Posted on 05/29/2008 9:44:56 AM PDT by RatherBiased.com
Peter Osnos, who wrote Wednesday that he “worked very closely” with Scott McClellan on McClellan's new book published by PublicAffairs which Osnos founded, is a liberal whose publishing house is affiliated with the far-left The Nation magazine and the publisher of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. PublicAffairs has a roster of authors who are nearly all liberals and/or liberal-leaning mainstream media figures, including six books by far-left bank-roller George Soros. On Wednesday's CBS Evening News, Ari Fleischer related that “Scott told me that his editor did 'tweak,' in Scott's word, a lot of the writing, especially in the last few months.” In an “Eat the Press” blog entry Wednesday, Rachel Sklar asked Osnos: “Did you work directly on the book with McClellan? (Who was his editor?)” Osnos replied: “The editor was Lisa Kaufman and yes, I worked very closely with them.”
A reporter and editor at the Washington Post during the 1970s and 1980s before going into book publishing, Osnos pens a weekly column for the left of center The Century Foundation. In a March column he denounced Rush Limbaugh as “bombastic, aggressive, and mean,” bemoaning how the late William F. Buckley Jr. left behind “a right-wing culture that tends to be as coarse and leaden as his demeanor could be buoyant,” charging Buckley provided “unfortunate cover to others who followed with a spirit that was distinctly and consistently malevolent.”
In contrast, ruminating this week about the Kennedy family's legacy in the wake of Senator Ted Kennedy's cancer diagnosis, Osnos asserted that “we are a distinctly better country for the message” which “Ted conveyed about our priorities as a people.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
It completely calls into question the motives of the author to change completely the tone of the book.
The fact the Republican author has his book edited by people connected with the Nation magazine and published by a company owned by George Soros does call into question the validity.
“Apparently it does.” To who? Someone who would believe anything negative about Bush without even questioning it?
If you can't see this no one can help you.
All books have editors. There is no evidence of anything nefarious. So Scott's out hawking a book he disagrees with? Where did he say that?
More than anything, this is the problem with today's left. To disagree with their dogma is to be perceived as somehow evil.
They are incapable of rational argument, unable to understand or accept any fact which challenges their faith.
In this sense, they are like terrorists. They cannot be reasoned with. Leaving only one way to defeat them...
“More than anything, this is the problem with today’s left. To disagree with their dogma is to be perceived as somehow evil.They are incapable of rational argument, unable to understand or accept any fact which challenges their faith.”
Tell me about it. I got into a fist fight with a jerk at a cocktail party last Thursday because I said global warming is a hoax. Her said lets go outside..I said let’s rock...He got outside and froze. His wife came out and grabbed him by the ear and took him home. =)
There's no reasoning with a liberal. There is no such thing as polite disagreement.
It's always "You're evil. I hate you." Then they throw their drink at you. Or stomp their foot. Or start crying.
Gotta admit, though, I'd be shocked if a liberal ever challenged me to "go outside". Usually, the very idea of "fighting like a man" never occurs to them. I guess, in the end, it didn't much appeal to your antagonist, either.
“Gotta admit, though, I’d be shocked if a liberal ever challenged me to “go outside”.
I think he had imbibed as much liquid courage as I had. I was waiting for him to raise his hands so I could say self defense.
I freely admit I have an early case of election rage. In 2004 it was so bad I almost punched out a 84 yr old man who had the temerity to say Bush sucked. I heard later he died. Good.
You are too far gone. I can’t help you.
Good luck with life.
Larry Elder made some good points today:
Scott McClellan was NOT the press secretary on the run up to the war or at the start of the war.
Scott McClellan was FIRED by the Bush Whitehouse.
Ari Fleisher was the press secretary on the run up to the war and the beginning of the war.
Ari Fleisher wrote a positive memoir about Bush.
Ari Fleisher was NOT invited on GMA and Time magazine slammed his memoir.
George Tenent wrote a positive memoir about Bush.
George Tenent was the Direcor of the CIA under Clinton and under Bush.
George Tenent’s book was slammed by the New York Time and he did not get on GMA.
Again, Scott McClellan was FIRED BY THE BUSH WHITEHOIUSE.
Yep, and Bill Hemmer mentioned to Brit Hume that McClellan rode on President Bush’s back for 10 years.
But it says NOTHING about the accuracy of the book.
Pinpointing the motivation of the writer goes a long way to determining truth.
But more importantly, both Tenet and Fleischer’s books DIRECTLY REFUTE McClellan’s. And Tenet was surely in a position to take Bush down.
But this thread is about McClellan's publisher and his motives. I'm saying who gives a crap about that? A publisher can't publish something he agrees with? It's a very weak--extremely weak--line of defense. And just to restate--they're talking bout the publisher's motives, not the author.
But more importantly, both Tenet and Fleischer’s books DIRECTLY REFUTE McClellan’s. And Tenet was surely in a position to take Bush down.
This would be a pertinent point of counter argument. I realize this is a public forum. I and others probably say a lot of silly things. But I'm seeing stuff like Scott's gay or he's fat or whatever. Now it's SOROS! Sure, throw the bogey man in there while you're at it.
If there are other books and players who refute the claims, then somebody better be putting that stuff out there. All I'm hearing is personal attacks at McClellan. People saying he's just in it for the money, doesn't even know what's in the book, or he's stuck with it, etc. But where's any sort of proof or substantiation of any of that? It comes across very poorly, in my view.
I'm one of those who could be convinced one way or another. I haven't read any of those books. I am not going to read this one. I am worldly enough to know a lot of office politics is going on here. Washington DC has got to be the mother of all office politics. Hell, it's the one place where "office politics" is the actual job!
I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon here. But I am going to take my devil's advocate position against lame arguments. What specifically do Tenet and Fleischer refute?
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.