

                At least, for me.

                The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

                by Shapeshifter on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:39:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  but, but, but (4.00)
    not in Robert's case, right?  only in this case is the religious view important?  not in Robert's?  i'm confused, very confused. splain please.

    Before you know what kindness really is you must lose things, feel the future dissolve in a moment like salt in a weakened broth. Naomi Shihab Nye

    by panicbean on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:40:19 PM PDT

  •  Maybe next time ... (4.00)
    they can ask Scottie why Rove was calling Dobson with news of the president's SCOTUS nominee two days before making it public in the first place. They should be sure to work into their iterations: Does Dobson have a veto?
  •  Anyone else thinking they SHOULD (4.00)
    have given up on THAT and asked alot more about the impending implosion of the White House?

    Or was that the whole point?

  •  Great to see (4.00)
    backbone in WH press corp.

    Did you really expect good governance from those who scorn government?

    by Job52 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:44:05 PM PDT

  •  Have to start watching (none)
    WH press gaggles are getting more gaggly & fun. :-p

    The future ain't what it used to be. Yogi Berra

    by x on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:48:31 PM PDT

    •  Guess it depends where your tolerance level's at (4.00)
      For listening to a white guy in a suit being bossy, snotty, condescending an' rude... I prefer to read the transcript. The questions are much more intersting than Scotty's non-answers.

      The less a man knows about how sausages and laws are made, the easier it is to steal his vote and give him botulism.

      by SensibleShoes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:11:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good start. (4.00)
    But now will they actually report that Scotty evaded answering their questions?

    There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated...insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason.-NoFx

    by SairaLV on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:48:47 PM PDT

    •  The press will report this as: (none)

      "The Administration remains firm in its commitment to Harriet Miers."  Or, "The Administration beats back questions about Miers fitness for the bench."

      "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." --9th Amendment

      by praedor on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:45:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup (4.00)
        and if they don't report it, then there's no reason why Scotty should, or would, answer questions that he does not want to.

        There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated...insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason.-NoFx

        by SairaLV on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:48:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Amen. (none)
      All it would take was a couple well-worded questions and then reports on the non-answers (particularly if the questions were worded so non-answers sounded properly suspicious) and Scotty the Stoat will probably start answering more to escape the skewering he recieves when he's not in the room.

      Or maybe he'd just sweat more.

      The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

      by Shapeshifter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:22:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  so much for the separation of church and state (none)
    sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it, too...
    or maybe they just want us to eat cake...
    drink the kool-aid?
    now I'm confusing myself...aaaaargh!

    "People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character."--Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by rioduran on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:56:10 PM PDT

  •  Fantastic work (4.00)
    This is a great piece of analytical journalism.  Thank you for the diary.
  •  Not relevant (4.00)
    This is simply not relevant.

    So Scott McClellan has to avoid a question.  So what? That's exactly what he's paid to do, and it's exactly what he expected going into it.  And even assuming that it somehow makes him feel bad, uh, so what?  Ooooh, the press made Scott feel bad.

    They still didn't get an answer, and it changes no policy.

    This only becomes relevant if the American people demand that the farcical nature of White House press conferences cease.

    I don't see that happening any time soon.  The current system works for the administration.  They don't care if Scott McClellan feels bad.  And quite probably, Scott McClellan doesn't actually feel bad anyway, even if that mattered one iota in the first place.  

    He knows what he's paid do to, and he just did it.

    •  Don't agree (4.00)
      This was not SM holding his line, doing his job. This was the line collapsing.   This was the townfolk knocking down the castle gate. I read every Press Gaggle transcript, and this one is not busines as usual. Absolutely a departure.  This set of questions could very well be the beginning of the end of the GOP alliance with radical Evangelical Christians in this country.   This could be the big turn we've been waiting for...
      •  Also don't agree. (4.00)
        By returning, returning, and returning to this issue, they kept Scotty from spewing 40 minutes of b.s. on other topics.  Thus, the story for tomorrow is a) Miers' religion, and b) Fitzgerald and possible high-level frogmarches.  

        Plus, of course, they seem to now have enough collective cojones to not let him move on.  That's groundbreaking in and of itself.

