Posted on 05/30/2008 8:01:17 AM PDT by CWWren
Nothing destroys a man like his betrayal of friends. The mortal wound is self-inflicted and he dies from the inside out, inviting neither compassion nor commiseration, only contempt, disdain and ultimately scorn. This is the hard lesson Scott McClellan is buying with his 30 pieces of silver. George W. Bush, flawed and maker of mistakes, finishes his presidency almost as unpopular as Harry S. Truman finished his, and who knows whether history will revise his presidential reputation.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Why was Truman so unpopular? He won the war, and wasn't the economy rebounding at the time?
I’m shocked you found this - the new Wash Times site is an absolute train wreck.
Once again another media outlet has gone for sexy animation because it looked good in a meeting and navigation is way down the list of priorities.
The korean War was considered a failure. His administration was involved in the "deep-freezer" scandal with lots of nasty headlines. His administration was considered by many to be soft on Communism, and the Soviets demonstrated their nuclear capability during his second term, putting Americans in serious fear of nuclear holocaust.
The Soviet success was interpreted by many as Truman's failure.
>> Why was Truman so unpopular? He won the war, and wasn’t the economy rebounding at the time?
Good question. Maybe, as with W, it was just a “zeitgeist” kind of thing. There was the Korean War, and the wiki mentioned corruption in his administration — ‘course he was a Democrat so that goes without saying... ;-)
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman
“Despite negative public opinion during his term in office, popular and scholarly assessments of his presidency became more positive after his retirement from politics and the publication of his memoirs... Many U.S. scholars today rank him among the top ten presidents.”
I think history will similarly judge W, in many if not most aspects of his presidency.
Considering cable? Right, with a persona as flaccid as yesterday’s catch, I’m sure he’ll go far. Doesn’t he yet understand why he lost his job in the first place? Simply put, he had zero talent for it.
Well written and good, valid points. Unfortunatelly the Dems/Libs aren’t gonna believe it.
They wouldn’t believe the color blue was actually blue even if it slapped them in the face.
History will reveal Bush to be a pretty good president overall. That always happens with Republican presidents as they are reviled by the liberal MSM and attacked daily on the front page. So the zeitgeist is that Bush is unpopular, but overtime he will be understood as a pretty good president.
See my post below. Great minds think alike.
Depends on which war you are talking about. He was popular at the end of WWII. After two years of the Korean War, he was not so hot anymore. The people liked Ike better.
The left hated Truman for many reasons -- the Truman Doctrine (which saved Greece from Communism), the Marshall Plan (which rebuilt Western Europe) and for blocking North Korea. It could be argued that, until Ronald Reagan, nobody did more to forestall Communism than Harry Truman.
Rank and file Democrats hated him because he wasn't FDR (much as many Democrats turned on LBJ because he wasn't JFK).
And, while Truman was President when WW II was won, his experience in Korea wasn't unlike Bush's in Iraq. He enjoyed broad support at the outset but, as the war appeared more and more unwinnable, his popularity shrank. Firing Gen. Douglas McArthur didn't help his popularity, either.
Unfortunately, Truman found himself in a war which was, in fact, "unwinnable". At least, not without engaging and defeating Communist China -- which he was unwilling to do.
In many respects, Eisenhower was elected to "end the war" in Korea. And he did.
I suspect that what is really behind McClellan’s seeming treachery is poverty. After he left the White House he had nothing, and nobody was forthcoming in offering him employment, or even the time of day.
What else could he do? Dishes?
So he started to write his memoirs, hoping to make a few bucks for his retirement. But the publishing houses are dominated by the left, and all of them only want to publish what sells.
So his publisher probably told him a few things to write, and how to spice things up. Since WH communications guys are not part of the loop, for very good reasons, all he could say is what he thought or suspected. No evidence.
Most likely, he will sell a lot of books, then quietly retire. And in the hoo-hah of the election season, it will be quickly forgotten, except by liberal crackpots down the road, who will assert his opinion as fact.
But even that won’t matter, as if McClellan didn’t write it, they would cite equally worthless pap from the Daily Kos or other such dreck.
WW2 but not Korean War. Political Leftists in this country have always been hysteric when it comes to the US being involved in war. That one of the reasons, despite 99% of them knowing no one in the all volunteer US Military nor in Iraq, they are in such hysterics. Gutlessness has always been the instinctual reaction of these people
He's a fat little rat.
Thank you all. I didn’t even think of Korea for some reason.
I used to be a subscriber to the print edition and read every issue; however, I had to drop it because I had entirely too much to read daily.
