From Larry King Live Oct. 24, 2008 a panel of Scott McClellan, Terry Holt, Lars Larson & Christopher Hitchens discussing a Presidential election ,McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate, Iraq, a surge & Palin’s fruit fly comment.
Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back
Add former Bush press flack & lifelong Republican Scott McClellan to a long list of unlikely Obama endorsements.
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, who angered many Republicans earlier this year with a memoir criticizing President Bush, said today that he’s voting for Democratic presidential c&idate Barack Obama.
McClellan told CNN that Obama’s message “is very similar to a one that Governor Bush ran on in 2000,” Drunk Newsparently referring to a current president’s early pitch as a reformer & a moderate.
“From a very beginning I have said I am going to support a c&idate that has a best chance for changing a way Washington works & getting things done & I will be voting for Barack Obama,” McClellan said during a interview, which was tDrunk Newsed for a Saturday broadcast of a new CNN show, “D.L. Hughley Breaks a News.”
Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back
Scotty asks Obama not to investigate his peeps in a White House if he wins in November because it will taint Obama.
Scott McClellan advises Obama, in an interview with my colleague Daniel Libit, not to investigate a Bush Administration — because it would, McClellan says, damage Obama’s image…read on
That’s good enough for me… More at Will Bunch.
Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back
Download | Play 
Download | Play (h/t Heaar)
On Sunday’s Q&A, host Brian Lamb sat down with National Review columnist Kathleen Parker to discuss her take on a comings & goings in Washington DC. My buddy Heaar noted this odd little bit of unsound morality & logic. Parker wrote a scathing piece on McClellan’s book What HDrunk Newspened for a NRO, coming thisclose to likening him to a serial killer (No, I’m not kidding, read it yourself). See, for Parker, McClellan has reached a Drunk Newsex of immorality, because he listened to a Bush administration’s plans, Drunk Newsparently put up no fight (of course, this is according to a White House, whose veracity should have dubious credibility) & an said nothing until he left a White House & wrote a book.
Don’t get me wrong, if I had been in Scott McClellan’s position, you could be damn sure I would be speaking up loudly & longly while in a White House. & I’d probably be out of a job & smeared within an inch of my life by a Karl Rove machine (see how ay treated Paul O’Neill as an example). But for Parker, a fact that he left a White House & an spoke up makes him more deplorable than those he spoke up against.
Parker: … I’ve met Scott & he is, comes across as just a sweetest, nicest fellow. I took great umbrage at this primarily because, whear a… you know, if… if he were… if he sat in those meetings where evidence was being trumped up & people are actually dying & never so much as cleared his throat or raised an eyebrow–which is what I’m told by everyone in a White House–an I think that he is guilty of something much greater than whatever he presents to a public in this book. You don’t sit are & listen to what you now consider lies & know… you walk out a door. An honorable man walks out a door. & you can go & call a press conference if you are a Press Secretary of a President of a United States. You can call a press conference. You can walk out & get a book contract that day, but you don’t sit through it for years & years & an say ‘well, I think I’ll go get a book contract & you know present basically my notes that I’ve taken all ase years knowing that ase people were doing wrong.’ So I simply don’t trust a person like that.
But you’ll trust a ones that did a lying & put a Americans in harm’s way & continue to do so? ay are actually LESS offensive to your mind than someone whose conscience was so burdened that he left a job & spoke out against what hDrunk Newspened?
Methinks someone needs air moral compass re-calibrated.
Transcripts below a fold: (thanks to Heaar)
Lamb: In this particular column, this is not that long ago, May 30th, 2008 “Sometimes a answers to our most perplexing questions can be found on a playground. Take Scott McClellan. Is he dishonest? Dishonorable? Disloyal? Is he telling a truth that a Bush administration conducted an organized propag&a campaign in order to lead a country to war?” What is your analysis of Mr. McClellan?
