jerseyhoya wrote:A comment from RedState, which is usually not a bastion of reason, but I thought this pretty well encapsulated what I'm thinking about this McClellan thing.

My attitude toward McClellan and his book is the same as my attitude toward Doug Feith and his account, which was discussed here a couple weeks ago: Ignore them both. Ignore them all.

jeez, would-be balls-kicker, I could kick you (in the balls?) when you're down here, given that "ignoring them all" doesn't genuinely capture the whole "I'd kick him right in the balls" vibe you had going on earlier.

But I won't.

& whatevs, I'm cool with going further & pretending the whole 2-term administration thing never happened, especially if doing so might contribute in some small way to making it come true.

BuddyGroom wrote:
Scott McClellan's brother, Mark McClellan, ran Medicare for much of the Bush administration - he moved on about a year ago. If his brother is off the reservation, I wonder if Mark is going to follow.....

I'd love to hear him talk more candidly about some of this stuff.

He's young, very, very smart, highly accomplished (his is not the resume to peruse when feeling your own life's accomplishments may be inadequate) & politically adroit (how many eggheads cut consulting wonk-in-residence deals with BOTH lefty Brookings AND righty American Enterprise Institute? For a time I believe those posts even overlapped).

So I don't think you'll get your wish soon, but I'm with you on being interested in what he might have to say.

So.... Olbermann has been beating the drum on his Countdown show for quite a while now about how there always seems to be some sort of terrorism alert, warning, etc. after a big Anti-Bush, Anti-War, etc story hits. Well lets see if there's anything out there today to scare us after McClellan calls the prez a propaganist and his war a sham. Oh, thanks ABC news...

Al Qaeda Supporters' Tape to Call for Use of WMDs
Intelligence and law enforcement sources tell ABC News they are expecting al Qaeda supporters will post a new video on the Internet in the next 24 hours, calling for what one source said is "jihadists to use biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to attack the West."
There have been several reports that al Qaeda will release a new message calling for the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against civilians," FBI spokesman Richard Kolko told ABC News in an e-mail.
"Although there have been similar messages in the past, the FBI and [Department of Homeland Security] have no intelligence of any specific plot or indication of a threat to the U.S.," the e-mail said. "The FBI and U.S. intelligence community will review the message for any intelligence value."

So will we see the total repeal of the Patriot Act, in our lifetime? Has any candidate talked about this at all? I ahven't heard a word.

We better not. It is fundamentally important that artists like Slick Rick and MIA are endlessly hassled in their attempts to remain in the US. Daughtry can stay.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:A comment from RedState, which is usually not a bastion of reason, but I thought this pretty well encapsulated what I'm thinking about this McClellan thing.

My attitude toward McClellan and his book is the same as my attitude toward Doug Feith and his account, which was discussed here a couple weeks ago: Ignore them both. Ignore them all.

jeez, would-be balls-kicker, I could kick you (in the balls?) when you're down here, given that "ignoring them all" doesn't genuinely capture the whole "I'd kick him right in the balls" vibe you had going on earlier.

But I won't.

& whatevs, I'm cool with going further & pretending the whole 2-term administration thing never happened, especially if doing so might contribute in some small way to making it come true.

I was more quoting it for the part you omitted, about how the author of whatever new book was a good guy, with the right idea, but person X, Y and Z from the administration ruined it by making some such decision.

However, I don't think the idea of believing McClellan to be a rat for going along with everything without complaint, parting amicably, then cashing in two years later with a book trashing his former coworkers is incompatible with generally ignoring his book.

Warszawa wrote:washingtonpost.com

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war."

Can impeachment proceedings now begin?

With only 7 months remaining, me thinks it's a little late for that.

From what little news I caught of this, McClellan wasn't as hard on Dubya as he was on Cheney, Rove, Rummie, et al, and the so called "librul" media for not digging deeper and essentially giving the admin a free ride.

Warszawa wrote:So.... Olbermann has been beating the drum on his Countdown show for quite a while now about how there always seems to be some sort of terrorism alert, warning, etc. after a big Anti-Bush, Anti-War, etc story hits. Well lets see if there's anything out there today to scare us after McClellan calls the prez a propaganist and his war a sham. Oh, thanks ABC news...

