Scott McClellan

[jff]

How many people here at ViaChicago are planning to buy this book, regardless of its content?

 

I'm not sure where you're trying to lead me with that question. Controversy gets attention, and that results in increased sales. Is that obvious only to me?

[caliber66]

I'm not sure where you're trying to lead me with that question. Controversy gets attention, and that results in increased sales. Is that obvious only to me?

You brought up ViaChicago.

[jff]

You brought up ViaChicago.

 

Only to point out how widespread the attention is on this book. I could have pointed out that it has held the top 4 slots on Drudge since this morning, and is among the top stories on most of the major online news sources, but I think it's presence on this site is more telling than any of that.

 

Again, my point is that the book would probably not have any presence on this website if it were complimentary of the bush administration.

[mfwahl]

Here's Karl Rove on Hannity & Colmes responding to McClellan. I love the "left-wing blogger" line.

 

 

 

ROVE: Two things, first of all, this doesn't sound like Scott. It really doesn't. Not the Scott McClellan I have known for a long time. Second of all--sounds like somebody else, it sounds like a left-wing blogger. Second of all, if he had these moral qualms he should have spoken up about them. And frankly I don't remember him speaking up about these things, I don't remember a single word. There were people on the White House staff, colleagues of mine that had doubts about this or that policy, they spoke out. But this doesn't sound like Scott.

[owl]

Since when is the Press Secretary supposed to do anything but tow the line?

 

Rove is such a dick. I credit him for dividing this country to its current point. We've been 50/50 on elections for some time, but there is a huge amount of hatred out there and it's all Rove's doing.

[bjorn_skurj]

How many people here at ViaChicago are planning to buy this book, regardless of its content?

Not only am I not going to buy it, I am not going to steal it or even read it.

[mfwahl]

Rove is such a dick. I credit him for dividing this country to its current point. We've been 50/50 on elections for some time, but there is a huge amount of hatred out there and it's all Rove's doing.

 

I totally agree with this and this is driven home by the statement McClellan makes about Bush's presidency being a continuous campaign. Rove has no concern for reality or truth or anyone's well being. He is pure propaganda. This administration has repeated false claims so many times, they don't even know the truth anymore. It's like a fantasy camp. But instead of rocking out or playing baseball with legends, you lose your house, your job and your cousin dies in a far off country.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Since when is the Press Secretary supposed to do anything but tow the line?

 

Rove is such a dick. I credit him for dividing this country to its current point. We've been 50/50 on elections for some time, but there is a huge amount of hatred out there and it's all Rove's doing.

 

In an e-mailed comment from McClelland to the Washington Post, he says that he is trying to right the Washington political climate, moving away from the rampant partisan approach of the last "15 years."

 

Is Rove merely giving us the other side of the Clinton years? I'd prefer ol' fashioned bipartisan sparring if we all could come to some common ground on which to build. I mentioned the Frontline report; the first time I saw that, it was followed by "Now," and in a panel Bill Moyers talked to a couple of old politicos -- R and D -- and they both took swipes at the Neocon climate. Did the Clintons help breed that environment? Probably.

 

I think McClelland got turned to roadkill by being a good soldier and, hopefully, he's trying to steer the debate to some common ground.

[owl]

I totally agree with this and this is driven home by the statement McClellan makes about Bush's presidency being a continuous campaign. Rove has no concern for reality or truth or anyone's well being. He is pure propaganda. This administration has repeated false claims so many times, they don't even know the truth anymore. It's like a fantasy camp. But instead of rocking out or playing baseball with legends, you lose your house, your job and your cousin dies in a far off country.

 

First and foremost, it was Rove's use of religion to divide us, to pound into our brains that liberals can't be Christians.

 

In an e-mailed comment from McClelland to the Washington Post, he says that he is trying to right the Washington political climate, moving away from the rampant partisan approach of the last "15 years."

 

Is Rove merely giving us the other side of the Clinton years? I'd prefer ol' fashioned bipartisan sparring if we all could come to some common ground on which to build. I mentioned the Frontline report; the first time I saw that, it was followed by "Now," and in a panel Bill Moyers talked to a couple of old politicos -- R and D -- and they both took swipes at the Neocon climate. Did the Clintons help breed that environment? Probably.