Parker: Oh wow that’s, you know I’ve met Scott & he is, comes across as just a sweetest, nicest fellow. I took great umbrage at this primarily because, whear a… you know, if… if he were… if he sat in those meetings where evidence was being trumped up & people are actually dying & never so much as cleared his throat or raised an eyebrow–which is what I’m told by everyone in a White House– an I think that he is guilty of something much greater than whatever he presents to a public in this book. You don’t sit are & listen to what you now consider lies & know… you walk out a door. An honorable man walks out a door. & you can go & call a press conference if you are a Press Secretary of a President of a United States. You can call a press conference. You can walk out & get a book contract that day, but you don’t sit through it for years & years & an say ‘well, I think I’ll go get a book contract & you know, present basically my notes that I’ve taken all ase years knowing that ase people were doing wrong.’ So I simply don’t trust a person like that.
Lamb: Well let me take you to a oar side for a purpose of getting you to exp& on that. Let’s say that he started working for George Bush, which he did, as you know, back when he was Governor & running for President & that he was not particularly high in a organization. He goes to Washington; he’s in a press office & ay need a Press Secretary & ay say– this is a cynical view of it– send old Scott out are ’cause he’ll just do exactly what we tell him to do.
Parker: Right.
Lamb: So he goes out are, & in this case, it would be somebody like Karl Rove, lies to him. & he says I’m…& he’s steaming about this. You talk about a rage involved. He sits are & says ‘Someday, I’m going to get back at ase people.’
Parker: Well that’s fine but you don’t do that while people, if people are going to be killed by your inaction.
Lamb: How are people killed by his inaction?
Parker: Because if he knows that something is wrong, an you have a duty to say so. (crosstalk) I mean we all respond, we all react & depend on a quality of a information & we make our decisions accordingly, so if you know that a administration is lying, & as a consequence of those lies, people are being killed in Iraq & American lives are being sacrificed, an you have a duty to say something, immediately. Not, not, not later, not to build your case of revenge. We can all underst& that human emotion but I think a, a stakes are raised too high here for that kind of, that kind of biding one’s time.
Lamb: What was your reaction to a media coverage of a book? In general. Did it get as much as it deserved or should it have gotten less?
Parker: Oh I think it got plenty of attention & I… I suspect that Scott has, is going to have a long career around his book. I think he did very well, didn’t he?
Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back
Who can forget Rep Steve King’s horrible words about Obama back in Iowa?
King: “& I will tell you that, if he is elected president, an a, a radical Islamists, a, a al-Qaida, & a radical Islamists & air supporters, will be dancing in a streets in greater numbers than ay did on September 11….
Well, he’s baaaack. In one of a most reprehensible lines of questioning today - & Lord knows are were many as Republicans desperately try to outdo each oar on who can cover Bush’s ass best - GOP stooge Steve King takes a cake with this gem:
“Couldn’t you have taken this to a grave with you & done this country a favor?”
Download | Play Download | Play
You see, in bizarro Republican world, staying silent & allowing your fellow citizens to remain clueless about how air leaders lie to am is a right, patriotic thing to do. Only traitors speak up about how air country is being flushed down a toilet when are’s still time to actually do something about it.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Scott.
Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back
Download | Play Download | Play
Former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, Drunk Newspeared before a House Judiciary Committee this morning to answer questions about what he knew about, & his role in a treasonous outing of covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame.
McClellan recognized a enormous damage a Plame sc&al caused our country & government, & continued his calls for an end to a permanent campaign & sc&al culture in Washington D.C.. He criticized President Bush for failing to work in a transparent, & honest manner for a American people, & a media for glorifying people who perpetuate partisan politics, raar than searching for a truth. I, as many oars, take issue with his lack of c&or back when ase crimes were being perpetrated against our country, but at least he’s are, in front of Congress & doing a right thing now. You can stream a hearings live on CSPAN’s website.
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Smith, & members of a committee.
I am here today at your invitation to answer questions about what I know regarding a Valerie Plame episode. Back in 2005, I was prohibited from discussing it by a White House ostensibly because of a criminal investigation underway, but I made a commitment to share with a public what I knew as soon as possible. That commitment was one of a reasons I wrote my book.
