It's finally here, in more ways than one! The very first "Scotty Show with Tony Snow" has arrived with all the fanfare it deserves... which, really, isn't very much. The big news today, of course, is the Scotty Show merchandise, which is finally available by popular demand.
TSHIRTS
The Scotty Show Emporium at GoodStorm <--- Progressive Site!
MUGS, BUMPER STICKERS, THONGS, BOXERS
The Scotty Show Emporium at CafePress
Check it out... order quickly and get it in time for YearlyKos!
And as usual:
Press comments/questions italicized for her pleasure.
Snow's bullshit is thick and bold (and Foxy) like in real life.
Bullshit detector comments are in plain text, which I'm sure signifies something suitably profound.
In his news conference with John Howard, was the President giving kind of a back-handed confirmation of the stories that the NSA is compiling telephone --
No, he wasn't. If you go back and listen to the answer he gave you, he was talking about foreign-to-domestic calls. The allegations in the USA Today piece, which we'll neither confirm or deny, are of a different nature. So, no, he was not giving a back-handed confirmation.
TONY SNOW'S FIRST DAY: NEW ASSOCIATE ORIENTATION
Tony Snow: Hey, Scotty... you got a minute?
Scott McClellan: Sure, Tony. What's up?
Tony Snow: Well, I've been going through the New Associate Handbook and watching the training videos. But I think there's a problem.
Scott McClellan: What's that?
Tony Snow: Well, right here, it says that if the press corps ask you a question you don't want to answer, you should respond by saying, "I have already expressed our views on this issue."
Scott McClellan: Yeah, that's always helped me in the past.
Tony Snow: Yeah, but I'm the new guy. What if the first question I get is one I don't want to answer? I can't use "I've already expressed our views on that issue" for the first question ever.
Scott McClellan: So?
Tony Snow: So what am I supposed to do?
Scott McClellan: I've already expressed my views on that issue.
Tony Snow: Oooh! I know! I'll say, "We will neither confirm nor deny that". Like, if they say, "Is it true that water is wet?", then I'll say, "We will neither confirm nor deny that." What do you think?
Scott McClellan: I have taught you well, grasshopper.
The President today denied he'd ever broken the law in terms of wiretaps. He also indicated that anything that was looked into, any calls, had some sort of foreign aspect either to or from. And he has said he's always obeyed the law. Are all of these stories untrue that we've been reading for the last several days that millions of Americans have been wiretapped? Are the phone calls turned over to the government?
Okay, let's try to segregate the stories here. What he's said about the terror surveillance program is that these are foreign-to-domestic calls and they were all done within the parameters of the law. He has not commented on the --
It's just like you were telling your old college roommate at 9:53 PM and again at 9:59 PM on Sunday evening, there are so many wiretaps and eavesdropping scandals and invasions of privacy that it's very easy to get them all confused.
[Bush] himself, has said he didn't obey that law.
No, he didn't. What he said is that he has done everything within the confines of the law. The second thing is, you're mentioning a USA Today story about which this administration has no comment. But I would direct you back to the USA Today story itself, and if you analyze what that story said, what did it say? It said there is no wiretapping of individual calls, there is no personal information that is being relayed. There is no name, there is no address, there is no consequence of the calls, there's no description of who the party on the other end is.
Wait... you don't mean the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, do you? The law that requires the administration to go before a special FISA court and obtain a warrant for wiretaps? The law that lets them go before that FISA court three days AFTER starting the wiretaps? The FISA court that almost never says no? Oh, well, yeah, he admitted breaking THAT law. But he had a good reason, see. He disagreed with it.
And as for the invasion of privacy reported in the USA Today... don't make me laugh. That program collects no information. No names, no addresses, no descriptions, no anything. Really, it's just a big bunch of numbers with no meaning whatsoever. Fuck, I don't even know why we're collecting the information, it's so inconsequential.
Privacy was breached by turning over their phone numbers.
Well, again, you are jumping to conclusions about a program, the existence of which we will neither confirm, nor deny.
I have already expressed our views on this issue.
Why? Don't you think the American people have a right to know --
Because -- what's interesting is, there seems to be a notion that because the President has talked a little bit about one surveillance program and one matter of intelligence gathering, that somehow we have to tell the entire world we have to make intelligence gathering transparent. Let me remind you, it's a war on terror, and there are people -- I guarantee you, al Qaeda does not believe --
It's just like the whole thing with Abu Ghraib. The president talks a little bit about how we tortured some prisoners over there, and the next thing you know, the media thinks people have the right to know if Americans citizens are being rounded up and tortured by the United States government.