      •  This could be... (none)
        This could be a turning point in relationship between MSM and BushCo , but I doubt that in the battle against evangelical wingers, it means much. They've proven they are in this for the long term (30 years getting ready for Miers! No wonder they're pissed) and won't give up so quickly or quietly. Dobson's minions will just look for another horse(es ass) to hook their wagon train to and plan for the day they can ride off into the setting sun.

        Make it a great day!

        •  Or they could be (none)
          the mob that breaks up at the first shot fired in the air.

          Hopefully, it's the water on the witch...
          "I'm melting... melting..."

          •  Don't think so... (none)
            Since I live in Kansas, I'll give you 4 for the Oz reference, but the evangelical wingers have money and power. They've been around for awhile and aren't going away anytime soon. God never told them it would be easy!

            Make it a great day!

    •  Fear Factor (4.00)
      The point is that the White House Press Corp has been afraid of asking tough questions and going after follow ups because they didn't want to lose access.

      Now they don't care, since they see this President is going down the drain. Bush/Rove can't intimidate them anymore.

      They know there will be indictments coming out this month. They know they were played with false information. Now they are showing some pride in doing their job.

      Sure, McClellan avoided answering. But you don't think that word of this press conference will get back to the powers that be? It is probably one of the few ways information can actually get to Bush, or at least his handlers. They know they have lost the golden touch.

      A president in his own league. The Bush League!

      by Tuba Les on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:26:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The tables have indeed turned (none)
        now the WH needs the press corp. The WH needs the press to show Bush's next one-hundreth visit to hurricane riddled communities, to continue to spew the happy, flower-tossing propaganda about Iraq, our economy, and weak attempts to sweep constant GOP corruption under a rug.

        The tables have turned on the WH. The people are gagging on the kool-aid and the press is finally beginning to drink the Gatorade instead.

        'Bout time, too.

        "Im not afraid of storms, for I'm learning to sail my ship." - Louisa May Alcott

        by smugbug on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:13:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The tables have indeed turned (none)
        now the WH needs the press corp. The WH needs the press to show Bush's next one-hundreth visit to hurricane riddled communities, to continue to spew the happy, flower-tossing propaganda about Iraq, our economy, and weak attempts to sweep constant GOP corruption under a rug.

        The tables have turned on the WH. The people are gagging on the kool-aid and the press is finally beginning to drink the Gatorade instead.

        'Bout time, too.

        "Im not afraid of storms, for I'm learning to sail my ship." - Louisa May Alcott

        by smugbug on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:16:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's important... (4.00)
      It's important because it shows the growing rift developing in the administration. Bush said straight out today that religion was a factor but the WH seems to have no response -- not even a spiffy generic canned one liner. This administration is falling apart. They can no longer control the media the way they once did.

      "Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere"

      by Morbo on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:42:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well (none)
      Of course Scotty isn't going to feel bad, and I could care less if he did.  This has nothing to do with that.  The press was not content to let McClellan avoid the questions, so they kept at him.  Yes, they still don't have an answer, but now it's out in the open.  Previously, they would ask and at best he would avoid, and at worst he would answer with some unrelated talking point.  They would dutifully move on to the next question and reprint the talking points.  

      I am not going to pretend this changes everything, but the press is no longer giving BushCo quite the free ride, and though they are not all the way there, they are starting to ask the right questions.  Their rejection of standard talking points from McClellan will likely end up in their reporting and in the stories from countless reporters who base their work on the transcripts of these press conferences.  And that can and will have an impact on popular opinion.

      If you like this comment, please visit It Affects You -- Ross

      by up2date on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:52:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who's the plant asking (4.00)
    if the quibbles about Miers's nomination aren't "sexist" and "elitist"?
    That's not Bianca, is it?

    The less a man knows about how sausages and laws are made, the easier it is to steal his vote and give him botulism.

    by SensibleShoes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:09:48 PM PDT

  •  Miers participation in nominating herself (4.00)
    The President is the one who made the decision, but he was very much involved in that, as was the Vice President, Andy Card, Karl -- as I mentioned -- General Gonzales, the Attorney General, Scooter Libby, and Harriet Miers, of course, was involved in that process

    Aren't these the people that might be indicted?

    If not us, who? If not now, when? L. Feuctwanger Gore/Clark 2008

    by mattes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:13:40 PM PDT

  •  Harriet & George sitting in a tree... (none)
    If Harriet were to become a member of SCOTUS, could she be integral in Bush being pardoned if charged with war crimes?