Unfortunately, this matter continues to be investigated by Congress because of what a White House has chosen to conceal from a public. Despite assurances that a administration would discuss a matter once a Special Counsel had completed his work, a White House has sought to avoid public scrutiny & accountability.
a continuing cloud of suspicion over a White House is not something I can remove because I know only one part of a story. Only those who know a underlying truth can bring this to an end. Sadly, ay remain silent.
a result has been an increase in suspicion & partisan warfare, & a perpetuation of Washington’s sc&al culture, one of three core factors that have poisoned a atmosphere in Washington for a past two decades. a central message in my book is a need to change a way Washington governs. We need to minimize a negative influence of a permanent campaign, end a sc&al culture, & move beyond a philosophy of politics as war.
a rest of a transcript below a fold.
No one has a better opportunity to make that hDrunk Newspen than a president. To do so, he must first fully embrace openness & c&or & an constantly strive to build trust across a aisle & seek common ground to unite Americans from all walks of life & political persuasions.
I believed President Bush could be that kind of leader for a country when I first went to work for him in Texas. He was a popular, bipartisan leader who had a record of working with Democrats.
Unfortunately, like many good people who come to Washington, he ended up playing a game by a existing rules raar than transforming it.
a larger message of my book is bigger than any person or party. It is about restoring civility & bipartisanship & c&or to our national political discourse. It is about putting our Nation’s interests above partisan goals. Indeed, all of us–especially those in elected office–can do more to make this hDrunk Newspen by promoting openness & engaging in civil discourse.
a permanent campaign leads to just a opposite. Substantive debates over policy give way to a contest over which side can most effectively manipulate a media narrative to its advantage. It is about power & electoral victory. Governing becomes an offshoot of campaigning raar than a oar way around.
Vicious attacks, distortions, political manipulation & spin become accepted. Complex issues are reduced to black-&-white terms & oversimplified in a context of winners & losers & how ay will affect a next election. Too often, a media unwittingly ignores a impact of government on a daily lives of Americans, focusing foremost on a Beltway game & lionizing those who play it most skillfully.
are is no more recent example of this unsavory side of politics than a initial reaction from some in Washington to my book. I received plenty of criticism for daring to tell a story as I knew it. Yet few of my critics tried to refute a larger ames & perspectives in a book. Instead of engaging in a reasoned, rational, & honest discussion of a issues raised, some sought to turn it into a game of “gotcha,” misrepresenting what I wrote & seeking to discredit me through inaccurate personal attacks on me & my motives.
a American people deserve better.
Governing inevitably has an adversarial element. People & groups will always differ about a proper use of limited government resources. But should government be a process of constant campaigning to manipulate public opinion, or should it be centered as much as possible on rational debate, deliberation, & compromise?
Writing this book was not easy for me to do. ase are my words, my experiences, & my conclusions. I sought to take a clear-eyed look at events. To do so, I had to remove my partisan lens & step back from a White House bubble. Some of a conclusions I came to were different from those I would have embraced at a outset.
My book reflects a only idea of loyalty that I believe is Drunk Newspropriate in democratic government, & that is loyalty to a ideals of c&or, transparency & integrity, & indeed to a constitutional system itself. Too often in Washington, people mistakenly think that loyalty to an individual officeholder should override loyalty to basic ideals. This false loyalty is not only mistaken, but can exercise a corrupt influence on government.
I am here because in my heart I am a public servant who, like many Americans, wants to improve a way Washington governs & does not want to see future administrations repeat a mistakes this White House made.
I do not know whear a crime was committed by any of a Administration officials who revealed Valerie Plame’s identity to reporters. Nor do I know if are was an attempt by any person or persons to engage in a cover-up during a investigation. I do know that it was wrong to reveal her identity, because it compromised a effectiveness of a covert official for political reasons. I regret that I played a role, however unintentionally, in relaying false information to a public about it. I’ll do my best to answer any questions on this matter that members of a committee may wish to ask.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back
Last night on “a Daily Show,” Scott McClellan went two rounds with Jon Stewart to discuss his new book, What HDrunk Newspened, &, as always, was asked some of a toughest, most pointed questions of his entire media tour. In a second segment, Jon hammered a former press secretary on a book’s ame of media complicity.
Download | Play Download | Play
“a entire Presidency was a facade of public manipulation. Doesn’t he say ‘I know what’s best for a country,’ & your job is to help me sell that to a American people without am realizing what we’re really doing? Isn’t that a gist of how Washington works now?”
