| christian grantham | |||
| Christian Grantham was a student activist in the late 90s and later a consultant to domestic policy forums for the Clinton Administration as well as events for HRC and GLAAD. | |||
|
|
|
||
March 16, 2005
When asked why the Bush Administration refuses full disclosure on "fake news" packages the Bush Administration feeds America's independent media, President Bush said he's instructed his Administration to forget about the appropriations law and instead honor his Administration's opinion.
QUESTION: Mr. President, earlier this year, you told us you wanted your administration to cease and desist on payments to journalists to promote your agenda. You cited the need for ethical concerns and the need for bright line between the press and the government. Your administration continue to make the use of video news releases, which is prepackaged news stories sent to television stations, fully aware that some -- or many of these stations will air them without any disclaimer that they are produced by the government. The Comptroller General of the United States, this week, said that raises ethical questions. Does it raise ethical questions about the use of government money to produce stories about the government that wind up being aired with no disclosure that they were produced by the government?THE PRESIDENT: There is a Justice Department opinion that says these -- these pieces are within the law, so long as they're based upon facts, not advocacy. And I expect our agencies to adhere to that ruling, to that Justice Department opinion. This has been a longstanding practice of the federal government to use these types of videos. The Agricultural Department, as I understand it, has been using these videos for a long period of time. The Defense Department, other departments have been doing so. It's important that they be based on the guidelines set out by the Justice Department.
Now, I also -- I think it would be helpful if local stations then disclosed to their viewers that that's -- that this was based upon a factual report, and they chose to use it. But evidently, in some cases, that's not the case. So, anyway.
[White House Press Briefing - White House - 03-16-05]
filed under: Free Speech
, Political Subterfuge
, White House Press Briefing
March 14, 2005
So much for flowery pledges to global freedom and liberty.
QUESTION: I know you have statement on the passage of the anti-secession law. But if you say the law is not helpful to the situation, would the United States do something to assure China that Taiwan will not become independent, so there's no further escalation of the situation?MR. McCLELLAN: In fact, I expressed our views earlier today. Our views remain unchanged. Our policy remains unchanged. We do view the adoption of the anti-secession law as something that is unfortunate and not helpful to encouraging peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. We continue to encourage cross-strait dialogue. We believe that's important to ensuring peace and stability and to reducing tensions. We don't believe anyone should be taking unilateral steps, or make unilateral changes that increases tensions. And that's why we view the adoption of this anti-secession law as not helpful. But we'll continue to encourage cross-strait dialogue.
We'll also continue to make very clear what our views are. We continue to support the one China policy. We continue to support the three communiqu s. And we do not support Taiwan independence.
[White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan - White House Press Briefing - 03-14-05]
filed under: White House Press Briefing
February 10, 2005
We understand he checked in as James Dale Guckert, but we liked to call him Jeff Gannon. When they ask all the right questions, who really cares?
QUESTION: Jeff Gannon. How did he get a White House pass, or what kind of credentials did he have?
MR. McCLELLAN: Just like anyone else who comes to the White House. QUESTION: Hard pass?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he had never applied for a hard pass. He had a daily pass. I think he's been coming for --
QUESTION: Was he coming for --
MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. I think he's been coming for more than two years now.
QUESTION: Under what name?
MR. McCLELLAN: Sorry?
QUESTION: Under what name?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have to get cleared. You have to -- just like anybody else that comes to the White House, you have to have your full name, your Social Security number and your birth date. So you have to be cleared just like anybody else.
QUESTION: So he was being cleared under James Guckert, or whatever his name is?
MR. McCLELLAN: My understanding, yes.
QUESTION: Okay, and how did he get picked to get a question asked at the last news conference?
MR. McCLELLAN: He didn't. The President didn't have a list. The President didn't -- he was in the briefing room. There are assigned seats in the briefing room. We didn't do any assigning of seats, and the President worked his way through the rows, and called on people as he came to them. He doesn't know who he is.
QUESTION: Were you aware that he had another name?
