Attention, DailyKos! We interrupt this Scotty Show with Tony Snow drought to bring you an important Scotty Show with Tony Snow bulletin. The National DKos Service is issuing a severe Scotty Show advisory. This indicates that conditions are favorable for another episode of The Scotty Show with Tony Snow. I realize that nobody is going to actually read this, because I am an idiot and am posting it on a big primary election day, as well as right before everybody takes off Vegas-bound.
As for me, I will be getting married this Saturday. Then, I'm heading out of the country, and it's up to the NSA, CIA and DHS whether I'll return. I can already feel the gay people trying to destroy the sanctity of my marriage. Gay people: Stop destroying the sanctity of my marriage. This one's gotta last; nobody else will put up with me. And as always:
Press comments/questions are italicized for her pleasure.
Scotty's Snow's bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life.
Bullshit detector comments are in plain text, which I'm sure signifies something suitably profound.
Can you clarify how many investigations in Iraq President Bush has been briefed on, and what are they? There was some confusion --
I'm aware of two -- two. I am not sure -- I do not know that he has been briefed on the allegations that something happened in March in Ishaqi. We do know that -- I do know, personally, that he has been briefed on the allegations that something happened in Ishaqi. We do know that -- I do know personally that he has been briefed on the other two incidents that have been -- that have made some headlines in recent days.
Great. Just fucking great. We haven't even had him a MONTH yet and someone has already broken the Tony. This is why we can't have nice things.
And also can you -- have you been able to get any kind of readout on what the Prime Minister said yesterday about --
Yes. As a matter of fact, I just -- I spoke just a couple of minutes with Ambassador Khalilzad, who, today with General Casey, went over and spoke with the Prime Minister. And according to the Ambassador, the Prime Minister says he was misquoted. General Casey has said that he will inform him fully of the results of investigations when they have concluded. He filled him in on the fact that there are two separate tracks, one having to do with the timing of reporting in Haditha, and number two, on the criminal investigations.
And apparently the Prime Minister did try to sort of explain how such a characterization would be made in the press, but that is a little too complicated for me to try to read out. But in any event, they did have a meeting with him.
That must have been a fun meeting.
"Ambassador! General Casey! So good to see you again! What's that? You want to know if I really said, `These forces do not respect the citizens, some of whom are crushed by tanks, others shot. ... They run them over and leave them, or they kill anyone suspicious... [it is a] terrible crime in which women and children were eliminated'? Well, that is a very funny story. I was misquoted. Totally understandable, really. What I actually said was, `I love America! Yay America! America totally rocks!' Please do not crush me with a tank."
It's probably also important to note that, on a more general basis, a couple of propositions. Secretary Rumsfeld today said of the allegations, "We don't expect U.S. soldiers to act that way, and they're trained not to." But as I have done from this podium, and as all of us in the administration will continue to do, you're not going to be able to get specific reaction to specific charges for the simple reason that it could, in fact, get in the way of any necessary prosecution, should it become necessary, and we're not going to get ourselves embroiled in the legal process.
Rumsfeld says that he didn't "expect soldiers to act that way". Is that like expecting Iraq to be a cakewalk? Is that like expecting that we would be "greeted as liberators" or, in Rumsfeld's own words, "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last.. it could last six days, six weeks... I doubt six months."?
Is it just me, or do the Republicans, really, REALLY suck at predictions?
He was misquoted. Do you have a sense of what he said or meant to say?
No, I -- it was one of these things where he said at one point he was asking an unrelated question about a traffic stop, and it really does get pretty convoluted. I don't want to get myself too much into it. But he said -- what Ambassador Khalilzad did say is that he said he was misquoted and they're going to look into it. That is what Prime Minister said.
This kind of traffic stop, by any chance?
Can I just follow on that, Tony, because it sounds a little too neatly wrapped up.
Well, then you're going to have to take that up with the Prime Minister.
And then when you do that, we'll just say that you misquoted him.
