Toby's Political Diary - 'Let it Begin Here'

Thoughts on the Election

Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:32:52 GMT

I left the country early Wednesday morning. Not because of the results of the election, but because of a long planned conference speaking engagement in Belize.

It was very strange to spend a week in Central America, with uncertain and irregular internet access, and little ability to follow the news from home for the first 8 days following the election.

Earlier, I had been caught up in the excitement of the exit polls, that initially pointed to a very strong Kerry victory. I ended one post Tuesday afternoon saying “I am so happy.”

However, those hopes were dashed. It turns out that the exit poll data that was first released was raw numbers only, not yet skewed to represent the actual voting population. Once the data had been corrected, the over sampling of women voters would be thrown out, and the exit polls did not provide any smoking gun about a stolen election.

Despite some problems with voter irregularity, and scattered instances of republican cheating, I don’t believe there was any widespread conspiracy to steal the election. There was definitely voter suppression in Ohio, a deliberate attempt to deny minority communities adequate numbers of voting machines, and other obstacles all designed to lower the democratic vote, but these obstacles could have been overcome with a surge in turnout.

In fact, two things really stand out to me about the election. First, we did not turn out as many democratic voters as we had hoped. Although on election day there were suggestions that turnout could reach 120 million, or even 125 million (likely ensuring a Kerry victory) the actual votes seem to suggest a turnout just north of 115 million (59 million for Bush, 56 million for Kerry). So they got out more voters than we did. Second, the Republicans were stunningly successful at turning out their voters.

How this happened is in this amazing piece of information from the Los Angeles Times

“A poll released Tuesday by the Barna Group, which does polling for religious groups, found that born-again Christians voted for Bush over Kerry by a 62%-to-38% margin. The poll also found that although the "born-again" population constituted 38% of Americans, it represented 53% of the votes cast in the election.”

This data suggests a huge underground effort to organize around religion and Christian right communities in a way that overwhelmed democratic efforts to get out union members and single women and minorities.

It is unfathomable to me that Born again Christians could represent 53% of the total electorate. If that is a permanent alignment, we are indeed becoming the Western version of an Islamic theocracy, where the power of the government to enforce religious beliefs on the entire society is unquestioned and unrestrained.

It seems to me that the entire thrust of the Christian right is to enforce its religious dogma in secular society. They want to prohibit women from choosing abortions, and in some cases from even using contraception. They want to prohibit gay couples from gaining state recognition in either marriage or civil unions. They want to prohibit teaching about any type of sexuality to children and teenagers. They oppose use and distribution of condoms. They want to restrict depictions of sex in both public and private media. And above all, they divide the world into the “saved” who have accepted Jesus Christ, and the “other” who have not. There is little respect or recognition of the “other” except as a potential convert to Christ, or as a prop, like the current fascination with the Jews among fundamentalist Christians.

To me this parallels the militant Christianity of the Spaniards, who killed Indians who would not convert. It is a mirror image of those Islamic fundamentalists who ban women from public life and education under religious fatwa’s. It is little different from those radical Israeli Jews who believe god granted them rights to the land, and they will kill and destroy anyone who does not accept their view. It is a religious fundamentalism that feeds off of fear and repression.

This is a threat to American democracy. Our country was founded with a government of checks and balances designed to protect minorities because our ancestors fought against a system where a tyrant held absolute power. It is only because our government was originally designed to protect minorities such as unpopular pamphleteers, people who wanted no part of religion or government, members of unpopular sects and movements that the tremendous expansion of minority rights we have witnessed including votes for non-property owners, women’s suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, and the individual right to privacy has flourished as an expansion of that original intent.

Militant fundamentalism repudiates all this. For fundamentalists, there is no right of a minority to hold a different view. That is the essence of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists live in a pluralistic society, but they don’t accept the tolerant basis of a pluralistic society.

They present the same challenge to democracy that many saw in communism. Although in intent communism was supposed to be a democratic system, the actual practice of democratic centralism negated democracy. Once a decision was made, all members followed the party line. When communists operated within a larger society, this "party line" served to destroy democratic institutions. Communist party members would not accept majority decisions that fell outside the party line, because their loyalty was to the party, not to the larger democratic society as a whole. In a similar way, the loyalty of a fundamentalist is to his or her sectarian belief, not to a larger society in which the fundamentalist is only a part.

