McClellan not necessarily a public relations disaster for GOP

I really didn't think you'd bother coming back. The nature of debate these days, fueled by the anonymity of the internet, has become hit and run bullying. Maybe you're not a bully after all.

You know, I can't possibly address all your concerns in your most recent response, and here's some more bad news. I am just one of the Midwest Voices. I get to write five paid columns this year. I send them in by email. I bet most of the editorial board wouldn't recognize me if they saw me on the street. I have no clout, so I can't even help you out.

But maybe I can give you some useful insight from the other side. I don't really think we're that far apart.

First of all, thanks for just admitting flat out that you don't respect most liberal positions. I'm sure that comes from years of thinking and fuming. Likewise, I have come to disrespect most conservative positions too. I try to see the other side. I think that makes me different. Maybe not. I actually have friends who are Republicans, and I have other Democratic friends who can't claim that. (Gee, doesn't that sound like "Some of mah best friends are black." Lame.)

But most of the time, well, I guess you and your people scare me as much as my people and I scare you. While you're probably afraid that I'm going to try to lead the world in a round of Kum-bah-yah, while some evil emperor lights a well-trained fuse; I'm afraid you're going to posture and puff and incite that same nut to light dozens of randomly trained fuses, just because he can and he's pissed off enough to do it. Hmmm.

It's funny. As I looked through your post it occurred to me that in my unguarded conversations with my Democrat friends, we use a lot of the same shortcuts to describe you that you use to describe us: naive, scary, blatantly false, hysterical. "Backdoor control of our lives" (which you use to describe environmentalists) is actually a clever way to express the sentiments we feel for the Patriot Act. (Out of respect for you, I won't steal it for that purpose. That just wouldn't be right.)

At any rate, I'm sorry you feel underrepresented at the Star and other media. For what it is worth, I feel the same. I find myself jumping up and screaming at Tim Russert "Ask the obvious follow up question, you #^%*!" I HATE seeing someone accused of being "politically correct" when they're merely trying to be polite and their words have no political bearing at all. I feel badgered by a subterfuge of "patriotically correct." What the hell does it matter that someone wears a flag pin? Yeesh. Let's talk about something important! In so many stories I see laziness. (I bet we're together on that.) I see the media bending over backward to find the conservative angle. I just fume and fume. Leading up to the War in Iraq, the networks seemed to fall all over themselves to cheerlead for the war, in order to get the best positions when the pentagon picked where the reporters would be "embedded." In the Star, I cringe every time I see your buddy Michelle. And Jonah. And Charles K. And Kathleen (Actually, she's just schizzy. I'm willing to bet you hate her somedays too.) And I'm not wild about Tom either. Though I thought a column he wrote on abortion once was an olive branch.

I don't think the media are "liberal." A handful of corporate conglomerates own them, and the writers all know who butters the bread, signs the checks and hands out the promotions. I really think the media lean right. I respect that you see it the other way.

I guess what I'm saying is that you and I may be equally invested and we both feel marginalized and underrepresented. If there is one thing I feel is worth defending, however, it is civility, discussion, debate. You belong at the table (when you aren't calling me a "dumb liberal") and so do I (when I'm not accusing you of being a nonfunctioning adult). And I think our political process has gotten lost. Hit and run bullying has replaced civil discussion. Regardless of Scott McClellan's motives (ooooh, we're back on topic), he may lead us to reclaim the political process. Moreso than the whistleblowers to precede him, he's getting his message out: The Bush administration overreached. It used deception. It thought the ends would justify the means. It was wrong.

When we see overreaching, what shall we do to pull back? I'm willing to accept a solution if it comes from a Republican's lips, and Scott McClellan still sees himself as a Republican. Would you accept a solution from a Democrat?

So, Deb, let's take a civil tone - in all honesty, I have zero respect for most liberal positions. I am not angry at you personally, I am just tired of the overwhelming liberal presence at the KC Star, where the byline writers and editors never really allow their opinions to be challenged in a substantive way. By that I mean they refuse to engage in dialogue about their blogged opinions (exactly like Walter Winch at his enviro-socialist Earth Notes propaganda platform) - at least you're different, so thank you.