Well, but I assume we were taking that up with the Prime Minister. So why don't we talk about it from the U.S. government perspective. Which is how does the President react to the fact that someone we had heaped praise on has fired a pretty serious shot across the bow at U.S. forces who are securing Iraq?
Well, I've just told you, David, that he said he didn't.
Weird. That's not what Condi says.
What was misinterpreted? Surely -- you've been a reporter a long time. You just simply ask, what was the real reason that he -- Where does he say he was misinterpreted?
Well, unfortunately, Helen, I have just tried to -- what I'm trying is to relate to you, through Ambassador Khalilzad, through me, what was told to him through an interpreter by the Prime Minister. And it becomes a little convoluted, and so I don't want to make a real clear characterization, because it's a little hazy to me, too. All right? What I do know is that he was misquoted, he's looking into it. But that what he said, and when he said it, and in reaction to what is a little gauzy.
All right, all right, all right. Jesus fucking Christ in a car seat, Helen. I don't know how many times you guys are going to ask me this same question. Fuck.
You know, that crazy Iraqi Prime Minister... I mean, his English isn't so great. So I've done you all a favor an fed his quote through Babel Fish, translated it into Portuguese and Russian and Greek and Japanese and Italian and a bunch of other shit and then translated it back to English. In theory, this should make his statement pretty much universal and there can be no question about it being misquoted. Okay? So here is what the Prime Minister actually said:
With that is destroyed the citizen who forces those with other things and does not respect, is destroyed the go-cart which is prepared anyone sketched... that and model behavior, goes away those partly to that due to will, which you kill, each one... that crime doubted that it is the woman and the child where inside it is fearful is excluded whether or.
Okay? Does that clear things up for you?
The phrase that I saw was, "a daily phenomenon." This is fairly specific stuff he's talking about. So to say, well, we know he didn't say that, when the quotes are -- it's not a generalization, it's very specific stuff that he's quoted as saying. So if you then turn around and say: Well, we know he didn't say that; we don't know what he said, but we know he didn't say that --
I'm just telling you what he said. But here's the other thing. Here's Rich Oppel's piece --
So how do we know YOU'RE not misquoting him? How do we know that you're not misquoting YOURSELF? How does anyone know that I'm not misquoting my thoughts as I type them into this Scotty Show? How do we know that the world is not just one big misquote from God?
/stoner
You're not telling us what he said.
But I don't know exactly what he said. All I'm doing is giving you the characterization I repeated through the Ambassador. I'm trying my best to be your advocate on this one. But I did not have a direct conversation with the Ambassador -- I mean, with the Prime Minister. But it's interesting to note that you have -- violence against civilians has become a "daily phenomenon by many troops in the American-led coalition who did not respect the Iraqi people." This is gauzian in and of itself. It doesn't refer to American troops. It talks about troops in an American-led coalition, which also involves Iraqi troops. I don't know what this means. I wish I did, and I wish I could give you clearer guidance.
Look, okay... for the last motherfucking time, I'm going to say this. What you're saying Maliki said, he didn't say, but we don't know what he actually did say, only that he did not say what you all say that he said, which is to say that you're saying that he said a thing which I'm saying that the Ambassador is saying that the Prime Minister is saying that he never said, although we don't know what he really said. Don't make me say it again.
But we do know that it's favorable in terms of the relationship between Maliki and the United States?
Yes.
Other than the running over with tanks and eliminating women and children part, of course, but who doesn't have an occasional disagreement every once in a while?
We know that there's no problem, everybody is in great shape, "Kumbaya"?
No -- do you really think it's "Kumbaya"? You were talking -- No, that is -- no, come on. You're --
That's the impression you're giving from the podium.
MR. SNOW: I am not giving -- when we are talking about investigations that could lead to capital prosecutions, nobody is singing "Kumbaya." And when you have --
Ooooh! Did you catch that? I just kicked that strawman directly in the nutsack. Does anybody know if strawmen have nutsacks? Could somebody find that out for me, maybe put it on the bupkis list or something? Awesome.
And that's not what I referring to now, either, and you know that.
