RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Scott McClellan

Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- Dude [01629107] Wed, May 28, 2008, 17:49

I always felt that McClellan seemed out of his element as Bush's Press Secretary. When he resigned two years ago I compared him with his predecessor, Ari Fleischer:
Ari was an incredibly effective press secretary. In the year or so following 9/11 he might have been the most watched PS in history. The White House Press Corps was never so effectively held at bay in my short politically-cognizant life as they were during the runup to the Iraq war - a time when we desperately needed them to stay on the attack.

I don't believe having a "likable demeanor" is nearly as important an asset as some might think. McClellan has a very likeable demeanor, too. What that job (and the ability to effective perform its duties) comes down to is the ability to lie. And really, it wasn't hard to make McClellan squirm. Ari was a rock. A slithery, shifty, ice-cold rock.
Now he follows his former colleagues Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill and Matthew Dowd in scribing a scathing account of his front-row view of the Bush Presidency.

Some excerpts:
"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided — that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder," McClellan wrote in "What Happened," due out Monday. "No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact."... "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary,"

"As a Texas loyalist who followed Bush to Washington with great hope and personal affection and as a proud member of his administration, I was all too ready to give him and his highly experienced foreign policy advisers the benefit of the doubt on Iraq,"... "Unfortunately, subsequent events have showed that our willingness to trust the judgment of Bush and his team was misplaced."

"President Bush has always been an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader. He is not one to delve into all the possible policy options — including sitting around engaging in extended debate about them — before making a choice,"... "Rather, he chooses based on his gut and his most deeply held convictions. Such was the case with Iraq."

"My job was to advocate and defend his policies and speak on his behalf,"... "This is an opportunity for me now to share my own views and perspective on things. There were things we did right and things we did wrong. Unfortunately, much of what went wrong overshadowed the good things we did."

"I know the president pretty well. I believe that, if he had been given a crystal ball in which he could have foreseen the costs of war — more than 4,000 American troops killed, 30,000 injured and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead — he would never have made the decision to invade, despite what he might say or feel he has to say publicly today,"

"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"

"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?"... "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

[Bush} "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."

"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true,"... "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."
"sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment."

"Bush, similarly, has a way of falling back on the hazy memory to protect himself from potential political embarrassment,"... "In other words, being evasive is not the same as lying in Bush's mind."

"I was struck by how deft [Condi Rice] is at protecting her reputation,"... "No matter what went wrong, she was somehow able to keep her hands clean, even when the problems related to matters under her direct purview, including the WMD rationale for the war in Iraq, the decision to invade Iraq ... and post-war planning and implementation of the strategy in Iraq."

"But whatever her policy management shortcomings, Rice knew public relations well. She knew how to adapt to potential trouble, dismiss brooding problems and come out looking like a star,"... "Few performed better under the spotlight, glossing over mistakes with her effortless eloquence and understated flair."
1Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 18:13
Good thing he didn't work under the Clinton administration, many of their disgruntled employess wind up dead.
2Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 18:49
It was full damage control on Special Report just now. Brit and his panel tripping over each other to crush McClellan's credibility. Good luck. It's already #1 at Amazon.
3Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 19:00
Eating their own again. If you don't keep drinking the cool aid, you get eaten.
4Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 20:34


Hey McClellan, you rat fink: Say Hello to my little friend
5Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 21:13
What Jag said.

Conservatives should swear upon entering Washington that they will never crave the affections of liberals nor accept an invitation from the cocktail party set.
6Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 21:22
Because we know that the President would never lie...
7Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 21:31
His lips move...he's a politician. Talk about strawmen. No, I am giving McClellan an easier excuse than David Brock who switched sides because the left offered him homosexual servioes.
8Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 21:39
Scott McClellan is a liberal?
9Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 21:48
So Scott wrote his book because he was seduced by the Left in other ways?
10Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 21:53
Post 8 can't be right - I have no idea what post 5 means.
11Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 01:00
There is no smoking gun here. Everything McClellan talks about is his opinion and not any different than any other disgruntled employee. I have heard a lot worse coming from ex-Clinton employees. (the ones that weren't found dead from mysterious causes or staged suicide)
12Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 04:04
What is so hard to understand?