    "And this here is the ass of a drunken shitbird!"

    by Calamity Jane on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:14:10 PM PDT

    •  Actually, it sounds like (none)
      SHE might be as much a war criminal as the rest of them...something to ask at her confirmation hearings. And even if she's deemed acceptable and confirmed, she would have to recuse herself from cases where she had direct involvement of the sort described above.
  •  Air America (4.00)
    Why do I get the feeling that I'll be hearing snippets of this on Air America tomorrow, particularly on Randi's show and Morning Sedition?

    I'm one of the people around here who's always trying to calm everyone down, remind them that it isn't over until the fat lady sings, etc., but the current mountain of Republican scandals is starting feel more like History In The Making and less like "just politics" every day.

    One would think that any group of college-educated people as large as the Republican politicians would have at least a few members who understand how destructive it can be to overreach a position of power, and that pendulums swing in both directions.  But it seems that even the self-inflicted horrors of Watergate have been forgotten, and now it's up to Bush and his cronies to rediscover a lesson that the rest of the world knows.

    What a bunch of ignorant, arrogant, greedy, uncaring, fucking morons.  I spit on their political graves.

    •  No... (none)
      That's not it. It's that they took away a remarkably different set of lessons from Watergate than the rest of the nation. They took away two lessons, in fact:

      1. Don't get caught.
      2. Damn those evil partisan Democrats! We'll get those sunsabitches for this!

      The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

      by Shapeshifter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:34:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You liberal....scientist (none)
      Pendulums DO NOT swing both ways (and are you trying to spin your allowance of homosexuality in there?) A pendulum only moves however god makes it move. The fact that pendulums have always moved both ways before now is that it pleased him to do so.

      I don't even know why he bothers to let you live...must be a test.

      </snark>

      Freedom can't be forced. (-8.63), (-7.03)

      by Perdition on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:02:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  SAY WHAT?? (4.00)
    Secondly, Secretary Chertoff has been moving forward on some reorganization within the Department of Homeland Security. He is moving forward on the position of an undersecretary for preparedness. And I think when you look at preparedness and response, you have to take into account all our efforts, not just one agency. FEMA is one part of that, and they're an important part of that. And Secretary Chertoff is committed to improving and strengthening FEMA. In fact, since we've been in office, we've provided significant increases in the budget for FEMA.

    Just what we need another level of incompetence. And when did they increase the FEMA Budget? LIES.

    If not us, who? If not now, when? L. Feuctwanger Gore/Clark 2008

    by mattes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:19:32 PM PDT

    •  Sounds as if (none)
      this undersecretary will be in charge of making sure each incontinent adult will be issued one one adult diaper in case he or she has the misfortune to be evacuated by the feds.
    •  It's the secretary for underpreparedness (none)
      ...and significant increase in the budget for FEMA... croney contracts
    •  Undersecretary for Preparedness (none)
      Shouldn't the FEMA director already be the Undersecretary for Preparedness? I mean, if s/he's nominally in charge of managing emergencies at the federal level, shouldn't s/he also be responsible for ensuring his/her department is prepared to do so in advance, since emergencies, by definition, leave very little time for preparation after they have already occurred?

      I mean, isn't this a completely redundant position?!? Or have I made the cardinal mistake of trying to use logic when the obvious answer is that we just need two cronies and not just one, that way we can reward even more of our flacks from the campaign field?

  •  They're all cowards (4.00)
    Look at them letting the media do the work for them, asking "is it code to signal to their base that Miers will rule a certain way?" Well that sure tells the base it's affirmative, she's their stooge. But what a fucking bunch of cowards they all are for not having the guts to come right out and say it to America.

    How's that for some chickenshit swagger?

  •  Excellent (none)
    What a great chuckle, I feel like a better person having read that.

    Just to be fair, #5 is definatly not a question, and #6 is a pretty hard argument for being a question, and #17 is putting words in his mouth.

    But an otherwise completly enjoyable eviceration of Scott, what a fuckin tool.

    •  Considering... (none)
      Considering Scott McClellen's standard operating procedure (lie, lie, lie, spin, spin, spin, smokescreen, smokescreen, smokescreen, call on the hired prostitute with a press pass, repeat) i wouldn't complain if the rest of the press brought in airhorns and used them to interrupt him whenever they felt like asking a question.

      Or, you know, asked him if he would deny the persistent rumors he was a pig fucker.

      The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

      by Shapeshifter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:38:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  More! (4.00)
    Q Scott, Worldnet Daily reported in 1995 Ben Barnes, Texas former lieutenant governor, secured a contract for a company called GTECH to run the Texas Lottery. And my first question: Did Harriet Miers continue the Texas Lottery's contract to GTECH without bid, so that Barnes received a $23 million payoff as part of the deal, authorized by Miers?

    MR. McCLELLAN: I would encourage you to go back and look at news reports at the time, because the governor's office at the time denied any connection that you may be asserting within your question. That's an issue that's already been discussed, and I think that Ben Barnes has said the same.

    Q In 1999, a former executive director of the Texas Lottery, named Lawrence Littwin, filed a lawsuit alleging he lost his job as a result of political influence wielded by Barnes. And my question, since this Littwin suit was settled out of court for $300,000, what is the White House response?

    MR. McCLELLAN: The allegations have been disputed previously by both the governor's office and -- by the governor's office at the time, and by Mr. Barnes. I would encourage you to go back and look at the comments that were made at the time. I'd be glad to provide those to you if you would like.

    This is great stuff....they were on a roll today!

    If not us, who? If not now, when? L. Feuctwanger Gore/Clark 2008

    by mattes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:24:16 PM PDT

  •  Oh what a sharp and shiny double edged sword (4.00)
    for the Goopers. They must justify to their base that the nominee is not only a christian, but a conservative, evangelical, pro-life Christian or they must justify to the press that it had no bearing in her selection.  Who would you rather answer to, the press or Focus on the Fucking Family, et al?
  •  You know, if the press corps (4.00)
    continues to stick together like this, they might just, here and there, force Scotty to give an actual answer.

    Support The Troops, Demand The Truth

    by MamaBear on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:37:38 PM PDT

  •  I wish someone would have... (4.00)
    ...followed up on this answer:

    Q -- what relevance does it play in a conversation between Karl Rove and James Dobson? Why would he bring it up, even?

    MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you're being very selective in what you're talking about from the conversation, because I know what Karl emphasized in that conversation is her qualifications and her background, and her judicial philosophy.

    Why didn't the reporter then ask:  "Scott, do you know what Karl emphasized to Dobson just as you knew he never discussed Wilson/Plame with reporters?"

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:38:53 PM PDT

  •  How (4.00)
    How the hell can McClellan say with a straight face that we should judge her based on her record, qualifications and experience?  Over and over, he says this...

    Why is no one asking, WHAT record, qualifications and experience??

    The only things we're being told

    1. She's a woman
    2. She's 'purty smart'
    3. She's religious
    4. She's not a judge, and that's the point of this nominiation..

    Um..

    I'd think she's equally qualified on those counts with thousands upon thousands of other women.

    The only difference seems to be that those other women are not Bush's personal counsel..

    Is that a qualification to be a Supreme Court judge??

    "You're either with us or against us in the war on terror." - George W. Bush
    "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." - Obi Wan Kenobi

    by Stymnus on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:39:30 PM PDT

  •  I saw that on ABC's (4.00)
    World News tonight.  Terry Moran, their WH reporter is pretty good.  He was one of the 23 asking that question.  He was not at all happy about Scotty not answering the questions.

    Don't you think Scotty probably feels like such an ass for standing there not answering these questions?  He's probably standing there thinking......"what the fuck am I doing here?  I should've taken that other job.  Why do I do this for the boss all the time?  Let Rove come out and do this shit, I'm tired of looking like an idiot."

    Poor Scotty.  It's not getting any better is it Scotto?

  •  To get on the Supreme Court (none)
    you don't have to know anything, as long as you believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

    What is essential is invisible.

    by bebimbob on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:48:52 PM PDT

  •  Video is available... (none)
    ...on C-SPAN.

    --
    Blogs will matter when we act locally: Local Diaries on Daily Kos.

    by miholo on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:50:47 PM PDT

  •  Hah! What about this exchange on Syria!! (4.00)
    Scotty couldn't win even when the topic left Miers /SCOTUS. Which happened only four times. I culled this exchange to its essence.
    Q I read that the President is seeking a regime change in Syria. ... what right would he have to unseat anybody in another country without provocation?
    ...
    MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think it's an accurate reflection of our policy
    ...
    Q -- is he seeking a regime change in Syria?
    ...
    MR. McCLELLAN: There's no change in our policy toward Syria.
    ...
    Q Whatever that is.

