Skip to comments.Blame Bush for McClellan
Posted on 05/30/2008 9:02:52 AM PDT by rob777
Has there ever been as much chatter among the pundits about someone as light weight, un-talented, inconsequential (and utterly predictable) as Scott McClellan? I mean, who was he again? Oh yeah, that boring, un-engaged pasty little white dude who mumbled through the daily press briefings after Ari Fleisher and before Tony Snow. I remember him now. I used to wonder how in the world it was that the President found someone so totally unimpressive to help fight his media battles.
Then I remembered: McClellan was a more appropriate as Press Secretary for the New Tone President than either his predecessor or successors. After all, the New Tone (which is short for uni-lateral surrender to your political enemies) logically leads to Presidential front man who is totally ineffective. Allow me to present exhibit A: Scott McClellan.
And now the verdict is in. McClellan and the New Tone can both be declared unequivical disasters. In a 50-50 country, it takes some real doing to have a 26% approval rating. That's sort of like 38 over par on a putt-putt course. It is unimaginably bad and McClellan was part of the team that crafted it.
So bad, in fact, that the Prez actually had to let him "pursue other opportunities." (In the real world, we call that "firing." In Washington, it means writing a vindictive tell all book). For one of the Texas gang to screw up so badly that they had to be jettisoned says something...since this is a President who would ride Texas loyalty straight to the bottom of the political abyss. For some reason he valued that loyalty over his Presidency...and oh by the way the country. Still, McClellan was so ill suited that he was canned anyway.
And now Bush and his inner circle are "shocked" that Scottie would do this to them. And they were shocked that Ted Kennedy did not like them after they let him write the education bill. Shocked that their new tone never did work in charming the likes of Pelosi and Reid and Daschle and Durbin and Schumer, not to mention Matthews and Rather and Williams and Gibson.
They are all shocked because one thing has been consistent about this President: his "misoverstimation" of his own charm and its effect on those around him -- political allies and enemies alike. This misoverstimation is the psychosis behind the New Tone, the Kennedy Education Bill, looking into the soul of Vladimir Putin, the whole misguided concept of "compassionate conservatism"....and the belief that elevating little worms like McClellan to heights far beyond what their talents merit will be repaid with kindness.
I actually did like the President at one time, but started finding him hard to stomach when the New Tone appeared. I was insulted (horrified, actually) that Bush didn't understand that conservatism is compassion and that "compassionate conservatism" is actually liberalism. I never liked Kennedy's education bill or thought he would like us for it. I never trusted Putin as someone we can "do business with."
And I never thought McClellan was worth a damn. I am not surprised that he's now cashing in on his former position with this post defacto "harrmph" of indignation. Afterall, in the real world, folks who are elevated beyond their capabilities do one thing predictablly when they start to slip in stature; they sell whoever and whatever down the river to maintain their status, because they surely cannot do it on their own talent. McClellan may no longer be welcome in the Oval Office, but he's a star in Keith Olbermann's green room.
Consider: this presidency reached a point in 2001 and 2002 where the President was winning battles because his opponents "mis underestimated" him. Now it is crashing and burning at the finish because he is mis-overestimating himself. And an argument can be made that he's taking the party and the country down with him. Frankly, that Texas charm is wearin a bit thin.
The Bushes are intensely loyal, but the people they associate with have not returned the favor.
I actually did like the President at one time, but started finding him hard to stomach when the New Tone appeared. I was insulted (horrified, actually) that Bush didn't understand that conservatism is compassion and that "compassionate conservatism" is actually liberalism.
You know, in retrospect that really should have been our first clue.
And the Right wonders why they are about to get the butt stomping of all political butt stomping this Nov?
Could it be because of this knee jerk urge in the Conservative media to hysterically whine at Bush on every issue rather then ever take the Left on on anything?
I've often wondered the same. McClellan was an embarrassment on the job, and shouldn't have lasted a month.
This is spot on. I wish I could say otherwise, but I can’t.
Be a nice surprise if one day the political fringe whiners on the far Right might actually try taking on the Left on anything instead of spending 100% of their time sniping their own side in the back.
The Conservative media probably defended the adminstration for too long which allowed them to think they didn’t need to fight their own battles. Hence, a punching bag like Scotty appears.
Yep - I always thought so, too.
Tony Snow was such a refreshing change.
McClellan is from a long line of libs, and his mom "one tough grandma" is one of the biggest political "turds in the punchbowl" there have ever been. Her son is just doing what libs do everywhere, even here in Texas, which is to make things miserable for everyone.
I hate to admit it, but C. Edmund Wright is pretty much on point here. He’s brutally accurate, and doesn’t just leave a mark on the hide of the Bush Presidency, but raises welts.
In other words, the 'right' didn't leave the GOP... you know the rest.
While this statement is true, it is, however, apparently equally true for conservatives in general. It happened under Reagan when Don Regan wrote a similar McClellan-type book. Giving someone a break and showing loyalty is almost always betrayed under a Republican administration. Think of it. Such a betrayal never happened to Carter, and it certainly never happened to Clinton.
Then there is always some nimrod in a Republican administration that very publicly resigns out of some great moral conflict at odds with the administration, such as Bill Weld under Reagan. But again, such a thing never happened under Clinton or Carter.
So your thought on lack of loyalty to the Bushes is too narrow in expression.