You might repeat the same thing, but why not declassify this? I mean, the President did talk about the surveillance program a day after The New York Times broke that story. This would seem to affect far more people, and it did sound like the President was confirming that story today. He was answering Terry's question --
Well, if you go back -- if you go back and you look through what he said, there was a reference to foreign-to-domestic calls. I am not going to stand up here and presume to declassify any kind of program. That is a decision the President has to make. I can't confirm or deny it. The President was not confirming or denying.
Again, I would take you back to the USA Today story, simply to give you a little context. Look at the poll that appeared the following day. While there was -- part of it said 51 percent of the American people opposed, if you look at when people said, if there is a roster of phone numbers, do you feel comfortable that -- I'm paraphrasing and I apologize -- but something like 64 percent of the polling was not troubled by it. Having said that, I don't want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program -- the alleged program -- the existence of which I can neither confirm nor deny.
Okay, I'm gonna try to explain this to you again. More than half of the American people in one particular poll with a very small sample taken before all the information came to light about a program that we will not confirm or deny actually exists do not mind that we invade their privacy. So, I think that clearly settles things once and for all. (We'll ignore the tar baby remark for the moment, since nobody else has.)
But there are polls that show Americans are very concerned about it.
The President -- you cannot run a security -- you cannot base national security on poll numbers. As the President of the United States you have to make your own judgments about what is in the nation's best interest.
POLLS!? What kind of fool bases his argument off polls?
Oh.
Wait a minute...
You just brought it up, though.
Well, I did bring it up because what you were talking about is how people were concerned about privacy issues, and I tried to relate to you what happened. It was interesting, when people were given the specifics in that story, they did not seem to be terribly troubled.
It's different when I do it... somehow.
Tony, I'm curious, why won't you comment at all on the USA Today story, or at least talk in a limited way about how average Americans' phone records are handled by the National Security Agency?
Because it's inappropriate.
Collecting a record of every single phone call you've ever made, to every phone number you've ever dialed, along with the dates, the times, the durations, your name, your address, your college transcripts, your library records, your credit card transactions, your voting history, and your blood type all into a single database administered by some of the most evil fucks on the planet: APPROPRIATE.
Talking about that program (which we can neither confirm nor deny): INAPPROPRIATE.
Can I look ahead to tomorrow's tax bill signing? The President for many months now has been describing an economy firing on all cylinders. Does the economy still need that much stimulus, or does it not have more -- avoid the danger posed by the continuing large deficits, not greater at this point?
Are you suggesting that we have too much prosperity?
I think we might be close to our prosperity's credit limit.
(click to make SUPER-HUGE)
I am not suggesting, I'm asking.
Well, it seemed -- you're talking about too much stimulus. If you take a look at the revenue numbers that are coming in -- you just talked about deficits -- the revenue numbers are coming in in such a way that the deficits are, in fact, below estimates. I think if you want to have tax revenues coming in and gushing -- the President is committed to a path of growth. He has made it clear that he wants to make permanent all the tax cuts that have been enacted for the simple good reason that it's good to have people employed, it's good to have people making more money, it's good to have productivity up, it's good to have the most vigorous economy on the face of the Earth, and he wants to continue it.
You can really never have too many tax cuts for the richest 1% in the nation.
Tony, as the only other talk radio host in this room, I'd like to ask you as a former colleague a brief, one-part question. Congresswoman Maloney of New York and 43 others in the House have written the President, and this is the fourth time with no response from him, to ask, is the President opposed to contraception or not?
Well, thank you, that's -- (laughter) -- The President does not share his private correspondence with members of Congress or others, and so I don't have an answer for you, Lester.
Les, I think we all know that official letters from 44 members of Congress to the President of the United States are considered "private correspondence". And as such, the President does not feel compelled to respond with his true feelings about how women are really only intended to make babies. If God wants you to have 29 kids, then by God, you should have 29 kids. Diaphragms, pills, condoms, and spermicide only serves to subvert God's will.
Tony, you've been asked several questions about the NSA. The President was asked about his NSA programs. The President was asked about it this morning. On Thursday, however, isn't General Hayden going to have to be a little more forthcoming in public about these programs if he's going to become the head of the CIA?