So how do we combat this disaster, similar in many ways to the election of religious mullahs in an Islamic society.

We need to do three things.

First, recognize that America is built on a pluralist tradition, and even though they voted heavily, fundamentalists are in fact a minority. Most Americans do not accept their religious view or attitudes.

Second, recognize that all people have a strong need for a moral universe within which to act, and we cannot marginalize fundamentalism unless we confront fundamentalist values with equally strong opposing values. This is where the democratic party had its greatest failure. By mimicking Republicans, but at heart not believing in fundamentalism, the democrats have found themselves arguing for what they don’t believe. How can such hypocrisy radiate strong values.

Third, we must develop and legitimize our pluralistic, tolerant, nurturing values and reach out to all Americans, including fundamentalists and those in red states, with these values.

This does not mean presenting a litany of policy positions designed to stitch together a coalition of interest groups. It means articulating a clear view of the importance of freedom, equality of opportunity, and the role of government in assisting and supporting our aspirations for a better life.

Our parents paid to build the interstate highway system, to fund great universities, to facilitate scientific research throughout this country. Do we squander their investments that have made our lives so much better. Do we say to our children, “sorry, nothing left for you.” Our vision starts with the right of every individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In a pluralistic society, people are going to choose different paths, based on different beliefs.

In a climate of fear, it is hard for people to accept that differences need not be threatening. One of the things we must fight directly is fear in all its forms. Americans are transfixed by fear. Fear of terrorists. Fear of loss of job or income. Fear of loss of health insurance. Fear of loss of retirement. Fear that they cannot afford to pay for their children’s education. Fear of crime. Fear of abduction, rape, murder. In a climate of fear, fundamentalism grows strong. When terror abounds, clinging to a religion or belief can be a refuge and comfort. Our job is to stand up to fear.

The Republicans have elevated management of fear to an art form. Instead of seeing fear as an enemy of happiness, they use fear as the most effective way to exercise power. To the extent that the American people recover their courage and lose their fear, we will win.

So, back to this election. I was so looking forward to “getting my country back” as many of the Dean supporters put it. Now that has not happened, but we do have the seeds of a movement. I am not alone. 55 million people voted to take our country back. Millions worked day and night, raised money, got involved. These brave Americans will not go away, despite the best efforts of the media monopolists to marginalize and diminish them. Let’s concentrate on our values. Once we articulate those correctly, the rest of our path will become clear, whether it takes four years, or a generation.

Terrorism as Nuisance: War on Terror vs War on Terrorists

Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:26:56 GMT

Kerry is being pilloried again by the bankrupt liars because he said he hoped that one day, through proper prosecution of the war on terror, that fear of terrorism would no longer dominate American political life. During the interview in the NY Times Magazine, Matt Bai said "This was a word that Kerry came back to repeatedly in our discussions; he told me he would wage a more ''effective'' war on terror no less than 18 times in two hours of conversations. The question, of course, was how.

Later came the quote Republicans love to hate: "When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

His crime, to the Republicans, is not being apocalyptic.

Let's try to talk about this using Lakoff's frames.

First, the "War on Terror". War invokes a total effort, no compromise, life threatening. Terror invokes mass panic and destruction--daily lives lived in fear. Together they create a sense of a powerless population--one that is totally dependent on a strong, tough authoritarian leader. The combination of the war on terror meme with the fight against evil meme, which is the other part of this apocalypse, creates a situation where total subordination to authority is demanded of all "good" people.

Kerry, who would do well to invoke a different meme, has at heart a radically different view. I would call it "War on Terrorists". He is saying we will strike out against terrorists (individuals) who attack us, and we will pursue them until we are victorious.

Because we are fighting terrorists, not a global, apocalyptic evil, we can afford to fight them in a smart, effective way: bribing rulers to turn them in, building intelligence alliances that compromise their networks, and building a global consensus that terrorists must be isolated and hunted.

Eventually, in the war on terrorists, the remaining few become less and less powerful, become less and less of a threat, and so eventually we have peace again, with an occasional deranged action by an isolated terrorist.

Such actions by definition are local, contained, and minimal.

What infuriates the Bush Liars is that this meme, the "war on terrorists", does not require total subservience on the part of the American people-- it only requires that we all act together in the best way possible.