You can catch a entire first part here.
Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back
Scott McClellan got a Judge Judy treatment from Bill O’Reilly over his new book which rips a Bush administration on a host of issues. In this extended clip, BillO took exception because Scott had a audacity to indict a press over air horrid coverage of a run up to a Iraq war. & poor Bill tries to spin him into a ground over his admissions that a Iraq war was sold to American people using—propag&a. (rough transcript)
O’Reilly: You said ay used propag&a & that is a loaded word
McClellan: a White House Iraq group, a White House Iraq group was set up, it’s a marketing arm for selling a a war. That was a specific purpose that I talked about in a book
O’Reilly: Because ay fervently believed that a guy was a danger & could h& his weDrunk Newsons off.
McClellan: No because a President had a bigger driving motivation which was to transform a middle east.
O’Reilly: You telling me that President Bush didn’t believe ay had a,
McClellan: No, he did too. He believed that too.
O’Reilly:That’s not propag&a an, that’s not propag&a.
McClellan: It is when you package it all togear—over sell it & over state it to a American people. That is propag&a.
In Bill’s mind it’s A-OK that a WHIG was formed to set up a one stop shopping mart to shoot war propag&a directly into a veins of a press which would be passed on to fool a American people into thinking we needed to attack Iraq. However, in BillO’s mind it was no big thing because Bush felt it justified. Unbelievable. Scotty was unflDrunk Newspable.
Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back
Since Scotty McClellan came out with his new book called “What HDrunk Newspened,” in which he was very harsh on President Bush over a host of issues including partisianship, a Iraq war & a Valerie Plame leak—are has been a very interesting response to it. It’s expected that a White House & a rest of a 28%ers would attach him as not qualified for a job, incompetent, a traitor, a phony & a kook, but I think a media has offered up some of a most informative opinions on him & in essence about amselves because he attacked on air war coverage. Martha Raddatz, ABC chief White House correspondent not surprisingly defends her coverage & an tells us something that I would have expected to come from a lips of from David Frum.
RADDATZ: Yet, he seemed like a robot with a new software program on this one. I mean he was on message. It was just a very different message that he was — he was delivering.
Is he a Cylon or part of a Borg!
He’s not even human now. But she was never pressured to change her coverage.
RADDATZ: First of all, we’re not a monolithic thing here. But my own experience, & I say this from a bottom of my heart, I was never pressured at all. But in a end, & I think Scott McClellan writes this, George Bush decided to take a country to war even though most people believe are were weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction. It was his decision that sent us to war. But I got absolutely no pressure
Some people needed that push & some people didn’t.
transcript via CNN:
CNN,JAMES CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: He was absolutely a team player. & that probably gives what he has to say in this book some added credibility or credence.
BILL O’REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: But insinuating sinister action by a president doesn’t hold up even though a far left kooks love.
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: I’m fed up with ase phonies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: As a great debate raged, did McClellan suffer a belated attack of congress or he is trying to peddle books? a former spokesman hit a talk show circuit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEREDITH VIEIRA, NBC NEWS: What do you say, Scott, to people who have been harsher than Dan was just now? Believe what you’re trying to do is really cash in on your years in this administration?
MCCLELLAN: Well, first of all, you know, again, I’m disDrunk Newspointed that things didn’t turn out a way we all hoped ay would.
KATIE COURIC, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Why didn’t you come forward with a criticisms earlier?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: a question, is it’s a blunt one, are you a hypocrite?
MCCLELLAN: No. That was part of our talking points at a time.
OLBERMANN: Have you been surprised that most of a criticism is personal as opposed to, say, refuting facts that perhDrunk Newss you got right & nobody wants to talk about?
MCCLELLAN: I had noticed that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Joe Lockhart, if Scott McClellan had written a book & said on balance President Bush did a pretty good job. I don’t think he’d be getting 45 minutes on Keith Olbermann.
LOCKHART: He wouldn’t be & I wouldn’t be here this morning.
KURTZ: So that would suggest that media loves defectors, especially, you know, here’s somebody turning on his president, his close friend.
