I was watching the daily WH press gaggle and suddenly my tiny ears perked up, Les Kinsolving had asked about contraception.

In Les's inimitable way, it was a very direct question (madmen and court jesters may speak) and a strong message appeared to be sent to the christ-obsessed anti-abortion anti-contraception anti-woman whack jobs.

Yes it came out of Scott's tiny pursed lips, yes it was convoluted, but he speaks for God's own president.

Take a gander:

Q Yesterday, the President, in his phone call to the March for Life, said this, and this is a quote: "These principles call us to defend the sick and dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children" -- which category means, of course, from conception, when they're invisible.

And my question:

Does this statement mean that the President also believes that unconcieved, as well as unborn children, consisting of living, moving human sperm and egg, also deserve the right to life, rather than being killed by contraception?

MR. McCLELLAN:

I think the President has made his views very clear when it comes to the issues of life. This President has worked to build a culture of life in America. He will continue working to build upon those efforts. And that's the way I would describe it.

Q How does he feel on contraception? Is he opposed to contraception, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the position he has taken is that when it comes to educational programs for teens, we ought to be spending at least as much as we do on teen contraception programs on abstinence programs. And that's what we have worked to do.

Q But he does believe in birth control, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what the President has talked about and said.

I happened to be watching MTP the first Sunday after election 2004... and heard this:

MR. RUSSERT: Does he think a right of privacy exists under the Constitution?

MR. ROVE: Griswold vs. Connecticut, I'm not sure. I've never discussed Griswold vs. Connecticut with the president.

Same show, same transcript, Russert, that fine Catholic boy from Buffalo, reminded Rove of Arlen Specter's comments on election night (laugh now if you did not then):

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the issue of abortion. As you know, Arlen Specter, the Republican senator from Pennsylvania, is on line to be the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He said some things on Election Night, and this is how they were reported:

"`When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely,' Arlen Specter said.

`The president is well aware of what happened when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster,' referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. `...And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning.'"

What's your reaction to that?

MR. ROVE: Well, I saw his letter statement where he said he was not applying the litmus test and then he upheld his commitment to the president that if he were to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, there would be quick hearings, a vote within a reasonable period of time, and that the appellate nominees would be brought to the floor for an up or down vote by the entire Senate. And Senator Specter is a man of his word. We'll take him at his word.

MR. RUSSERT: Is the president comfortable with Arlen Specter being chairman of the Judiciary Committee?

MR. ROVE: That's up to the United States Senate to decide, not the president of the United States. And just as we wouldn't like them to decide who are the staff assistants of the White House, they certainly do not want us determining who's committee chairman on the Hill.

Pigs are flying all over, have been for years. We should be under red alert for falling pig shit.