General Hayden I don't think is under any obligation to spill the beans in terms of national security in a public forum. I think the members who are going to be holding hearings understand where to draw the boundaries. There will be some tough questions, I am sure, that are asked behind closed doors, and those with appropriate classification will be able to see -- receive differing levels of detail. But, again, the idea that somehow you talk about all aspects of National Security Agency activities in an open forum is absolutely inappropriate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
That's cute. I take it you've never seen a confirmation hearing? It will go something like this:
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR: General Hayden, are you now, or have you ever been, a molester of little boys?
HAYDEN: For national security reasons, I'm afraid that I cannot confirm or deny these allegations.
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR: Are you aware that there are three little boys who claim you have molested them?
HAYDEN: That's impossible. I have always strangled to death all of the boys that I have molested. For national security reasons.
REPUBLICAN SENATOR: That sounds reasonable to me.
CHAIRMAN: General Hayden, it appears that your nomination should sail through the Senate.
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR: I have no objections to that.
He didn't ask that.
Well, that is what he asked.
I am the sole interpreter of what the questions are! I decide what was asked! I'm the decider! When Bush isn't around, anyway.
THE NEXT DAY...
Okay, let's begin. Welcome, one and all. Good afternoon. For those of you who weren't here, we have coined the term "bupkes list" for items that the Press Secretary may not have had complete and full answers for during the gaggle. So, in response to this morning's bupkes list, who is --
How do you spell "bupkes"?
Bupkus -- b-u-p-k-u-s.
Interesting.
bupkes (bub'·kes)
n.
Emphatically nothing.
From Yiddish meaning: "goat droppings"
"Emphatically nothing" or "goat droppings" (either one) pretty much sums up press conferences in the White House.
As far as the RNC Gala speech tonight, what points is the President going to make. He is going to -- because the question was, is this a rah-rah speech. And the answer is, no.
Wow, color me impressed. The President is going to be at an RNC Gala and he's NOT going to give a "rah-rah" speech. Okay, Tony, so if he's not going to give a rah-rah speech, what will he be talking about?
The President is going to make the argument that elections are about ideas, and he is going to remind people of some of the big ideas. Number one, winning the war on terror -- big idea.
Rah! Rah! Go! Fight! Win! Win the war on terror! Yay! Rah-Rah WOOOHooooo! (shakes pom-poms)
Second, maintaining the strength and integrity of the economy. Certainly, he is looking forward in the next couple of hours to signing the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of 2005, extending the tax cuts. That is an important part. Keeping the economy competitive -- that is an important part.
Give me a "T"! Give me an "A"! Give me an "X"! Give me a "CUT"! Give me a "capital gains and dividend tax cut if I make $200,000 or more per year"! Rah-rah! (kicks leg high in the air)
PS Here is a picture of a cheerleader named George W. Bush.
This probably explains why he feels the need to dress up as a cowboy and a fighter pilot to feel manly.
Having an aggressive agenda to keep the growth path continuing is important. He will talk about education. He will talk about energy independence and innovation. He will talk about health care, and, of course, he will talk about values.
You're right, Tony, that's nothing AT ALL like a rah-rah speech.
And finally, on the background question, has the President, in relationship to the immigration bill, called anybody other than Senator Frist and Speaker Hastert, the answer is, no.
And after he got off the phone with those two, he curled up in the fetal position in a corner and sobbed himself to sleep. Which is difficult to do, given the distinct lack of corners in the Oval Office.
Senator Sessions has offered an amendment to the immigration bill today for more fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. Is that an amendment that the administration supports?
We're not going to comment at this point on any particular amendments. What we're happy about is the fact that the Senate seems to be moving with considerable dispatch toward putting together a comprehensive approach to this. And as you know, Terry, there are a bunch of amendments that are going to make their way. So rather than commenting piecemeal, I think when the whole package is put together, obviously, we'll have a strategy for talking with the House and Senate about our longer-term objectives.
Again, what the President was talking about is border security. And I think an important thing to remember is that the border security initiatives that the President assembled are designed to put on the ground what is needed at particular places. Some places are going to need fences; some places where you've got rough terrain, maybe you simply use technical means for observing the border; some places you're going to have border guard. In other words, you try to target the appropriate resources at the places where they're needed. And fences, clearly, as the President stated Monday night, are part of the picture.
I don't really see how more fencing along the border can help.
