Posted on 10/01/2005 8:01:18 AM PDT by Wuli
When Scott McClellan was badgered by reporters about the "beleaguered" affect the indictment of Tom DeLay was having on the President's agenda and Republicans, he should have answered:
When a retiring prosecutor issues an indictment that he knows has no factual foundation, and yet he issues that indictment for the sole purpose of how the indictment will aid his political party, then I would think that it is his political party that is beleaguered. So, maybe you should go ask Mr. Earle why his party is so desperate.
Well, it's the correct answer but McClellan has to walk a fine line of not being that direct with the press corps...I think they'd explode if ever he was.
I nominate Wuli to replace Scott McClellan.
But we need them to explode, and show their true Deaniac nature. We need, and conservative Presidents need, to quit pretending they are anything other than what they are - the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, of liberals, of the left and of Marxists.
Last nite I heard Laura Ingraham say how she'd love to be in Scott McClellan's job. If I were POTUS, she'd have that job.
When you're POTUS, I'll take that offer. Thanks.
I simply would have reacted by taking away the press credentials of the idiot reporter who asked the question. I would cite as my reason the fact that such a stupid mass of protoplasm had no right to being in a position of "informing the public" when he/she themselves were so woefully uninformed.
it would be a "public sanity" issue.
Yeah, Laura Ingraham is great, no doubt about it.
The press corps will whittle down anyone before them. It's what they do. So, actually, it would be a bad experience to see Ingraham irrationally ridiculed as only the press corps can and does. McClellan's doing a good job -- he's fooling people that he isn't steel, but he is, in my view.
Hang on to that day job :)
See, you aren't the only person who notices the people in the press corps when they act worse than monkeys. The thing is, they continue to act worse, as if "no one will notice" and function on the assumption that the Press Secretary will, in fact, look as badly to everyone as they perceive him/her to be.
But the egg's on the stupid behavior and inane, often patently prejudicial, statements that come from the audience, not the podium. I think the press corps walks out self congratulating, oblivious to the fact that nearly everyone who watches these episodes sees them for the duds they are. Not like you missed it, is my point, nor did I nor nearly anyone else.
But the press would not and could not "whittle down" Laura. Her wit and her intellect (not to mention her good looks) would tower over them.
No, it is time the pretence ended. The press comes in for combat when it's a Republican. They should be, they need to be treated accordingly.
What "pretense?"
They live in a closed community of self-absorbed individuals who all attend the same smart cocktail parties.
They cannot be blamed for self-congratulating and for feeling that their every word must be treated with the same respect usually reserved for the Ten Commandments.
I think one of the duties of the Press Secretary should be to point out the stupidity of some members of the press and impose sanction based on the premise that only serious reporers/reportage will be allowed access to the White House. Some will scream censorship, but that is unimportant, so long as the process is fair and impartial, and based upon an individual's displayed characteristics instead of political/philospohic points.
By weeding out the stupid we can be reasonably assured that we would get something approximating the truth, albeit filtered through individuals of varying political proclivities. You may ban Reporter X from the New York Times for being outrageously biased or stupid, but the Times would be free to replace Reporter X with Reporter Y.
Hard to work and possibly impractical, but a very interesting premise, I think.
The Press Secretary isn't the forum moderator or otherwise have 'banning' capabilities when someone acts badly or even offensively worse than that, as many among the press corps do and have for a while.
You can't regulate who among the press corps socializes with whom else (all of D.C. is keyed into the social schemes there, and dependent upon them for a great deal of information and resource).
The most adept with the press corps is stepping aside from their nuttiness, in my view. Don't presume or assume that every other American "out there" is watching these meets and not concluding as you do about the press corps, because many do. I do, others do.
It's not as if the press corps isn't clearly biased to nearly everyone else, is my point, because they are: clearly biased and clearly prejudiced and often irrationally focused on the ant on the shoe while the leather factory is in jeaopardy.
In my view, they waste a lot of time and resources being so bombastic on behalf of liberalism but for what it is worth, their behavior speaks more about them than it does any Republican Press Secretary.
The mainstream media, by this point, is pretty well lost to credibility in many of our perceptions. They might as well have Paris Hilton there yelling about Chiahuahas as they now have Helen Thomas mumbling about rights and such.
The prentense that Republican admin's make, that the press is not 100% Dem, lib apparatchiks.
There is no need to "be nice". They aren't and they need to be answered in kind.
I'm not advocating censorship (although my idea does seem to indicate it -- PS, it's not realy my idea as it was once the custom of the English Press to enforce some sort of self-discipline in this way).
I'm merely daydreaming out loud. I'm one of those people who is pathologically compelled to point out stupidity. I must get back on my daily Zoloft regimen, I guess.
Scott is a nice guy, but has zilch ability to wield a covert scalpel, let alone even think about it. He's too programmed.....almost robot-like. Not much thinking on his feet, at all.
I know comparisons are odious, but as the Bush administration's voice to the world, McLellan rates about two forks on a ten-piece place setting.
Leni
I don't agree. I found Ari Fleischer a tad offensive. Actually, more than a tad, often quite evasive and it suggested a questionable standard that he was representing.
I realize McClellan seems a tad juvenile, perhaps sophomoric and pliable, but I also think that's an appearance, as in, he's more substantitive underneath that, just far more reserved than was Fleischer, certainly far less theatrical than was Fleischer.
I was relieved to see Fleischer depart. As talented as he was, glad to see him depart. Not a criticism so much as I think McClellan is due far more respect but seems to get passed over due to his lack of Fleischer-style theatrics.
Give McClellan more credit for knowing what he's doing. He's handling a pack of snapping cane toads and doing it well, don't be misled here.
The rabid reporters find McClellan a soft target as evinced by the out-of-control questions and consistent disrespect thrown at Scott......as opposed to a more controlled gaggle that Ari managed to disarm quite effectively most of the time.
I didn't find Ari theatrical AT ALL. He was quite dead-pan. It was educational to see his effective modus operandi in action.
I expect to see McClellan announcing soon that he wants "to spend more with his family"......and exiting the scene gracefully.
Leni
"Dead-pan" is a theatrical method. Just thought I'd bring that to yer' attention.
~;-D
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.