And when you have General Casey going in and trying to brief a Prime Minister, nobody is singing "Kumbaya." You know what they're saying? They're saying, let's figure out what the facts are and let's work together to secure peace.
Wait... I thought you didn't know what they were saying. Make up your mind, Blowdried Colostomy BagTM.
[A]t some point, we will get a more accurate readout about exactly what [the Prime Minister] did mean?
Lots of luck. We will see what we can get. All right?
In other words: Since I made all that shit up, don't hold your breath. None of you speak Arabic, right?
On a somewhat related issue, as Secretary Rumsfeld correctly said, our troops can get morals and ethics training. And now, after these possible massacres, General Casey has ordered additional training for all hands. Isn't that a little late? Doesn't it smack as spin control as all of this is going on?
Well, Ivan, let's do a couple of things. Number one, understand that there is a presumption of innocence in all American courts of law. Number two, let's also try to figure out what the facts are. I'm simply not going to be talking about two later -- smacks of this or smacks of that when neither you nor I has seen the evidence, neither you nor I has heard the prosecution or the defense, you nor I has seen any of the documents. That would be moral grandstanding, and I think we owe it to ourselves to figure out what the facts of the case are, and we all may be able to draw appropriate morals at the appropriate time.
SCOTTY VS. SNOW: A Difference
Scotty would ignore the question to give an answer laden with talking points:
REPORTER: Excuse me, do you happen to know what time it is?
SCOTTY: Time? Let me say a little about time. Giving timelines only helps the enemy. That's what the Democrats in Congress want -- to help the enemy by imposing artificial timelines on the victory process for Iraq. Timelines help no one, except for the cut-and-runners who would like us to flee Iraq with our tail between our legs.
REPORTER: But that's not what I asked...
SCOTTY: I have answered your question.
Snow ignores the questions to attack the person who asked it.
REPORTER: Excuse me, do you happen to know what time it is?
SNOW: Time? You're asking me to tell you what time it is? Are you implying that our troops in Iraq do not know how to tell time? As if they are retarded? Are you calling the troops retarded? That is beyond the pale. I cannot believe that I have to stand here in this press briefing room and listen to you make fun of our brave soldiers and retarded kids! Let me tell you, those Special Olympics kids are full of determination and heart, and you want to make fun of them? They are champions -- that's more than I can say for you, low-life.
I'm not implying guilt. What I'm asking about is the training that General Casey has ordered, if there is possible guilt, if there is possible malfeasance in the way our troops deal with civilians. Isn't that training coming on what they were --
No, because it is -- as Secretary Rumsfeld and others have pointed out, people have, from the beginning of this war, been getting training in a number of these things. And so this is not something completely new. But, obviously, there is concern, and they want to make sure that everybody, in a hard war where young men are spending a lot of time in the field of battle, make sure that they know what the proper rules and procedures are so they can do their jobs properly.
Tony, this debate [on same-sex marriage] obviously played a big role in the 2004 reelect, and the President made some pledges at that point to fight hard for this. There have been some conservatives who have suggested that he's not made good on that pledge. So apart from tomorrow's radio address and Monday night's activity on the eve of the actual vote, what can be said on the President's behalf to suggest to those critics that, actually, he has done some lifting on this?
Well, the President -- I don't know sometimes how you -- the President is going to have to let what he's doing on behalf of this particular legislative proposal stand for itself. They're going to have to draw their own judgments.
Okay, look, I mean... maybe the President hasn't been out gay-bashing as much as some people would like. This is not easy for any of us, because we've got a lot of hate balls up in the air. Just look.
Is he making calls to senators?
Senators aren't in town -- do you know how hard it is to find a senator this week? (Laughter.) I'm serious. Do you have any clue?
Ha ha! Isn't that hilarious, America? By the way, how did the rest of you enjoy YOUR 9+ day Memorial weekend?
The President wades into this when it's politically expedient --
Oh, David, come on.
