LOYAL BAND OF BROTHERS?

LOYAL BAND OF BROTHERS? June 1, 2008
A lot has been made this week of the “tell all” book by former Press Secretary Scott McClellan. I have known Scott since the campaign in Austin, TX in 1999. Scott was always professional and would listen to my input in the limited interaction we had (Scott was responsible for notifying the press of the spending the campaign did, information that I was one of two people responsible for). I have not read the book, nor will I.
With the book, Scott mentions a couple of things that I have some concerns with. First, Scott owes his entire professional career to President Bush. Much has been made of his Texas ties. That he was one of the President’s closest advisors who have now stated that the President was wrong on a number of issues.
One of Scott’s biggest concerns was the lack of bi-partisanship, particularly with respect to the war of terror. President Bush when he was Governor was very good at developing relationships with the Democratic leaders in Texas. Much has been written about the relationship the then Governor had with Bob Bullock, the former Democratic Lieutenant Governor of Texas. When President Bush ran for President in 1999 and 2000, he often mentioned his desire to change the tone in Washington and run a different kind of Administration. He wanted to be a “uniter not a divider.”
With the “war room mentality” of the Clinton Administration and the bitter impeachment battle, Republicans and Democrats here in Washington did not really seem to want to work together towards a common good. One must always expect a difference of opinion on certain issues, but you would hope that each side might be able to give up a little for the overall good. However, in DC a lot of folks believe that keeping an issue alive and the permanent campaign mentality going is a beneficial ideal. There is one big problem with Scott’s view; bi-partisanship requires two sides coming together. If the Democrats are not willing to work with the Administration and would rather call the President and the Administration names, not much bi-partisanship is going to happen.
Scott also complained that the President was not intellectually curious. Scott was the press secretary; he was not part of the domestic policy council, the national Security Council, or the homeland security council. He likely was not included in many of the meetings where policy was determined. Scott’s job was not to determine policy, but rather to inform the public of the Administrations policy decisions. If Scott did not like the fact that his role was to explain the decisions made by the Administration, why did he stay on for so long? If he did not like the decisions that were made, why didn’t he speak up earlier? Why did he stay on the job if he was so disgusted with the decisions? It seems like Scott took advantage of the prospects of the job and once he was forced out of the White House decided to change his views to sell more books.
Politico.com has published the original book proposal that Scott tried to sell back in January of 2007. What is written on the proposal and what seems to be the finished product are rather different. The initial proposal mentions, “And, I will directly address myths that have been associated with him, some deliberately perpetuated by activist liberals and some created by the media, and look at the reality behind those myths.” The book however seems to just restate opinions held by those not friendly to the President or the Administration.
One of the other strange things regarding the book is the confusion of Scott’s former colleagues within the White House. This past week, Dan Bartlett, Dana Perino, Trent Duffy, Ari Fleischer, and Karl Rove have all disputed a number of assertions made in the book. They all seem to say, we never saw this side of Scott. We never heard Scott mention these concerns. It seems like Scott through the process of writing the book changed his view of both the President and the Administration.
There are a couple of other issues one must look at when deciding the validity of the book. Most people would agree that Scott was not a very good press secretary. The press, during his tenure always seemed to be complaining about him. The Administration basically let Scott go and gave him the benefit of the doubt that he left on his own. However, it was known within Washington that Scott was basically fired.
Also, Scott was upset that the Administration and the President did not support his mother’s run for Governor of Texas. The President supported his former running mate and current Governor Rick Perry instead of Scott’s mom. Did this decision influence his change of opinion of the President and Administration?
A final issue that Scott brings up is his accusation that both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby lied to him when they told him that they were not involved in leaking Valerie Plame’s name to the media. Scott during his press briefing mentioned that both told him that they were not involved. Scott mentioned, this morning during his Meet the Press interview, that the question he asked both of them was, “I asked them point blank, ‘Where you involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity in any way?” Karl, on Fox News, had a different memory of the question, “But the fact of the matter is Scott’s questions to me were: did I leak Valerie Plame’s name, and the answer is no.”
While this disagreement might seem minor, it is a big issue. If Scott asked the wrong question it is his own fault. I realize that Karl is only directly answering the question that Scott put forward and if he thought about the actual question probably could understand what Scott was trying to get at, only it seems that Scott did not ask the question correctly. Scott should have known through his job as Press Secretary that you should only answer the question asked and not provide any additional information. Also, as Press Secretary he should not try to interpret what the questioner is really looking for. If the wrong question is asked, answer it and move on. This is basic Press Secretary 101.
I hope that Scott is happy with his book and that it helps provide for his family. I don’t think that any other candidate, elected official, or corporation is ever going to hire him to speak for him based upon what he has said in the book and his going after the President and the Administration. Good luck Scott, I think that you are probably going to need it.