We see the same thing in that whore John McCain all the time. These weak kneed, rudderless individuals crave the approval of liberals in the dominant liberal culture scene of Washington and the media there, and in order to ingraciate themselves, they stab conservatives [or neo-cons as well] for the pleasure of their would-be new friends.

Of course there is no real friendship to be found there but that doesn't stop the McCains and Brocks and McClellans from these trysts.
13walk
      ID: 31454285
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 06:15
Wow what analysis? Those explanations for McClellen's motivations must be more likely than him simply feeling the need to tell folks what really happened. Acceptance to the liberal establishment? Yeah, right. Whatever. Denial is safe...deflections to another presidency, too. I did not need McClellan's book to have come to his conclusions, but I hope it opens the eyes of some of those who heads are in the sand about the path to war in Iraq.
14Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 06:22
McClellen's motivations must be more likely than him simply feeling the need to tell folks what really happened.

Do you really think McClellan wrote the book to tell the truth? Money had nothing to do with it?

Jag/Boldwin: Yeah. Vince Foster's book should be out any day now....
15Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 07:51
OK I got you B. Your last-grasp defense. As much as you dislike Bush, he can't possibly possess the faults that liberals pin on him because that would mean that the conservatives were wrong to follow him when they did. And since we know that conservatives can't possibly be wrong about anything, the only answer left is that McClellan must be lying - and doing so for the purpose of courting liberals. Got it. Thanks.
16Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 07:54
Boxman
What is your standard for being able to tell whether this type of book is a a pack of lies for the purpose of making a buck? If a foremer Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton staffer writes a similar tell-all, do you automatically dismiss it the same way?
17walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 08:56
Yeah, Box, I do feel like he wrote the book for $, but that does not mean he told lies. Why is that a natural assumption? I think there's a lot more evidence that Cheney/Rumsfeld and Bush told lies about Iraq than McClellan is now...don't you?
18Razor
      ID: 4532926
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 08:57
This is a textbook thread - lots of attacks on the messanger, liberals and the Clintons and very few, if any, legitimate criticisms of the book itself. I think this board is in definite decline thanks to the low level of discourse from our conservative members. There's only a of couple righties capable of making quality arguments, and they either post very rarely or are Baldwin, who is often clouded by his anti-lots-of-things bias. And there are many who never have anything worthwhile to say, but they're the ones who are always posting.
19walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 10:35
Nice one, Razor. In an effort to provide some more news on this story:

Politico: McClellan: WH Wanted to Silence Me
20Perm Dude
      ID: 58450299
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 11:16
John Cole drawing the groupthink parallel. Ring any bells?:

In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
21boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 11:29
that is really kind of redundant i think we are all guilty of group think, it pretty much a side effect of human nature. you could say this about every organization. I find it interesting that it framed as a negative artifact of human behavior. i think this more an example of the money effect and how nothing makes one have moment of clarity like money.
22walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 13:24
GroupThink! I remember Janis in my Leadership class in grad school. Some serious poli decisions are a result of this phenomenon. Totally see Iraq as a groupthink phenom. No one had the courage to dissent from Bush/Cheney, no dissenting opinions were sought, and if any dissenting views were identified, they were censored, covered up or the individuals were dismissed. And the 'ol "illusion of invulnerability." Clearly, this admin did not seek out, identify or even consider negative consequences of invading Iraq.

GroupThink
23biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 13:55
What's wrong with believing the reason that he actually gives, which is to "be true to his Christian faith and become a better person..."?

Is that really so hard to believe? I mean he was a hand-picked Bushie from back in the Texas days.

A little Ockham's razor might be appropriate here.

He is, after all, partly complicit in hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of lives ruined. A regular human might feel a bit contrite.
24walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 14:15
Naaaaaaa, he was hijacked by the liberal media. "That doesn't at all sound like Scott, not at all." It's so "sad" and "puzzling." It's The Running Man -- soon McClellan will be convicted of some bizarre sex offense and then be sentenced to circumnavigate a maze with booby traps and paid killers at every corner, all in front of a Live TV Audience! Rate E for Everyone!
25walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 14:54
Former Bush Aide Defends McClellan
26biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 14:56
LOL, walk. Running man. Too funny. Until it's true!
27walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 15:08
Richard Dawson was the exec/host, remember?

