Splicetoday

Politics & Media
Jun 04, 2008, 05:56AM

Far Corner, Right Side

Scott McClellan's book seems just a little too timely, and its issues just a little too fashionable. Bragg Van Antwerp smells a rat.

Mcclellan bush.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

Last week, the mainstream media breathlessly reported that President Bush’s former press secretary, Scott McClellan, had “slammed,” “walloped,” “stunned” or “blindsided”—pick your cliché—the Bush Administration with the claims he makes in his forthcoming book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.

I have to hand it to him, for someone enjoying his fleeting notoriety, McClellan has made the most of it. I saw him on NBC’s Today Show, CNN’s The Situation Room, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, the CBS Evening News, ABC’s World News and NBC’s Meet the Press and I’m sure there were other appearances I missed and perhaps more yet to come. In watching his various interviews, I came away decidedly unimpressed, although I always felt he was a horrendous press secretary, so a change in opinion was unlikely. Yet my distaste for him and the book can’t entirely be chalked up to my support for his former boss. In fact, I don’t think McClellan is a particularly popular person anywhere right now—regardless of one’s view of President Bush or general political leanings.  

For those who support President Bush, McClellan is a disloyal loser clearly capitalizing (literally) on his powerful former position and the media’s appetite for blood when it comes to criticism of Bush. McClellan’s no fool, and he knew very well the frenzy his “revelations” would ignite, and surely hoped it would translate into book sales. In today’s nonstop news cycle, a failed messenger was a crippling weakness for the White House. More to the point, I have my doubts about the sincerity of his current claims, particularly when he admits that he never once voiced any concerns about what was going on around him to President Bush or anyone else in the White House while they were happening. Furthermore, while he officially resigned, most of Washington knew that his resignation was hardly voluntary, particularly when his successor was the far more talented and respected Tony Snow. No wonder he’s bitter.

On the opposite end are those who despise President Bush or who are vehemently opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq (or both). Here too lies one of the most ironic aspects of this whole episode, as it was the same liberal crowd now fighting to interview McClellan who once hounded him at the White House podium and very openly derided his lame attempts at “spin.” But things have changed, and McClellan has received an entirely different and more positive reaction—at least initially—from the same formerly tough crowd. I think his former boss and predecessor as White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said it best last week: “Poor Scott. Scott is about to borrow some friends for 24 hours on the political left, who will throw him out as soon as they are done with him, and he’s burnt an awful lot of bridges to people who really always thought fondly and highly of him.” Fleischer was right on the money. The knee jerk reaction of this camp was to celebrate and praise this brave bastion of truth, epitomized by the hater of all Bush haters, Keith Olbermann, dedicating the entire hour of his show to an interview with McClellan. Already, though, the tone has begun to change, and some on the left have become critical of McClellan for not speaking out sooner—preferably at the very time he had his alleged misgivings and disillusion. And, they ask, wasn’t he being dishonest himself in his daily promotions of the Bush Administration’s view and policies? Perhaps Bush could have been impeached, they no doubt imagine, if only he could have blown the whistle earlier. Those focused primarily on Iraq, meanwhile, have taken to wondering how many lives in Iraq could have been saved if McClellan had been able to find his voice sooner, potentially precipitating an end to the war.

Even though I remain a Bush supporter, I’ve had my share of disappointments with him and others in the administration. The war hasn’t been executed well at all, the tepid reaction to Hurricane Katrina was deplorable, and the President’s ability to communicate with the American people is flawed at best. There are many questions about those and other decisions made over the last seven years, but put in McClellan’s position, I don’t think I’d write a tell-all while my former boss was still in office. Perhaps there is an unwritten rule of decorum violated here that upsets me most, even if I do sympathize to some extent with some of the issues that apparently troubled McClellan. Actually, it seems to me that almost anyone witnessing this who is able to remove his or her political lens momentarily and observe it from a personal or human perspective can’t help but view McClellan as sleazy. Everything seems all too convenient, the issues on which he allegedly differed too fashionable, and his interviews over the last week—much like his bumbling White House press briefings—all too unconvincing and meek. No one likes a snitch, after all, and it’s hard to view McClellan’s book as much more than snitching for profit. When Bob Dole, of all people, emerges from retirement to publicly label him a “miserable creature” and “a total ingrate,” I think it’s clear McClellan made an error in judgment, and one from which his reputation and future career prospects are unlikely to ever recover.

Discussion
  • Ahh yes, more talk of the "media's appetite for blood when it comes to President Bush." You're right: they've been so tough on the guy. Like when everyone hounded him mercilessly about the Katrina debacle, or when all those questions about the legitimacy of the war got asked. McClellan's an opportunist, but the more we talk about what a damaging stooge this president was, the better.

    Responses to this comment
  • Bad sense of history, Filthy. In reality, Bush's presidency ended after his incredibly dumb, and insensitive, response to Katrina. That, and a bunch of GOP crooks, set up the Democratic Congressional win in '06 and will lead to Obama's victory in the fall.

