Gay Patriot Header Image

Scott McClellan Makes His Last Stand On Olbermann’s Show

Last night, while doing my cardio, I was “treated” to forty-five minutes (the length of my workout) of insight into the Bush-hating mindset. One of the television monitors featured MSNBC. Neither Chris Matthews nor Keith Olbermann could offer any insight into Bush’s Farewell Address. Instead, they offered insight into their own obsession with the man.

They were upset that he failed in his speech to grovel and apologize for his supposedly failed Administration. When aren’t they upset with something the president has said or done?

Given how perennially upset they are with George W. Bush, his team and his defenders, one wonders, along with Gateway Pundit, “What will MSNBC do without President Bush?” He has become a target on which they have long projected their own inner demons.

Olbermann brought along a professional stooge to help make his case. He invited former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan on the show to comment on the president’s farewell address.  Having nothing better to do, he accepted.  Well McClellan didn’t offer much analysis, just ofered some left-wing talking points about how Bush failed to be candid with the American people and didn’t admit his mistakes.

He didn’t address the substance of Bush’s message, merely commented on what wasn’t there. He knew how to please his left-wing host.  Basically, he just repeated Obemann’s points, but with different words.  Well, he did call W a decent guy, words which never pass that angry announcer’s lips.

Look, Scott may not have been a very competent spokesman for a president under constant attack from the news media, but he’s not stupid. He knows that conservatives weren’t pleased with his performance as White House Press Secretary. He was forever in a “defensive crouch,” failing to properly promote Administration policies and discredit dishonest attacks, and take issue with antagonistic arguments.

Eager for him to leave the Administration, conservatives would not be honoring him at their conclaves or featuring him on their television and radio programs.

But, the left-wing media forever maligning McClellan’s former boss would give a place of honor to an Administration turncoat. He knew what it would take to gain their favor: bash Bush and his team.

His strategy seems to have succeeded.  A reader informed me that MSNBC has tapped him for a “post-inaugural speech analysis.”

I’m sure he’ll find the new president’s address the best since Abraham Lincoln’s!

Because if he didn’t join Arianna Huffington in swooning over Obama and attacking Bush, he’d lose his spot in the limelight. And for those politicos who suffer under her eponymous condition, such public prominence is all that matters. Even at the cost of your integrity.

Share

30 Comments

  1. Nah. She’ll be the lipstick on the pig. She’ll let State do whatever they want and provide the “pretty face”.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 17, 2009 @ 4:14 am - January 17, 2009

  2. McClellan – blech. Disgusting even to think about.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 10:32 am - January 17, 2009

  3. What will MSNBC do without Bush? After the Inauguration/Ascension, it will be back to attack Palin, smear Palin, slander Palin.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — January 17, 2009 @ 10:55 am - January 17, 2009

  4. Dan, have you read McClellan’s book? The charges made by McClellan against Bush were pretty damning, IMO. Now, if McClellan made these up, yeah, he’s a jerk, and I understand the vitriol. Suppose for the moment, he’s telling the truth, what should he have done? I hope if Obama, as president, pulls the same crap as Bush was purported to have done, that someone blows the whistle on him as well.

    What will MSNBC do without Bush? After the Inauguration/Ascension, it will be back to attack Palin, smear Palin, slander Palin.

    Ashpenaz, after a short while, Palin will totally fade into the woodwork. I don’t think she will reenter the national stage, except as nothing more than a former VP candidate. Jindal, Huckabee, and maybe Romney, will probably get the attention.

    Comment by Pat — January 17, 2009 @ 11:18 am - January 17, 2009

  5. #4 if the title of the book does not start with “Y liburals R dum” it won’t be read by many people here

    Comment by gillie — January 17, 2009 @ 11:56 am - January 17, 2009

  6. Rewrite:

    But, the right-wing media forever maligning Dick Morris’s former boss would give a place of honor to an Administration turncoat.

    Comment by gillie — January 17, 2009 @ 11:57 am - January 17, 2009

  7. I hope McClellan enjoys his time in the sun. Sounds like that was a pretty pathetic farewell.

    Comment by Chuck — January 17, 2009 @ 1:02 pm - January 17, 2009

  8. Pat, and if Scott McClellan didn’t make up those charges, then he is the stooge I described him to be above. If he was so critical of the Administration and couldn’t do anything to change it, shouldn’t he have then resigned to criticize it from the outside. But, he didn’t resign. He was asked to leave.

