Scott McClellan Interview...... <<<crickets>>> Come on guys you can attack him like the rest of the fringe right.

[kallend 2,146]

I don't think anyone needs a PhD in economics to see that this administration's legacy is an economic disaster for the USA. Even 6th graders can understand the concept of debt, deficit, and loss of well paying jobs for their parents.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Since when is "he/she did it first" an excuse for unacceptable behavior? Bush Jr's unacceptable behavior is worse than any predecessor since Nixon. In addition to which he's an incompetent.

Bush Jr's legacy will be:
Interminable war entered under false pretenses,
Failure to catch public enemy #1,
US Dollar at all time low,
US credibility at all time low,
Traditional allies pissed off with us,
Zero or negative progress on environmental issues,
Trade deficit at all time high,
National Debt at all time high by large margin,
Failed education program,
Failure to achieve his "#1 priority" (SS reform),
Millions of high paying jobs exported,
Wider gap between rich and poor Americans
Failure to achieve immigration reform,
Endorsement of torture as official US policy,
Tapping American's phones without a warrant,
Evading Constitutional protections by shipping suspected undesirables to secret overseas prisons,
Imprisonment of US citizens without trial,
"Signing statements",
Overriding FOI Act as one of his first actions as president.

Other than that, his administration has been just great.

So what you're saying is, except for his foreign policy and his domestic policy, President Bush has not been responsible for any spectacular failures as President? That sounds reasonable.

Yes, that seems to sum it up pretty well. And it seems that nearly 70% of Americans now realize this. There do seem to be some righties still living in denial, and a few of them post here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

I didn't say PhD. Read Friedman's book - superb reading. If you think GWB or anyone would have kept those jobs here - without MORONIC protectionist measures of the most Draconian sort - you're living in lala land...er...drinking iced tea so that you have to take a bathroom break when facts are presented.

jcd - libertarians understand economics fairly well, unlike democrats.



The economic disaster we're headed into, by the way, has been a couple of decades in the making.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I made an assertion and backed it up with data - the fact that the data did not satisfy YOUR criteria is immaterial.

Far right viewpoints? Compared to most of the leftist posters in the forum, I suppose that's true. It also helps explain why you see no bias in the media...why, that's how things are SUPPOSED to be!

What data did you provide?

Your Media Research link? Laughable, not primary data
Your UCLA link? Poor methodology, not primary data
Your Pew Report? Doesn't indicate what you claim it to indicate

If you think most of the SC posters are leftist, that pretty much confirms your own far-right perspective.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

jcd - libertarians understand economics fairly well, unlike democrats.

I'll believe it when I see it. Some of the most moronic economic proposals I've heard have been from Libertarians.

Quote

The economic disaster we're headed into, by the way, has been a couple of decades in the making.

Yeah, that budget surplus and growing economy that we saw during the Clinton administration had disaster written all over them.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TheAnvil 0]

Learn a bit about federal budgets, federal budget projections, and economics and get back to me. Knowledge of future gov't non-discretionary spending should be something you have before you do.



If you want economic incompetence, look to Sen. Obama's comments in his debate w/Madame Clinton WRT the capital gains tax. It's not about revenues, it's about being fair - that sums up his comment. Bwaaaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Learn a bit about federal budgets, federal budget projections, and economics and get back to me. Knowledge of future gov't non-discretionary spending should be something you have before you do.

LOL, literally. If you only knew!

Quote

If you want economic incompetence, look to Sen. Obama's comments in his debate w/Madame Clinton WRT the capital gains tax. It's not about revenues, it's about being fair - that sums up his comment. Bwaaaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!

I've never said anything favorable about Sen. Obama's economic policy. I've not examined it closely. I certainly am not naïve enough to base an opinion of someone's economic policy on a sound bite, however. I would much rather examine the numbers.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I made an assertion and backed it up with data - the fact that the data did not satisfy YOUR criteria is immaterial.

Far right viewpoints? Compared to most of the leftist posters in the forum, I suppose that's true. It also helps explain why you see no bias in the media...why, that's how things are SUPPOSED to be!

What data did you provide?