I thought I was the only one who noticed. It's unreadable.
That is until Hitler broke the pact with Stalin and invaded. They they cranked up their Hollywood and printed media hype to get us incensed enough to come to Uncle Joe's aid.
Franklin took care of the rest of it by skillfully using his diplomatic skills and goading Japan to make the first move.
It was inevitable we'd be fighting Tojo, but the European mess could have played out a bit longer had Hitler kept his hands off European Jewry and other innocents. But then Hitler was insane.
Stalin won the killing contest though. He eliminated at least ten times the number than Hitler.
Of course he did it for the money. "No one but a blockhead writes but for money." (Samuel Johnson) And dirty money spends just the same as clean.
>> a persona as flaccid as yesterday’s catch
ROFLMAO!
I’m slipping THAT one into the ol’ toolbox... I’m sure I’ll find a use for it someday!
>> Great minds think alike.
You can have sole posession of the “great minds” label... I don’t think it applies above these shoulders. ;-)
Sounds like you knew the answer off the top of yours... I had to research it using the Source Of All (secular) Knowledge.
Pasted below is from a friend’s political newsletter. Interestimg:
The company that published Scott McClellan’s new Bush-bashing book is Public Affairs Books, the owner of Public Affairs Books is a company called Perseus Book Group.
The firm is owned by Perseus Funds Group (holding company Perseus LLC), a capital management firm that grew from about $20 million in 1995 to over $2 billion now. Big infusions of cash seemed to help it grow exponentially, and it closed funds almost as fast as it opened them.
The board has tons of liberals from the Clinton and Carter Administrations, and surprise... one of the major stockholders of Perseus Funds is that good old foreign meddling in American politics socialist ...George Soros. Now you know how this crap got into print.
To paraphrase that bald headed weasel James Carville... it’s amazing what you can get when you troll a million dollars through a trailer park. Judas Mc Clellen is going to be very rich man with more than just the traditional 30 pieces of silver... and it’s not from royalties of this flash in the pan book.
Apparently though Mc Clellan is no dummy, (nor loyal) as he knows there is no money to be made in writing the truth about President Bush. But Democrats and confirmed Bush Derangement Syndrome Socialists are always ready to spend money on something that might validate their opinions... even if it is fiction. Remember Dan Rather and the AWOL story.
Scott will be on Meet the dePressed Sunday, I’d like Tim Russert to have David Gregory on with him.
That’d be good TV!!!
And he will go down in history as such.
Korea and the captivity of Eastern Europe. Communism was on the ascendancy and HST had a number of fellow travelers in his administration, and highky placed spies. It wasn’t all his fault, as Henry Wallace brought many into FDR’s earlier administrations.
Yes, this morning I heard his mother, Carol Keeton Strayhorn, on the radio saying she is proud of her son for writing that book. I was so glad when she was finally out of the state comptroller’s office here and the election for governor was over so I didn’t have to hear her hideous witch’s voice every freakin’ day on the radio. She’s such a weasel, turning on everyone Republican in Texas, pretending she was the only ethical person in politics — her son did the same damn thing. May they both rot.
McClellan was a pathetic press secretary. Remember how he’d stand there and mumble and wander around looking like a deer-in-the-headlights? Remember how happy and excited everyone was when Tony Snow took over the job? Because McClellan couldn’t explain anything with a semblance of conviction.
So now he writes a sour-grapes book and the media is starting to hang him with his own rope (playing the tape of his White House Press Conference criticizing other people for writing tell-all books 18 months after they leave the White House). He was and is pathetic.
I believe Truman was also the first President to make a living out of being an ex-President. Books, speaking tours...
Such an apt description of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
The problem, though, is that this "crazy old bigot" was a Presidential candidate's pastor for twenty years. At least, one can legitimately accuse of Obama of poor judgment in his choices.
But did this "crazy old bigot" have any impact on the candidate's thinking and philosophy, on who he is? If "no", then poor judgment is the only charge which might be laid. If "yes", then the tinge on racism and anti-Americanism automatically attaches to him...and he is disqualified from high office.
The candidate's defenders will argue that there was no impact. But, then, why did he sit in the pews for twenty years? Why did the candidate himself name Wright as his "spiritual mentor", why did he laud him so in his books? And why does Michelle appear to have bought everything this "crazy old bigot" have to sell?
Wright, by himself, is enough to sink Obama's candidacy.
But Wright (and Pfleger, et al) are not the most disturbing aspects of Obama's past. We also have the likes of William Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, ACORN and other known Chicago radicals lurking in his resume'.