MR. McCLELLAN: Was I aware? I had heard that. I had heard that, yes, recently.
QUESTION: But did you know during all this time that he really wasn't Jeff Gannon?
MR. McCLELLAN: I heard at some point, yes -- previously. [White House Press Briefing - White House - 02-10-05]
filed under: Political Subterfuge
, White House Press Briefing
January 18, 2005
On Sunday, President Bush used the lack of votes in the Senate to suggest a constitutional amendment defining marriage isn't going anywhere. The next day, the White House was busy spinning like a top, defying legislative realities on whip count and pledging to spend "a lot of political capital on getting that initiative moving." Today, they are still making that pledge.
QUESTION: In a newspaper interview this weekend, the President said that he would not be pushing the Senate this year to pass a constitutional marriage amendment, uhm, because the votes aren't there. Uh, I think it can be argued that the votes aren't there yet either for Social Security and immigration reform. Why is he abandoning...MCCLELLAN: Lemme, Lemme, lemme make clear what the President said. The President, uhm, and what the President believes. Uh, the President will continue to advocate the need for a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage. It is something he believes very strongly in. In fact, he has already spent a lot of political capital on getting that initiative moving. Uh, but he's also, in his interview, he also talked about the legislative reality in the Senate. Uh, there really needs to be more of an openness in the Senate to be able to spend more capital on moving it forward, but the President is going to continue to make his views known and continue to talk about it and make clear, uh, why he believes it's necessary.
Remember, in the Senate you have to have 67 votes to move a constitutional amendment forward, there are a number of members of the Senate that have said that they're not open to it until the Defense of Marriage Act, uh, faces a serious legal challenge. So that's just talking about the legislative reality, but he remains firmly committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage and moving forward on a constitutional amendment.
QUESTION: But the legislative reality last year when he announced his support for the amendment was that there were fewer Republicans in the Senate than there are today, and presumably less support for the initiative. So, did he not think he had the support last year?
MCCLELLAN: I just said that he's going to continue to advocate the need for a constitutional amendment. It's something he believes very strongly in.
QUESTION: Where the votes there in the Senate last year, did the President believe?
MCCLELLAN: Well, that was the beginning of getting the process moving and talking about the need for a constitutional amendment. Since that time there were many members of the Senate who have made clear their views and their lack of an openness to moving on it at this time, but we're going to continue to encourage them to move forward on it, and I think it's important for those who support this effort in the country to make it clear that they want to take this step to protect the sanctity of marriage as well and make those views known to members of Congress, too.
[White House Press Briefing - White House - 01-18-05]
There is a very important lesson of leadership here for the Human Rights Campaign. Despite the legislative reality, and whether you agree with them or not, the White House is demonstrating leadership in pledging to push for a consitutional amendment "protecting the sanctity of marriage."
If HRC is serious about their recently repeated call for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell via a press release, they'll actually produce the language of a repeal, make it public and secure co-sponsors no matter what the whip-count is for a repeal. That's exactly how the Federal Marriage Amendment came into being, and I was there at their first press conference in Washington, D.C. laughing with other HRC staff at how foolish they were. Who's laughing now?
Year after year, those who have drafted and supported the Federal Marriage Amendment have done so in outright defiance of whip count on such an amendment. The results have placed supporters of equal rights for gays and lesbians on the defense. Isn't it time Republicans are on the defense for prioritizing their radical agenda over national security?
filed under: White House Press Briefing
December 03, 2004
Les Kinsolving asks the silliest questions at the daily White House Press Briefings.
QUESTION: Reuters, on page 1, The Washington Times, report from Atlanta that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just reported a new rise in HIV/AIDS and syphilis among homosexual men, who account for a majority of the more than 850,000 who have HIV. And my question, as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, the President recognizes this as all the more reason to keep active, self-identified homosexual men out of the armed forces, doesn't he?MR. McCLELLAN: The President supports the current policy at the Department of Defense.
QUESTION: Thank you.