Your Media Research link? Laughable, not primary data
Your UCLA link? Poor methodology, not primary data
Your Pew Report? Doesn't indicate what you claim it to indicate

I ask again, what evidence WOULD convince you, then? Obviously not direct quotes, or comparisons between 'news' reporting and viewpoints of liberal thinktanks, nor data showing that the newsrooms and the thrust of their reporting becoming more liberal over the years.

So tell me - just WHAT, short of a Congressional finding or a holy writ from Prophet Bubba Jeff *WOULD* convince you?

Quote

If you think most of the SC posters are leftist, that pretty much confirms your own far-right perspective.

Reading *IS* fundamental - show where I said that "most of the SC posters are leftist", thanks.

"most of the leftist posters in SC" != "most of the SC posters are leftist".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I ask again, what evidence WOULD convince you, then?

Primary data in which the author(s) objectively reach the conclusion of a liberal bias with valid methodology. Think peer reviewed.

Quote

If you think most of the SC posters are leftist, that pretty much confirms your own far-right perspective.

Quote

"most of the leftist posters in SC" != "most of the SC posters are leftist".

Fair enough, although it's hardly relevant. The views represented in your posts still tend to be far-right.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TheAnvil 0]

I do know - if you are cognizant of budgets, then you know the upcoming crisis has been decades in the making.

Anybody who would make such a comment as Mr. Obama's has no understanding of economics or of a tax system. Period.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[rushmc 23]

Nice post. You should be thanked

Thank you!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Why attack the guy for telling it like it is? You won't hear it from me. It looks like the guy is actually principled, and says it.

Jeanne - what are your thoughts on this henchman of the right wing?

I have to ask YOU this question.

Why? Because YOU have gained my respect within this forum.

Why is it (or more specifically , do you,) automatically think what he has printed is the "truth"?

Next question.

Do you know WHO bank rolled his book and "WHO" the pulisher is and both of their backgrounds?

I ask sincerly

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I do know - if you are cognizant of budgets, then you know the upcoming crisis has been decades in the making.

There are parts of the budget that have been headed towards crisis for decades, namely Medicare and Social Security, but largely it was healthy. Heck, Social Security should be fixed soon so that fixing it has the lowest annual cost possible, but it can pay out full benefits with no changes for many years to come. (Medicare is a very real, inevitable crisis that is very rapidly approaching without immediate attention.)

Quote

Anybody who would make such a comment as that has no understanding of economics or of a tax system. Period.

I thought the same thing about your comment of Libertarian understanding economics. A hands off approach to the economy is not effective. An effective economic policy is inconsistent with the ideal Libertarian economic policy of the government keeping its hands off.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I do know - if you are cognizant of budgets, then you know the upcoming crisis has been decades in the making.

Anybody who would make such a comment as Mr. Obama's has no understanding of economics or of a tax system. Period.

You comments would be credible if the guy you continue to support and defend hadn't managed to produce a budget deficit that, in his own words, would be "small and short term" while actually being the largest in the history of the world. A guy who imagined that he could fix the budget deficit by reducing taxes and simultaneously increasing government spending. SURPRISE! - it didn't work.

Unfortunately your continued support for a fiscal moron and proven liar does not indicate a high degree of credibility.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

No it was NOT healthy, and saying it was will not change that fact - drink as much Lipton as you'd like.

Think as you like WRT Libertarians or anything else - I always do. You will hear idiots on the left making similar statements to Sen Obama with great frequency, class warfare being one of their favorite tools to motivate other idiots to the polls to vote for them. Increasing the capital gains tax because it would be 'fair' [sic] will repeatedly come out in their rhetoric -guaranteed. Just like 'tax cuts for the rich' and 'the rich got richer and the poor got poorer' and other moronic things will also come from them, demonstrating a complete and utter lack of knowledge of economics. Wealth redistribution might also pop up - dumbfuck concept.

The idiotic windfall profits tax on oil companies has already come up - and will probably become part of their platform on the left. Another demonstration of economic incompetence. They'll run like cowards from any basic question regarding the tax or its purpose, screaming about corporations stealing $$, corporate greed, the pitiful poor, and how darling Cletus can't afford to drive his turbo-charged truck with country squire mud bog tires and a jack kit back and forth to the liquor store repeatedly because of high gas prices.