At best, and with virtual certainty, Obama can be labelled a racist who holds some left-wing anti-American views. But, at the worst, he is a willing agent of the radical left -- not just anti-American, but anti-capitalist, and prepared to undermine and subvert the Constitution.
Tell me where I'm wrong.
” I believe Truman was also the first President to make a living out of being an ex-President. Books, speaking tours...”
I think you’ll find that when Truman retired, there was no Presidential pension. The only income he had was from his army pension, which wasn’t much of anything.
“Nothing destroys a man like his betrayal of friends...This is the hard lesson Scott McClellan is buying with his 30 pieces of silver.”
All this talk about betrayal is ridiculous. This is not about stealing someone’s girlfriend. This is about discussing the conduct of the president of the United States. McClellan’s loyalty, and every public servant’s loyalty must never be to a person, but must always be to the people he is serving.
If McClellan feels like his book will help the American people better understand their government so that we may have a better one in the future, then he has done the right thing by writing and publishing it.
He “lost China” and the State Dept was found to have harbored Communist sympathizers.
What's ridiculous is actually beleiving that betrayal is circumscribed by sucb a meaningless transgression as "stealing someone's girlfriend."
This is about discussing the conduct of the president of the United States.
Not really. It's about paying Scott McClellan casn for his opinion of the conduct of the President.
McClellan’s loyalty, and every public servant’s loyalty must never be to a person, but must always be to the people he is serving.
So, in other words he was disloyal to both the people and the President that people elected.
After all, he kept his mouth tightly shut when there was allegedly malfeasance going on but no cash on offer, and miraculously open-mouthed when there was cash on offer.
The "people" matter to McClellan when there is money in it for him.
If McClellan feels like his book will help the American people better understand their government so that we may have a better one in the future, then he has done the right thing by writing and publishing it.
McClellan feels his wallet bulging.
Nothing in his book contributes to the cause of good government. The only lesson the book contains about government is the very dangerous and ugly notion that Clinton had the right idea about how to treat former employees: either ruin them, threaten to ruin them, or pay them off.
It must have just happened right after he wrote this post.
Please please tell me he wasn't banned because he dared to go against the flow with his comments.
It was an opinion....no threats, no curses..
..just an opinion.
So basically this piece of work by Scott simply reinforces the BDS without any real evidence.
Just because you say it’s so, doesn’t mean it is. I am still looking for proof. So far there has been NONE!
Truman fired MacArthur when MacArthur was far more popular than he. He did this because MacArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese. It helped to make him massively unpopular, except in Kansas City, where he is and always will be a saint.
I wouldn't count on it. Unlike Richard Clarke and other turncoats who are pretty intelligent and have a certain degree of charm they can turn on, McClellan comes off as a complete weasel. I think after the dust settles he will see few book sales and find himself equally loathed by both sides of the political aisle. Despite trying to ingratiate himself with Libs, the most common lib characterization of him I've heard is that he was a gutless coward for not going public with this at the time.
Egg-sucking dog, sucking up something, sounds like David Brock. I’m glad to see something from Wes Pruden. I read at the washtimes site that he retired in January. He reminds me of a country-fied Mark Steyn.I wish him well and hope he continues to contribute columns.
He posted that exact same boilerplate comment on at least one other McClellan thread. Looks like he was trolling.
}:-)4
OK, I was wrong, I didn’t see where he boilerplated that text. Just go back and read his replies for a while, and you may be able to figure out why he’s got the zot.
}:-)4
"Yes we have the bomb, and yes we have the will to use it."
Democrats had held the White House for twenty years. Most of what we did in Korea was seen as bungling. It was the prototype for Vietnam. We didn’t win.
Truman’s administration was shot through with commies. He wasn’t seen as being hard enough on the Russians. Stalin was still alive in 1952, and thumbing his nose at us.
But mostly, the GOP hadn’t won the White House since 1928 and they convinced Eisenhower to run as a Republican. Had Truman run again, Ike would have slaughtered him.
I forgot about Truman firing MacArthur. Thanks. Very true.
Take off your tinfoil. According to The Making of Atomic Bomb that was almost certainly one of his reasons.
Truman hoped to a.) end the war with Japan...quickly...and to b.) send a powerful message to the Soviets.
The above book, by the way, is a simply wonderful history of the entire enterprise. And Richard Rhodes, the author, even makes the physics and the science understandable.
Highly recommended.
Harry S Truman -- reviled at the time he left office -- was clearly one of our greatest presidents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.