Jesus, David! Don't be ridiculous here! Look around you. There's a massive illegal war going on in Iraq. Our diplomatic clusterfuck with Iran has made gas prices even higher than they were before. Millions of Americans lack health care. Americans overseas are accused of slaughtering civilians. College tuition costs are out of control. Our country is facing an unprecedented debt crisis. Disaster preparation is abysmal or non-existent all over America, and money to prevent terrorist attacks is being diverted from New York City to Buttfuck, Oklahoma in an enormous pork giveaway. Our children are not learning basic science, writing, and mathematics skills in school and are falling behind students from other countries, putting them at a disadvantage in our global economy. Hurricane season is getting underway and we're not even close to ready for it, the National Security Agency is listening to your phone calls and monitoring your web usage, and glaciers are melting so fast that polar bears are drowning.
Clearly something desperately needs to be done. Preventing loving same-sex couples from professing their undying devotion and lifetime commitment to one another in the eyes of their family, friends, neighbors, and/or God and receiving the spiritual, financial, and legal benefits that go along with it -- that's the solution! Never mind that most of those same-sex couples are already unable to get married because of bigoted federal laws and close-minded state laws and constitutional amendments! The president has the solution! Every two years! Election years! Except that's just a coincidence!
So fuck you, with your "political expediency", David. This is a president who is trying to solve the problems that REALLY FUCKING MATTER.
He did that in 2004 -- don't "come on" me. You know just as well as I do what happened in 2004 --
This is what people have been waiting for.
Lord knows I have. I looked at my calendar and said, "Well gee, isn't this an election year? I'm waiting for those dumbfuck Republicans to trot out that old gay marriage boogeyman again, especially with Dubya's numbers in the toilet.
2004, in the heat of the campaign, he gets into it, and he gets into it again in an election year where he's getting a lot of heat from his base to get back into this issue.
All he's doing is he's stating a position on the eve of the vote. I mean, I think it's really not that unusual for a President to make statements that are timed to coincide with things on the legislative calendar, I really don't.
And it's totally a coincidence that this issue ended up on the legislative calendar right in the middle of the primaries of a midterm election year.
So is that a "no" about phone calls?
I honestly don't know if he's making phone calls on this.
Could you ask the NSA for us?
I think you're pretty well aware of how Presidents can use their office to weigh in on issues and influence issues. So when you say you don't know how to attach a priority to it, I think you pretty well do, just like you do on other issues. So the President is making it a priority now, at a time when it is politically expedient. Do you dispute that?
Yes, I do, because political expedience -- are you going to say that every time a President makes a speech that's timed to coincide with a vote on a piece of legislation that it's politically expedient? The other way -- you could turn it around and say, it's politically ripe -- I mean, for the President to have done it three weeks ago, what do you do, you tuck it into a vacuum. You have to make statements at a time when it makes sense to do it.
I am but a mere Press Secretary, I am not at a level where I would understand the mysterious process of how things get on the legislative calendar. I mean, fuck, high school civics was a long time ago. If I recall correctly, I believe it has something to do with kittens from outer space. Yes, kittens from outer space.
Furthermore, I guarantee you, people who have not spoken about this in many months who are opposed to it are also going to speak out. Is that politically expedient? No, it's politically ripe. It's their chance to have their say about an issue that is now going to be before the United States Senate.
And damn those kittens from outer space for forcing THEIR hands, too!
Tony, Congressman Pete King is going to call hearings into the funding formula that Homeland Security uses for distributing the money around the country. What is the White House's position on potential for a review into that funding --
No, there has been a review. You know what's interesting -- and Secretary Chertoff made this point yesterday -- the $124, $125 million that New York received this year is pretty much what it's been receiving on average. A lot of people tell you about a 40 percent cut. Last year was a year in which significant resources were pumped into New York for capital expenses, which were supposed to be one-time only expenditures.