They might even get elected with such nonsense, to the detriment of the economy. We shall see - hopefully they're not elected, Sen Obama in particular, but I have a horrid feeling the left will take more seats in both the house and Senate. I was looking forward to seeing a McCain OMB in action as well as the budget cycle under a McCain administration during the primaries eight years ago, and I would love to see it in action over the next four years.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

Go look at federal revenues, look at their trend since the tax cuts, and get back to me when you've done so. CBO has a few nice PDF files you can view.

Name one politician that's not a proven liar.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

No it was NOT healthy, and saying it was will not change that fact

By all means, share with us what was so unhealthy about budget surpluses, economic and median income growth, and low unemployment.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TheAnvil 0]

So now you're changing from the economic crisis being decades in the making to the state of the economy at the end of El Jefe Clintonista's administration - ROFLMFAO!

EJC had the benefit of the internet explosion fueling the economy for the majority of his presidency. Towards the end, it was in slow down which was a contributing factor to the defeat of Lipton's best spokesperson ever, Al Gore.

The economy was doing ok up until a quarter or two before Nov 00, but boded poorly for the future because no action was taken by EJC or his predecessors to mitigate the coming onslaught of non-discretionary spending about to hit - the salvos coming from SS/Medicare/Medicaid in particular. Executive branch alone isn't culpable, as the Legislative branch did nothing either, regardless of the party in charge. They DID exacerbate the situation with the prescription drug plan that was recently passed, so perhaps saying they did nothing wasn't true.

The upcoming disaster should have been addressed a couple of decades ago. It's a tough problem that's metastasized and we're about to pay dearly. The strong dollar isn't coming back - just like the outsourced jobs - regardless of who goes in office. The left, though will never state that.

Nice change of subject, though.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Go look at federal revenues, look at their trend since the tax cuts, and get back to me when you've done so. CBO has a few nice PDF files you can view.

Name one politician that's not a proven liar.

Internet lessons in economics and budgeting from someone who strongly supports the biggest debt generator in history (who, you may have forgotten, promised a "small and short lived" deficit) are not even worth the paper they're written on.

Sorry, Vinnie, you have no credibility.

PS before you go on about revenues, be SURE to correct for population growth and inflation. And maybe you'd like to dispute with these folks:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."
Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist currently at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, 10/23/06

“It is very rare and very few economists believe that you can cut taxes and you will get the same amount of revenues.”
– Former Federal Reserve Chairman
Alan Greenspan
Testimony before House Budget Committee
September 8, 2004

“I don’t think that, as a general rule, that tax cuts pay for themselves.”
–Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
Testimony before Joint Economic Committee
April 27, 2006

“As a general matter, most tax cuts do not pay for themselves.”
; OMB Director Nominee Rob Portman
Written Response to Questions Submitted
Prior to Senate Budget Committee
Nomination Hearing
May 10, 2006

“[There is] no credible evidence that tax
revenues ... rise in the face of lower tax rates.”
“[An economist claiming tax cuts pay for
themselves is like a] snake oil salesman who
is trying to sell a miracle cure.”
– Former Chairman of President Bush's Council of
Economic Advisers N. Gregory Mankiw
Introductory college economics textbook,
“Principles of Economics,” 1998


And from the Bush family itself:

"Voodoo economics", George H.W. Bush

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

Think as you like. You haven't done as I instructed and do not know what you are speaking of. If you did, you'd know better.

BTW - I've been critical of the spending of GWB and do not support everything he does; his second tax cut in particular was poorly structured. You're quite mistaken - not an infrequent occurrence.

Examine the extant facts and get back to me. Perhaps then you'll realize that cutting taxes is sometimes the right thing to do, that sending and not tax cuts cause deficits, and that revenues frequently increase a couple of years after tax cuts. In the case of GWB's tax cuts revenues dipped and then rebounded a couple of years later. Unfortunately, the excessive spending ate it all up - and more.

Your hero Clinton's last budget was a deficit, BTW. His OMB submitted FY01's budget and that was a deficit year.

Until then, talk away and drink up on the iced tea!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I ask again, what evidence WOULD convince you, then? Obviously not direct quotes, or comparisons between 'news' reporting and viewpoints of liberal thinktanks, nor data showing that the newsrooms and the thrust of their reporting becoming more liberal over the years.

