Posted on 05/29/2008 7:23:38 AM PDT by Bowtie52
Liberals are ecstatic over the latest “Tell-All” from Scott McMullen while Conservatives really don’t know how to react. Consider the dynamics of Scott McMullen and determine if you, the reader, would really want to have a guy like this anywhere around you? His friends and co workers say he never gave any indication that he was annoyed, disgruntled or even mildly disturbed at the things he saw being done within the White House. Their claim, pretty much in unison, is “This is not the Scott we knew”. Only Nancy Polosi, with her lack of appreciation for anything American, “entirely agrees” with him. This is an appropriate response coming from Mrs. Polosi, however, it is odd that she would have the audacity to admit it so openly. Scott is her kind of people.
Track the history of Code Pink, Moveon.org, GLAD, many of the far left environmental groups etc and look for elements of the same type of behavior. As an example of synonymous behavior; When Tony Snow was diagnosed with cancer, the Huffington Post and Daily Kos openly wished bad tidings, even an advanced death for Mr. Snow. However, when Teddy Kennedy was diagnosed with his Brain Tumor Freerepublic.com and other traditionally conservative sites offered prayers for Kennedy. The list of similarities is endless. Most honest people are attracted to the higher road regardless of their political affiliations.
People who are driven by purpose rather than ethics tend to allow ideology to rule their better judgment. People who pursue ethics above purpose tend to not be as concerned about the outcome as much as the process. By the time an individual’s “determination to see a desired result” has caused them to step over the line of ethics, takes place, it’s too late. They have become entangled in the net of betrayal or dishonesty and such behavior simply becomes the cost of doing business. They get used to it and the sting or pangs of conscious are no longer as much of an issue.
One glaring example of this is PETA (People for the ethical treatment of animals). At one time, PETA had a rational, well founded and rightful goal. Animal cruelty, for purposes of commercial gain, is wrong. There is no need of applying Drano into the eyes of 10,000 animals to see if it burns. The group, frustrated with the inability of getting their message across, resorted to more grandiose and publicity driven behavior, even sometimes criminal. Their original message is still just as valid, however their reputation is along the lines of any far left fringe group and no one wants to hear it anymore.
Had McMullen voiced his concerns shortly after leaving his White House post, or discussed them with his peers, he might still hold a degree of intellectual credibility. At this point he has chosen the path of unethical betrayal and offended rather than convinced his counterparts as well as the American public. Those who relate to Scott’s type of behavior, as they too have sold out, will rejoice at the prospect of a new partner in advancing their agenda whether it is anti-war activism, minority rights or some other special interest. Scott has painted himself as a person never to be trusted again and it says far more about Scott than it does anyone from the White House. The eternal question will always be: Did the issue cause the actions or did the seeds of intellectual dishonesty exist before the events. As this type of behavior has become stereotypical, even the question is no longer debated. It is simply accepted as fact. The victims here are those who interacted with and trusted Mr. McMullen. In fact, Scott, without intent, does the public a service. Those who side with him or relate to his betrayal show their colors by association. Those still gasping for fresh air after reading the book are not. Watching the reactions of other’s as the book is discussed will be enlightening and evidence of one’s true core beliefs.
Sounds like someone has swallowed, if not Drano, the PETA propaganda. Do you have any hard evidence that the makers of Drano poured it into the eyes of 10,000 animals?
You can understand him by first understanding why he got the job and what his credentials were and, then, why he lost the job and at whose request.
Yes we do. Shrug this off, this has nothing to do with Conservatives. With 6 months left of this Admin. no one will care next week anyway.Most of Scott's writing dosen’t really seem to say much. His take on Plame seems out of touch. He acts like its still some big mystery, when everybody knows that Armitage leaked Plame’s name. From the excerpts I've read he seems kinda whiny and wonkish; nobody but BDS Moonbats will still care after a few more news cycles. Scott will do the talk-shows on the liberal networks promote his book; then go home knowing why his “old friends” no longer call him, yet perplexed why his “new lefty friends” have also stopped calling...Useful idiot.
So Bush did nothing right in your view? I'd have to disagree with you on that.
Money makes people do wacky things: steal, cheat, lie, write fake memoirs...
Bush did three things right: 1) the war on terror (not including the Iraq war); 2) the appointment of Justice Roberts; and 3) the appointment of Justice Alito. That isn’t much for eight years and the incalculable damage he’s done to the Republican Party and conservative principles will last for decades.
What about the tax cuts? What about his pro-life positions and vetos?
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.