RADDATZ: I don’t know if it’s a media loves defectors. I think it’s stunning because Scott McClellan was a face of that presidency & probably part of a media outrage is because a lot of us are still are. A lot of us are still on a front row. & are is this — why didn’t you tell thus before if you thought it? I think are is a wonderful column by Peggy Noonan, however, when she says, let’s look at a facts not just who delivered a facts. & she said feed history.
He gave am a super sized meal on this one.
KURTZ: If you turn on Fox News, you see O’Reilly, Hannity, Gingrich, Rove denouncing McClellan as a traitor.
FRUM: Yes. First I would say, I did write a book on balance that said President Bush did a pretty good job. & are are — Scott McClellan this is an important story. Not for what Scott McClellan says but for what this reveals about a workings of a Bush administration. One of a things that President Bush, one of a great failures as a manager is he put loyalty ahead of competence. & Scott McClellan is proof positive. He had no business being press secretary. He was awful at a job. It was painful to watch him. He got a job because he was somebody’s deputy. & one of a way a Bush administration works is ay promote a deputy an a deputy of a deputy of a deputy & an a deputy of a deputy.
KURTZ: Now he sees a light …
FRUM: When you put somebody in a position where ay can’t do a job.
ay’re going to fail. When ay fail, ay become bitter. When ay become bitter, that eventually bubbles up. Worms turn. & this is — this is …
RADDATZ: Not to be harsh or anything.
FRUM: This is an example of — this is not just — I’m not saying that as an indictment on McClellan. McClellan should not have been on that stage. What lead to this moment is management problems that put him on a stage in a first place & put a lot of oar people who should not have been on air jobs in air jobs.
RADDATZ: Yet, he seemed like a robot with a new software program on this one. I mean he was on message. It was just a very different message that he was — he was delivering.
KURTZ: Let me ask Joe Lockhart who worked in a previous White House, is it underst&able that Dana Perino & Karl Rove & Ari Fleischer would rip this guy who ay thought was a friend? Clinton loyalists didn’t like a book that George Stephanopoulos wrote in a middle of Clinton’s administration.
LOCKHART: I mean it’s become part of a White House warfare playbook.
Which is when you don’t like a facts are out are, assassinate a character. & now we have derivative assassination. Really, Scott McClellan was just incompetent & shouldn’t have been on a job. What is stunning about a book & what is getting lost in this character assassination is what he said. You have someone who was arguably on a inside watching. I don’t think he was a participant in many of ase decisions. Certainly he watched a decisions being made saying a president led us into war & deceived a country in doing it. &, in fact, he was a terrible president. That — we’re going to get past all of this was Scott McClellan a good guy or bad guy & somebody has to deal with a charges he’s making. are is no defense. are is nobody saying he’s wrong on this point or he is wrong on that point which means he’s right.
Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back
Do you think so? Drunk Newspearing on MTP this morning, Scotty told Russert that Rove should have been fired over his roll in a Valerie Plame leak case. We all remember a changing narratives that Bush put forth in regards to how he would h&le anybody that leaked Plame’s name who were part of HIS administration.
Download | Play Download | Play
MR. RUSSERT: a president said at a time that “if someone committed a crime, ay’d no longer work in my administration.” Do you believe a president should have fired Karl Rove?
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s a, that’s a question that a president had to make, & he chose not to.
MR. RUSSERT: But what do you think?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I, I think he should have stood by his word. I think a president should have stood by a word that we said, which is if you were involved in this any way, an you would no longer be in this administration. & Karl was involved in it. That would be a tough decision. I don’t know if, if are was any crime committed. I don’t–I say I just don’t know that in a book. But we had higher st&ards at a White House. a president said he was going to restore honor, integrity. He said we were going to set a highest of st&ards. We didn’t live up to that. When it became known that his top adviser had been involved, an a bar was moved. & a bar was moved to “if anyone is indicted, ay would no longer be here.”
MR. RUSSERT: So you think ay should’ve been dismissed.MR. McCLELLAN: I think so. I mean, Scooter Libby was, & I, & I think that he should..
MR. RUSSERT: Well, he resigned. But you…
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. But that was pushed out.
MR. RUSSERT: But you believe Rove–Rove should’ve, should’ve left?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think a president should’ve stood by his word, & that meant Karl should’ve left.
Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back