Mike – the problem is that what you keep putting forth as evidence isn’t really showing what you or the MRC is asserting. Yes, MRC is making those editorial claims. When one – just anyone, don’t need a PhD or fancy credentials – looks at the data, it’s not supporting the MRC’s claims.

Showed here why/how the Pew report did not support MRC conclusions. What the Pew report showed was that the majority of reporters are in the ‘middle’ politically.

Read the Groseclose and Milyo “UCLA” paper last night.

And I did find a few surprising conclusions. By the method the authors use, they find that “[p]erhaps the biggest surprise of Table 1 is the average score for the ACLU … is 34.99, which is to the right [emphasis in the original] of the average member of Congress,” (p. 8). Who would have anticipated that? The ACLU is a conservative think tank?

Similarly surprising, Groseclose and Milyo's method finds that the AARP is a far left advocacy group, even more liberal than Amnesty International by almost 10 points (Table 1, p. 19).

Looking at one subset of data on ADA score of “Congresscritters,”
ADA scores are on a scale from 1-100. A score of 50 is defined as right in the middle, supposed to reflect the “average voter.” The average ADA score for 1993-1999 for Congressional Democrats was 74.1 (approximately halfway between the middle & far left), whereas the average score for Congressional Republicans 1993-1999 was 11.2 (25 would be halfway between the middle & far right). The Congressional Republicans by the ADA method were far right wing not moderate conservatives. The median score for *all* of Congress during the time period was 38.0. By the method that the authors employ to set their “cutpoints” [their wording], the Republican representatives of Congress btw 1993-1999 were significantly bias to the right and that weighted score was used for comparision. By Groseclose and Milyo’s method, some moderate conservatives Republicans were considered “liberal.” Very significantly.

If on the other hand, one instead compares the scores that the authors report for media outlets to the straight ADA scale (not adjusted for the bias in Congress) – that is the primary data -- one finds the following:

Fox News’ Special Report 29.0
Drudge Report 44.9
ABC World News Tonight 52.8
NBC Nightly News 53.8
Los Angeles Times 57.1
New York Times 59.0
USA Today 59.9
CBS Evening News 60.8
(Table 8, p. 26)

Fox News is found to have a significant conservative bias. Drudge report is found to have a slight conservative bias. ABC, NBC, LA Times, NY Times and USA Today have a slight liberal bias. Not even CBS News has an “overwhelmingly” liberal bias by the work that you cited.

In subsequent versions of the paper, they also calculated their mock/adjusted ADA measure for the Wall Street Journal; it was a 85.1 - the most liberal of the media sources!

(I would also hope that before the authors submitted their draft manuscript that they fixed the basic arithmetic errors, e.g., their assertions that 19 > 3 x 7 & 26 > 4 x 7 (p. 3).)

The method that the authors used was novel – it was a neat experiment …. Groseclose and Milyo did what the title of the paper indicates: "A meaure of media bias" -- they created a measure; their 'ruler' for measuring has inherant bias of the conversatives of the 1993-1999 Congress. And they don't try to hide that it in the paper; it's just not acknowledged readlily in the press release or MRC write-ups, however.

My conclusion is that the authors demonstrated the inappropriateness of their variable selection and inappropriateness of this statistical method for this particular application (may work well in others). There’s no independent variable in the analysis.

As always, don’t believe me.

Here’s a response from Dow Jones and Co., the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, responding to the Groseclose and Milyo study, which asserted WSJ was a liberal publication:

“The Wall Street Journal's news coverage is relentlessly neutral. Of that, we are confident.

“By contrast, the research technique used in this study hardly inspires confidence. In fact, it is logically suspect and simply baffling in some of its details.

“Third, the reader of this report has to travel all the way Table III on page 57 to discover that the researchers’ ‘study’ of the content of The Wall Street Journal covers exactly FOUR MONTHS in 2002, while the period examined for CBS News covers more than 12 years, and National Public Radio’s content is examined for more than 11 years. This huge analytical flaw results in an assessment based on comparative citings during vastly differing time periods, when the relative newsworthiness of various institutions could vary widely. Thus, Time magazine is ‘studied’ for about two years, while U.S. News and World Report is examined for eight years. Indeed, the periods of time covered for the Journal, the Washington Post and the Washington Times are so brief that as to suggest that they were simply thrown into the mix as an afterthought. Yet the researchers provide those findings the same weight as all the others, without bothering to explain that in any meaningful way to the study’s readers.

