Given the tiny number of press conferences he’s thrown, and given, well, anything out of McClellan’s mouth, we pretty much already knew Bush’s opinion of the media. Well, here’s confirmation.

Hillary vs. the Xbox: Game over

I’m writing to commend you for calling for a $90-million study on the effects of video games on children, and in particular the courageous stand you have taken in recent weeks against the notorious “Grand Theft Auto” series.

I’d like to draw your attention to another game whose nonstop violence and hostility has captured the attention of millions of kids — a game that instills aggressive thoughts in the minds of its players, some of whom have gone on to commit real-world acts of violence and sexual assault after playing.

I’m talking, of course, about high school football.

At least that’s the philosophy over at Wal-Mart.

Gov. Haircut shows how much he’s in touch with the common people of the Commonwealth:

It’s a burden for more than 600,000 of Governor Mitt Romney’s constituents: the cost of a subway ride.

But asked at a news conference yesterday about the price of a token, Romney stumbled.

”A buck,” he gamely responded.

That was the correct price — in 2003…

As Timothy O’Leary, 67, stood waiting yesterday at the JFK-UMass Red Line stop, he had a suggestion for the governor: ”If he thinks it’s a dollar, make it a dollar.”

If Bush ran against a certain figure, what would his ads look like? Maybe like this.

McSweeney’s presents “Although I Like A Good George W. Bush Joke As Much As The Next Guy, Some Of Them Seem Gratuitous And Mean-Spirited”:

A doctor, a lawyer, and an accountant all die and go to heaven on the same day. When they get to the Pearly Gates, they are greeted by St. Peter. St. Peter says, “Scott McClellan is a lying sack of shit and I’d tell him so myself if he weren’t going straight to hell when he dies.”

Daily Kos: Words to live by

Kos quotes “Steve M” on the upcoming SCotUS nomination fight:

… there are good losses too, and this is the concept that many refuse to accept. You can lose in a way that makes people sympathize with the principle you fought for. You can lose in a way that sets the stage to make a compelling case later. If you send a clear message to the American people that “we oppose Roberts because X will happen if he is confirmed,” and then X does happen, now you have your campaign issue for 2008, 2012, and beyond. “Elect Democrats so we can roll back X and make sure it never happens again.”

Right now, we haven’t agreed on what X is. It might be Roe v. Wade, it might be destruction of environmental laws and other protections, it might be a lot of things. I will guarantee you this: if the Dems don’t settle on a unified message, if it ends up being the same old shotgun approach that “Roberts will outlaw abortion, birth control, favor corporations over people, destroy the environment, reverse the civil rights movement, etc.” it’s not going to get us anywhere. We need a straightforward argument that people can understand, and we can use in future elections, not a boundless rant that says Roberts is the spawn of Satan who will destroy everything good about America. Fortunately, we have over a month before the confirmation hearings, time we can use to get the message straight.

Ah, let’s say a few words for Godwin’s Law. Remember it? It was the convention that comparing someone to the Nazis was ludicrous, so anyone making such a comparison was out of line and had implicitly lost the argument.

Of course, that was before we began to see things like a Freedom of Information request that showed that the

FBI has collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and anti-war protest groups… The FBI has in its files 1,173 pages of internal documents on the American Civil Liberties Union, the leading critic of the Bush administration’s anti-terror policies…

…and these events have, shall we say, changed the landscape.

Here’s a man who’s got issues.

If I were a White House reporter, here are some questions I would think about asking our good friend the press Secretary:

1. Is the reason that you won’t divulge classified information on John Bolton because he was involved with the Valerie Plame leak?
2. If you refuse to answer any questions about an ongoing investigation, in clear contradiction to your past behavior, then why are we even here?

But, fortunately, it seems that, in the words of Jon Stewart, “the Washington press corps [was secretly replaced] with actual reporters.” Some exerpts from yesterday’s transcript.

Q: Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you’ve just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you’re parsing words, and you’ve been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn’t he?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, I’m not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don’t want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we’ve been round and round on this for two days now.

Q: Even if it wasn’t a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday — perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House — that when you’re dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we’ve been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don’t have anything to add to what I’ve said the previous two days.

Q: That’s a different question, and it’s not round and round —

MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.

Q: It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.

MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the President said he’s not —

Q: That’s a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert agent in any way, shape, or form without first finding out whether that person is working as a covert officer.
…
Q: The Washington Times editorial page this morning published a cartoon comparing White House correspondents to sharks. My question, do you think that they were wrong to make this comparison? [Laughter.]

Q: Go ahead, Scott, let her rip.

MR. McCLELLAN: I have a picture up in my office that everybody can look at.

Q: We’ll allow you to comment.

…

MR. McCLELLAN: It may not look like it, but there’s a little flesh that’s been taken out of me the past few days. [Laughter.]

Q: Where?

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, it may not look like it. [Laughter.] I can assure you that it has been.

Since actually being able to impeach George for lying to the country isn’t feasible – not with a GOP Congress – Jen Russell suggests throwing your own Impeachment Party as the next best thing. Her suggestions include a WMD-hunt (wherein there will, of course, be nothing at all in the little plastic eggs) and serving dishes made with peach and/or mint.

Singularly brilliant; hats off to Jen. So have at it, folks. Fight the system by partying on.

As a longtime resident of Massachusetts, I must say that I and my fellow citizens of the Commonwealth pretty much can’t get enough of abusing children. It’s basically the local pastime nowadays. Boston used to be morally upright and all, but then those gays showed up with their whole “we want to be in committed relationships” thing, and well, next thing you knew, we all just got the itch to bugger kids.

Thankfully, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has the courage to make this logical connection known:

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, refused yesterday to back off on his earlier statements connecting Boston’s ”liberalism” with the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal, saying that the city’s ”sexual license” and ”sexual freedom” nurtured an environment where sexual abuse would occur.

Read more at the Boston Globe.

The Raw Story | TRANSCRIPT: WHITE HOUSE GRILLED ON ROVE…

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...

Schiavo II, the not-especially-anticipated sequel to this spring’s big blockbuster, was officially canceled today when its producer withdrew funding for the project, saying apparently that its premise wasn’t feasible.

As if “Mallard Fillmore” didn’t piss me off enough already[*], now Gawker’s got the lowdown on its inability to take its own medicine.

* not because it’s right-wing; because it simply isn’t funny. Which is the very point of the “offending” strip (on p.160).

Inspired by another fine Independence Day, I put some new designs up on Patriot Savant.

Fire up your fruitless filibusters, because it’s ALL DOWNHILL FROM HERE.