I just read on HuffPo that an excerpt of the book has McClellan alleging that Bush authorized the leak of Plame's identity. I wonder if McClellan is going to be asked to testify under oath?
28Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 16:39
It's just Snow-envy, to the extent it isn't gold-digging in the land of the liberals.

Ever seen a WH press secretary evaporate so completely without being snapped up thereafter?
29Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 16:49
Congressman Wexler: McClellan Must Testify Under Oath Before House Judiciary Committee

link
30Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 20:48
Not sure I can work with myself in the future...
People have asked: Is this a permanent breach? Will I ever be able to work with myself again? Will I ever trust myself to betray the truth as I did for so many years? Or were those years of deception nothing but a lie? And the honest answer (or dishonest answer, as the case may be) is: I'll have to get back to you on that.

31nerveclinic
      ID: 5047110
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 21:47

If you don't keep drinking the cool aid, you get eaten.

That's "Kool Aid" PD not "Cool Aid"...wouldn't want you to get in any trouble over misuse of copyright material.

<> These weak kneed, rudderless individuals crave the approval of liberals in the dominant liberal culture scene of Washington and the media there, and in order to ingraciate themselves, they stab conservatives [or neo-cons as well] for the pleasure of their would-be new friends.

Um, or maybe he is just telling the truth because he knows it will help sell lots of books (Amazon #1) and make him lots of money?

Do you really think McClellan wrote the book to tell the truth? Money had nothing to do with it?

It could be both...you think the book is full of blatant lies? Or just that he is stabbing someone in the back who hired him and trusted him. I'd guess the latter.

Box you've seemed fairly cynical about Bushes motives lately. (In the context of being cynical about all politicians motives, a position I can appreciate.)

Boikin that is really kind of redundant i think we are all guilty of group think, it pretty much a side effect of human nature.

Here here..I 100% agree and have been stating such for years here. 99% of the positions taken here fall straight down party lines with the occasional aberration.

A little Ockham's razor might be appropriate here.

Bili I know I need to read more...what's an Ockham's razor? Never mind I'll Google it.







32Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 06:11
It could be both...you think the book is full of blatant lies? Or just that he is stabbing someone in the back who hired him and trusted him. I'd guess the latter.

I have not and will not read the book. If what McClellan was doing was something that he felt was so repugnant, why didn't he quit after day 1? Sure there's dirt on the Bush Admin, but I don't think that's McClellan' main motivation. Money is. Any time money is someone's prime motivator for doing something I think they have to be suspect.
33Tree
      ID: 17420305
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 06:33
I have not and will not read the book.

putting your head in the sand?

If what McClellan was doing was something that he felt was so repugnant, why didn't he quit after day 1? Sure there's dirt on the Bush Admin, but I don't think that's McClellan' main motivation. Money is. Any time money is someone's prime motivator for doing something I think they have to be suspect.

funny how you answered your own question without even realizing it.
34Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 07:04
putting your head in the sand?

How about "having a life"? Are YOU reading the book Tree?

funny how you answered your own question without even realizing it.

OK, so McClellan is a money whore since you said I answered my own question, is that your opinion?
35Tree
      ID: 17420305
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 07:24
putting your head in the sand?

How about "having a life"? Are YOU reading the book Tree?


not yet, but i plan on it. i'm currently in the middle of several other books, two of which are already memoirs.

funny how you answered your own question without even realizing it.

OK, so McClellan is a money whore since you said I answered my own question, is that your opinion?


no, what i said was that his motivation to do what he did while working for the Bush regime was money. sorry that the reference went over your head.
36walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 10:15
DECLARATIONS
By PEGGY NOONAN
Wall Street Journal
But Is It True?
May 30, 2008


Leave him alone. He wrote a book. It is true or untrue, accurately reported or not. If not, this will no doubt be revealed. It is honestly meant and presented, or not. Look to the assertions, argue them, weigh and ponder.

That's my first thought. My second goes back to something William Safire, himself a memoirist of the Nixon years, said to me, a future memoirist of the Reagan years: "The one thing history needs more of is first-person testimony." History needs data, detail, portraits, information; it needs eyewitness. "I was there, this is what I saw." History will sift through, consider and try in its own way to produce something approximating truth.

