The talking point du jour from the White House regarding Scott McClellan’s surprisingly non-bland memoir is that “this is not the Scott we knew.” Actually, it is.
What’s likely is that just as the White House pushed him to make statements he couldn’t cobble together on his own, so too did the editor for this book, What Happened.
At least that’s what I deduced from Ari Fleischer’s Wednesday night interview with CNN’s Campbell Brown. Fleischer said that he asked McClellan if he had worked with a ghostwriter on the book. McClellan said no, according to Fleischer, but allowed that his editor had “tweaked” some of his copy.
“Tweaked” probably means massively rewrote. And if so, why should this surprise the White House? Why is the White House surprised that a dullard they manipulated could also be manipulated by a book editor?
Exhibit A of the thesis of McClellan’s guided book is McClellan himself. Why did Bush hire him in the first place?
Some of these defections are due to caginess; this is one probably just due to cluelessness. A sharp and opportunistic book editor probably saw in McClellan an effective puppet and McClellan went along with it.
It was funny to watch Chris Matthews on Hardball read McClellan’s supposed prose with such solemnity. Suddenly a flack the press considered a buffoon a few years ago has become in their eyes a major thinker, whose words deserve magisterial treatment.
From David Stockman to John Dilulio to Scott McClellan, nothing excites the press more than a “Republican” critical of an old boss, provided the defector shows a willingness to fortify the media’s prejudices. Had McClellan written in the book of his disappointment with Bush’s sham conservatism, the book would sink without a trace.
But throw in a couple of passages that read like New York Times editorials and you have a bestseller after days of media mulling. Some of the reported passages in What Happened contain tortured, highly qualified criticisms of Bush, which McClellan is likely to get tangled up in over the next few days on Countdown and the like where he is scheduled to be interviewed.p>But you have to hand it to his unscrupulous editors: they did manage to coax some usable gossip out of him. Such as this morsel, in which Bush talks about the media’s investigations into his possible cocaine use: br> /p>
“‘The media won’t let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,’ I heard Bush say. ‘You know, the truth is I honestly don’t remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don’t remember.’br> This should keep The Daily Show
“I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?” McClellan wrote. “How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn’t make a lot of sense.”
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?