    That's spelled S-A-R-C-A-S-M.

    I feel like I'm reading a SNL spoof of a press conference.

  •  I love Love LOVE Scottie's (none)
    gentle musing - where he rolls the words "outreach" and "reaching out" lovingly in his mouth like -well- like marbles.  

    I think that he must have received a memo -probably from Rove or Hughes- directing him to say "reach out" rather than "outreach."  "Scott, we just had a focus group and, well, 'reach out' is just so much more active, it shows that the president is loving and father-like - so, use it or lose it Scotty."

    "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

    by mayan on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:21:25 PM PDT

    •  I Also Really Love... (none)
      how they change the rules.  They stone-walled info on Roberts' religiosity, coz they needed him to look judicial.  But they need the right-wing so they are playing up her "faith."  "No litmus test but boy does she have faith!  Oy! Such faith!"

      "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

      by mayan on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:27:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, what is happening to the press? (none)
    My oh my, they're getting brave.

    Nothing like a lame duck president to grow some nerves on the press. Where the hell have those cowards been all this time, though?

    These were priceless:

    "So why are you peddling it?"

    "I don't feel I have an answer. Can you just say yes or no"

  •  Taking bets. (4.00)
    Who's it gonna be to crack up first, Scotty or Georgie? I'll take George for $5, straight up.

    I'm a devout believer in irreverence. - JW -

    by John West on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:23:05 PM PDT

    •  I'll see that $5 (none)
      and raise you $5, but only if he has another press conference before Christmas.

      Because I think if he does, he's going to get unscripted questions and it's really going to set him off.

      •  I've been thinking about that. (none)
        Those press conferences are really getting to him. We need some more of them. Apparently he finds it easier to talk to god than he does the press.

        I'm a devout believer in irreverence. - JW -

        by John West on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:51:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  VIDEO White House Press Conf Edited Down (none)
    to take out a lot of Scotty hot air

    At CanOFun

    He who is silent is assumed to consent

    by cof on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:31:19 PM PDT

  •  This diary shows why this comment is important. (none)
    On pounder's diary, there was this interminable debate about whether or not Bush's comment was constitutional.  Not the point!!  The comment was a gaffe, a really nasty, wounding gaffe, and McClellan's behaviour here shows that it is excrutiating for them.

    So... we should remind people of it over and over again and watch them sweat.  (Or blink.)

  •  Who cares? (none)
    Did any one of those fuckwads write in detail about who the administration refuses to answer to the public, refuses to answer questions, refuses to defend its borderline unConstitutional actions in insisting on a religious test for a SCOTUS nomination?

    Wake me when the media fucking grows a pair and destroys this administration and the party in power for the rank corruption and un-American (i.e. sociopathic) actions.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

    by Lestatdelc on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:35:41 PM PDT

  •  Hey Scottie... W.H.I.G. baby, W.H.I.G. (none)
    Scott, a couple months ago you refused to answer a reporter if you had an attorney to protect you from Fitzpatrick. I think you better get one now bitch.
  •  When will Scotty hit his limit? (none)
    I keep thinking he's going to develop a sudden need to head home to Texas to help run his mama's gubernatorial campaign one of these days when he finally decides he just can't stand up and mouth this drivel any more.
  •  The fact that people here are celebrating (4.00)
    is striking testimony to how debased our political culture has become.  A healthy political culture would follow this "press conference" (stenographer happening) with headlines like, "Bush Violates the Constitution Again."  There should be calls for impeachment and resignation.  The man is a menace to American values, and people here are celebrating when a few questions are politiely tossed.

    Geonomist - Charge for privileges; abolish taxes on production.

    by Geonomist on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:47:00 PM PDT

    •  Great Comment (none)
      Hey, nice one.  Keep coming back, we need more constructive criticism.  Not that the impassioned responses aren't valid or even worth while.  Just that we can really benefit from dialogue.

      Thanks

      "The secret of man's being is not only to live but to have something to live for." - Dostoyevsky

      by robolywa on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:51:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Harry just (none)
    invalidated herself.

    Bye bye Harry.

    Eat shit you corporatist zombie.

    -9.38:-7.59 U.S. blue collar worker vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1998 it was 1:418.

    by Lode Runner on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:48:39 PM PDT

  •  Scott is just wishing Jeff Gannon was there to lob (none)
    him an easy one.