Scott McLellan, during a daily briefing as White House press secretary, 2005.
In that sense one should always say of memoirs of those who hold or have held power: More, please.

Scott McClellan's book is the focus of such heat, the target of denunciation, because it is a big story when a press secretary breaks with a president. This is like Jody Powell turning on Jimmy Carter, or Marlin Fitzwater turning on Reagan. That is, it's pretty much unthinkable. And it's a bigger story still when such a person breaks with his administration not over many small things but one big thing, in this case its central and defining endeavor, the Iraq war. The book can be seen as a grenade lobbed over the wall. Thus the explosive response. He is a traitor, turncoat, betrayer, sellout. If he'd had any guts he would have spoken up when he was in power.

I want to quote his defenders, but he doesn't have any.

Those in the mainstream media who want to see the president unmasked, who want to see the administration revealed as something dark, do not want to be caught cheering on the unmasker.

The left, while embracing the book's central assertions, will paint him as a weasel who belatedly 'fessed up. They're big on omertà on the left. It's part of how they survive.

The right will—already has—pummel him for disloyalty. But those damning him now would have damned him more if he'd resigned on principle three years ago. They—and the administration—would have beaten him to a pulp, the former from rage, the latter as a lesson: This is what we do when you leave ugly.

And Americans in general have a visceral and instinctive dislike for what Drudge called a snitch. This is our tradition, and also human nature.

So Mr. McClellan defends himself in the same way he defended the administration, awkwardly. He could not speak earlier because he did not oppose earlier; he came to oppose with time and on reflection. He is trying, now, to tell the truth.

He is a man alone, "a pariah," as Matt Lauer put it.

He does not appear to have written his book to bolster his reputation. He paints himself as a loser. "I didn't stay true to myself"; he loved "the theatre of political power" and "found being part of the play exciting"; he tried to play "the Washington game" and "didn't play it very well." But soon the mea culpa becomes a you-a culpa.

He has nothing to say, really, about the world he entered, about what it was to be there. His thoughts present themselves as clichés. Working in the White House is "a wow." Seeing it lit up at night "never got old." He'll never forget where he was on 9/11. He claims he was taught to "communicate" by Karen Hughes. This is all too believable. I did learn that the word visit— "Got a moment to visit?"—is apparently Texan for "I'm about to kill you" or "Let's conspire."

The book is not quite a kiss-and-tell, smooch-and-blab or buss-and-bitch. It is not gossipy, or fun, or lively. It is lumpy, uneven and, when he attempts to share his historical insights—the Constitution, he informs us, doesn't mention the word "party"— embarrassing.

And yet the purpose of the book is a serious one. Mr. McClellan attempts to reveal and expose what he believes, what he came to see as, an inherent dishonesty and hypocrisy within a hardened administration. It is a real denunciation.

He believes the invasion of Iraq was "a serious strategic blunder," that the decision to invade Iraq was "a fateful misstep" born in part of the shock of 9/11 but also of "an air of invincibility" sharpened by the surprisingly and "deceptively" quick initial military success in Afghanistan. He scores President Bush's "certitude" and "self-deceit" and asserts the decision to invade Iraq was tied to the president's lust for legacy, need for boldness, and grandiose notions as to what is possible in the Mideast. He argues that Mr. Bush did not try to change the culture of the capital, that he "chose to play the Washington game the way he found it" and turned "away from candor and honesty."

Mr. McClellan dwells on a point that all in government know, that day-to-day governance now is focused on media manipulation, with a particular eye to "political blogs, popular web sites, paid advertising, talk radio" and news media in general. In the age of the permanent campaign, government has become merely an offshoot of campaigning. All is perception and spin. This mentality can "cripple" an administration as, he says, it crippled the Clinton administration, with which he draws constant parallels. "Like the Clinton administration, we had an elaborate campaign structure within the White House that drove much of what we did."

His primary target is Karl Rove, whose role he says was "political manipulation, plain and simple." He criticizes as destructive the 50-plus-1 strategy that focused on retaining power through appeals to the base at the expense of a larger approach to the nation. He blames Mr. Rove for sundering the brief post-9/11 bipartisan spirit when he went before an open Republican National Committee meeting in Austin, four months after 9/11, and said the GOP would make the war on terror the top issue to win the Senate and keep the House in the 2002 campaign. By the spring the Democratic party and the media were slamming back with charges the administration had been warned before 9/11 of terrorist plans and done nothing. That war has continued ever since.

