Josh Marshall asked a good question yesterday: "Does it strike anyone else as odd that the White House tossed McClellan out the window without having a replacement ready to announce?"
I'd like to ask an even simpler follow-up question: Do you think Scott quit or was "axed to leave"?
Few have seriously suggested that he could face a Plame-gate indictment. Still, perhaps we can hear a few scenarios along those lines from our readers -- especially from the ladies of "Patrick's Official Lusting League," or POLL (a group formed in the comments section two posts down).
It's more likely that even BushCo saw that McClellan had exhausted his credibility quota. The battery had run dry and it had to be tossed, even without a replacement on hand.
ReplyDeleteSince the only mandate of these flaks is to conceal the actual policies of the adminstration, no spokesman can last very long, even with the Washington press corps. And of course they'll give the new one a honeymoon.... That is, if BushCo can find anyone brazen enough to take the job, even the Republican party. A Fox employee would seem the likeliest choice.
I really don't necessarily think everything BushCo does HAS a reason
ReplyDeleteI think he quit. He actually seems to me to be a nice enough guy. The day in day out lies just became too much, he had enough, and he quit.
ReplyDeleteI bet he quit. You are right, a sane cheef of staff would have a replacement ready to go before forcing out some one who has been that loyal.
ReplyDeleteMcClellan has bent over backwards to try and put a positive spin on the evil empire.
You don't abandon your life ring unless there is a lifeboat within reach.
No replacement.... Hum... What made him quit? What was it he was asked to say, or to deny, that went beond what he, as a very well paid spokesman, would do?
My guess is that instead of being asked to put a positive spin on engitive news, somthing he has been doing for years, he was asked outright to lie, not to protect America, or troops, but to protect people he knows are guilty.
Proud member of Patrick's Official Lusting League here (I think--there aren't dues or anything, are there?). I haven't heard any substantive rumors about McClellan facing an actual indictment over the Plame conspiracy, but I like to think that if McClellan was directly involved, my Fitzy won't let Snotty Scotty escape.
ReplyDeleteI don't think McClellan, who is as much a Bush slave as anyone, would have quit voluntarily unless quitting offered, in some important way, more protection for W. than McClellan continuing in the post. I don't think Bush would have tossed him unless there was more gain than loss to be had from the dismissal and/or unless he had absolutely no other choice. Well, unless those persistent rumors about his psychotic episodes are, in fact, accurate, and his handlers have finally been thrown into strategic havoc as a result.
What the abrupt nature of McClellan's departure makes me suspect is that something significant is coming down the pike scandal-wise. Either it's a new element to an old mess or something as yet unheard of, which seems ridiculous at this point, but is a possibility certain political junkie friends of mine have been hinting at for a while now. (Incidentally, Joseph? If you've got anything about about a "new" Bush scandal, feel free.) Perhaps McClellan leaving isn't even about McClellan--it's just better for the Admin not to have someone in the position for the time being. My sense is that some urgent and intractable obstacle motivated McClellan's removal and because of the apparent snap decision here, it seems as if whatever it is, it's taken the Admin by surprise. If it does concern Plame, couldn't they have phased McClellan out long ago and more smoothly? Of course, I guess it's plausible that Fitz outfoxed them, or that they underestimated him, and thought ditching Scott M. wouldn't be necessary but have now suddenly faced reality...egh. That doesn't feel right either. Something new, I fear.
Actually, it is quite extraordinary that he quit without a replacement. Seems like a snit that caught the Admin off guard. And who in their right mind would put themselves into the position of gatekeeper after the horses have all left the barn? (Is that a mixed metaphor?)
ReplyDeleteProud POLL member since 4/20/06.
Jen said, "Perhaps McClellan leaving isn't even about McClellan--it's just better for the Admin not to have someone in the position for the time being."
ReplyDeleteNow THAT is an interesting possibility isn't it?! There's my vote.
Miss P
His credibility has been zero for some time.
ReplyDeleteI think they know Rove is going to be indicted. Scotty would have to re-do his jumping around on the conversation he claims he had with Rove&all when they told him they had nothing to do with Plame. His cred would sink below Alantis - he's on the verge of laughing stock as it is. They might have even laughed him off the stage like they did to Ari that time.
Still the best and most important of all the unanswered-questions asked of old Scoooty...
http://www.commondreams.org/scottie/120604.htm
Dec 6, 2004
Mokhiber: Scott, on the Middle East - many evangelical Christians in the United States are supporting right-wing Jews in Israel who want to rebuild the temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. They (Evangelical Christians) believe this is a prerequisite for Christ's return to earth.
They believe that when Christ returns to earth - they call this the rapture - he will take back with him the true believers. And the rest - the non believers - Jews, Muslims - will be left behind to face a violent death here on earth.
My question is, as a born again Christian, does the President support efforts to rebuild the temple on the Temple Mount?
Scott McLellan: Russ, we can sit here and talk about religious issues. I will be glad to take your question, and if there is more, I will get back to you on that.
Mokhiber: Is he a born again Christian?
Scott McLellan: Thank you. (McLellan abruptly ends the press briefing and walks out.)
ahem.
ReplyDeletewell, a girl takes a day off from the blog schlog, and what happens?
if you guys will just look at my krispy kreepy karl post, you'll see i mention josh's question in the first paragraph, in which i also suggest what sunny and jen so astutely picked up on in their comments:
Will it turn out that tossing Scottie away from the WH press corps wolves was just a smokescreen (Josh astutely wonders why Scottie would leave without a ready replacement) to distract media attention from Karl's shift away from policy and possibly toward police?
really, just consider what the day would have looked like had scotty NOT resigned. only karl's policy portfolio to feed on, the press would have been forced to chew on that all day, and who knows? they might have actually done their job and noticed (oh, forget about investigating!) that the grand jury met on wednesday and fitz announced he's got evidence he wants them to indict karl on.
but then, i already said that!!
as for the strategy involved, one of the noises being made in the past several weeks, just prior to card leaving, was how burned out everyone was, etc. blablabla, new blood and all that fodder. so knowing these guys, they made a list of folks they could count as dead wood, not essential to the machinery, they could slough off as needed.
scotty would have been my first bet. the guy is as guileless as they come, no doubt, but deadly in the way piggy was deadly: willing to do anything for approval from authority. i also believe that they have very purposely left him way out of the loop on their crimes so he could honestly deliver their propaganda and talking points without getting caught.
but they can do that with anyone slovenly enough to ingratiate themselves that far, which the entire staff of faux news does by job description.
scotty was not essential. he was the easy toss. but the timing is what's key here, and the urgency and suddenness, plus the fact that it occurred in the middle of the week instead of on friday, all suggest that they were quite aware of karl's jeopardy.
but, like i said, i said all that already!!