    As to Palin, you’re wrong, so wrong. The media knows a good story when they see one, that’s why they report any news about it. She connects with voters in a way which few Republican candidates have in recent years. She’s here to stay. Others, to be sure, will get attention. And she may lose a bit of her luster, momentarily, but she’ll stay.

    And Gillie in #6, fair point about Dick Morris. Quite possibly the first such point you’ve made since you’ve been commenting here. But, there’s a difference. Morris was actually a gifted political strategist before he worked for Bill Clinton. It was in recognizing those talents that the Democrat tapped him. And Morris had already worked for Republicans as well as Democrats.

    If George W. Bush had not promoted McClellan, an incredibly loyal campaign worker, he would never have amounted to much in politics. He never showed any insight into politics. I mean, just look at his book and look at him on MSNBC, smart enough to say what he knows will get the left-leaning media to like his book and to say what his hosts want him to say.

    But, original insight?

    Had he had that capacity, he might have, when he served in the White House, been in a better position to defend the president.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 17, 2009 @ 1:15 pm - January 17, 2009

  9. Pat, and if Scott McClellan didn’t make up those charges, then he is the stooge I described him to be above. If he was so critical of the Administration and couldn’t do anything to change it, shouldn’t he have then resigned to criticize it from the outside. But, he didn’t resign. He was asked to leave.

    Dan, maybe he is a stooge as you suggest. And maybe he should have resigned at the first moment of shenanigans that he witnessed. Perhaps he was (at the time) loyal to Bush, thinking there were mitigating reasons for his actions, whatever. Who knows?

    I got the impression that it was mutual. It seemed that he was in the post about as long as others.

    As to Palin, you’re wrong, so wrong. The media knows a good story when they see one, that’s why they report any news about it. She connects with voters in a way which few Republican candidates have in recent years. She’s here to stay.

    We’ll see, Dan. I’ve been wrong before. I don’t doubt that she’ll have some role in the Republican Party, but I doubt very much she’ll be on any future Republican ticket, or do any better in the primaries than say, George McGovern did after 1972. One possible exception…Obama attains popularity in 2012 like Reagan did in 1984 and she gets shoved onto the ticket, so that Jindal or some other up and coming Republican gets to be on the ticket in 2016.

    Just as Howard Dean fell down in popularity after the big “scream” and the media playing it over and over again, I believe the same will (and to some extent already has) happen with Palin.

    I tell you what. If I’m wrong, you can have a top shelf margarita on me at El Coyote. I’ll probably have to wire the money to you though.

    By the way, how did the El Coyote event go? I would have gone if I was in LA.

    Comment by Pat — January 17, 2009 @ 2:08 pm - January 17, 2009

  10. Pat, as to Palin, I think the opposite is true. Note how her interviews improved over the course of the campaign. After Couric, she had interviews with the liberal media, CNN and NBC, but those interviews didn’t get much attention outside those networks because her performance there didn’t fit the narrative.

    She is, as several have noted, including her critics, a “quick study” and has a compelling presence as SNL’s Lorne Michaels observed. With increased media exposure and more education on national issues, she’s only going to improve. You’ll see.

    So, I expect you will be buying me a top shelf margarita at El Coyote sometime soon. And we’ll have more GayPatriot events there as it went very well, very, very well.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 17, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - January 17, 2009

  11. And maybe he should have resigned at the first moment of shenanigans that he witnessed.

    Reminder: McClellan didn’t actually witness any shenanigans. According to Trent Duffy, McClellan’s own deputy, McClellan is pretty much a total liar.

    GPW’s point, I think, is this: IF McClellan witnessed what he claims to have witnessed, then ABSOLUTELY McClellan should have resigned on his own. No “maybes” about it, Pat. If McClellan is telling the truth, then he is sleazy and dishonorable for not resigning sooner. But, again, by other accounts (McClellan’s own deputy), McClellan isn’t a sleazy or dishonorable: he is a liar, outright.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 2:54 pm - January 17, 2009

  12. It seemed that he was in the post about as long as others.

    Wiki shows the following:

    2001–2003 Ari Fleischer
    2003–2006 Scott McClellan
    2006–2007 Tony Snow
    2007–Present Dana Perino

    McClellan specifically started in July 2003 and served until replaced by Tony Snow on April 26, 2006. Before that, of course, he was Ari Fleischer’s deputy, including for most or all of the 2000 campaign cycle. In other words, McClellan served Bush for *at least seven years* in either a Press Secretary or alternate (deputy) Press Secretary role. At least seven. Unless Perino has a similar record (which I don’t know if she does), that would make him the longest-serving.