I want to ask you the same question about conservatives that I posed yesterday, because the President said that his approach to this is to lead; that's how you bring conservatives around. Well, he said the same thing about Social Security, and they didn't come around. He lost that issue among conservatives. There's been, frankly, and even more -- there's been a more vociferous outcry on issues that are well-known to the President in terms of what conservatives oppose about this immigration idea. So what specifically is he prepared to do to bring them around, other than to lead on the issue?
Well, the general -- the use of the catch-all term, "conservatives" about particular issues, I don't think allows me to give a specific answer, because, as you know, David, on any given issue, you're going to have shifting groups of people who are for and against. Also, on Social Security, it seems to me that there was wide-spread apprehension on the parts of all members of Congress to take it up in a comprehensive way at this time.
Hold on just a second... let me get out my trusty "Republican to English" dictionary out.
widespread apprehension wīd'sprĕd' ăp'rĭ-hĕn'shən
n.
1. The creeping realization that your position on Social Security is an unmitigated clusterfuck
2. The discovery that making grandma live on a diet of Meow Mix and Friskies is a bad reelection strategy
But the Republicans control Congress, so they could --
Well, there are a few Democrats aboard, too, as you are aware, and they also have the ability to shape debate on particular issues.
A few Democrats? Well holy shit, why didn't you just say so? Everyone knows that the Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency all piss themselves every time a few Democrats oppose them.
As far as I can tell, [meetings with Karl Rove] has not stopped Republicans, particularly in the House, from going gangbusters against this President before they've had a chance to read everything, as you say they should do.
Well, as I pointed out -- I mentioned this yesterday, and for -- let me see if I can find my quote, because I pulled it out. Chuck Hagel, as you may recall, made a fair amount of news over the weekend when he first said that -- let's see -- "Well, I want to listen to the details and I want to listen to the President," said Senator Hagel -- he said this on "This Week" on a competing network. But I would say this: I think we have to be very careful here. That's not the role of our military, that's not the role of our National Guard." That's what Senator Hagel said on Sunday.
On a competing network? Are you aware that you DON'T work for Fox News anymore, Tony?
Is there any change in the status of Karl Rove contemplated in the near future -- status in the White House?
Not that I know of, Helen, no.
No, Helen, there is nothing that Karl can do here that he cannot do from a prison cell.
BONUS FUN FACT! Tony Snow, like his predecessor, uses first names to indicate that he is irritated.
Tony, two quick questions. One, this is Asian Heritage Month, which the President already celebrated in East Room last week. In talking about the people -- who come from India, and the Prime Minister of India is also one of them -- and they are about 100 of them in the U.S. military fighting for America and, of course, for us all. And one of them died in Iraq, laid down in Arlington Cemetery. My question is, what they are saying -- they gathered about 1,000 of them last week in this area -- that they are being discriminated by the U.S. army, that they cannot wear turbins and they must --
Okay, I'm going to have to refer matters -- I'm going to have to refer matters like that over to the Pentagon. I don't have an answer.
Man, I don't know about you all, but if I was in the middle of a US Army platoon in Iraq, I think a turban would be very, very close to the bottom of my "Must-Have Fashion Accessories" list.
One on immigration -- I'm sorry. One on immigration. My question -- what I'm suggesting -- that if President can look back, he said that we have stopped terrorism by keeping terrorists beyond our borders where they came from who are training them, they are now there. Why can't we do the same thing with illegal immigrants, if we bring all those factories from China and put them back to Mexico, and then they will have jobs and they won't come across the U.S. border illegally here.
You're suggesting that we take factories from China and place them in Mexico?
It's a foolproof plan!
Yes, because in China, we are losing --
I think that's beyond the powers of being Press Secretary and even the President.
Oh, so NOW all of a sudden the President's powers are limited. If he can't move thousands of factories from one continent to another, then what the hell CAN he do? Hmm?
A couple of follow-ups. On the NSA stuff, General Hayden last week, according to Senator Durbin, suggested that there may come a day when FISA might be altered so as to accommodate the terrorist surveillance program. What's the status of the administration's consideration of that?
I think it's really premature at this point. That was a conversation between the two of them. It was the opinion of General Hayden, at least as conveyed to us through Senator Durbin. If and when such a thing should be ready for consideration by the Congress, we'll be able to talk about it in some detail, but that's what it is. You're just reciting a conversation.
Yeah! All you're doing is reciting a conversation between CIA director nominee and a high-ranking United States Senator, concerning current surveillance laws as they apply to the illegal spying programs that are already in place at the NSA. Is THAT what passes as news these days? Couldn't I interest you in a story about alligators attacking jogging women, instead?
