Scott Free

What happened?

Scott McClellan was the press secretary for the Bush administration. He was the sweaty guy who had to dole out lots of thick BS in answering the press's inane questions because the Bush administration didn't like being truthful about their real intentions.

Anyway, he left in 2006. Flash forward a couple years, as the Bush administration sucks more than ever, and we get yet another self-serving book settling scores and blaming everyone in the administration but the author, who shall remain blameless. We've seen this pattern from George Tenet, Paul Bremer, and (according to recent news) Alberto Gonzalez. Also, Paul O'Neill, but that was something of a special case.

Is McClellan a special case? I'd say one difference between him and the guys I named above is McClellan wasn't responsible for anything important. He was the front man, not the director of the CIA. He didn't create the BS, he just slopped it onto your plate like at a cafeteria. It's probably worth recalling his background - he was one of the old Texas hands, like Karen Hughes, who came with Bush to Washington. His mother is a figure of some fame in Texas. Her name is Carole Keeton McClellan Rylander Strayhorn, and my parents voted for her for governor in 2006. My point is that McClellan is a true believer, the type of person who saw that Bush worked on a bipartisan basis with Texas Democrats like Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, and who believed that Bush would work on a similar bipartisan basis with Democrats in Washington.

Did Bush work on a bipartisan basis with Democrats in Washington during his two terms?

No.

Of course people in the reality-based community like you and me figured that out years ago. But perhaps being in the White House bubble imparts a different perspective. Now it's probably worthwhile to look at what was in the book. Most of it concerns his time in the Bush White House, first as deputy press secretary under Ari Fleischer, then as press secretary. There's information about his experiences during 9/11 (he was in Florida with Bush), his experiences during Katrina, his relationship with Bush, how he was hired in 2003 and fired in 2006 (ah, we'll get to that), and most of all the Valerie Plame scandal. We'll get to that.

Humanizing Bush - yeah, McClellan includes some anecdotes that show his personal relationship with Bush, who I must say comes off pretty well. McClellan claims he still likes and admires Bush. I think a lot of people hate Bush so much that they forget that Bush is a person, capable of kindness and warmth to his friends, like Scott McClellan. But that being said, Bush's administration has a record which speaks for itself. And the responsibility for that record rests with the president. Also I doubt McClellan is a friend of Bush anymore.

I suppose I first learned of McClellan from watching the Daily Show so much - there would always be that sweaty guy spooning out the bullshit and you could tell he knew he was spooning out bullshit and furthermore he didn't like it. The reason for this was the Plame scandal, which is worth a very long entry on its own. Basically: Someone (Karl Rove, Richard Armitage, Scooter Libby) told some reporters that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, and it's a crime to reveal that someone is a CIA agent. But for such a simple sort of crime - and certainly nothing so big as starting a war or neglecting a ruined city - this scandal has had some pretty astounding repercussions. For one, it caused McClellan to not like spooning out his bullshit. McClellan had to answer many questions about the scandal, naturally, so to prepare for these he asked Karl Rove if Rove had leaked Plame's name. Rove said no. McClellan asked Libby too, iirc - Libby said no. Turns out, they were both being disingenuous. McClellan disliked this, and in 2006 he decided to quit, but before he could announce that, Josh Bolten (chief of staff from 2006 on) fired him. That's a pretty good summary of the last half of the book. It's a portrait of McClellan becoming increasingly disenchanted with the Bush White House because of its tendency towards deception and the permanent campaign. Now we come to McClellan's thesis.

McClellan's thesis is that the Bush White House, like the Clinton WH before it, is always in permanent campaign mode. Always concerned with selling its product and not so concerned with hammering out compromises in Congress. The permanent campaign mode also led both administrations to not be honest enough with the public. To remedy this we need more bipartisanship and transparency in government. And here's where my disagreements with McClellan kick in. Transparency - yeah, I think everyone can agree we need more transparency in government. But bipartisanship? There's this strange bipartisanship fetish which is undercut by looking at the facts of the last 8 years. For the last 8 years, the Republicans have consistently been wrong and the liberals (not necessarily Democrats) have been consistently right. Too often acting bipartisan in Washington these days means agreeing to the Republicans' demands. How can you compromise with Republican ideologues who won't compromise? Seems to me if you act all nice and bipartisan with them, America gets screwed again. To that I say: Don't work with them, call them out! If they want to filibuster a raise in the minimum wage (for example), make them do it! There's much more I could say on this subject but this entry seems pretty lengthy already.

Would I recommend McClellan's book? Not really. If you've read this entry, you've read the book. But I suspect it will be a useful primary source in years to come for people wanting to understand the strange Bush years.

In October 2008, McClellan endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States.