We're onto the terrorists' schemes. Forget about the Statue of Liberty, the Lincoln Memorial, the Empire State Building, the White House, the United Nations, the Washington Monument, the New York Stock Exchange, the Superdome, the US Capitol, the Guggenheim, the Smithsonian, the French Quarter, and Grand Central Station -- the terrorists are targeting The World's Largest Ball of Paint, right in the well-known terrorist hot-spot of Indiana. That high-profile terrorist target was worth $12 million in anti-terrorism funding -- while New York, Washington, DC, and New Orleans -- you know, those places which have actually HAD catastrophic emergencies in the last few years -- got funding cuts.
But don't fucking complain about it... that really pisses Chertoff off.
"Attacking the secretary personally or threatening the secretary is not a way to drive funding decisions."
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary, DHS
Secretary Chertoff added, "Those are some really nice buildings you got there, New York City. It sure would be a shame if anything happened to them, if you know what I mean."
But look, Representative King is a member of the legislative branch, and somebody who is on the Homeland Security -- you can certainly do that. And we will try to answer all questions and concerns.
Representative King is a member of the legislative branch... and our respect for that branch of government can be measured in cubic assloads. We will treat his "hearings" accordingly.
[W]e've got investigations into massacres in Iraq --
Alleged massacres.
Yeah, there's still a chance that those twenty-four people were really killed by a magical car bomb that dragged students, women, and children out of taxi-cabs and homes and shot them in the back of the head.
Alleged -- well, there are investigations. We've got Iran. We've got hurricane season beginning. We've got terrorism funding. And yet the President has chosen for his radio address the subject of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Does the President see gay marriage as such a gathering storm that he feels the need to focus on that?
No, again, it's a matter -- it's a matter of a vote. Keep in mind, going back to the ripeness criterion, there will be times, I am sure, unfortunately, where we'll have to talk about hurricane preparedness. There will be times when we'll have to deal with a number of these other issues. He can't give a speech on Haditha and Hamandiya. He can't. So, no, I don't think it's a matter of setting those issues aside. I can tell you there have been plenty of meetings on issues like hurricane preparedness and other things this week. It's one where there is significant attention being paid. But you'll hear about them.
Don't you see? Gay marriage is the CAUSE of all those issues. Our troops were in Haditha, thinking about home, wondering if their wives were having lesbian flings and the next thing you know, they're slaughtering Iraqi civilians. Allegedly. And don't get me started on Jerome and Victor from Duluth, Minnesota, whose desire to have a gay marriage has prompted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to start enriching uranium. And of course, we all know that every natural disaster is caused by gay marriage, as has been frequently confirmed by luminaries such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
What can you give us on what we're going to hear on the radio address tomorrow?
What you'll hear is a restatement of the President's position, and he will talk about the fact that he's going to deliver remarks next week, and that he wishes that there was no need to amend the Constitution for such a purpose, that judicial activism has led to the point where in a number of states -- 46 states have passed some sort of law or constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. You have five states where courts have stepped in and said, no, you may not do this. There are nine cases pending in courts, some involving the states I've just mentioned before -- so you really have to be technically correct -- four additional states. So you have nine states that have statutes under review by courts. The President's view is he wishes that you didn't have to deal with judicial activism in an issue like this. But if a constitutional amendment -- which, itself, is an enormously difficult thing to do; you got to get a lot of votes in the Senate, should you pass that hurdle, you've got to go through 38 different states for a constitutional amendment. So he doesn't wish we had to get to this point.
Something like this: Hate, hate, intolerance, hate, bigotry, hate, fags, hate, hate, bigotry, queers, hate, hate, intolerance, hate, hate, bigotry, bigotry, hate, homos, hate, Elton John, intolerance, queers, hate, gay, hate, hate, sanctity of marriage, intolerance, hate, intolerance, hate, man on dog sex, hate, hate, box turtles, hate, bigotry, hate, bigotry.
You talk about judicial actions only doing what 60 percent, 70 percent of people in the state want; dangerous business to getting into telling courts not to interpret the law the way they're interpreting it, because --
No, but it works both ways. It also may be dangerous business for courts to be declaring law in ways that may be constitutionally controversial.