    "The secret of man's being is not only to live but to have something to live for." - Dostoyevsky

    by robolywa on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:48:47 PM PDT

  •  Atonement (none)
    I saw this today, too. Congratulations on your math. It was gratifying, but this press corps has a lot of catching up to do to atone for their myriad sins of omission.
    •  that's for sure (none)
      and i'll submit that they only seem to be reformed by virtue of contrasting them now with the extreme negligence they have been guilty of.

      contrasted to a real media, they're actually still coming up short.

      but you don't want to poo poo the baby steps.  i guess.

      and it's a force of habit/ if it moves then you fuck it / if it doesn't move you stab it -- MacManus

      by BiminiCat on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:06:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ad hominem (none)
    Did you se that picture of Harriet with all that black eye makeup? I think someone must have spoken to her about it, because she appears normal in her later photos.

    George should be drawn and quartered for putting her in this position. It was cruel. I'm even beginning to feel nervous about her confirmation hearings, though I think she'll squeeze through.
    She really ought to withdraw from the whole mess and save face.

  •  Off topic, a bit... (none)
    You know, I have always wondered if Scott McLellan is any relation to the Union Civil War general? Does anyone here know?
  •  The press corps still sucks (none)
    The prevailing ethos has not changed.

    The WH press corps still loves a winner and scorns a loser. Until recently, BushCo were perceived as winners: Bush was "personable"; Rove was a "genius"; Rumsfeld was "sexy"; and so on, ad nauseum.

    Contrast that with their coverage of a Democratic party who, admittedly, has trouble getting out its own way. Because the Dems have been widely  perceived as "losers", it allows reporters like the Washington Post's Dana Millbank to write a snarky, dismissive front page article about Conyers' hearings on the Downing Street Memo; or to magnify every Kerry gaffe and mis-step in the run-up to the last election.

    But now that the wheels are starting to come off the BushCo bandwagon, is it really a surprise that our intrepid press corps have magically developed a spine? Having apparently consigned BushCo to the "losers" camp, they no longer feel constrained by the strict decorum necessitated when covering a "winner."

    Don't get me wrong; I'm enjoying this shift in consciousness as much as everyone else on this site. Yet none of us should lose sight of the fact that the White House press corps has yet to reclaim the role it happily abdicated five years ago - that of speaking truth to power.

    The tough questions should have been asked back when BushCo was riding high and slamming their radical agenda down our collective throats. Conversely, their approach now strikes me as too little, too late; the actions of a group of long suffering children who, after watching the neighborhood bully finally get his come-uppance, are suddenly emboldened to pile on, pummel, and kick their erstwhile tormentor.  

    •  couldn't agree more (none)
      The press didn't grow a new pair of anything! They just jumped on a different  bandwagon. A fortunate turn of events for us, but zero credit due to the MSM. The tough questions have already been asked by Ronnie Earle, Patrick Fitzgerald, Cindy Sheehan, John Conyers, etc. Only now is it "safe" for them to venture into the water. Where were they for MONTHS following the release of the Downing Street memos? Why is there never any mention of the role of current members of the administration in the formation and agenda of the PNAC? They've still got a heck of a lot more to accomplish to gain any respect in my eyes!
    •  Couldn't agree more me too! (none)
      I have becoame so supicious of anything the "press corps" says and does any sign of progress (i.e.inquistiveness) is just a greater reflection of all their missed opportuinities.
      The more important issue here is what the "press corps" did with this shunning of their questions.
      Did they go back and write that the Administration refused to answer their questions? Did they try and uncover the real answer to these questiuons? Did they demand that McClellan and or Bush ANSWER those questions.
      Long long ago, back in the Clinton days, the press would hound every conceivable participant in these sort of things, whole camps of journalists would camp on doorsteps to get answers. Their editorial boards would rail against every Clintion Administration fuckup. Eveyr little detail would be gone over endlessly.
      With the Bush administration things changed completely. The "press corps" took EVERYthing the Bushco said at face value--too many to count. Investigative journalism was completely wiped out except for issues like Natalee Holloway and the runaway bride.
      The BUsh Administration and Republicans really--I mean REALLY think their shit doesn't stink and the :press corps only helped them put across their fabrications. Theyre STILl doing it and will untill some new publication comes out that leads them in another direction. The herd instinct is never more prevalent in the press corps than now. They are gutless with no followthrough at all.
      These are the people we expect to bring us the "truth?" ROTFLMAO

      INVESTIGATE THE CBS PAPERS!!! THEY ARE FEDERAL DOCUMENTS!! Don't let the Bush Administration win WITHOUT PROVING A THING!!!

      by exlrrp on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:18:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like the 'fill in your own answers' method (none)
    Great diary.