It does not require a division of the world into good and evil. Like all other moral quests, the pursuit of good happens quite independently of the war on terrorists. It happens in eradicating aids, in providing health care, in expanding opportunity.

With the war against terrorists, none of these other pursuits are crowded out.

So-- our answer to the cry of Cheny and Bush should be that we fight the "war on terrorists" more effectively. They have taken their eye off the ball, and diverted America into a quixotic crusade against evil that has cost thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and has made us the target of more terrorists, with more support, than they had on 9-11-2001. Their "war on terror" was a total blunder, driven by an apocalyptic ideology and political opportunism, that led them to mistake wishes for reality, fiction for fact, and fantasy for reality.

To fight terrorists, we must wake up from the nightmare of the Bush apocalypse, and fight "terrorists" as the weak individuals they really are, so they do become no more than a nuisance to us.

Lakoff and the importance of Frames

Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:51:25 GMT

I am reading a book called “the elephant in the room” by George Lakoff, which was recommended by Kos. It is fantastic. Lakoff is a linguist, and he makes the argument that the rightwing has won so many elections because they have been able to frame the discussion in a way that reflects their world view—so that even those who argue against their proposals end up furthering their cause, since like a splinter, they simply drive the argument deeper into the body politic.

Examples of these “frames” are tax relief, “no child left behind”, the "clear skies" initiative, and many other initiatives, where the Orwellian language is carefully chosen for its resonance.

Lakoff has a theory that voters vote their values and identity, and the republicans have been hugely successful in speaking of their values, while the democrats have failed by essentially focusing on policy, hiding their values. As a result, when they debate republicans, the debate is one sided, because no matter what the policy spin, only one set of values is on the table.

Lakoff identifies the right as having authoritarian, “strict father” values, which highlight responsibility, punishment, and a view that the world is a bad place, a dangerous place, and those who are rich deserve it, and those who have failed deserve to fail. The left, on the other hand, he characterizes as the nurturing parents, who want their kids to succeed, but recognize they have to let go. These parents believe in freedom, equality of opportunity, fairness, choice, and safety.

Lakoff’s ideas are like water in a desert. I am going to try and use some of his methodology as I write about political issues in this blog. His book is a watershed.

Halifax Street Life

Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:09:17 GMT

I have been up in Halifax Nova Scotia this week, speaking at a conference. Walking around this small, compact city, where the downtown lies mostly on a steep hill heading to the harbor, I have been struck by the vitality of the street life. This evening, there were dozens of groups of men and women hanging out on the sidewalk, mostly at the entrances of bars. It gave the city an open, lively, even tropical feel—even though it is cold.

They were all smoking, which they can’t do inside.

The shameful state of democracy in the U.S.

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:09:07 GMT

We are living a lie. We have the icons of freedom and democracy thrown at us mercilessly by the corporate media and politicians. Yet few Americans know that we live in one of the less free democratic countries in the world. Two examples, that are not tolerated in most established democracies, are election for life in the House of representatives, and the disenfranchisement for life of millions of Americans because of prior felony convictions.

One often wonders why so many people vote against their basic interests. Here is a brief, egregious, example. From today’s Washington Post:

“Congressional negotiators beat back efforts yesterday to expand and preserve tax refunds for poor families, even as they added $13 billion in corporate tax breaks to a package of middle-class tax cuts that could come to a vote in the Senate today.”

How, in a democracy, could Congress grant $13 billion in corporate tax breaks while taking away about $4 billion in tax credits from the poorest of the poor. The reason is a collusion by incumbents in both parties to gerrymander congressional districts to make about 95% of Congressional districts “safe” for incumbents for life. These politicians, no longer needing to face the voters, become captives to their funders, which are mostly corporations who pay them to get money from the government. This is in essence no different that Stalin’s politburo, or North Korea’s legislature, except their the delegates were selected by a authoritarian party.

Gerrymandering, which is the process of drawing a district based on demographic data so that it is either safely democratic, or safely republican with at least a 55-45 split, essentially makes all House elections uncompetitive. The reason is that once an incumbent gets in, they almost never have a serious challenge.

A simple fix would be to require all Congressional districts to be as geographically compact as possible. This would make the districts more representative—and also vulnerable to change as the needs or outlook of the people in the district changed.