 

I think McClelland got turned to roadkill by being a good soldier and, hopefully, he's trying to steer the debate to some common ground.

 

Of course he said "15 years." If reality won't allow Republicans to love Bush, they will try to bring Clinton down to Bush's level.

 

I still don't think it's possible to determine whether Clinton was a "good" president by historical standards, but McClellan's assertion is just another form of propaganda. To me, it sounds like he's already doing damage control.

 

In my mind, this only proves what I've known all along: these assholes in the Bush administration are opportunists through and through. McClellan already prostituted any moral sensibility that he had when he was Press Secretary. I don't know why anyone would think that he's reformed in any way. A tabloid-esque expos

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

First and foremost, it was Rove's use of religion to divide us, to pound into our brains that liberals can't be Christians.

 

 

 

Bush will absorb all of the criticism for years to come, even though he's not actually responsible for 98% of the problems that his administration caused.

 

Which Bush? H.W. and his ilk found his son another job after he screwed up all the others.

 

One passage for the book was meant to support Dubya believing his own spin. McClelland said he was in the room when he's talking on the phone, saying he couldn't remember if he did coke.

 

Georgie, you forget on pot; on coke, you don't care whether you did coke, you only know that you need to do some more.

[caliber66]

Of course he said "15 years." If reality won't allow Republicans to love Bush, they will try to bring Clinton down to Bush's level.

 

I still don't think it's possible to determine whether Clinton was a "good" president by historical standards, but McClellan's assertion is just another form of propaganda. To me, it sounds like he's already doing damage control.

He didn't say "Clinton," he said "the last 15 years," which, oddly enough, roughly coincides with the Republican House of Representatives (1994) and the Neoconservative surge that followed. So he may not be making a dig at the Dems at all, although who knows...

[Mr. Kinsley]

I'd have a lot more respect for McClellan if this info came out:

a) Right after leaving his post

Without making money off of it - sure he'd make $ for a feel-good book, but who'd buy a Yeah Bush book when his approval rating is around 30%?

 

I have no doubt that he's on the money (no pun intended) with his assertions, it's just that he loses credibility doing it this way.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

He didn't say "Clinton," he said "the last 15 years," which, oddly enough, roughly coincides with the Republican House of Representatives (1994) and the Neoconservative surge that followed. So he may not be making a dig at the Dems at all, although who knows...

 

Good point. McClelland can burn that bridge when he comes to it.

[owl]

Which Bush?

W mainly, but H.W. was pretty damn bad too.

He didn't say "Clinton," he said "the last 15 years," which, oddly enough, roughly coincides with the Republican House of Representatives (1994) and the Neoconservative surge that followed. So he may not be making a dig at the Dems at all, although who knows...

I think it's safe to assume that he meant the Clinton admin, though you make a good case. Maybe you should sign up to be McCain's press secretary (jkjkjkjkjkjkjk).

I have no doubt that he's on the money (no pun intended) with his assertions, it's just that he loses credibility doing it this way.

How much further can his credibility drop? This guy was paid to lie when he worked for Bush.

[tugmoose]

The most disturbing thing I read is that McClelland says Bush believed that to be considered a "Great President" you have to be a "War President." I recall Bush reinforcing the notion in interviews: "I'm a war president."

 

As much as I try not to judge, if that's a reason we went to war, I find it difficult to imaging one being able to redeem one's soul after that.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

As much as I try not to judge, if that's a reason we went to war, I find it difficult to imaging one being able to redeem one's soul after that.

 

He wasn't using it.

[Good Old Neon]

I

[bjorn_skurj]

I

[owl]

The most disturbing thing I read is that McClelland says Bush believed that to be considered a "Great President" you have to be a "War President."

 

I don't find that hard to believe at all.

 

I'd imagine that Bush was the kind of spoiled kid who thrived on any kind of attention, good or bad. That kid became our President.

[tugmoose]

I'd imagine that Bush was the kind of spoiled kid who thrived on any kind of attention, good or bad. That kid became our President.

But I'd sure rather have a beer with Bush than Gore or Kerry.

