There’s a lot of furor going ’round over Scott McClellan’s new book, with libs exaggerating the implications and conservatives disinheriting McClellan. But I’d like to make one undeniable point:
Bush hired him.
Staffing has always been one of Bush’s big weaknesses. Most people were unimpressed with McClellan, who was certainly the least capable Press Secretary of the Bush administration. But that’s not really McClellan’s fault – it’s Bush’s fault.
I think that the big initial claims of wrong-doing will evaporate: they’ve already been blown out of proportion, and thus far they’re not well corroborated. But McClellan’s book will always be a testament to the fact that Bush is an awfully poor judge of competence and character.
UPDATE: More people have come to the same conclusion:
- Slublog: The Price of Blind Loyalty
- American Thinker: Blame Bush for McClellan
May 28, 2008 at 1:08 pm
My favorite comments are from the still-loyal Bushies who say “That’s not the Scott I know”…not sure what they’re suggesting — that he’s been taken over by the pod people?
Ugh – what a relief it’ll be to be done with this cheesebag administration, regardless of who wins in Nov.
(McCain doesn’t say “nuke-ya-ler” does he?)
May 28, 2008 at 1:15 pm
So far 40% of the last 5 Presidents have said “nucular.” 20% don’t know what “is” means. 20% don’t know the Russia word for “freedom,” and another 20% spoke poorly enough that they asked people to read their lips.
Dark times for the language skills of our leaders.
what a relief it’ll be to be done with this cheesebag administration
You can say that about almost any administration, from LBJ on.
May 28, 2008 at 1:16 pm
still-loyal Bushies
Almost makes me want to see Obama get elected. What will they call his loyalists? Obamies? Barackies?
That’d be funny.
May 28, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Depressing metrics, indeed…and I guess you’re right that any administration would have a tough time not seeming tedious after 8 yrs of constant exposure.
BTW – I’m not one of those who thinks Bush isn’t intelligent — as far as nucular is concerned, I believe he’s intentionally dumbing down his rhetoric, which is probably smart (though cynical) politics, and to me is more annoying than genuinely mispronouncing the word.
Don’t think it can be Obamies — too close to “mammies”
May 28, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Hey, Mark – if you’d like to try posting something here, I’ll give you posting privileges.
May 28, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I’m not mad at McClellan at all, kinda amused, actually. I’m just not terribly surprised by it, he’s just a sniveling, incompetent cheesy little wanker. I mean really, what was his future, if not cashing in on Bush-hatred?
And yeah, Bush is the worst when it comes to hiring competent people and reading character. You’re question is a good one, and a worthy question to those angry about McClellan, and it’ll be in links tomorrow. :P
May 28, 2008 at 3:07 pm
*sigh* Your question is a good one…Gah!
May 29, 2008 at 6:56 am
Wow Geoff – I’m definitely interested in posting and generally turning everyone on to my version of the good action (I’m flattered, too)
There must be ground rules (esp. regarding content), technical instructions, etc. Do you want to email those?
Might be a few weeks before I get something together — I’m currently buried at work, transitioning into a new position w/ the firm.
May 29, 2008 at 10:06 am
Cronyism is one of the charges often leveled at Bush that I think is occasionally fair. Why he felt like taking on Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn Running Bull’s kid, despite his obvious ineptitude is beyond me.
It is kinda fun watching him display all those magnificent media handling skills in the interviews.
May 29, 2008 at 10:14 am
I always knew he’d turn out to be a back-stabbing weasel. (No offense to SWeasel).
He reminded me of Mike McCurry.