Yeah, I think that's how the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be interpreted.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless at least 60% of the people are okay with it.
" No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law unless lots of people want him to, in which case, that's cool.
"[C]ruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted except in cases where a majority wants it.
By the way, to the 14.1% of Americans who consider themselves atheists: Your numbers are far too low to have earned the Constitutional right to freedom of religion. Therefore, pick a religion. Hint: 76.4% of the population is Catholic/Christian. Get to it, heathen.
You mentioned civil rights [in relation to the same-sex marriage issue]. Are you comparing this to various civil rights measures which have come to the Congress over the years? Is this a civil right?
Marriage? It actually -- what we're really talking about here is an attempt to try to maintain the traditional meaning of an institution that has maintained one meaning for a period of centuries, and for --
This is about civil rights more than anyone would care to talk about. A majority is attempting to impose their will on a minority by infringing on that minority's rights and their most prevalent argument for doing so is because "this is what 60% to 70% of the people want" -- i.e., "We should be able to do whatever we want because WE ARE THE MAJORITY."
It is within the lifetimes of many of us that it was considered absolutely WRONG for a black man to marry a white woman. It was believed by the bigots that such a thing would violate the sanctity of marriage. And make no mistake about it -- there are still people TODAY who believe that. But they were wrong then and they are wrong now. I can only hope that 50 years from now, when the robots have taken over and are trying to outlaw vibrators because women having sex with machines is an abomination, that our children and grandchildren will be able to point to the abolition of these oppressive same-sex marriage laws and amendments as a civil rights coup the same way that we can point to the progress of the mid-20th century civil rights movement.
Do you equate that with civil rights?
No, I'm just saying, I think -- well, I don't know. How do you define civil rights?
Oh, I don't know... let's ask the dictionary, douchebag.
civil rights
pl.n.
The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.
(emphasis mine)
It's not up to me; up to you.
Well, no, it's your question. So I need to get a more precise definition.
It's not up to either of you, you can't just make up your own definition of the phrase "civil rights". I know that's the Republican thing to do, but seriously, get fucked.
[The Same-Sex Marriage Issue has been brought up] in an election year. And of course, the last time this came up for a vote was in 2004, another election year.
Again, I'm not sure that this is a big driver, to tell you the truth, of voters. This is an issue that is of concern, that the President is making his views known on. But I think we ought to be clear that the President is speaking out about a piece of legislation because he believes in it.
Total coincidence. It's just that those damn queers keep threatening the sanctity of marriages a few months before every election.
Isn't this why people hate politics, this kind of political posturing?
I don't think so. I don't think it's posturing. Many of us in this room are married, and we have strong feelings about the importance of marriage in our lives. And I think having the ability to define marriage is something that's important to a great many people in the United States of America. Whether the proper forum is a constitutional amendment or dealing with it state by state, that is something that the people are going to have to decide.
Many of us in this room are married, and if we do not pass this amendment the next thing you know I'll be in a sweaty sauna with some guy's dick up my ass and another guy's cock in my mouth while I fuck a dog that's fucking a box turtle. This is a vital, very important piece of legislation and it cannot wait much longer.
[T]here are real issues that affect every American, and that isn't one of them, but war is. And why isn't the President dealing with this at all? Who's problem is --
Are you assuming that the President is not dealing with -- again, the President, believe it or not, he can deal with more than one issue at a time, and I've tried to make it the point --
Come on... the President cannot stand up and eat a fucking pretzel at the same time.
On Social Security reform he gave speech after speech; he decided, this is what I'm going to do, I'm using my political capital on this. In 2004 he let conservatives believe he would use political capital on this issue. Instead, it looks like he's going to do a radio address on Saturday, he's going to speak today, and move on. But then why is he not -- bottom line question, why is he not using political capital on this, then?
It's the issue of traditional marriage. This is the Family Marriage Amendment. And the President has made clear what his views are. I think you look at the whip counts, we look at the whip counts. You've got to find out what you think is possible in this political environment.
The President could not buy a pack of spearmint gum and a used condom with the political capital he has right now.