Tony, has there been further discussions with the border state governors? And does the White House have any indication about how much they will go along with the National Guard plan?
Well, let me reverse the question, Jim. What we're talking about is using National Guard to free up Border Patrol agents. Now, the governors all have the option of saying yes or no. They have the ability. If the governors choose not to have National Guard forces to come in and relieve Border Patrol, who otherwise would patrol the border, that's their option, and it's entirely at their discretion. Nobody is going to twist their arm and say, you must take National Guard troops, you must deploy more Border Patrol agents to the border.
My sense is hearing -- Governor Richardson has said he wants more Border Patrol agents. We're granting his wish. Governor Schwarzenegger has expressed a little bit of concern about National Guard units who otherwise would do combat being moved to other roles. Well, we're not proposing that. What we're talking about is people doing things for which they've been trained, and that would be engineering, surveillance, transportation and the like.
So I think in many ways, at least based on the public comments, a lot of these concerns have been addressed. But, obviously, there are a lot of very practical questions, hard, practical questions the governors are going to want to ask and considerations they're going to want to have answered, and we will work with them continually.
The National Guard sure has come a long damn way since about 35 years ago, huh? Sure, today the National Guard is fighting wars in the Middle East and sealing up our border to keep brown people out, but it seems like just yesterday that your daddy could get you into the National Guard to keep you out of an overseas war, and then you could just disappear for months at a time, spending your days getting drunk and snorting blow directly out of the ass-crack of a ten-dollar Tijuana hooker.
Another crack at why we're going to Arizona tomorrow. Immigration is a big part of the political scene out there. You've got a Republican Senator who's considered vulnerable, a couple of House seats with Republicans. Is the political climate one of the reasons that the President is going to go down there tomorrow?
I hate to profess ignorance. I honestly don't know. It's -- I don't know. I'll get you an answer, but my sense is that what we're doing is we're going down to a state where you've got more border crossings than I believe any other state, where it is a hot issue. Why not go to a place where it's important? You've got a governor who's been engaged in this. It's a good place to do it. Again, anyplace we would have done this event, people would asked political questions, they would ask the "why here" questions; those are always going to attend. What the President really wants to do is to find an appropriate place to lay out what he wants to do with immigration, and he's going to have an opportunity to meet with Border Patrol agents. He'll have the Chief of the Border Patrol with him. And I think that also gives him a chance to talk in practical terms of the people who are going to be on the front lines to trying to make the borders even more secure in the future.
Oh yeah, everybody is just lining up around the block for a chance to have a photo op with Mister 29%.
Tony, would the President be willing to guard the White House with the same level of security he wants to use to guard the U.S.-Mexican border, without walls, without complete fences, and with insufficient armed services -- armed personnel?
With all due respect, the White House is a little different than a 2,000-mile border. So the answer would be, no.
And the "What the Fuck Kind of Question Is That?" Award goes to.... Les Kinsolving!
Again.
[Regarding reports that inflation is up and stock/bond markets fell as a result]... are you concerned that it's over -- that this economy could overheat?
We went through this yesterday, and the baseline argument is, am I concerned that there's going to be too much prosperity? I am not going to get into a discussion about proper inflation rates and that sort of thing, because, frankly, to do so is not something that's appropriate for me to do from this podium.
Ignoring a reporter's question and answering one that you WISH you had been asked instead is McClellan-esque.
But ignoring a reporter's question, then ASKING YOURSELF A DIFFERENT QUESTION that you wish you had been asked, and then answering THAT question... well that's downright Rumsfeld-esque.
Tony Snow is Rumsfeld-esque.
Tony, thank you. I'll try to not to chirp. The Post said I chirped yesterday. On Somalia, is the United States working with warlords? Does the United States -- does the Bush administration consider the Somalia government to be responsible for specific genocide against African Christians in Darfur?
I'm going to be very precise about this, and I will give you -- because this is one of these things where I want to be careful how I parse it. First, the President has said that his primary responsibility as Commander-in-Chief is to keep the American people safe. That's a solemn task. The second thing is, you've got instability in Somalia right now, and there is concern about the presence of foreign terrorists, particularly al Qaeda, within Somalia right now. In an environment of instability, as we've seen in the past, al Qaeda may take root. And we want to make sure that al Qaeda does not, in fact, establish a beachhead in Somalia.
