The American Spectator

Reader Mail

The Great Miscommunicator

5.30.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 4)

"How about everyone who stands between the weak, pitiful good people and the strong, vicious thugs who want to kill us, rape our wives, take what we have? How about all of them getting some credit once in a while? How about thanking the police once in a blue moon instead of damning them?"

That is something that needs to be said often. I'm glad he said it. That doesn't ring as well as "People sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." But I think "Saints in Armor" covers the subject better.
-- Ben Snyder

LOSING McCLELLAN
Re: George Neumayr's Scott on the Rocks:

Scott McClellan is expressing the wrongs while working for the Bush Administration.

My recent government job as a Tobacco Prevention Specialist lasted 42 days. Two weeks of this time Chipper my Chocolate Lab and I slept in the camper of my little pickup truck. A couple of times the temperature dropped below freezing. Like long distance truck drivers I took truck stop showers. My living circumstances were definitely not the "norm" for the polished-hired-health-gun, but I was able to endure with contentment while getting paid for doing what I had done free for many years.

However, it only took a few working days to realize that my restless nights were not coming from my lack of housing, but from the immediate need for me to compromise my passion to play "soft" ball for my state pay check.

Can't imagine how poor Scott lasted three years.
-- Mike Sawyer

I like Mr. Neumayr's take on McClellan, a dupe who has let himself be used. But there is a subtext that implies differently, that he has been dumb all the way to the bank, like Paris Hilton without the looks or the sex tape. After all, he wouldn't have hit the national stage unless he had let Bush use and abuse him, and he wouldn't be proffitting from a best-seller unless he had found that sharp editor who used him in abusing Bush. Either that, or McClellan is the luckiest dumb dupe around.

But, Neumayr has a very kind interpretation of the comment on Bushes recollections of drug use. Whether or not Bush really said it, it is quite clearly meant to imply that Bush used so many different types of drugs back then that he can't remember clearly which ones he did use. And all those drug using ex-hippies, with an ax to grind from being bitter at the powers that made their choices illegal, who will be interviewing McClellan, will be sure to bring up this interpretation.

If it were Obama making that statement, they would hide it, but privately make a hero out of him. And the left clearly thinks what Bush has done in office is much worse than this silly past, but they know they can bash the right with it. I do though don't think that the left understands the difference between living bad choices, and repenting from doing so. The only type of repentance they like is the type Mr. Neumayr has described, one they can use for political advantage. McClellan will be dropped, the moment he quits being useful. In the left's eye, there is nothing less forgivable than aiding and abetting the right. Just ask David Brock if he is through doing penance.
-- Jim Bailey

Rushing to read Mr. Neumayr's piece on the ex-press secretary who has allowed his name to appear with authorial credit on a hit piece against President Bush, I was rather surprised to find out that Mr. Newmayr watches Chris Matthews on his program "Hardball." My surprise is, I believe, understandable in light of the fact that this program is pretty much a political version of Benny Hill, an old British slapstick program that excelled in low humor and ridiculousness. I cannot remember the specific Matthews rant that sent me diving for the remote control, but I am sure it was as asinine as any of his other rants with which I went along, stupidly thinking that there might be a nugget of news value in the program. I won't say that my respect for Mr. Neumayr's intelligence has diminished, but I must question his judgment. I mean, if he regularly watches "Hardball," what next? Perhaps "Finding Love with Tila Tequila." Oh my God, I can't believe I typed that.
-- Joseph Baum
Garrettsville, Ohio

A few observations about George Neumayr's article on Scott McClellan:

(1) In its talking points, the White House claimed that this is not the Scott they knew. Mr. Neumayr claims that this is precisely the Scott they knew. Both cannot be correct. Given the White House's problems with credibility, I'm inclined to side with Mr. Neumayr on this point.

(2) Mr. Neumayr writes: "Why is the White House surprised that a dullard they manipulated could also be manipulated by a book editor?" Given the current administration's record of hiring dullards and incompetents, Brownie being the most famous, I concede that Mr. Neumayr may well be onto something.

(3) Continuing, Mr. Neumayr writes: "Had McClellan written in the book of his disappointment with Bush's sham conservatism, the book would sink without a trace." I disagree. Given how few conservatives have
infrequently criticized Mr. Bush and how many (Krauthammer and Kristol come to mind) have repeatedly come to his defense on nearly every issue, I believe a book about "Bush's sham conservatism" would hit the best seller list almost immediately upon release. Here I criticize Mr. Neumayr for using an attack on the media to obfuscate the real issue; namely, that Mr. McCellan might be telling the truth.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
John McCain, Business, Abortion, Books, Law, Military, Iraq, NATO, Conservatism, Oil