“Suffice it to say that ‘research’ of this variety would be unlikely to warrant a mention at all in any Wall Street Journal story.”

Because the material presented does not fit want one wants to here does not automatically make it bias. Speculation: the notion has been repeated so many times that it’s now accepted as “true.”

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Carter - he's an exception. He did things differently. The last idealist we've had in office.

Are you excluding Pres GW Bush?

It's a different flavor of idealism than Pres Carter. Neo-conservative foreign policy is fundamentally based on idealist expectations of spread of democracy, the inherant value of democracy as normatively best, and that people around the world will accept, prosper, and build democratic institutions and processes.

The realist foreign policy -- realpolitik -- of Presidents GHW Bush and Reagan, even tho' the latter was a master of optimistic, idealist rhetoric, in a very good way, is markedly different than neoconservatism.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Do you know WHO bank rolled his book and "WHO" the pulisher is and both of their backgrounds?

Quote

I suppose it helps when you have Soros bankrolling your publisher, too.

PublicAffairs is the Publisher.

Public Affairs is part of the Perseus Books Group, which was established in 1990s “when millionaire investor Frank Pearl set out to establish an independent publisher that would focus on the publication of serious nonfiction.”

Public Affairs is also publishing a biography of former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, among other books.

Some of the stories going around the net (e.g., Newsbusters and MRC) have undertones of book-banning, arguments for quotas in free market, and implicit counter-capitalism and counter-free marker arguments (ironic when juxtaposed to the “powered by capitalism” t-shirt advertisement adjacent on the Newsbusters site).

Looking at the list of author’s published by Public Affairs, they’re publishing those that are going to make money (e.g., McClennan, Andy Rooney, Putin, Yeltsin, George Soros, comedian Richard Lewis) and mostly serious nonfiction that will have a smaller audience (e.g., military theorist Martin van Crevald, former SecDef Robert McNamara, Conrad Black, libertarian economist Brian Doherty, ... & a bunch of authors I don’t recognize). Sounds like a balanced capitalist model!

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,146]

Vinnie,

Spin away.

Sorry, but I believe Ben B. and Alan G. over you any day of the week when it comes to economics.

The OUTCOMES speak for themselves. Largest deficits in the history of the world, largest debt in the history of the world, $US in the basement. Pre-Reaganomics aka Voodoo Economics ((c) 1980, G.W.H. Bush) we were the largest creditor in the history of the world.

When corrected for inflation and population growth, the "surge" in revenues turned out to be a trickle, and real revenue growth over the 2001-2008 period is way less than the real revenue growth over the previous 8 years.

Your hero has feet of mud.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

The 3 most interesting commentaries, imo, that I’ve read/heard w/r/t Scott McClennan’s book have not come from him but from others:

(1) “McClellan and the perils of the tell-all” from The Politico by John Feehery, who “worked for the House Republican leadership from 1989 to 2005.”

“I don’t know Scott McClellan that well. I interacted with him every once in a while when he was President Bush’s press secretary and I held the same role for House Speaker Dennis Hastert. We had a cordial but distant relationship.

“McClellan was one of the Texas guys, who didn’t care much for Washington folks like me. They had it all figured out and didn’t need any help on communications strategy from congressional types. When we held conference calls with the White House press team, they seemed to bristle any time we raised questions about Bush administration strategy.

“By the time McClellan took over for Ari Fleischer, there really wasn’t much of a percentage in being candid with the White House press team. What did we know? We were only the Congress.

“The leader of the Texas communicators was Karen Hughes, and she developed the rigid style that would come to typify this White House communications shop until former press secretary Tony Snow, current press secretary Dana Perino, Communications Director Kevin Sullivan and counselor to the president Ed Gillespie would ride to the rescue in the latter days of this administration.

“The Hughes approach to media enforcement was simple: The media were all left-wing scum. Congress is irrelevant. Any leakers would be shot on sight. Discipline, discipline, discipline.