But a worse example is the disenfranchisement of felons. A group called the Sentencing project has been carrying on research for years about the ways in which drug laws and the prison building complex is destroying liberty in America. The felon disenfranchisement laws have replaced the Jim Crow laws, and now exclude about 1 in 8 black men from voting. In the south, in some states, 1 in 3 are excluded. Felon disenfranchisement, often for minor drug offenses, is the single greatest reason for the disparity in voter registration between blacks and whites.

Not only would Al Gore have carried Florida by 50,000 to 60,000 votes in 2000, but a number of republican senators would never have been elected without the disenfranchisement of about 4 million Americans.

Democracy is a fragile thing. When those seizing power can prevent whole classes of people who would likely oppose them from voting, it undercuts the very idea of representation.

Virtually no other democratic country in Europe has the punitive laws we have that deny citizenship and civic participation for life to an 18 year old who cops a plea on a drug deal.

The right works by powerful memes. With Reagan, they managed to convince large majorities of working Americans to get hysterically fearful about crime, and they used that fear to isolate and incarcerate millions of non-whites. In effect, Reagan’s republicans were able to shift the make up of the electorate in their favor by eliminating a class of people likely to oppose them.

Democracy is at risk in America because we have a class of ideologues in power who are bankrolled by corporate interests who then get paid off through the rape of the public treasury, e.g. corporate tax cuts take precidence over even keeping the miserly tax credits the poorest of the poor now are getting.

What is so dangerous is this is a self-reinforcing cycle. As media and other companies get more dependent on the government to make or maintain their profits, they are more and more directly involved in making sure the government only serves their needs. Examples are media conglomeration, the writing of the tax code to virtually eliminate corporate taxation, the elimination of taxes on the wealthy, and the gutting of social spending programs. The next big battle will probably be over the dismantling of social security--taking a government program that supports incomes for a huge elderly population, and transforming it into a Wall St. orgy where possibly up to 20% of the entire amount will be consumed by banks and brokerages.

To fight back, we have to defend the same idea of representative government that led to the American revolution in the first place—and that means ending Congressional elections for life, and ending all disenfranchisement in America for the millions and millions of voters under attack via drug laws, mandatory draconian sentencing, and also voting disenfranchisement.

The media have it wrong about voter apathy

Tue, 21 Sep 2004 05:55:29 GMT

I went canvassing in New Hampshire this past weekend with ACT (America Coming Together), which is a coalition of labor, environmental, women’s and other progressive groups all dedicated to the effort to turn out the largest number of democratic voters in history.

Sept. 18^th was designated a day to canvass to get more women out to vote, and health care was the major issue. More than 300 volunteers gathered in Manchester NH, and there was a kick off rally with John Sweeney, Pres. Of AFL-CIO, Ellen Malcolm, president of ACT and founder of Emily’s list, and Larry Fahn, Pres. of the Sierra Club.

After the pep talk, we paired up and went canvassing among “undecided” voters, who were primarily those not enrolled as either democrat or republican.

If you have ever canvassed, which I have now done about five or six times this year, you are given a list of specific names and addresses, and your job is to talk to as many as possible. Most are not home, often people are too busy, but in each day I have done this, there are usually two or three good conversations.

Saturday, what struck me was that there are no “undecided” voters. We were supposed to ask about which issues were important to the person, and then to engage them on that issue and how Kerry represented things that were important to them. We were supposed to identify and engage people who were undecided, and record the others who were leaning toward Kerry for get out the vote efforts later..

I found, among the people I talked to (about 6 or 8 in two hours) was that there was a high interest in the election. I saw no apathy or sense that it does not matter. I was working a lower middle class neighborhood, with both union members, and the occasional NRA sticker. The union people were solidly for Kerry—they almost took it as a given.

The one person who may have been persuadable leaning for Bush was a young contractor, who said that for him personally, business was very good and the economy was getting better. His issue was security, and he seemed to feel that Bush was a more steady hand than Kerry—but he felt there was a real mess in Iraq, and didn’t know what we would do about Iran and North Korea.

I think the great under reported story of this election is the intense interest, and the potential for a resounding decision one way or the other. I found almost no one resentful of my knock on their door. I am not certain of a Kerry victory—although I have been feeling better lately. Bush’s support feels hollow, like people are waiting to be convinced otherwise, but just haven’t yet. It makes me feel that there could be a decisive swing away from Bush given the right set of circumstances.

Remember the phrase “riding the tiger”. Well I feel the electorate is like a tiger, casting about, ready to pounce. So far, Bush has managed to stay on top, but one slip, and watch out. He’ll be devoured so fast it makes your head spin. The feeling from that day in NH is of the enthusiasm of the volunteers at ACT (virtually all of whom were from out of state) and the tiger like intensity of the general voters—casting about, not knowing which way to turn—but definitely not undecided.

The corruption of the press

Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:50:08 GMT

When our country was founded the revolution was fueled by pamphleteers who published both signed and anonymous broadsides against English tyranny. One of the most well known was Tom Paine, whose pamphlet Common Sense was the first to challenge the idea of British authority over the American colonies.

In recognition of the importance of public debate for democracy, the first article of the Bill of Rights established the freedom of the press. The article reads

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

For most of our country’s history, parts of the press have fulfilled a public role. Despite the jingoistic calls for the Spanish American war, or the fact that newspapers had been fully controlled by railroads and robber barons in the 19^th century, there was a plurality of reporting, so that no overarching anti-democratic hegemony could be established.

But in the past twenty to thirty years, the concentration of most media and newsrooms into the hands of four or five major entertainment conglomerates has done what 225 years of American history could not do: it has emasculated the press and sapped newspapers and newsrooms of their adversarial, investigative quality. I doubt very much that the Watergate reporting from the Washington Post, or the publication of the Pentagon Papers, could happen today.

The reason is that newsrooms are controlled by companies who both create, and are dependent on, the current power structure. These are not "profitable companies" They are profitable only in so far as the government makes them so, giving them air waves at no cost, limiting competition, and allowing for the creation of giant media monopolies. So reporters have to dumb down, and essentially avoid those investigations that might give rise to true knowledge about the government, or might displease their masters.

What is permissible is endless yelling or squabbling of a “he said she said” variety, lightening quick attention to sex scandals, and an absolute indifference to the destruction and subversion of our democracy, in ways that could almost be characterized as a coup d’ etat.

Here are some questions that our former press could investigate, but won’t because it is too dangerous to their corporate masters.

Did rightwing U.S. and Israeli radicals conspire to provoke a war against Iraq and Iran, subverting the national interest of the U.S.? [See the links between the Israeli spy and the Palme affair (Juan Cole).

Did the disqualification of thousands of democratic votes in Florida (upwards of 30,000 to 50,000 or more if you count the Palm Beach ballot fiascos) come from a deliberate Republican strategy to subvert the democratic process, by preventing democrats from casting votes?

Did George Bush refuse to take an air force physical because they were doing drug testing, and he would have tested positive for cocaine? Did Bush have to do community service in Houston after an arrest for drug use?

Why are congressional representatives elected for life? Does the power to shape districts so as to avoid competitive elections delivery congress into the hands of its major donors, with no possibility of retribution?

Can the U.S. be called democratic when most elected officials in Congress run essentially unopposed?

Did Bush fear for his life on Sept. 11^th, and make a cowardly retreat rather than returning to Washington.

You get the idea. There are things here that are truly as monstrous as Watergate and Vietnam, but that will never see the light of day in terms of public debate.

Is it possible that the explosion of internet publishing and blogs can force some of these questions into the open? It will take a revolution to build again a true skeptical, adversarial press. Can that revolution begin, please?

Bush’s hubris making him vulnerable

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:25:00 GMT

I am astounded that Bush and Rove have felt so desperate that they put together the Swift Boat Liars group. Even if it was no more than an enraged suggestion ala King Henry II and Becket of who will “rid me of this troublesome priest”, the fact is they are playing with fire.

Reopening this line of questioning may, possibly, get the bigfoot media to follow up on the issue of whether George Bush did community service for cocaine usage while he was in the guard. There are a number of allegations that Bush was arrested for cocaine use, and did community service while his father got his records expunged. This trail has been carefully closed off for ten years by Bush’s cronies in Texas. But now, there is a chance the whole thing will be reopened. More detail is here at http://www.hermes-press.com/dishonorable.htm

As to the sensitivity, here is the transcript of Helen Thomas trying to ask press secretary Scott McClellan about this in February of this year.

From Talking Points Memo

By Joshua Micah Marshall

2-15-4

Scott McClellan seems intent on saying that a dental exam the president had at Dannelly Alabama Air National Guard base in January 1973 proves he fulfilled his Guard duty that year in Alabama.

That, of course, and the ambiguous pay stubs -- a number of which seem to show he was in Texas.

This is, of course, all in addition to the fact that the president has gone back on his promise to just make this whole thing easy and release all his military service records -- something he, through his aides, now refuses to do.

But look at this testy exchange [Friday] morning about whether the president was required to perform community service during the time he was in the Guard ...

------------------

Q: Did the President ever have to take time off from Guard duty to do community service?

Scott McClellan: To do community service? I haven't looked into everything he did 30 years ago, Helen. Obviously, there is different community service he has performed in the past, including going back to that time period --

Q: Can you find out if he actually had --

Scott McClellan: Helen, I don't think we remember every single activity he was involved in 30 years ago.

Q: No, this isn't an activity. Was he forced to do community service at any time while he was on --

Scott McClellan: What's your interest in that question? I'm sorry, I just --

Q: Lots of rumors. I'm just trying to clear up something.

Scott McClellan: Rumors about what?

Q: Pardon?

Scott McClellan: Rumors about what?

Q: About the President having to do community service while he was in the National Guard, take time out for that.

Scott McClellan: I'm not aware of those rumors. But if you want to --

Q: Could you look it up? Would you mind asking him?

Scott McClellan: That's why I'm asking what's your interest in that? I just don't understand your interest in that.

Q: It's what everybody is interested in, whether we're getting the true story on his Guard duty.

Scott McClellan: Well, you have the documents that show the facts.

Q: I'm asking you to try to find out from the President of the United States.

Scott McClellan: Like I said, it's well known the different jobs he had and what he was doing previously, that we know. That goes back to --

Q: I didn't say "previously." I said, while he was on Guard duty.

Scott McClellan: But you're asking me about 30 years ago. I don't think there's a recollection of everything he was doing 30 years ago.

Q: Well, he would know if he had to take time out.

Scott McClellan: Again, I mean, the issue that was raised was whether or not the President was serving while he was in Alabama. Documents reflect that he was --

Q: Well, this is another issue.

Scott McClellan: -- hold on -- that he was serving in Alabama. That was the issue that was raised. We went through, four years ago, other issues related to this.

Q: So you won't answer the question or you won't try to find out?

Scott McClellan: Well, I'm asking you, what's your interest in that question? I'm just curious, because rumors --

Q: Did he have to do any community service while he was in the National Guard?

Scott McClellan: Look, Helen, I think the issue here was whether or not the President served in Alabama. Records have documented --

Q: I'm asking you a different question. That's permissible.

Scott McClellan: Can I answer your question? Sure it is. Can I ask you why you're asking it? I'm just -- out of curiosity myself, is that permissible?

Q: Well, I'm interested, of course, in what everybody is interested in. And we have a very --

Scott McClellan: Let me just point out that we've released all the information we have related to this issue, the issue of whether or not he served while in Alabama. Records have documented as false the outrageous --

Q: I asked you whether he had to do any community service while he was in the National Guard.

Scott McClellan: Can I walk through this?

Q: It's a very legitimate question.

Scott McClellan: And I want to back up and walk through this a little bit. Let's talk about the issue that came up, because this issue came up four years ago, it came up four years before that -- or two years before that, it came up four years before that --

Q: Did my question come up four years ago, and was it handled?

Scott McClellan: Helen, if you'll let me finish, I want to back up and talk about this --

Q: Don't dance around, just give us --

Q: It's a straightforward question.

Q: Let's not put too fine a point on it. If I'm not mistaken, you're implying that he had to do community service for criminal action, as a punishment for some crime?

Q: There are rumors around, and I didn't put it in that way. I just --

Q: Could you take that question? I guess apparently that's the question, that he had to take time out to perform community service --

Scott McClellan: That's why I wanted to get to this because --

Q: -- as a sentence for a crime.

Scott McClellan: No, that's why I wanted to get to this because I want to step back for a second. I want to go back through a few things. Look, the -- I think we've really exhausted the issue that came up. The issue that came up was related to whether or not he had served while he was in Alabama. Records have documented as false the outrageous, baseless accusation that he did not serve while in Alabama. The conspiracy theory of one individual, that the National Guard cleansed documents, has been discredited.

Q: How so?

Scott McClellan: Read The Boston Globe today.