    And before that, McClellan Unless Perino has been been with the White House since at

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 3:02 pm - January 17, 2009

  13. (aargh, sorry for bad edit)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 3:04 pm - January 17, 2009

  14. As to what will MSNBC do when Bush 43 isn’t around to kick and punch….I think a lot of the MSM will be in trouble. There are too many fake ‘journalists” out there. And only so much kissing up to the new administration they can do. It will become very boring very fast. Don’t expect a lot of “speak truth to power” from these folks with their own in all offices of power. Any terrorist attack will make Obama’s team look bad. Within two years look for horrible inflation kicking in, there is no more cruel “tax’ on oridinary Americans. You can’t flip a switch and pour 2 trillion dollars into the economy without experiencing inflation of 10-20%. Within four years Americans will have had a pay cut of that amount. At that point the only way to bring inflation down……cut growth, eliminate jobs to bring down prices. Polititians hope to get thru the next 2 – 4years. Like most problems they’ll let others worry about the consequences.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 17, 2009 @ 3:10 pm - January 17, 2009

  15. So, I expect you will be buying me a top shelf margarita at El Coyote sometime soon.

    If so, start deciding what you want.

    And we’ll have more GayPatriot events there as it went very well, very, very well.

    Great!

    Reminder: McClellan didn’t actually witness any shenanigans. According to Trent Duffy, McClellan’s own deputy, McClellan is pretty much a total liar.

    ILC, so either Duffy or McClellan (or both) are liars.

    GPW’s point, I think, is this: IF McClellan witnessed what he claims to have witnessed, then ABSOLUTELY McClellan should have resigned on his own. No “maybes” about it, Pat. If McClellan is telling the truth, then he is sleazy and dishonorable for not resigning sooner. But, again, by other accounts (McClellan’s own deputy), McClellan isn’t a sleazy or dishonorable: he is a liar, outright.

    I get the point. Both you and Dan thinks that either McClellan is one or more of the following: sleazy, dishonorable, liar. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. But, obviously, any sleaziness by McClellan does not excuse any shenanigans (if any) by Bush and his administration.

    Perhaps I’m extremely cynical. But if a press secretary resigned every time they witnessed shenanigans by the president or administration, each president would have to have at least 25 press secretaries for each term.

    McClellan specifically started in July 2003 and served until replaced by Tony Snow on April 26, 2006.

    Exactly. My point being was that if Bush or his people thought McClellan was incompetent, he could have been pushed to resign at least a year sooner, and it wouldn’t have looked bad for anyone concerned.

    Comment by Pat — January 17, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - January 17, 2009

  16. any sleaziness by McClellan does not excuse any shenanigans (if any) by Bush and his administration

    Agreed; it simply makes McClellan’s testimony on the subject suspect to the point of worthlessness. If Bush or his administration did engage in “shenanigans”, we’ll have to confirm them from other sources, after first defining what they might be. So far as I know, Bush’s opponents engaged in shenanigans, in the sense that McClellan would mean, far more than Bush’s administration. There’s this whole business that wasted the nation’s time:

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/07/14/joe-wilson-like-paul-cameron-a-hero-to-his-ideological-allies-a-laughingstock-to-everyone-else/

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 4:50 pm - January 17, 2009

  17. Or this one:

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/08/06/scott-thomas-beauchamp-the-decline-of-the-new-republic/

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 4:51 pm - January 17, 2009

  18. Or this:

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/05/24/democrats-lied-voters-were-fried/

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 4:54 pm - January 17, 2009

  19. Or this:

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/12/02/new-republic-finally-admitsscott-beauchamp-stories-are-false/

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 4:55 pm - January 17, 2009

  20. Whoops, sorry, that’s 2 Beauchamps. I thought the one was caught in spamfilter.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 4:56 pm - January 17, 2009

  21. ILC, well said in #11. And you summarize my point well.

    But, you say that by Trent Duffy’s account, McClellan isn’t sleazy, but is a liar. So you’re saying that a liar isn’t sleazy? :-)

    From what I read at the time his book came out–and right now, I really don’t have time to review that all, I recall that McClellan’s left-leaning editor (or publisher?) changed the first draft significantly to make it more marketable. I mean, had he told a story which reflected his actual service, it would have been quite dull and garnered almost no attention in the media.