[White House Press Briefing - 12-02-04]
filed under: White House Press Briefing
November 17, 2004
President Bush's nominee for Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, doesn't like sex education teaching kids about contraceptives. Spellings believes in abstinence only sex education. Will President Bush go along with Spellings view? White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan won't say.
QUESTION: She has said that she believes the message we should be sending to children in middle and high school is one of abstinence, and abstinence only.MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's something the President has long talked about, and it's a -- there are some efforts that are proven to work and send the right message to our children. And so that's something the President has talked about, going back to his days as governor.
QUESTION: But if you try to reduce teenage pregnancies and everything else that the President is trying to reduce, is it not worthwhile to talk to children and teach them about contraception, in case in some occasion --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are programs there, John. That's why I said that funding ought to be at least on the same level as other programs.
QUESTION: Right, but she's an advocate of, again, programs that teach only abstinence and not about contraception.
MR. McCLELLAN: The President is an advocate of abstinence education programs because he wants to focus on what works. And we know that they have proven results of working to teach -- send the right message to our children.
QUESTION: Let me ask you more simply; what's the problem of teaching abstinence and contraception, just as a method of teaching these kids what's available out there just in case --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've answered this question; I think I've been through it. And the President's views are very clear on it, as well -- I just expressed them.
QUESTION: Yes, but I just asked you the question about is there not value in teaching both?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, go back and look at what we've said on this matter and what I just expressed.
[White House Press Briefing - 11-17-04]
filed under: White House Press Briefing
November 10, 2004
Does President Bush view exit polls as equally sinful in the eyes of Jesus as nasty words? My Scott McClellan de-coder rings translates "looking into that" as "yes."
QUESTION: Since the President presumably supports the Federal Communications Commission's prohibiting obscene language on the air, doesn't he think that the often lying exit polls and unsubstantiated projections should also be banned from the air on Election Day?MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that that's something that people are going to continue to look at in this election and analyze. I don't think the President, nor myself, tend to get into an analysis of the media, or critiquing the exit polls. But I think others are looking at those issues. There is a problem with some of those exit polls getting out ahead of time, and I'm sure people will continue to look at the issue.
QUESTION: And he hopes they will --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sure people will continue to look at it.
[White House Press Briefing - 11-10-04]
filed under: White House Press Briefing
November 03, 2004
If you were among the 22% of voters duped by Ralph Reed into identifying gays as America's #1 threat, The White House has a message for you: THANKS FOR THE VOTES, SUCKAS!
QUESTION: Scott, jobs and economy were priorities of Kerry supporters. But that wasn't listed as a top priority for Bush supporters. And I'm just wondering, does the President feel he has an economic mandate?MR. McCLELLAN: Are you talking about all the exit polling analysis?
QUESTION: I'm talking -- do you feel the President has an economic mandate, given that a lot of the new voters were drawn to wedge issues, like marriage, gay marriage --
MR. McCLELLAN: He's going to talk to this later. First of all, there are a lot of people on the campaign and here at the White House that deserve a lot of credit for the organization that they put together, the ground game they put together, I mean, from Karl to Ken Mehlman to Matthew Dowd. I mean, I can't go through all the people. And this is a time for them to enjoy in this victory, as well. I mean, I think they can talk a lot about the analysis. I'm not sure that I'd put a lot of stock in the exit poll -- exit polling saying this is what voters thought here and there. We'll have to look at it. They can probably talk to you more about the analysis.
[White House Press Briefing - 11-03-04]
also read: BoiFromTroy
filed under: White House Press Briefing
October 20, 2004
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has a tough job of late putting the best spin possible on President Bush's version of reality. Read McClellan tell the media today that there isn't a flu vaccine shortage at all. Then watch him dodge questions on whether Congress should take their vaccines.
QUESTION: Do we have enough vaccine?MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, Secretary Thompson actually talked about that. He believes -- Secretary Thompson believes that we do. We're working to get additional vaccines, as well; in discussions with others to get additional vaccines. But we already have, I think it's 35 million vaccines that are available. I think there are more than 10 to 14, 15 million, I think, on the way. And he does believe there are enough there for those who are in that most vulnerable population.
QUESTION: Does the White House think members of Congress should get the flu vaccine, yes or no?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I just stated the President's view --
filed under: White House Press Briefing
October 06, 2004
The back tracking and spinning begins. Where did we hear the 'I didn't say that' excuse recently?
QUESTION: But in the past, you said that he was the -- he was clear evidence of the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Are you still saying that?MR. McCLELLAN: Look back at what I said yesterday. Look back at what -- well, first of all, the CIA assessment is still a work in progress, as they pointed out. And they pointed this -- these arrests and Saddam Hussein's intervention in having them released. And so the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were also documented by the 9/11 Commission. There were senior level contacts. And so that's -- those are the facts. That's what we -- that's what we know. And Saddam -- Iraq was a state-sponsor of terrorism. They funded suicide bombers. We've got to -- all right.
[White House Press Briefing - 10-06-04]
filed under: White House Press Briefing
September 29, 2004
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan couldn't bear hearing that UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had the balls to apologize to his nation for taking them to war on false pretense.
Take a look at McClellan doing a pathetic dodge ball routine when pressed by questions as to whether President Bush will also apologize. Scott McClellan blatantly lies saying over and over that the President has already said "this" and "that," but he won't say what "this" and "that" is.
filed under: White House Press Briefing
September 28, 2004
The White House believes John Kerry's plan for Iraq would allow the enemy to "wait until we would withdraw troops" and then "continue their efforts to disrupt what is going on in Iraq." Call me stupid, but four years of reconstruction and building a police force while the enemy waits "until we would withdraw troops" doesn't sound like a bad plan to me. It must not have been too bad of an idea for President Bush to describe Kerry's idea as his own.
QUESTION: Karen was saying on some of the talk shows this morning, that it's clear to her that Kerry would be able to bring troops home . What's her thinking? What evidence does she have on that?MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Senator Kerry has spoken to that himself, and talked about pulling troops out beginning next year. And that's --
QUESTION: -- four years --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and then over the course of what would be his term in office. It is the wrong message to send to our allies and to the Iraqi people, and, most importantly, to the enemy. All the enemy would have to do is wait until we would withdraw troops and then the next day they could continue their efforts to disrupt what is going on in Iraq -- which is our efforts to build a free and peaceful country for the Iraqi people, which will help make America more secure. This is about transforming the Middle East , which has been a very dangerous region of the world. We can no longer afford, in a post-September 11th world, to ignore the realities on the ground in the Middle East that have led to terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings.
[White House Press Briefing - 09-28-04]
filed under: White House Press Briefing
September 24, 2004
Take a look at White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan dodging questions on what the President thinks about his campaign sending out disgracefully divisive mailers. Today, the RNC admitted to sending them out. I guess Scott didn't read the blog this week.
filed under: White House Press Briefing
September 22, 2004
President Bush plans to take questions from the press in the Rose Garden tomorrow. Scott says he "fully expects questions." Let's hope that means more than two.
QUESTION: Holly might have already asked you this, but do you know if this is an avail or a regular press conference tomorrow?MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's a press availability in the Rose Garden, obviously, you'll be there to cover it.
QUESTION: Is it like a news conference?
QUESTION: How many questions?
MR. McCLELLAN: We'll talk that through with Prime Minister Allawi -- we haven't done that at this point -- and work all that out. You'll all be there to cover it. I fully expect questions.
[White House Press Briefing - Air Force One - 09-22-04]
filed under: White House Press Briefing
September 21, 2004
Take a look at White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan dodging questions on Republican criticisms over President Bush's miscalculations on the war in Iraq.
filed under: White House Press Briefing
September 17, 2004
Are there plans to rotate more National Guard into Iraq? The White House says that's a political question you'll have to ask the Bush/Cheney Campaign. Apparently, Bush/Cheney '04 is in charge of troop rotations and labeling any pesky questions about that as "baseless attacks." Curious.