Mr. McClellan's portrait of Mr. Bush is weird and conflicted, though he does not seem to notice. The president is "charming" and "disarming," humorous and politically gifted. He weeps when Mr. McClellan leaves. Mr. McClellan always puts quotes on his praise. But the implication of his assertions and anecdotes is that Mr. Bush is vain, narrow, out of his depth and coldly dismissive of doubt, of criticism and of critics.

If that's what you think, say it. If it's not, don't suggest it.

When I finished the book I came out not admiring Mr. McClellan or liking him but, in terms of the larger arguments, believing him. One hopes more people who work or worked within the Bush White House will address the book's themes and interpretations. What he says may be inconvenient, and it may be painful, but that's not what matters. What matters is if it's true. Let the debate on the issues, not the man, commence.

What's needed now? More memoirs, more data, more information, more testimony. More serious books, like Doug Feith's. More "this is what I saw" and "this is what is true." Feed history.
37Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 56118297
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 18:11
If what McClellan was doing was something that he felt was so repugnant, why didn't he quit after day 1?

As Peggy Noonan explains in her column, he admits that he wasn't true to himself. He concedes that he offered too much benefit of doubt to Bush and his administration.

Sure there's dirt on the Bush Admin, but I don't think that's McClellan' main motivation. Money is.

I think this refusal of objectivity will be the position of many on the right, even those who claim they do not stand with the Bush Admin. I believe they just refuse to accept the possibility that the left might have been right all along and will refuse to even consider first hand account of someone whose story makes lends them credibility. They are afraid to hear him out because if he is right he shatters their hateful worldview that liberals are always wrong.
38Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 18:59
their hateful worldview that liberals are always wrong. - MITH

Lol...and how pray tell, is the liberal inverse one iota less hateful [or guaranteed] if hateful is the appropriate adjective?
39biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 19:05
It's not hateful if your adversary truly IS evil. Simply wise. ;)
40Razor
      ID: 504132820
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 20:06
The motivations for extremists on each side are different. The extreme right is motivated by selfishness. The extreme left is motivated by selflessness. Selfish behavior is good in some instances, while in others selflessness is called for. However, there is good reason to loathe the extremely selfish as they often advocate behavior that either only helps them or is only detrimental to others. It's tough to actually hate the extremely selfless, though they should be ignored just the same for their naivety or impracticality. For my money, I'd rather listen to someone stupid and selfless than stupid and selfish. At least the former means well.
41Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 21:22
Razor

How foolish. Does it not even occur to you that conservatives might advocate for what they do because they think it works best for the most people?

42Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 22:06
Razor, you are obviously a Left dweller. Extreme Left is not about being selfless, rather being egotists, religious zealots and political idiots. The Liberal sect has more contradictions than any religious tenet and their followers are as radical as they come, when it comes to their God, political correctness. The elitist Liberal is a strange animal, they go opposite of what is considered normal thinking and then will try to show their intelligence by reiterating looney left-wing babble. Funny thing is the elitist are so much of an elitist they think the other elitists are intellectually inferior. There are a few Liberals that become liberal due to unselishness, but unforuately they become part of the Leftist estabilishment and their minds turn to mush. I could type forever on this subject, as I am doing a study of Liberals.
44Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 22:27
The extreme left is motivated by selflessness.

Can't get behind that, razor.


Lol...and how pray tell, is the liberal inverse one iota less hateful [or guaranteed] if hateful is the appropriate adjective?

Both far less and far less guaranteed. The mainstream right rejects liberalism out of hand. The inverse is not true. How many times in this forum has "liberalism" been called a "failed policy"? You yourself have infamously blanket-described liberals as dangerous morons. How many Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter columns would I have to peruse to find an outright claim that liberals are always wrong? Two for each? Three tops? How many Baldwin-authored Rotoguru posts? For Jag it's a religious paradigm.

Now how many well-known pundits on the left do you know who would claim that conservatives are always wrong? I very much doubt you'll find that quote from Michale Moore. How many rotoguru posters have made that claim? When was the last time a rotoguru poster called conservatism a failed policy?