More of a funny ha-ha prank than an funny ironic prank

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... a-and-wmd/

jeff2sf wrote:

Warszawa wrote:So.... Olbermann has been beating the drum on his Countdown show for quite a while now about how there always seems to be some sort of terrorism alert, warning, etc. after a big Anti-Bush, Anti-War, etc story hits. Well lets see if there's anything out there today to scare us after McClellan calls the prez a propaganist and his war a sham. Oh, thanks ABC news...

More of a funny ha-ha prank than an funny ironic prank

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... a-and-wmd/

well reading that story it definitely sounds like something the Bush administration could put together

jeff2sf wrote:

Warszawa wrote:So.... Olbermann has been beating the drum on his Countdown show for quite a while now about how there always seems to be some sort of terrorism alert, warning, etc. after a big Anti-Bush, Anti-War, etc story hits. Well lets see if there's anything out there today to scare us after McClellan calls the prez a propaganist and his war a sham. Oh, thanks ABC news...

More of a funny ha-ha prank than an funny ironic prank

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... a-and-wmd/

Reminds me of the time the Phillies' brass had to respond to "Manny is a Phillie"

Warszawa wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

Warszawa wrote:So.... Olbermann has been beating the drum on his Countdown show for quite a while now about how there always seems to be some sort of terrorism alert, warning, etc. after a big Anti-Bush, Anti-War, etc story hits. Well lets see if there's anything out there today to scare us after McClellan calls the prez a propaganist and his war a sham. Oh, thanks ABC news...

More of a funny ha-ha prank than an funny ironic prank

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... a-and-wmd/

well reading that story it definitely sounds like something the Bush administration could put together

could have been clumsily strung together with little more than two VCRs

Maybe not Dubya himself, as it wouldn't be a far stretch to envision his VCR still blinking "12:00".

The Dude wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Typical - McClellan is a lamerz patsy that the media hates as Press Secretary yesterday, today he's a genius and a man of courage.

I honestly haven't seen this happen yet. Even Matthews and Olberman were kind of unforgiving, and Good Morning America didn't treat him as anything special

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, Dude.

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned that McCain has been caught in yet another relationship with a lobbyist, this one even more damaging than the others. For those keeping count, Mr Straighttalk has now been caught in an affair with a lobbyist, connected to an improper land deal involving a lobbyist, in league with Mr Black, a lobbyist who worked for foreign dictators, and received close advisement from Loeffler, another lobbyist and straighttalk bus-riding advisor for McCain. And now this, the biggest of them all.....

(from talking points memo...)

For months, John McCain has been bragging on the fact that he's got fmr. Sen. Phil Gramm as his key economics advisor. That's scary enough as it is, if you're familiar with Gramm's policy predilections and legislative history. But now it turns out that Gramm, who advised McCain on his mortgage relief policy and speech, was also a registered lobbyist for the Swiss bank UBS, which is obviously heavily concerned with the mortgage crisis. According to MSNBC, which has just broken the story, UBS only deregistered Gramm on April 18th of this year, which I'm pretty certain was after McCain rolled out the policy that Gramm had a hand in crafting.

and the follow up (my bold)...

Below I noted MSNBC's story tonight about how fmr. Sen. Phil Gramm (McCain's economics advisor) was advising him on his subprime mortgage bailout policy while Gramm was also a registered lobbyist for the Swiss bank UBS.

Now, it's clear from the report that UBS had some exposure on the subprime front. But I wasn't aware of the true extent of it. TPM Reader KB sends in articles Businessweek and Forbes that show just how big a player UBS was. Forbes says that UBS is among the banks worst hit by the global credit crisis, particularly in their direct exposure to the US subprime market. According to Forbes, UBS has some $37 billion in write-downs on assets tied to bad US mortgages. In other words, the bank's very life appears to be on the line in how the US government chooses to handle the matter.

As MSNBC reported, UBS deregistered Gramm as a lobbyist for the company on April 18th, though he continues to serve as a vice chairman of the bank. But that was fully a month after McCain's speech outlining his own approach to the crisis.

Many of the lobbying connections the press has dug up on McCain have been embarassing. But I'm not sure any have really had teeth until this one. After all, how much does the average voter care that Charlie Black represented a lot of foreign dictators? A stench, yes? But finding out that McCain had a major subprime lender bank lobbyist whispering in his ear when McCain told the public that it was basically tough luck if they lost their houses?

and then this...

On the McCain/Gramm/UBS front (noted in yesterday evenings posts), it seems that not only is Sen. McCain's top economics advisor, fmr Sen. Gramm, lobby and work for UBS, but according to today's Financial Times the company is advising members of its private banking team not to step foot in the United States in order to avoid indictment.

So just to recap: Mr Straighttalk, who we are supposed to trust is different than Bush and not neck-deep in improper lobbyist connections, is, as it turns out, neck-deep in lobbyists connections. Countless Americans are losing their homes and McCain is taking housing advice from a man who is vice chairman and lobbyist for one of the very companies that have so much to lose from the housing crisis. This is ridiculous. How can people defend this man with a straight face? Here we have yet another man running for the white house who has no intellectual curiosity (still doesn't know much about economic issues after spending years in the senate), is in bed with all kinds of lobbyists, has shown a propensity for warmongering, tries to pass it all off with a folksy demeanor, etc , etc, etc.

How is this guy better than Romney or Ghouliani (in practice, not in theory)? Answer: He's not. He's just done a better job playing to the middle (when convenient) than the other two.

Monkeyboy wrote:
How is this guy better than Romney or Ghouliani (in practice, not in theory)? Answer: He's not. He's just done a better job playing to the middle (when convenient) than the other two.

This is just an awful awful conclusion not befitting a man with an Ivy League Graduate degree. I mean really, it's ridiculous. John McCain, who I am not voting for, is 10x's the man and leader that Rudy or Romney is. He'd be about 20x's the president that Rudy would be (I'm actually somewhat curious to see what a really smart executive like Romney could have done, but more in an intellectual exercise sort of way than in actually wanting to see that happen.)

As exhibit A in how he's better than Mitt or Giuliani

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... oreil.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Phil_Gramm_I_dont_have_a_scarlet_L_burned_onto_my_chest.html

The Politico talked about Gramm being a lobbyist a week ago. It didn't have the hysterical shrieking though about how evil he is.

jeff2sf wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:
How is this guy better than Romney or Ghouliani (in practice, not in theory)? Answer: He's not. He's just done a better job playing to the middle (when convenient) than the other two.

This is just an awful awful conclusion not befitting a man with an Ivy League Graduate degree. I mean really, it's ridiculous. John McCain, who I am not voting for, is 10x's the man and leader that Rudy or Romney is. He'd be about 20x's the president that Rudy would be (I'm actually somewhat curious to see what a really smart executive like Romney could have done, but more in an intellectual exercise sort of way than in actually wanting to see that happen.)

As exhibit A in how he's better than Mitt or Giuliani

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... oreil.html

Well, that was the throw-away paragraph, but OK. I don't agree with you though. I'm not so much concerned with the packaging, but rather what's inside. McCain is better in theory, but he would likely do the same main things that the other two would do -- pander to lobbyists, keep status quo or worse in Iraq, do little or nothing or worse for soc security, healthcare, etc. So while I agree McCain is more palatable in some ways (personality, for example), the end result would look very much the same, and that's all I really care about.

jerseyhoya wrote:http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Phil_Gramm_I_dont_have_a_scarlet_L_burned_onto_my_chest.html

The Politico talked about Gramm being a lobbyist a week ago. It didn't have the hysterical shrieking though about how evil he is.

where was the hysterical shrieking?

Oh, and for what it's worth, I think Clinton would have done the same pandering to lobbyists. The jury is out on Obama, but so far he looks much better in this area.

Having Phil Gramm in on writing your economic policy isn't pandering to lobbyists. The man was the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, a presidential candidate in 1996, one of McCain's earliest endorsers, and one of his best friends from the Senate. He's one of the GOP wise men on budgetary policy. Dajafi probably counts him in with Grover Norquist in his circle of evil.

jerseyhoya wrote:Having Phil Gramm in on writing your economic policy isn't pandering to lobbyists. The man was the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, a presidential candidate in 1996, one of McCain's earliest endorsers, and one of his best friends from the Senate. He's one of the GOP wise men on budgetary policy. Dajafi probably counts him in with Grover Norquist in his circle of evil.

So you don't think it's inappropriate to have someone working as a lobbyist and vice chairman of one of the largest banks in the housing crisis shaping ecomonic policies for one of the presidential candidates? Keep in kind that McCain's chosen policy looks very nice for the banking industry and has consumers upset.

If you don't think that's wrong, then I don't know what to say. It's the type of thing that's led to investigations and some indictments, as well as to your party having a very steep hill to climb to convince voters they're on their side.

I realize that it's GOP tactics to continually try to challenge what is "normal" in order to convince people everything is OK, but I don't think that will work in this case. Eventually, the American people can smell a rat.