Dan

Calabrese

Read Dan's bio and previous columns here

June 2, 2008

Scott McClellan: The Real Truth from the Out-of-the-Loop Liar

Here’s how you sell a book. It’s easy.

First, get a job in the administration of George W. Bush. You have to keep it for awhile – I mean, certainly more than a week or two – so you can claim some degree of credibility. Then get out of Dodge (getting fired for being ineffectual is not a problem), turn around and write a book that parrots everything Bush’s critics say about him.

Welcome to the top of the New York Times bestseller list. It’s not even hard. The mainstream media and the Democrats pretty much write the book for you. All you have to do is claim to have observed behind closed doors what they say in the papers and on TV.

And Scott McClellan is a very fortunate man. He wasn’t even smart enough to figure this out, but he found himself with a publisher who was willing to point the way. Left-wing editor Peter Osnos, owner of publishing house PublicAffairs, worked with McClellan to hone the content and direction of the book. That’s why the former White House press secretary, fired in 2005 for the tepid ineffectiveness that was painfully obvious to everyone, has now fired off a revenge-seeking tell-all.

Once thought to be a Bush loyalist, McClellan has shown himself to be strictly a Scott McClellan loyalist – which just goes to show that everyone needs to have at least one fan.

As the outstanding online newspaper Politico reported on Saturday, McClellan’s original book proposal was not only far more sympathetic to Bush, but also far tougher on the mainstream media and its left-wing biases. Two excerpts from McClellan’s original proposal stand out. First, this comment about the media:

Fairness is defined by the establishment media within the left-of-center boundaries they set. They defend their reporting as fair because both sides are covered. But, how fair can it be when it is within the context of the liberal slant of the reporting?

Then we come to this comment about popular critiques of Bush:

Those on the far left of the political spectrum tend to demonize him and view him as an incurious, incompetent politician that will twist the truth to further his own goals.

Wow, isn’t that amazing? Because when McClellan’s book finally came out, he said all the exact same things he originally intended to rebut.

Journalists like the Washington Post’s Dan Balz instantly and gullibly jumped on all this as a confirmation of their own suspicions:

McClellan's portrayal of President Bush – as intellectually incurious, politically shrewd, occasionally dense, sometimes disingenuous, often charming and always cocksure – matches that of other critics, including a few ex-administration officials such as former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill. But it is devastating nonetheless.

Please. It is devastating only it its shamelessness. To sell your book, you need media attention, and the best way to get it is to offer to come on the air and confirm that everything they’ve been saying all this time has been true. That’s pretty much all there is here. What new facts does McClellan reveal? What argument offered by the White House – via his own mouth – does he actually now disprove?

And how does McClellan qualify as a trustworthy source – when the whole point of his book is that he spent three years standing there telling these very same journalists stuff that supposedly was not true? Presumably, he’s had a revelation. Huge book deals have an amazing ability to bring those on. They’re worth a lot more than a press secretary’s salary (especially a fired press secretary).

So the man who complains that he was out of the loop now presumes to tell us the whole inside story, including his wild guess as to what Karl Rove and Scooter Libby might have been talking about in a meeting McClellan was not invited to attend.

It does appear Bush is guilty of something here – and that is taking three years to fire Scott McClellan. If the man was not informed about what was happening, and was too afraid to express a thought when he had it, what kind of press secretary was he likely to be? Did you ever see his briefings? Then you know. He was pretty bad.

Guys like that need their patrons. While gainfully employed at the White House, McClellan had no qualms about articulating the White House point of view to the extent that his limited skills would allow. Once shown the door, which happens to people with limited skills, he has no qualms about articulating the exact opposite point of view – the one held by people who will pay him much more, and by the people whose gushing coverage will ensure the investment pays off handsomely.

Looking for the truth? Ask the out-of-the-loop liar. He’ll have lots to say.

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

This is Column # DC178.  Request permission to publish here.