However, and you know I'm right about this, the vast majority of the editors and bloggers on this site (those allowed to initiate a post like yourself) are either Democrat or liberal. Given that, when you socialize at work with each other, you naturally reinforce each other's beliefs - it can't be helped. What COULD be helped is the hiring of more conservatives to provide good, reasoned counterpoint to the constant liberal assertions (like T. McClanahan) - but this is not being done, certainly not at the demonstrably liberal McClatchey papers, which according to Steve Rose at the Overland Park Sun in his May 28 editorial ("Death By a Thousand Cuts") has seen its stock price lose 80% of its value since they purchased the KC Star paper in 2006. Even though Rose says the paper is profitable, according to him you have perhaps several hundred layoffs to look forward to as a result of corporate cutbacks. In fact, just recently your liberal paper, the champion of the underdog, just outsourced the advertising services department to INDIA:

Kansas Citians Are Angry: The Kansas City Star Outsources to India

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3316251

In other words, talk about the dignity of workers and the importance of keeping jobs from going overseas by liberals is cheap when it comes to THEIR wallet.

So, please be assured, Debra, that I am honestly not mad at you - I'm mad at the liberal positions I see constantly spewed from the Star and the unchallenged nature of them. I honestly believe that not only are these positions wrong, but are definitely going to degrade this country into a Euro-styled socialist experiment from which we may not recover - topics liberals embrace with enthusiam that fall into this category are the soon-to-be-mandates to address the blatantly false global warming hysteria trumped up by environmentalists seeking backdoor control of our lives, government-provided health care which will be impossible to remove even when it inevitably fails, granting amnesty to illegal aliens and subverting those who've patiently waiting for legal entry, and the failure to see terrorism as a real threat.

I can be civil - and I will be - but I honestly view these liberal beliefs as threatening this country, and I have no intention of sipping tea and eating crumpets in my discussions of same. I am not interested in compromising, reaching across the aisle to embrace my 'friends' as McCain does, and I don't want to split the baby - I want liberals defeated politically, I want them to lose, and I want them to be shown to be the threat they are.

However, I simply found your column portraying McClellan as a wounded warror to be painfully naive, though perhaps heartfelt, and I couldn't resist my comments. Neither could Bob Dole, by the way:

from a Fox News article:

Bob Dole says Bob Dole is mad at Scott McClellan.

The former Senate majority leader and 1996 Republican presidential candidate sent a nasty e-mail to McClellan calling him a "miserable creature" for his latest book blasting the Bush administration, FOX News has learned.

In the e-mail, Dole basically describes the former White House press secretary as a traitor looking to cash in on the "liberal" media's distaste for President Bush.

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," the five-term Kansas senator wrote to McClellan. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

He continues: "When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years."

White House officials have sharply decried McClellan's book — "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," which criticizes the administration's handling of the Iraq war.

Dole wrote that if McClellan had misgivings about the president's foreign policy, he should have spoken up long ago "like a man," or quit his job.

"That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You're a hot ticket now but dont you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"

Grinch: Okay, I'm trying to count. By "functioning adults," do you mean angry people who spend their days launching uncreative political barbs like "dumb liberals" on the internet. And who impugn the motives and question the intellects of people who have different opinions, all in comfort of semi-anonymity? And with a cute little nickname to boot! Let's see, zero.

I don't know what set you off. Perhaps you are related to Michelle Malkin, and I hit a nerve with my less-than-charitable comments about her. I'm sorry.

Look, here's the link: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/24861380/

You are welcome to comment on what you see. You say liberals' beliefs are ideologically driven, and yet you have commented over and over here without even looking up the subject matter about which you are talking. That was the point of this thread, afterall: Scott McClellan's appearance on the Today Show. It wouldn't be offensive that you were off topic, but you're launching unfounded insults.

Oh, and PLEASE don't ascribe actions or thoughts to me. I never called him a slimeball before, though I wasn't fond of him, and now I don't think he's anyone's saint or "paragon of virtue." Scott McClellan is merely contributing to a fair but complicated political process that pointedly ISN'T about ideology and lying to advance it. It's about doing what's right. Or that's how I see it. You may have a different opinion, but I'd appreciate your reclaiming a civil tenor if you wish to talk to me.

Jenniferm, I can't fault him for being paid for his writing. I am a paid writer. (Though NOT for this blogging. Good Lord, I ought to be.)

"You just can't make this stuff up."

Exactly. The emperor's looking a tad naked these days, with revelation after revelation of ongoing corruption and incompetence. It's not like McClellan's book sprung forth from a vacuum, after all -- he's one of a number of Bush insiders who've come forth (arguably belatedly) to tell us that not all is right within the Bush White House.

Actually, you just proved my point, Inter - kudos to youdos.