    Responses to this comment
  • A weasel is a weasel is a weasel. I bet when Obama's elected, the number of his compromised administration officials--and there will be some--will be about 10 percent of the Bush administration's, or Bill Clinton's for that matter.

    Responses to this comment
  • good for him for coming out. at least he had the balls to do it.

    Responses to this comment
  • McClellan was just another bad Bush appointment. I didn't care for Ari Fleischer, but in retrospect he seemed like a debate champ compared to McClellan.

    Responses to this comment
  • SpongeLuke, I'm no political scientist or historian, but even a cursory acquaintance with the news over the past several years leads to the obvious conclusion that McClellan and the word "balls" do not belong in the same sentence.

    Responses to this comment
  • "Even though I remain a Bush supporter, I’ve had my share of disappointments with him and others in the administration. The war hasn’t been executed well at all, the tepid reaction to Hurricane Katrina was deplorable, and the President’s ability to communicate with the American people is flawed at best." So, why do you remain a Bush supporter?

    Responses to this comment
  • A fine question, philmedley, and probably unanswerable beyond stock "toeing the party line" responses.

    Responses to this comment
  • Probably because he's nervous, rightfully so, about all three branches of the government controlled by tax-happy, protectionist Democrats.

    Responses to this comment
  • Wow – a lot of comments here. Sorry for the delay in responding but I have been traveling. I greatly appreciate your reading my column, and I also appreciate your feedback. I will try to respond now to each comment individually. Here goes...

    Responses to this comment
  • philmedley: great (and fair question). Quite frankly, I don’t have a perfect answer for this. Part of the reason for that is because my support for Bush is not necessarily something I can articulate well – it’s more of a gut feeling. But I'll try... As someone living in NYC, I am obviously grateful that he has managed to keep us (and our country) safe from another terrorist attack. I think this is something for which he does not receive enough credit. If you had told me or anyone else living here in New York on 9/11 that – as of yesterday – over six and a half years would pass without another attack here, we would have said you were crazy. I also respect the fact that he is not someone who lives and dies by polls or focus groups. Rather, I think he chooses to do what he thinks is best. Clearly there have been times when the choices he has made have been incorrect, and I would argue that a few polls or focus groups at various times during his two terms might have served him well! Regardless, I respect the fact that the decisions he makes are largely based on what he truly believes. As for the specific issues I cited of the war, Katrina and his communication, I do not think the war has been managed as well as it could have or should have been, but I believe it is the right thing for us to do, and I think things have improved dramatically. My belief (or hope) is that when our involvement in Iraq is viewed in its entirety in three years or five years or however many years in the future, the broader perspective of time will justify that involvement and demonstrate that our “blood and treasure” were well-spent. Regarding Katrina, this is one of the things about which I am most disappointed, and I don’t think that I can reasonably defend what happened. I will say that the failures of Katrina were not just on the federal level, but on the state and local level as well, and that Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin were more than complicit in the debacle. That said, there was inarguably a failure on the federal level, largely I think due to an inept FEMA leader in Michael Brown. But since Bush put Brown in that position, the buck ultimately stops with the president. Lastly, Bush’s ability (or lack thereof) to communicate with the public does not in itself make him a bad president, but it did severely hinder his ability to be considered a good president, to ably defend some of his most controversial decisions (many of which I have just referenced) and ably promote some of his better ones, and to some extent, it reinforces the myth that he is “dumb”, “stupid”, etc. Additionally, I like that Bush cut taxes, I like the two justices to the Supreme Court he appointed, and I appreciate the respect and reverence he has for the office he holds. In a broad sense, I would say that I am definitely disappointed in him, though -- particularly compared to what I had hoped or thought he could or would do -- because I think he has had several significant missed opportunities to do some great things, and I think that his failure to reverse course at times (when, for example, a choice he has made – no matter how well-intended or sincere it may have been – has been shown to have been incorrect) is weak, stubborn, and damaging. With all of that said, I continue to support him, and I suspect I will continue to do so. I don’t think there can ever be a politician or an elected official with whom one can be 100% happy or always agree with, and to look for that is unrealistic. On balance, I am more pleased about what Bush has done than I am disappointed, thus my support. I hope that answers your question.

    Responses to this comment
  • Oh, jeez Bragg, you're not a dense guy. "Compromised" is a media euphemism for incompetent, corrupt or dumb.

    Responses to this comment
  • It seems to me that every administration has its share of compromised people, then. What I fail to understand, however, is how exactly you think a President Obama would be better equipped to avoid the same fate that has befallen most of his predecessors...

    Responses to this comment
  • Jesus, Bragg. I read 900 words a week from you; no need to double it in the comment boards. But it did give me great pleasure to hear somebody defend this horrible president with a "gut feeling." You and W. can retire together to Crawford and rub each other's bellies all day. History will show this man's presidency to be one of most incompetent ever.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment