Daily Archives: July 11, 2005


New Favorite Blog Title and Pithing on rove

Don’t ask me what my old favorite was.
The new favorite is pith in the wind. Today they bring this fine bit of pithing in the wind to our attention:

Q: Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.
Q: Excuse me, but I wasn’t actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that’s why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

This goes on and on. Be sure to bring a towel before reading the rest. It is hard to imagine how much mcclellan had to have imbibed to be able to leave it hanging out for so long and this is only a part of today’s press conference.
Josh Marshall and Arthur Silber were also thrilled by this display. And via Atrios here are some of mccellan’s past statements on the subject.


Justices and Litmus

bush will not appoint someone who will vote to overturn Roe V Wade.
“Why not?” you ask. Jack Balkin has this answer:

Bush must decide if he wants to overturn Roe or preserve the Republicans as the majority party. With Roe gone, the pro-choice movement will be energized and Republican politicians will have to state on the record whether they want to criminalize abortion. Women, libertarians, and moderates may bolt the party, destroying Bush’s winning coalition. Republicans may dislike Roe, but they may dislike losing elections even more.

On the other hand Balkin argues that the real plan is likely much more damaging to Roe supporters.