My point was that a lot of Democrats and ALL of the party leaders think Republicans are evil, corrupt, heartless, yada yada yada. Therefore, Debra, how can it make any sense for a Democrat to now claim (a day after Scottie's revelations were beamed down to the masses) that he is a paragon of virtue, when before he was a lying, evil slimeball? I mean, you now accept the truth from the same lips that you say lied for Bush? How are you now so certain that what he's NOW saying has any resemblance to the truth? Isn't it far more likely, using the Democrats' own stance, that he is now lying to serve the cause of stuffing as many greenbacks as dumb liberals can stuff into his pockets for a book mirroring their own ideologically-driven beliefs about Bush?

But now, a former complete slimeball is now a saint because he's written a book bashing Bush.

You just can't make this stuff up.

"anyone else find it hilarious that Democrats are rushing to defend a REPUBLICAN"

It's nice to see a Republican today distancing himself from the culture of corruption and returning to simple, ol'-fashioned honesty.

It's a conservative value that most of us electorate, Democratic, Republican, or Independent, can agree on.

McClellen is a coward. Cashed in on what he knew about the WH--could have done that for free, don't you think? At some point in this process he knew that he was lied to and had to go out and repeat the lie--where was his "own culpability and ethics" then? When he became the whipping boy and was looked like a fool and dupe is when he quit the game he was playing. Sorry, I'm not buying his pity party act.

By the way, anyone else find it hilarious that Democrats are rushing to defend a REPUBLICAN, when they normally wouldn't be caught dead doing that, especially one that was in Bush's White House? It just takes a dishonest coward to bring out the tender mercies in them, I guess.

What on Earth made you think I could care about extending an 'olive branch' to the Democrats?? So Michelle doesn't float your boat - is that supposed to depress me?? Surely you can't be as naive as your expressed thoughts in these 2 posts demonstrate - surely someone's putting us all on. Now you're feeling Scott's PAIN in coming to terms with all those emotions???

How many functioning adults would actually believe that, do you think? That includes Democrats, by the way. I have an idea - why not take a poll among your Democrat staffers (which is probably 90% of your workforce, definitely so on your editorial board) and ask them if they agree with you OR do they cynically believe Scott is simply the latest in sell-out tattlers, regardless of whether what he has to say is truthful?

Noble, my ignominious behind!

Jenniferm, I think it's unfair to call him a coward. I think perhaps he was shell shocked immediately following his tenure and needed time. I can appreciate a thoughtful response that takes time. We need more of them. Can you imagine the painful process of coming to the realization that you have been perpetuating lies, even in service to something you think is a core value? He had to examine his own culpability and ethics. He had a lot of deep thinking to do.

This morning on the Today Show I saw a man who was still a Republican, true to certain core values, but one who wanted something better for the country than underhanded government. And, like Steven Colbert, he did throw down the gauntlet to the media for not doing their job to ride him better.

I'd like to hear from others who saw McClellan this morning. What was your impression?

Grinch, I'm going to do you a favor and NOT visit Michelle Malkin. FYI, Ms. Malkin is not your olive-branch emissary to the Democrats (that would be David Brooks -- alert me if he has something to say about this issue). Malkin is one of many cruel-catchphrase crusaders, and often her writing is sophomoric. She really doesn't help you guys.

As Stephen Colbert put it best in his White House Correspondents Dinner speech:

"And as excited as I am to be here with the President, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of FOX News. FOX News gives you both sides of every story: the President's side, and the Vice President's side.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking? Reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished.

Over the last five years you people were so good, over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know, fiction!"

GWB believed his own press clippings and McClellan is a coward who has been rewarded with a book deal. The day after he resigned he could have sat for interview after interview and put it all out there for public opinion. He didn't. Pitiful.

Lol. A 'noble' mission.

Has it occurred to you if that what Scott is saying was true, then why in hell did he stay so long AND, more importantly, stay quiet until he could do exactly what he lambasted another ex-admin official for doing ... below is taken from Michelle Malkin's link ... oh yeah, Scott is 'noble' - omigod, that's funny! Please note that not only did he not voice any of the concerns he professes to have had, but those who know him are shocked since he continually told them the book would be 'good' for the administration, I suppose until he realized that only negativity would sell any books. Guess a sucker IS born every minute ... all that's proven here is that Scott likes to chase the almighty dollar, and conscience be damned.

Someone truly noble would have resigned his position (not be fired, as McClellan was), and immediately publicized his concerns for no renumeration.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/28/yeah-right-one-of-these-days-he-and-i-are-going-to-be-rocking-on-chairs-in-texas/

Reader Kevin B. e-mails what McClellan said in his press briefing on March 22, 2004 when asked about Richard Clarke’s book blasting the Bush Administration for 9/11 and CIA intelligence failures:

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he (Richard Clarke) had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.