Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
Washington, a City of Vanished Loyalty
Guest Column | By Paul M. Weyrich | June 2, 2008
Washington is a place utterly without loyalty. It has gotten worse every year since I have
been here. Poor President George W. Bush. Loyal to a fault. His reward? To be
trashed by the likes of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Did
McClellan have an axe to grind or was he just trying to set the record straight?
He now fancies himself as a historian.
McClellan never
was in the inner circle at the White House. He was, to be honest about it, way
over his head. He resigned – was forced to resign? – when Tony Snow was brought
in to handle that office. Many pundits believed he was forced to
resign because of the Valerie Plame issue and the handling of Hurricane Katrina
relief.
Regardless of
the circumstances, there is little doubt that he is bitter about it and has
taken shots at those he regards as having been responsible for doing him in.
Hence, the gratuitous attacks on Karl Rove, for example. His technique is
interesting. He says what the media already believes; therefore, the media will
assist him mightily in selling his book. As radio commentator Chris Plante
noted, the so-called mainstream media will carry him forward on its shoulders
until it is through with him, at which point it will throw him under the bus, as
it has done with all of those who have been disloyal to
Bush.
Those who
worked with McClellan said he never uttered one word of objection to all the
positions he now claims are so reprehensible. If he had had any integrity he
would have raised his voice while on the job and if he failed to make any
headway he would have resigned. Oh, no. That isn’t how it is done these days.
Instead one appears loyal. One raises no objection and then one goes off and
writes a tell-all book. McClellan never said that Bush lied to the American
public but the media is extrapolating that from what he did say, which is that
Bush didn’t ask tough questions. I have heard at least half a dozen versions of
what McClellan supposedly said, none of which was exactly what he did say. This
just gives the pious commentators more than they ever could have hoped for. And
this in the midst of a Presidential
campaign.
I came from a
different era. If you went to work for someone you did not leak secrets to the
media. You were discreet. Presumably you believed in what the person for whom
you went to work stood for.
I recall in the
six years I worked for the late Senator Gordon L. Allott (R-CO) twice when I
completely disagreed with what he said I told him so. He was very gracious about
it. He sort of debated me on the subjects in contention. I was satisfied that he
had good reason to vote as he did, even though I still disagreed with him. It
was not so serious that I considered resigning. I was a loyal soldier in the
Allott office. Everyone else who worked there was as well. Were he in the Senate
today and he had a staffer who completely disagreed with him we would be reading
about it in the New York
Times. Then that
staffer would collect material and would write a book suggesting some sort of
scandal. It is happening to even the best of our legislators.
I don’t know
how we are going to continue to get good people to run for office under these
circumstances. As the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished. Don’t get me
wrong. President Bush should be open to criticism like everyone else. I did not
favor this war either. But I didn’t hold a press conference on the subject. I
wrote the President a letter and discussed my views with some of his people.
Once we were there I felt the President had to be supported. There is a way to
handle dissent decently. But that era has
passed.
I hope
McClellan is proud of what he did. I hope he understands how he is being used by
the Bush bashers. I hope he understands that his fame will be short-lived. He
will have had his few minutes of fame. The day will come when he will be
regarded by the same media which now lionizes him as utterly contemptible. The
media will use him but it will recognize someone who is using it as well. One
day long ago this must have been a nice place to work.
Paul Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
© This column is the property of the Free Congress Foundation and may not be reproduced without their permission. For comments and inquiries, contact Phyllis E. Hughes at . Visit our website at http://www.FreeCongress.org.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
7 Comments | Post a Comment
Bush has no loyalty to Founding Fathers of USA. He regards Constitution just a F****** piece of paper. His loyalty is to groups he & his father belongs to.
Mr. McClelland is a study in how to commit personal professional suicide. No one who wishes to continue a career in public affairs would do what he has by bashing a sitting U. S. President. Any potential employer or politician of whatever strip will think twice before bring such an individual into their confidence. It makes one wonder what he hoped to seriously gain by doing this.
‘Bashing’??? That is a spin word put out by the WH supporters for all this time to attempt to silence any disagreement with this President. We have all been pretty successfully ‘educated’ by the constant mantra of politicians, and pundits.
What if this all is true? Surely we have to admit some of it is. Why is this man being raked over the coals for bringing some pretty unsavory things to our attention?
Politically motivated? Probably. Financially motivated? Without a doubt. If this President had written a book whitewashing himself, and denouncing the so-called ‘other party’ - would it be called ‘bashing’? Or would it be lauded as factual and the greatest thing since the Bible?
Yes, I’m thinking if an employer is going to do wrong things, he/she might certainly think twice about hiring this man. Perhaps, if the employer is honest, he shouldn’t have a problem.
So is he wrong because it’s lies? Is he wrong because he ‘snitched’ on the PResident?
Patrick (BBA, MA) writes:
June 4 at 12:33 pm | #3 | Link
Mr. McClelland is a study in how to commit personal professional suicide. No one who wishes to continue a career in public affairs would do what he has by bashing a sitting U. S. President. Any potential employer or politician of whatever strip will think twice before bring such an individual into their confidence. It makes one wonder what he hoped to seriously gain by doing this.
Pat:
You might be correct, however consider the following. By the way, I know virtually nothing of Mr. McClelland.
The guy might feel so abused, I have no idea if this is actually the case, or if such feelings might be justified, that he has in effect said, via publishing, To Hell With It, and To Hell With Public Service, as you describe it. As for the sitting president, in plain, kitchen table English, the man is a lying SOB, and that is putting the best of several possible faces on the thing.
Kinda strange that the man who wrote the book is being raked over the coals - and no one is asking if it’s true or not.
Of course, that’s the way spin works - diversion and misdirection. Put the focus on the writer so no one will discuss the book and perhaps begin to see a picture emerging.
Alan, that’s kinda to the point, there.
I have read the Book and nothing new. He just copied the script of the Senate and Pelosi.
Seems there is a need to echo what the Pelosi and the rest of the Defense Committee earlier issued to the press.
Why? Nobody bought the idea? Maybe the Market System that Pelosi hates so much can help promote her own conspiracy theory?
A theory of incompetence of both House and Senate of not knowing what is true and false?
Stop this nonsense, please, McClellan. Too later for you because Obama is already winning. Ensure that he wins, alright. For Pelosi, your Socialist ideology stinks. Like the seeming hypocrisy of Ladytexan here.
June 3 at 3:13 pm | #1 | Link
Paul Weyrich makes mention of Scott McClelland being “contemptible” in Washington, a City of Vanished Loyalty, writing “The day will come when he will be regarded by the same media which now lionizes him as utterly contemptible”.
Possibly so, however if that be the case, what of the equally contempible nature of the president and his administration?