“In those first years of the Bush White House, the talking points were pretty much all the same: George W. Bush is great. Congress is irrelevant. The Democrats are evil.

“It is hard to know what Scott McClellan’s motives are for writing this book. He is not the only one to jump ship and turn on his former client. Doug Feith, Jerry Bremer and a host of others have tried to shift the blame to others for failed policies in the Bush administration. One thing is certain: The Hughes model for message discipline has completely fallen apart.”

(2) Friday’s PBS Newshour, commentary by NY Times columnist David Brooks:

“I read most of the book. And I found it -- no original stories, no interesting observations, cliche-ridden, and bland.

“And to me, it exemplified what the problem with the Bush administration was. There was spin, and God knows there was a lot of spin. But the real problem was there was no debate.

“There were 20 percent of the people in that administration, in this administration, or especially in the first term, who were smart and were capable of having a debate. There were a lot of intellectual mediocrities who would never have a debate, did not have the intellectual chops to have a debate. And McClellan, frankly, is one of them.

“And the blandness and clichedness of this sort of book exemplifies a lot of the clones that were walking around the White House, who never could challenge the president, never could challenge anybody ….

“And so what you had was a culture without debate. And to me, nothing was ever tested. And you had a few people making the decisions, nobody asking questions. And McClellan -- he's not expected to. He was the press secretary. He's not expected to. But essentially, you had no culture of testing decisionmaking, and that was the problem.
And then the book exemplifies the mediocrity that pervaded parts of the administration.”

RAY SUAREZ[PBS Newshour interim host]: “That lack of culture of debate, was it only really a problem because of the times we were living in, the attack against the United States and the preparations for war and such?

DAVID BROOKS: “9/11 shut down the debate even more. There was also an element of worship of the president of people like McClellan. They worshipped him, and they couldn't challenge him.

“I told this story recently. I went in for an interview with the president with a couple columnists. This was a couple of years ago. One of my colleagues was a guy named Max Boot [very conservative/neoconservative], is a guy named Max, a military columnist then at the L.A. Times [at the time].

“He challenged Bush hard on troop levels, on the conduct of the war, and they had a very tense exchange for 10 or 15 minutes, really going back at each other, Bush getting red and really going back. But Bush kept saying in the middle of it -- it was a little scary, because Bush was really hot -- but he kept saying, ‘I want you to know I'm enjoying this. I'm enjoying this.’

“And it was like a guy who had never had a chance to actually have an argument. And he didn't mind it, but nobody ever came in. I think very few people came in and gave him that argument.

“I think he would have welcomed it. I certainly know the presidency would have benefited from that kind of argument.”

(3) “Why you shouldn't buy Scott McClellan's book” Rob Stutzman’s [By line: “Rob Stutzman has served has a press spokesman for elected officials including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is currently a partner in Navigators, LLC, a public affairs consulting firm”] column from Saturday’s San Francisco Chronicle:

“…there's been virtually no discussion of the impact McClellan’s betrayal of his former boss upon the presidency itself. All Americans should be concerned.

“I've never served a president, but I've served high-level elected officials in a similar capacity to McClellan's and understand the nature of his job and the nature of the inner workings of executive offices of government. To serve in such a capacity is a privilege, and though not commonly thought highly of by the public, ‘political hacks’ such as myself still view the opportunity to serve a president, governor or other elected official as a performance of public service.

“McClellan’s willingness to profit from his White House days by dishing on Bush while he is still in office is an act of self-indulgence that not only harms a sitting president but complicates the ability of future presidents to conduct their duties. And for that, McClellan should be ashamed.”

“The presidency may be the world’s loneliest job. To be effective, a president must be able to rely upon the confidence to interact with his or her senior staff in candid and intimate ways. To effectively deliberate requires an environment of safety, of which the greatest element is the confidence of privacy and candor.

“McClellan has stuck a blow to that confidence.”

Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with what Scott McClennan asserts -- I probably most agree with David Brooks' summary -- he was in a privaleged position, he made choices after leaving that position, his choices are going to have effects for future administrations regardless of political party. One thing that I hope does not come out of this is requisite life-time publication review for all former federal appointees or employees (including uniformed service), as is currently the case with former intelligence community members.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying