That’s the title of an article in today’s Independent by Matthew Norman, UK Columnist of the Year.
“Shock and awe envelop Washington upon the publication of a political memoir,” the article begins. “The shock has nothing to do with the contents of What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, which do little more than confrim the obvious about the demi-truths, distortions and lies of omission that prefaced the invasion of Iraq. What inspires the awe is that Scott McClellan, the author, was the ultra-loyal press secretary to George Bush.”
Norman continues: “The psychology behind Mr. McClellan’s bean-spilling is the source of much discussion in the States. You can hardly avoid asking why he didn’t mention any of this five years ago, and inevitably he trots out the defence that didn’t quite cut it at Nuremberg. He was only obeying orders, but now this devout Christian (who’d have guessed?) wishes to cleanse his soul of the untruths he obediently spouted about WMD, the betrayal of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, and much else besides….”
Of course I wonder what God-fearing Republicans are making of all this, whether they accept that there is truth in the allegation that St. George was, in fact, “an arrogant, self-deceiving fantasist,” or rather take the view of “that indescribably poisonous political puff adder Karl Rove” that McLellan’s motives are malicious and mercenary. One way or another, this is an embarrassing moment for the Religious Right. Perhaps Connexion’s own resident apologist for the Crusade - I mean DH, of course - would care to comment. But I am even more interested in what he - and Joel - think about Matthew Norman’s real interest in the affair, namely the effect it will have on the presidential campaign.
“The real killer for John McCain,” Norman suggests, “is how he distances himself from George W. Bush… Where Mr. McClellan’s book is a potential nightmare for him is in so far as it will pre-empt, netralise and even boomerang his primary line of attack. Unquestionably he will try to petrify the public into electing him, as Mr. Bush did four years ago … But every time Mr. McCain attempts to induce fear by styling his opponent as an Ahmedinijad-hugging ingénue incapable of keeping America safe from her enemies, Senator Obama will counterstrike that it is McCain - greedy swallower of all the phony claims about Iraq described by Scott McClellan - who is the real naïve…
“After Bush, Obama will ask, do you really want a bellicose Beach Boy humming ‘Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran’ as he arranges the family snaps on the Oval Office desk? … Aren’t you just sick of all the scarifying mendacity laid bare in that former press secretary’s book?”
Norman is confident that the McClellan exposé will help to ensure an Obama victory (indeed he predicts a landslide). How do you guys read his reading of the situation?
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Mark Byron 05.31.08 at 3:18 am
You forgot to provide a link to the article in question; here it is.
The two main critiques from the book seem to be that the Bush team spun the facts (harsher folks would say “lied about things”) in the direction of supporting the war and that, as this AP piece puts it, the Bush team prizes “secrecy over transparency — to the detriment of both his presidency and the public.”
Both are things that McCain can overcome. He’s pledged to be more transparent than the Bush team (it’s isn’t hard) and talks of a UK-style Question Time before Congress on a regular basis. He can’t overcome people’s perceptions of whether Iraq was a good idea or not, but he can put himself in position to be judged as trustworthy to handle the next crisis.
As for Norman’s prediction of a 55-45 blowout; ain’t gonna happen. I think it will be a squeaker either way, with my best likelihood being a replay of 2000, where Obama wins a narrow plurality of the popular vote (say 49-48 with 3% going to third parties) but McCain wins the electoral college with squeaker wins in Ohio and Michigan.
Most of the McClellan critique is of how Bush managed things and had a too-tight inner circle. It might nudge things 1% towards the Democrats, but much of this was conventional wisdom.
Allan R. Bevere 05.31.08 at 8:06 pm
Kim:
I think at least one of these so-called “kiss-and-tell” books have been written about every Presidential administration since Carter. The only effect they have is to confirm the suspicions of those who do not like the Administration about which they are written, and surprise those who are supporters, who write these books off (pun intended) as being written by former disgruntled umployees with some kind of unsavory agenda.
I think the fallout from this book will have the same lack of impact that the flap over Rev. Wright will ultimately have in reference to Barack Obama. Both events could make a difference if this were mid to late October, but since we are six months away from the election, which as you well know is an eternity in politics, I think the impact will be negligible.
My own view on this is that it will boil down to the perception of each candidate by the swing voters. By November, if Barack Obama is perceived as young and energetic and visionary, and John McCain is seen as a tired old man from a by-gone era, Obama wins. If, on the other hand, McCain is perceived as the wise sage and elder statesman, and Obama is seen as the young, naive, idealist, McCain wins.
While I do not deny the signficance of issues in reference to elections (Iraq obviously being a huge one), perception of the candidates will determine the reality of the vote on election day.
Only time will tell; and I do agree with Mark– whoever wins, it will indeed be a squeaker.
dh 06.03.08 at 7:01 pm
Well Kim, you asked for my opinion and I will kindly reply.
I think Mark and Allan responded perfectly what I would state. I would though that Kim has gone way overboard in his denouncing of Bush. I believe there is a middle ground to observe a guy like McClellan state something that if it was like Kim said would have been stated three years earlier as opposed to now really begs the question as to the reliablity or at least the demeanor or rationale for the ideas he presents in the book. With regard to Norman I would add that any Christian can have an arrogant attitude and from my perspective McClellan embodies that in all of the many interviews in response to the book that I have observed. To hold that view does not mean that I agree with Rove in his critiguq or approve of Rove in general. Not all or is it implied that those who denounce the book by McClellan are Rove apologists.
P.S. “connexions own Crusades apologist” haven’t you taken Debate 101 once a person “attacks the person” the debate is “lost” and in this particular case “from the moment the debate begins”? I really taske offense and you seem to utilize the fallacy of “attacking the person”. Maybe you need to rethink your own bias before suggesting indirectly that others are the same? Kind of the “pot calling the kettle black”. At the same time I don’t want to deny the humor that you mentioned “resident Crusade apologist”. That was funny even though it was an attack of the person at the same time.