Speaking for All Americans Is Not Scotty's Job - Sub Title: The Slick Political Weasels Get Set to Grease Themselves with Vaseline

Is it okay for Scott to speak for Americans or not? According to himself, nope:

Q But, Scott, again, as I asked you last week, the broader context some are saying is racism or bigotry. And now we have Julian Bond supporting the President's efforts with the ports. Are you willing now to say there could be hints of bigotry, racism or discrimination in this?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think you have to ask the individuals why they might be reluctant to support this transaction moving forward. I'm not going to try to speak for others.

But here we see him doing it again:

The American people want their leaders in Washington also to act on earmark reform. Congress has expressed a willingness to do so, and the President, today, is sending up to Congress line-item veto legislation that will allow us to reduce wasteful spending. This will give the President authority to strip special interest spending and earmarks out of spending bills and send it back to Congress for an up or down vote. The President talked about that in his remarks.

So, we see that the slick political weasels that are the W, Rove and Co. get set to slather themselves up with so much Vaseline that they won't have to negotiate with any one. Line-item veto has been tried before, but these folks are acting like they think the republicans will always be in power.

If the Congress goes for the line-item veto, you will then know that they have given up the ghost, become a moribund agency that simply soaks up taxpayer dollars, and are only a mere shadow of one leg of the checks and balances tripod. And, no one gets leverage standing on a shadow. Really, if the president - who, incidentally hasn't vetoed a thing - secures the right to veto any old item he so desires in any bill, you can bet that they won't be negotiating with anyone as they trod all over the rights of the minorities for the next three years. The result would be a shameful neutering of the entire Congress. By all rights, every single congressional person - of every stripe - should be opposing this just as a matter of principle.

So, you see, my fellow Americans, if Congress lets the W, Rove and Co to yet again overstep their authority (by approving the line-item veto) you might as well pull down your pants, toss aside your undergarments and bend over. The Rovian juggernaut is about screw right through what used to be Congress, and while executing this fornication, they will pierce straight through our rights and civil liberties, puncturing the pursuit of happiness, while ejaculating all over the very constitutional foundation of our great country.

Q When the line-item veto vote came up a couple of years ago, there were 89 Republicans in the House who voted against it, including most of the members of the Appropriations Committee. Is the President confident that there will be more support this time around?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that there is a strong willingness and a lot of bipartisan support for acting on this line-item veto legislation. And the President has provided a way forward that meets the constitutional issues that were raised when this was previously passed back in the '90s, and the Supreme Court ruled on that one.

We believe by sending this back to Congress for an up or down vote that it addresses that constitutional issues. And Congress -- a number of congressional leaders have indicated their commitment to addressing earmarks and to reforming the earmark process. This is an important tool for achieving that shared objective.

Here's an interesting related question that came latter in today's press briefing. Of course, it gets the usual rhetorical dodge from Scotty:

Q Back on the line-item veto, if this power is so important for the President, why did it take five years for him to bring it forward? And is there something --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- in previous budgets, yes.

Q -- I'm sorry -- is there something to say that this is an attempt to deflect criticism of the President for the surge in federal spending on his watch?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's talk about where we are in terms of federal spending....

Oh, and by the way, if you recognized that the push for line-item veto is also a ploy to usurp the authority of the Supreme Court, you would win points. Have a gander:

Q Can you explain, Scott, how the President's new line-item veto proposal legislation gets around the Supreme Court ruling eight years ago that he has the authority either to accept or reject the laws Congress has passed, but nothing else? Can you do that in layman's terms?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. In layman's terms, the difference is that this will give Congress a final up or down vote. It will guarantee that Congress has an up or down vote. The President will look at spending bills, and he will be able to eliminate or reduce spending in those bills, and then package that together, send it back to Congress, and within 10 days Congress must act with an up or down vote on that package.

But once he has line item veto, he's not just going to use it on spending bills, is he? Come on, you can't think we would trust W on this when the W, Rove and Co. pulled a monster bait and switch to get us to approve the illegitimate war in Iraq, do you Scott? So, what's he going to do with line-item veto?

Q If I could try one more, the President didn't feel that he could get that debate, that scrutiny, that focus on what Congress wanted to spend the money on simply by saying, I veto the bill because of that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's up to Congress to decide how to appropriate specific money, but the President sets out his budget and his priorities, and where he would eliminate wasteful spending. And he's done that, and Congress has acted on it. But because the President doesn't have the line-item veto authority right now, he's not able to go in there and strip out specific, special interest legislation, or earmarks by members of Congress. The President believes very strongly that he should have that authority. That's why we have called for it previously, and now we're sending up a specific piece of legislation that would provide him that authority and bring accountability to Washington on this type of questionable spending that goes on here.

P.S. I repeat. Scott, You don't speak for me. Please stop talking like you do.

P.S. after posting this entry, the OBM Director Josh Bolten spoke on behalf of the president supporting the line-item veto. Again, I ask, what is to prevent the President from using it on bills that are not related to the budget?