Tony, you talked on the issue of civil rights as it relates to this marriage amendment. Will there be a civil rights violation for gays if the amendment does go through? Was that reflected --
A civil rights violation for gays? No, the President has made it clear, he wants people to be able to live their private lives as they see fit.
Except that he does not want loving male couples or loving female couples to be able to enter into a spiritual and legal covenant expressing their lifelong devotion to one another and enjoying the cultural, societal, financial, and legal benefits of such an arrangement, including the ability to make end-of-life decisions, filing married/joint tax returns, being covered on health insurance, adopt children together, and all the other 1,049 federal rights, benefits and privileges of marriage. Oh, and he doesn't want them to have butt sex. And... no tongue kissing for guys or ugly women. And nothing involving chocolate syrup. But other than that, you know, anything goes.
There's a news release on the Internet today from Exodus International, which is the organization of former homosexuals with 135 member groups. And they're reporting that they are guests of the President today at the White House. And my question: You said there are no homosexual groups here today. Were any invited?
Not that I'm aware of, Lester. I don't think so.
Another reason to hate gays: They just show up uninvited.
Second, The New York Times has just reported, "This White House, like all White Houses, is obsessed with the press." My question, will you admit to this alleged obsession, or is this just one more New York Times exaggeration?
It's more a love affair than an obsession, Lester.
And why not... the press is constantly fellating this White House. Which, I might add, must certainly threaten the sanctity of some marriages, and a constitutional amendment is probably in order.
An immigration politics question. There's a special election, congressional election in California tomorrow. Immigration is playing a huge role. First of all, is the President going to make a -- is he doing a recorded call, or is he going to have any influence in that race? And also, the Democrat candidate, Francine Busby, had the statement, "You don't need papers for voting." Last week, she made that statement. Any reaction to that?
No, it obviously is a huge issue right now because she -- I guess it was in response to a question somebody was asking about voting, and she said, "You don't need papers for voting." She later said that what she really meant was, you don't need papers to help with the campaign. But in any event, it's obviously been a very hot topic out there in California.
No, wrong, bullshit, fuck you.
Speaking to a largely Hispanic audience last Thursday, Busby faced a Spanish-speaking questioner who said he wanted to help her campaign but lacked voting papers. The question was translated into English and she responded, "Everybody can help. You can all help. You don't need papers for voting -- you don't need to be a registered voter to help."
[...]
"I had a slip of the tongue and I corrected it immediately," Busby said. "I want to make it unequivocal that I do not support anyone who is here illegally voting or working on campaigns."
(emphasis mine)
Source
She said "You don't need papers for voting" AND IMMEDIATELY, THAT VERY MOMENT, corrected herself and said "You don't need to be a registered voter to help." That means if you are a 16-year-old high school student, you can still go around delivering yard signs or doing literature drops for a campaign -- even if you're not old enough to vote yet.
[T]he President is generally a state's rights kind of guy on issues. Why not on this issue?
He is. I mean, that's exactly what he is, and I'll tell you why. And I'm glad you asked, Ken, because state's rights -- here you have, in a number of states, including Massachusetts where the voters said, we want marriage to be defined as a man and a woman. The courts said, no. The people you ought to be asking about the sovereign rights of states may be state and federal courts which had been overturning what the states either legislatively -- or through ballot initiative -- have gone ahead and tried to inscribe into their own state laws. So I would argue that the President is trying to preserve the state's rights in this particular case.
Well, it turns out that the states don't have the right to pass unconstitutional laws. And the only way to make these unconstitutional laws constitutional is by passing an amendment. Certainly, a bigoted majority using constitutional amendments to deprive a minority of liberty and happiness in order to score political points is exactly what Jefferson had in mind when he penned the Constitution.
But he was trying to prevent -- if there is a state out there where the people want this, he does want to allow that to happen?
Well, that is a hypothetical in this particular case, because I'm not aware of any state where that has achieved majority status.
And we must pass a constitutional amendment before that happens!