Now, the problem we've seen before in ungoverned -- these are problems that we've seen in other ungoverned regions in the past. The terrorists are going to seek to take advantage of the environment and use that kind of chaos in order to put together camps and, therefore, mount operations around the world. The United States -- we will continue to work with regional and international partners wherever we can to crack down on terrorism, and also to try to prevent its rising.
In the long run, the answer to your concerns is an effective, functional government of Somalia, which, obviously, we do not at the moment have. The United States strongly supports the transitional federal institutions in Somalia because they are trying to re-establish a functioning central government within Somalia that can bring the Somali people out of the period of civil conflict. As I said, I am going to be very careful with the way I say it, and I will say no more.
This is a great answer -- if the question was "Tony, could you tell me about Somalia in a long, drawn-out, rambling fashion -- while making certain to avoid talking about whether the United States is working with warlords or if the Bush administration considers the Somalia government responsible for genocide in Darfur?"
You know what, let's just close our eyes for a moment, and imagine that answer coming from Scotty. I know you miss him. But there's no need to be sad, because, in many ways, he never left us at all.
I appreciate that. One more thing on the genocide, though. Does the President --
As I said, I'm not going to make any further comment on Somalia.
You will get no answer and you shall LIKE it!
What are you really saying?
Every word will be in the transcript, every, single one.
What was that word again? Oh, yes. Bupkes. Nothing. Goat droppings.
Yesterday you were asked a question about D.C. voting rights. And in the past when I've asked your predecessors these questions, they've said the President is against voting rights, it's in the Constitution, D.C. doesn't deserve voting rights. I notice -- were you sending a signal?
No, I wasn't sending a signal.
Heh heh. Well, this is embarrassing. That was the special Fox News "cut his mike" signal. Apparently it doesn't work the same here. Note to self: find out what the White House "cut his mike" signal is.
Has he changed his position on that issue?
There are -- the President hasn't changed his position.
Nope, still against voting rights.
There have been news reports this week that the FBI is using the Patriot Act to obtain phone records of journalists without their knowledge and without judicial oversight. And as a former journalist, are you at all concerned about this sort of intrusion on press --
I would be concerned if there was grounding to it. There have been reports, but once again, it has referred to the NSF program, which is strictly concerned with foreign international counterterrorism. I'm sorry, the pieces just don't add up.
And also, I have to say that I don't appreciate how you called me a -- let me get the exact quote -- ah yes, a "blow-dried colostomy bag" in a phone conversation to your editor yesterday at 4:14 in the afternoon.
Congress will be considering its second tax extension bill after the one signed today. They're considering attaching this to pension reform. Does the administration think it should stand alone?
I think what the President wants is to make sure that the tax cut provisions are extended. He's made it very clear. I don't want to get into process right now about how that may be achieved. It is very obvious it is very important to the President to make sure that we get extension of all the cuts that have been enacted into law.
No, the President fully supports attaching his irresponsible tax cut plans to positive-sounding bills like "Pension Reform" or "Healthy Babies Act of 2006" or "House Resolution in Support of Cute Puppies and Kittens Protection".
Pelosi and Reid's office has just put out a statement pre-slamming you. It says, "Democrats to slam Republican tax cut on middle class families." And they go on to describe it as "a tax cut in the wrong direction, eliminating tax deductions that help students pay for college in order to give massive handouts to big business and multi-millionaires." Your reaction, sir?
My reaction, sir. Well, let's see, as we get ready with a flourish here. Look, it is pretty obvious that the tax cuts -- at least it's obvious -- let me change that. Since the tax cuts were enacted, what have we seen? We have seen the American economy zooming upward. We have seen prosperity extended through all levels of our economy. We've seen $800 billion in the pockets of taxpayers. As I pointed out before, you're familiar with the growth statistics.
Now, I'll put that up against any talking points or prebuttals that anybody else has to offer. I'm not going to pick particular fights with the Democratic leaders of the House or Senate, but I think the economy right now is a pretty strong hand to play. And I think that the tax cuts have played a role in making that economy strong.
First of all, the question is based on a lie. The reporter claims that the statement says "Democrats to slam Republican tax cut on middle class families." In reality, the statement says, "BUSH REPUBLICANS TAX MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES AND STUDENTS".
Secondly, you know that $800 billion that went back into the pockets of taxpayers? Yeah, a couple dozen of us went ahead and just split that up evenly amongst ourselves. Right back into our taxpaying pockets.