    After the fifth or sixth question I could hear McLellan evading the questions giving the same damned answer over and over.

    The points above about this being maybe the fourth time this year that the press corps has asked real questions are valid.

    What I don't understand is why this has not become sport.  If I were in the WH press corps I'd try my hardest to get Scotty into the 'ongoing investigation', 'blame game' mode.  "Jim/Jeff, where are you? Save me."

    What do members of the Repub. leadership say when they bump into Pres. Bush? "Pardon me."

    by mungley on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:06:05 PM PDT

  •  Concerning (none)
     scottys' answer to Helen about whether are not the chimp will force a regime change in Syria.

    Check out up2dates' press gaggle link.

    press gaggle

    "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

    by fugwb on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 03:54:23 AM PDT

  •  I'll go ya one better. (none)
    I'm gonna boil them - in bleach.

    Yikes - that was - I don't even have words for it.

    Just - Yikes.

    Support The Troops, Demand The Truth

    by MamaBear on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:42:23 PM PDT

Meteor Blades, Roastbeef, Kimberley, Frederick, bink, gina, Alumbrados, chezgle, davej, RobertInWisconsin, MichaelPH, zzyzx, Madman in the marketplace, jillian, pb, LAS, Cowalker, melo, Ben P, Rayne, casamurphy, Trendar, joejoejoe, Zackpunk, sharronmar, Dump Terry McAuliffe, lrhoke, kellymonaghan, TrueBlueMajority, saraswati, RunawayRose, wytcld, Maryscott OConnor, JTML, Lahdee, Disillusioned, Shockwave, Titian, Hopeful in AZ, sam3am, MsButterworth, JK Minnesota, Mnemosyne, qw3rty, 3rdeye, Rat, figdish, x, JOyODurham, Lawyer to Capitalists, red moon dog, pseudomass, HarveyMilk, frisco, ilona, Luam, peacemonger, Muboshgu, Carnacki, object16, exNYinTX, jancw, jane 2000, Plan9, dpc, RubDMC, mlafleur, concernedamerican, gerbbils, healing one, TravnTexas, elveta, FtheNaysayers, Jeffrey Feldman, Loquatrix, SusanHu, journey man, stevej, Crista Galli, cdodd, AllenB101, Appalled, mrblifil, Aquarius40, chechecule, samddobermann, allysonsta, peraspera, peeder, freepress4all, Molee, nargel, timeno, Fe, bws, Woundweavr, lisaderitis, Nate Roberts, stanmeister, gravie, antirove, kozmo, revsue, PresentMoment, mayan, jhwygirl, Stand Strong, NYC Sophia, pointsoflight, Nancy in LA, cosette, Caldonia, Persimmon, MamaBear, On The Bus, HollywoodOz, Mrcia, skptk, welshvalleymaid, waztec, ChiGirl88, zdefender, eleanora, mattes, LifeForRent408, DrReason, PAprogressive, HK, DarkSyde, DrewDown, kd texan, Renaldo Migaldi, boran2, Blueiz, Shapeshifter, dereau, colinm, sawgrass727, rapala, MichDeb, vcmvo2, chumley, Red State Misfit, DCleviathan, Ken065, farleftcoast, Cisco Pike, kingubu, bellevie, 12, Elise, Independent Musings, tolerant, nyc175, Closet VB Coder, panicbean, ZappoDave, station wagon, Darth Codis, Clem Yeobright, drewfromct, robolywa, Brooke In Seattle, Simpletonian, Claybow, zackmann, keepinon, tutone, concerned, jorndorff, Jaime Frontero, Will Easton, science geek, Kayakbiker, Rex Freedom, sunbro, el zilcho, kevn357, jm taylor, pmob5977, formalist, proudprogressiveCA, eiffel511, justme2, grapes, viscerality, orphanpower, RainyDay, grayscale, Jim P, TimeTogether, Jayhawker, buddabelly, das monde

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site