Q: Well, we want answers from you, not --

Scott McClellan: Read the Boston Globe. No, the answers are from the people that would have knowledge of that. But read --

Q: Why do you think this person made those allegations?

Scott McClellan: Hang on, hang on.

Q: What? Just read The Boston Globe --

Scott McClellan: Just read The Boston Globe. Read The Boston Globe. I would draw your attention to that. What I think we're seeing now is just politics. And we're not going to engage in it, because there are great challenges facing our nation, and there should be an honest discussion of the actions the President is taking to make our world safer and better and make America more prosperous and secure.

You want me to go --

Q: -- the personal record of a President is --

Scott McClellan: No, hang on, Helen, hang on. I've said from this podium, if we have new information that comes to our attention that relates to this issue, we have made it clear we will share that information. You're asking me to go and chase rumors. There was a conspiracy theory --

Q: I think --

Scott McClellan: Hold on, hold on, Helen. There was a conspiracy theory made by one individual, when everybody he accused of being involved in that said, it's ridiculous, didn't happen.

Q: This is not based on a conspiracy theory.

Scott McClellan: And there was a lot of attention given to this individual, and he's been discredited. There's a Boston Globe article on it this morning. And there are some --

Q: That says what? Your point --

Scott McClellan: You can go read it. I mean, we've got other things to move on to. I mean, you can go read it. But there are some, unfortunately, who simply are not interested in the facts. Again, the documents -- the records document that he did serve while in Alabama. And now there are people that are bringing up issues that were addressed four years ago.

Q: But you still haven't answered Helen's question. She asked you a simple question.

Scott McClellan: There are people that want to replay the 2000 campaign all over again, Bill, and --

Q: You still haven't answered her question about community service.

Scott McClellan: -- there are too many important -- there are too many important policies and decisions that are being made that we need to discuss.

Q: Why does a "yes" or "no" elude you on this?

Scott McClellan: I didn't say that. I said that these were all issues addressed four years ago. If there's additional information --

Q: This issue quite obviously wasn't addressed four years ago.

Scott McClellan: Oh, issues -- these issues were addressed four years ago.

Q: This issue was? The community service issue was addressed four years ago?

Scott McClellan: The issues -- the issues that we're going to here --

Q: I don't recall --

Scott McClellan: This is called chasing a rumor. And I'm not going to engage in this kind of politics, Bill.

Q: -- finding out whether a rumor is true or false.

Scott McClellan: No, this issue, absolutely --

Q: Why can't you say whether or not he performed community service?

Scott McClellan: Absolutely, this issue came up four years ago. And if you all want to play politics, then go call the RNC, call the campaign.

Q: The best defense is offense. We know that. Just, all you've got to say is you don't know.

Scott McClellan: Helen, it was -- this issue was addressed four years ago. I think people that were involved in the campaign will know --

Q: -- if they know --

Scott McClellan: -- that the issue that you're trying to bring up was addressed four years ago. It's about chasing rumors.

Q: It isn't a question of four years ago. The issue has come up now, very large.

Scott McClellan: I'm not going to get into chasing rumors.

Q: Headlines.

Scott McClellan: I'm not going to get into chasing rumors.

Q: So you refuse to answer the question?

Scott McClellan: You're saying that people said he was forced to do something, and you're asking me to chase a rumor.

Q: Everything is politics today, of course.

Q: She asked you a "yes" or "no" question.

Scott McClellan: Look, if you all want to -- this is just politics. That's what this is. And if there's any more information I have to share with you all, I will always -- I will do that.

Q: Scott, I have a question of this individual, and I confess, I haven't read the Boston article. But who -- what do you believe was this person's motivation, that if they have been discredited, for making these allegations?

Scott McClellan: Just -- I would read The Boston Globe. Everybody that he accused of being involved in this has said it was totally ridiculous. And there are others that --

Q: So are you saying -- was it politically motivated?

Scott McClellan: There are others that are quoted in The Boston Globe today, that you might want to see what they said.

Q: Speaking of politics, has the President authorized his campaign --

Scott McClellan: And we've got to --

Q: -- to release a video attacking Senator Kerry?

Scott McClellan: You need to talk -- you need to talk to the campaign. But let me go to the week ahead because we've used up more than 15 minutes.

Q: So the President did authorize --

Q: Scott, I've got --

Scott McClellan: I'm going to go to the week ahead.