In fact the very notion is silly. For my entire life 'liberal' has been a political dirty word that Democrats cower from. Republicans wear their conservatism on their sleeves.

I'll stand by my statement. Laugh if you want, but I think you know I'm exactly right.
45walk
      ID: 31454285
      Fri, May 30, 2008, 22:32
Jag...c'mon, bro. You're doing a study of liberals and this is what you're finding? "Extreme left is about being religious zealots and political idiots"...? and these are your "studious conclusions." Sounds a little acadmic. Let me know the refereed, peer reviewed journal to which you will be submitting your study. ;-)

Anyway, I don't want to get into a "no, it's the extreme right that's blah blah blah."

I do think Razor has some valid generalizations about the left being more towards giving to others and the right being more towards individuals making it on their own. Other than that, back to this thread, I think a lot of folks have alleged that Cheney/Bush mislead U.S. and covered up data that could have resulted in congress and the public having a different attitude about invading Iraq. Now that McClellan is saying it, the republicans basically have two choices: admit they were are the bad guys or ostracize McClellan. So, this backlash is not surprising, but it does not convince me one iota that McClellan is lying...I think he just has first-hand info and it's really something to hear it from someone inside the administration. Just cos I believe him does not auto mean he's telling the truth, but I surely believe him over Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush. I mean, I believed what he was saying before he said it...it's just more revealing to hear it from someone on the inside. I look forward to more revelations after the Bush administration is over.
46Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 00:49
Walk you and my liberal buddy are 2 that probably became Liberal in their quest to truly help people, but the crew you fell in with have done much more harm than good, because they put form over substance.

Those were just a few of the different types of Liberals, there are many more. I am hoping to one day find a cure for it.

Imagine there's no PETA
It's easy if you try
No illegal immigrants coming from below us
Above us only liberal Canadians
Imagine all the people
Living with cheap gasoline

Imagine there's low taxes
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to whine or cry for
And no Pelosi too
Imagine all the people
Spending money in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And gain some common sense

Imagine more possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for ACLU or NYT
A brotherhood of Conservatives
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the profits

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world won't have to listen to you biatch anymore.


47astade
      ID: 1533770
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 01:59
I would prefer that as a Haiku ;)
48Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 02:25
I like the melody to that song, but it is the Liberal National Anthem and it shows the ultimate goal of Left, which is scary.
49Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 06:24
I am hoping to one day find a cure for it.

I wonder why people become liberals. Some may do it to justify a drug habit (legalizing dope) or because they have experienced hard times and refuse to blame themselves for anything that goes wrong in their lives. I guess they feel that people owe them for something. If liberals were serious about helping people, they would realize how inefficient gov't is and seek to shrink it and give $$$ and power back to the people.

The conclusion I came to is that a lot of people think it's easier and better for the gov't to solve their problems than themselves. What they don't realize is the gov't isn't capable of solving the vast majority (if not all) of problems people face. Just like how it's stupid to expect Coca-Cola to manufacture gym shoes, expecting one body to fix all your ills is stupid. It's like liberals look to gov't as some omnipotent force that is capable of anything. I see gov't as being incapable of everything.

The solution lies with the American people. The problem is that people are taxed to the hilt, gov't won't allocate their allowance from us effectively, and then the gov't has the balls to think they deserve more of our money even though they have proven they don't know what to do with it in the first place.

Yet liberals are too silly to see past that fact and just stick to the bullet point of "conservatives are evil, yack yack yack". A good number of my friends are fellow conservatives and I can say there isn't an evil one in the bunch. We give to charity, create jobs, believe the money we each earn belongs to the individual that earns it, and all we want is gov't the hell out of our way.

If the US gov't was a stock, would you buy it? Why or why not? Reagan had that amazing quote about being a shareholder. The only problem is that we are forced shareholders and what is our repurcussion against an underperforming organization? On the stock market if a company misses earnings or something along those lines, we can sell the shares and do something else with our money. We can't do that with the gov't. All we can do is demand they take less of it because all they're doing is pi$$ing it away.
50Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 06:51
Yet liberals are too silly to see past that fact and just stick to the bullet point of "conservatives are evil, yack yack yack".

