WTF Is It Now?!?

Testicularitude
In another surprising turn of events, the normally supine press corpse assrape WH spokestool Scott McClellan, 5/17/95.

Q Scott, the Senate has managed to function -- or not function, as the case may be -- for more than 200 years without a ban on judicial filibusters. Is the President concerned about the historic nature of what's being talked about up on the Hill?

MR. McCLELLAN: Up or down votes.

Q Well, let me ask two questions about what you just said. Where in the Constitution are judicial nominees guaranteed an up or down vote? And what about the impact of this whole so-called "nuclear option" on this idea of equal representation in the Senate?

MR. McCLELLAN: Up or down votes.

Q What about this equal representation idea?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q What about the impact of this nuclear option on the equal representation idea?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, the President -- the President has made it clear that ... we simply want to see all our nominees get an up or down vote.

Q Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the president want this American magazine to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: This report has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report. And we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region. I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran.

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

Q You're pressuring them.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --

Q It's not pressure?

Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?

Q You made clear just a moment ago that [the Smirking Moron] opposes judicial activists. And, yet, if you take a look at the records of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, both records reveal judicial activism, number one; and, number two, a judicial temperament which is, at times, very sharp, very acerbic in their opinions, and not consistent with what some people consider the kind of judicial temperament that would be appropriate for the kind of circuit court positions that they're being nominated to. Is there -- is the President sort of violating, in these nominees, his own principle for what he wants to see --

MR. McCLELLAN: Both these nominees are individuals that are highly respected and have enjoyed strong support in their respective states. Judge Priscilla Owen has served on the bench of the Texas Supreme Court for some time now and has enjoyed strong support from the people of the state of Texas. Judge Brown is someone who was recently retained with 76 percent of the vote in California. They are --

Q This isn't a popularity contest.

Q In context of the Newsweek situation, I think we hear the caution you're giving us about reporting things based on a single anonymous source. What, then, are we supposed to do with information that this White House gives us under the conditions that it comes from a single anonymous source?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.

Q Frequent briefings by senior administration officials in which the ground rules are we can only identify them as a single anonymous source.

MR. McCLELLAN: Up or down votes, liberal media, 9/11.

Q With all due respect, though, it sounds like you're saying your single anonymous sources are okay and everyone else's aren't.

MR. McCLELLAN: shit.

LOLOL


***