    But, a book critical of the Administration would get major headlines. McClellan basically sold his soul to prolong his time in the spotlight.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 17, 2009 @ 5:00 pm - January 17, 2009

  22. if Bush or his people thought McClellan was incompetent, he could have been pushed to resign at least a year sooner, and it wouldn’t have looked bad for anyone concerned.

    When has Bush ever fired anyone incompetent, that he considered loyal (at the time)? It’s well known as one of the failings of his administration. Yes, McClellan should have been fired much sooner for lack of effectiveness. His daily “defensive crouch” was legendary, and the reason they ultimately did fire and replace him with Tony Snow.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 5:00 pm - January 17, 2009

  23. So you’re saying that a liar isn’t sleazy?

    Well… Not *only* sleazy. :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 5:01 pm - January 17, 2009

  24. I recall that McClellan’s left-leaning editor (or publisher?) changed the first draft significantly to make it more marketable.

    And McClellan went along. Discussed at length in the HotAir reference I gave.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 5:06 pm - January 17, 2009

  25. Robert Novak points out the following about McClellan’s book and the Wilson-Plame shenanigans:

    In Scott McClellan’s purported tell-all memoir of his trials as President Bush’s press secretary, he virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage’s role leaking to me Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA employee. That fits the partisan Democratic version of the Plame affair…

    In claiming he was misled about the Plame affair, McClellan mentions Armitage only twice. Armitage being the leaker undermines the Democratic theory…

    …[McClellan's book] does not identify Armitage as the leaker until Page 306 of the 323-page book — and then only in passing. Armitage, who was antiwar and anti-Cheney, does not fit the conspiracy theory that McClellan now buys into. When, after two years, Armitage publicly admitted that he was my source, the life went out of Wilson’s campaign… [but] McClellan dwells on [it] as if the real leaker were still unknown.

    That’s what I’m talking about. The Wilson-Plame affair was a shenanigan on the part of Bush’s opponents. In his book, McClellan spews bullsh*t * (ignoring known developments that exonerate Bush, Cheney and Rove) in order to align himself with Democrats. Why? Because Bush did ultimately fire McClellan, and singing a new tune (going with Bush opponents) was the only way he could sell his book proposal.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 5:24 pm - January 17, 2009

  26. If Sarah Palin went back in time and killed her parents so she was never born, Keith Olbermann would still rant about and slander her night after night.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — January 17, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - January 17, 2009

  27. The charges made by McClellan against Bush were pretty damning, IMO. Now, if McClellan made these up, yeah, he’s a jerk, and I understand the vitriol

    The mere fact that McClellan is little more than a stain on the liberal left’s cum rag tells me that the charges made weren’t very “damning” at all.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 18, 2009 @ 5:54 am - January 18, 2009

  28. “Y liburals R dum”

    Great title. I could put together a collection of your comments on here. The bonus would be those posts where people ask you questions, request examples or any other challenges which you ignore. I suppose you follow Comrade Obama’s lead in the notion that you don’t have to answer the questions of the Prols.

    The problem with that title is that it’s too simplistic. The fact that liberals are dumb (and dangerous) goes without saying and is a natural conclusion by any critical thinking person.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 18, 2009 @ 6:16 am - January 18, 2009

  29. So you’re saying that a liar isn’t sleazy?

    Good point. If McClellan lied about it, that would make him sleazy as well.

    If Bush or his administration did engage in “shenanigans”, we’ll have to confirm them from other sources, after first defining what they might be.

    Agreed.

    If Sarah Palin went back in time and killed her parents so she was never born, Keith Olbermann would still rant about and slander her night after night.

    Interesting, Ashpenaz. I guess we’ll never know for sure though. I hardly ever watch Keith Olbermann. Is he still talking about Palin? If so, time to move on.

    Comment by Pat — January 18, 2009 @ 7:38 am - January 18, 2009

  30. “… one wonders,… “What will MSNBC do without President Bush?””

    Their ratings will go UP, I predict. Messiah-TV, watched by millions. There are only so many people willing to listen to disingenuous messages of hate day after day, but there are plenty more willing to hear just how wonderful Obama is. They will listen to that all day long.

    Comment by DoorHold — January 19, 2009 @ 4:21 pm - January 19, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.