Who at this forum has expressed this view? What well-known columnist or pundit espouses this opinion? It's a common joke (like in bili's post) but if that's an opinion you really ascribe to liberals you understand less about American politics than I thought.
51Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 08:37
Just a knee jerk response, but I have lost count by how many times I've been accused of not caring about the poor or uninsured by people on this forum such as but not limited to Zen, Tree and Sarge. Probably you too. And no, I will not go thru 100+ threads to dig them up.

Now please respond with another half assed cherry picking comment without addressing the meat of my original post.
52Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 09:03
I suggest you refrain from kneejerk responses. I haven't accused you of not caring about the poor or uninsured. Of course, such a claim isn't close to the same thing as an opiniion that "conservatives are evil".

Now please respond with another half assed cherry picking comment without addressing the meat of my original post.

I don't have time this morning to produce the essay it would take to adequately cover the topic of "why people become liberals".

And I don't see the point of pulling out one sentence from your post that stands out to me and responding to it. I could pull plenty of posts in which you do just that (I think you know better than to challenge me) unless you feel I'm taking you out of context in doing so - but I don't think that's the case here, especially considering your response.
53walk
      ID: 444253118
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 19:28
McClellan speaks the truth!

Back on track...

P.S. Liberals are cool.
54Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 09:54
Stanley Crouch
McClellan's description of his years in the Bush White House will not surprise those who have paid attention and have watched as one more dirty trick after another was stripped of its cover until national policy became tantamount to a nudist colony trying to pass itself off as a center for high fashion.

Nor should it be - though we know that it will - a reason for partisan crowing as though what McClellan's book reveals is more about one party than it is about everything that the framers of the Constitution were fully aware when they created as many hurdles to the abuse of power as possible.

For now, Scott McClellan will be seen as a dog who bit the hand that fed him, as a traitor to the cause, as a bad soldier who should have known that being a press secretary always leads to a filthy taste because of the piles one has to flip on the tongue like burgers and then serve them to the White House press corps. Once the smoke that has a peculiar and disturbing smell similar to either the scent of an outhouse or greenhouse gas finally clears and ceases to choke us, McClellan will be seen as what he truly is: a patriot.

In the hip-hop world, he would be contemptuously dismissed as a snitch. In the Beltway, where Karl Rove was the butcher king playing in the dark for more than a day, he will surely be called the son of something that rhymes with snitch.

To me he is one of those minor men who has become a hero because he was disturbed by what he saw and his own involvement in actions and deceptions that reduced the honor of our country. Any revelations about the abuse of power should always be welcomed. They help us know where we are and what has been done to us. For that, if no more, Scott McClellan should be saluted on both sides of the aisle.

The blues left by the abuse of power can be played in any key and come from any party. The more we know about it, the easier it is to recognize the blues when it's played. And Scott McClellan has improved our hearing immeasurably.
55Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 18:45
I don't remember where I read it, but I agree with the statement that McClellan's story is a sad parable about the state of the mainstream press. Nothing he revealed was not suspected or known at the time. A more dubious press corps would have made Bush's case for war much more difficult. The press is so complicit in the propagandizing of 2003 that even if McClellan resigned in disgust and "spilled the beans", he would have been steamrolled and the war machine would have rolled on.

I haven't read the book, so I don't know, but I haven't heard any revelations regarding a "Pentagon Papers" type of bombshell that existed that McClellan could have dumped on Bob Woodward's desk. Without something like that, all McClellan's got is, "Hey, these guys are lying in words and omission, I've got a few examples, but, really, you've got to be there." That wouldn't have stopped anything.

I would have respected him a lot more had he thrown himself under the bus. But, as MITH's link of Crouch above states: Any revelations about the abuse of power should always be welcomed. Here, here.
56Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 18:48
I would have respected him - SZ

There is the lie that get's dangled. Every now and then a spineless jellyfish nibbles after it.
57Seattle Zen
      ID: 29241823
      Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 00:12
Every now and then a spineless jellyfish nibbles after it.

So in your universe, Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus are "spineless jellyfish" because they resigned when ordered to carry out an immoral act. Pathetic.

 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours21
Last 7 days65
Last 30 days2117
Since Mar 1, 20072147872