[bjorn_skurj]

Gore would be all right, I think. Kerry, maybe not.

[bobbob1313]

Imagine if you didn't finish your meal and got a styrofoam to-go box, though. Al Gore would flip his shit.

[jff]

Imagine if you didn't finish your meal and got a styrofoam to-go box, though. Al Gore would flip his shit.

 

You could calm him down by telling him you plan on recycling the styrofoam and dumpimg the food into your "Mr. Fusion".

 

[Beltmann]

Imagine if you didn't finish your meal and got a styrofoam to-go box, though.

[John Smith]

I totally agree with this and this is driven home by the statement McClellan makes about Bush's presidency being a continuous campaign. Rove has no concern for reality or truth or anyone's well being. He is pure propaganda. This administration has repeated false claims so many times, they don't even know the truth anymore. It's like a fantasy camp. But instead of rocking out or playing baseball with legends, you lose your house, your job and your cousin dies in a far off country.

 

I've long held that this administration was all about propaganda and that they defiantly used the most tried and true methods of the third Reich. The quote above reminds me of that and that Rove is as much an historical shadow off Goebbels as has ever existed.

 

In an e-mailed comment from McClelland to the Washington Post, he says that he is trying to right the Washington political climate, moving away from the rampant partisan approach of the last "15 years."

 

Is Rove merely giving us the other side of the Clinton years? I'd prefer ol' fashioned bipartisan sparring if we all could come to some common ground on which to build. I mentioned the Frontline report; the first time I saw that, it was followed by "Now," and in a panel Bill Moyers talked to a couple of old politicos -- R and D -- and they both took swipes at the Neocon climate. Did the Clintons help breed that environment? Probably.

 

This is the false balance people are always looking for. They assume that the current administration is acting this way as a payback for the previous administration. When I read the original quote I took it to be the hyper partisanship started during the Clinton administration, but perpetrated by the republicans. It seems like that was the era when the "liberal media" (talk radio etc...) was co-opted and began to push the idea that anything the other side did was automatically to be opposed as being bad. I don't think it was the democrats at all. I think the democrats were slow to respond to the hyper partisanship. They were still trying to work with the old rules of building coalitions to achieve political victories where bills were passed with bipartisan support, while the republicans had already moved on and had fallen under the hammer, where they toed the party line first and foremost if they expected to continue to get party support. It's where McCain got his maverick title, he was secure in his state and could easily win reelections with or with out national support so he could go off on his own. (now that he need national support see how quickly he is falling into line?) Anyhow if the dems had been more hyper partisan prior to 2001, had they been better organized to wage these sorts of political wars, the country may not have fallen as far and as hard as it has. As is was the republican took their power too far and in 2006 saw the results. In 2008 I have a feeling it will be worse for them.

 

As an aside I went to a tax conference about a month ago. One of the sessions was a legislative session where an aide of a republican senator and an aide of a democratic representative spoke. The democrat went first and talked in detail about a number of bills that they were working on and explained how they would work and what the effects would be. The republican spoke next and said none of that is going to happen because they were not going to send any bill to the president that they knew he did not approve of. So regardless of the quality of the bill they were going to block it. This mirrored what a lobbyist said at a similar conference a year ago when he said that he was told that his suggestion for a bill would not pass because they were not going to allow any successes during an elections year. In both anecdotes (witnessed by hundreds) I heard that obstructionism was the rule of the day. Party before country is the way I read it and is the way I have viewed this administration since day one. And you know what, they are entirely fine with it, they being the republican party. The republican party has fostered and lived by hyper partisanship, and this election they will reap the rewards of their efforts.

 

But I'd sure rather have a beer with Bush than Gore or Kerry.

 

I'd never have a beer with Bush. That was a marketing strategy developed to pass him off as being a regular guy. He's not. He is and always has been a jerk. Put a beer or two in him and he would become an a**hole, or rather his inner a**hole would manifest itself in a more obvious manner. Anyone who read anything about Bush prior to his reinvention as Gov of TX would know this. Sure his behavior changed over the years, he drank less or perhaps not at all, but personality is personality, and his has never been anything other than that of a bullying spoiled frat brat.