QUESTION: Kerry today said that the President has a secret plan to send new -- more National Guard members to Iraq after the election. Can you comment on that?MR. McCLELLAN: What did he base that on?
QUESTION: Representative Murtha said that there was a plan, too.
MR. McCLELLAN: And what did they base it on? Actually, the campaign has already put out a statement on it, and addressed this baseless attack.
QUESTION: Is there any plans to --
MR. McCLELLAN: The campaign actually addressed it. It's just another baseless attack from Senator Kerry. He's struggling to explain his incoherent positions on Iraq, and just engaging in baseless attacks.
[White House Press Breifing - 09-17-04]
also read: Atrios
filed under: White House Press Briefing
September 16, 2004
"Pessimists and the Nay-sayers" Edition
After being asked whether the President agrees with today's grim National Intelligence Council outlook in Iraq, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, "The NIA really states the obvious in what the President has said many times."
Yet when pressed further, McClellan follows this with contradictory ramblings about "pessimists and the nay-sayers," that presumably share the NIA and the President's statements of "the obvious." If President Bush shares the NIA's grim outlook for Iraq, doesn't that make President Bush a "pessimists and the nay-sayers," too?
filed under: White House Press Briefing
September 15, 2004
The White House must not have very much faith in the Department of Defense following orders.
QUESTION: Scott, can you say for certain that -- are you aware of any other documents regarding President Bush's service in the Guard that have not been released?MR. McCLELLAN: Well, actually, we talked about this earlier today -- some questions came up this morning. And if you'll recall back in February, the President directed the Department of Defense to do a comprehensive search, gather all the records, so that we can make them available publicly. The President's personnel, payroll and medical records were released in their entirety -- I notice you had a comment the other day, I just want to make sure that's clear and that's what I referred to back then. Since that time, there were some further media inquiries. The Department of Defense went back and did -- apparently they didn't do as comprehensive a search as we had requested, and they found some additional documents that weren't in any of those files. And so they have continued to scour through additional files that aren't part of the President's personnel, payroll, and medical files to see if there are any records relating to the President. And my understanding is that that work has continued. I don't know the latest update on it at this point.
QUESTION: Have you or others in the White House seen documents that have not yet been released?
MR. McCLELLAN: I have not. I'll try to check. We've been traveling, but I don't know of any other specific documents that have been found at this point. But I know that they're -- I know they're continuing to look at that, so that's a very real possibility.
[White House Press Briefing - 09-15-04]
UPDATE - also read: Wizbang
filed under: White House Press Briefing
September 14, 2004
Why did the President not take a required physical? Did he receive preferential treatment so he didn't have to fulfill this and other requirements?
These don't sound like the priviledges President Bush affords those brave men and women serving in Iraq. When can they use Bush's excuses and simply call demands to fulfill duty "recycled attacks from the politicians?"
QUESTION: Did he receive preferential treatment in the National Guard?MR. McCLELLAN: That's already been addressed, and that's more of the same, recycled attacks from the Democrats that they keep asking. And he's already addressed that matter, every single campaign he's been in. It's been asked and answered numerous times.
QUESTION: So the answer to my question is, he's not going to answer those specific questions, because the public is more concerned about the future than the past.
MR. McCLELLAN: What specific questions? They've been answered, Ron.
QUESTION: Why did the President not take a physical?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's been answered in reports, as has been answered before. He was going to Alabama to perform equivalent duty in a non-flying status. And he talked to his commanders every step of the way, and received permission to do so.
QUESTION: Why did he not take the physical?
MR. McCLELLAN: Because he was going to Alabama and he was not going to be in a flying -- he was serving in a non-flying status in Alabama.
QUESTION: Was he excused --
MR. McCLELLAN: Asked and answered every campaign.
[White House Press Briefing - 09-14-04]
filed under: White House Press Briefing
