The Irrelevance of Scott McClellan

Before I go into my thoughts on former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellans's book reaming the Bush administration for "political manipulation," let me preface it by saying that no one really cares. I dare you to find one person that has looked at this "uncovering" and said "Oh my gosh...I had no idea...All this time I had thought that Bush was a great man with a bold purpose, but now I see him for the dark villian that he is!" That's right, this person does not exist. I admit, there may be a select few who were teetering on the brink of suspision about the validity of the war and the sincerity of the President, but they are a small minority.

The truth is that the vast majority of the nation is already polarized on the war. People are already for it or against it. And no book by any secretary of anyting is going to yank anybody from their positions. This book only gives more amunition to the left, more frustration to the right, and, most importantly, more money in McClellan's pocket.

That being said, let me say that I have not read the book yet, I have only read the reports and seen the interviews. Let me also say that my beef with McClellan is not that I think he's lying.

My first beef is actually that I don't think he's lying. I just don't care! "Political manipulation" is like "business proft" or "charity service." It's not a sin, it's politics. Now, this is great fodder for the Obama camp, who claims to be a different kind of politician who would never ever "sell" anything or do anything for political gain. But politics is all baout doing what you think is right and then trying to sell it to yoruc onstituency and allies. Anyone who thinks that politics is anything else doesn't know anything. "Change" and "Straight Talk Express" are only slogans.

My next beef is basically what everyone else has been saying: Why now? If he was so uncomfortable with the whole situation, then why didn't he say something then? If the war is as "unnecessary" as he says it is, then there is a good chance that a public exposure of it could have saved a lot of lives. But conveniently he "gave the President the benefit of the doubt." Like they say, hindsight is 20/20.

Lastly, and most importantly, McClellan did not just go public. He didn't call a reporter and give an extensive interview that will service the public good. He called a liberal publisher, PublicAffairs, and wrote a book that will service his own financial good. (Also note that since he announced the book, he has refused interviews to all conservative outlets.) Now, I'm a supporter of the free market, and I think that if someone has something to offer and he can make a buck at it, go ahead. But if he is going public for the good of the country then he ought to have done it long ago to a reporter and then wrote the details in a book. Now he's not selling a war, he's selling a book. Mark my words - it is a matter of weeks before he is offered a job at MSNBC or CNN.

So, is Scott McClellan lying? Probably not. But is he a wiesel? Absolutely. The main stream media is hailing him as a hero and he is loving every second of the limelight. He obviously thinks he is taking the high road by "telling the truth," by coming clean about what he has suffered so greatly over for the past however many years (please note the sarcasm).

Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting piece the the Wall Street Journal. She writes "What he says may be inconvenient, and it may be painful, but that's not what matters. What matters is if it's true. Let the debate on the issues commence." The jist of the article is that his motives, intentions, timing, pretenses, etc. don't matter. All that matters is if it's true.

I couldn't disagree more. Even if what he said is true - even if he has drastically understated them himself - it doesn't matter at all! McClellan doesn't claim that Bush lied, that Bush cheated, that Bush did anything even illegal. He claims that Bush tried to convince the American public that what he wanted to do was necessary. That is not a crime, it's not even unethical! It's normal! And whether it's true is irrelevant.

What is relevant is why he did it. And when money, power, and fame play such a large part in all of this, it's hard not to think that they played a part in his decision to "come clean."

Expelled - A Success or Failure?

After browsing the blog-o-sphere, I've found that there are two polarized camps arguing over the success/failure of Ben Stein's documentray "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed." That's no big surprise considering the hot topic issues evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and (most importantly) freedom of speech.

On the one hand, the mvoie is the 6th top grossing political documentary of all time. It also has BY FAR the largest grossing opening of any political documentary. Seems like those are some pretty hard facts to show that the movie has had at least SOME success.

The other side of the coin seems to take a more complicated approach to prove the failure of the film. For one funny example, check out this blog. I know, it's almost laughable. But, jokes aside, the main point is that sure, it is making a lot of money, and sure it had a great opening, but it also ran in way more theaters than most other documentaries (except Farenheit 9/11, which ran in almost twice as many theaters as Expelled). The argument is that is had a much lower dollar to screen ratio than the others in its class.

There is something that all the statisticians are not taking into account, though. I'm having a hard time finding research that backs this statement, but I'm pretty sure that city-dwellers watch more movies than those in rural areas. Also, we know that big cities lean WAY left of the political spectrum. So, when a left-wing political documentray opens in New York, L.A., Chicago, and a few other liberal hot beds, naturally the left-leanning, movie-going population is going to go see it at a higher rate (with a higher "dollar per to screen ratio"). On the other hand, to reach its base Expelled has had to show on far more screens. Liberalism breeds in big cities (particularly in poor districts, minority districts, and universities). Conservatism breeds in rural areas. Which are do you think has more theater screens per person?

Another thing that the left does not want to admit is that Micheal Moore and his fellow liberal movie makers get TONS of free marketing by the main stream media who, in general, agree with and want to propogate his values. How many times did you see Ben Stein on Larry King, Good Morning America, or even the nightly news? In the media business its called "earned publicity," or publicity that you didn't have pay for because the press wants to cover you. It's the huge disadtvantage that right-wingers have in everything from poltics, to movies, to education.

In the end, the left has to come up with huge logrhythms and calculations to portray Expelled as a failure. For the rest of us, we see it as the 6th highest grossing political documentray with the highest opening revenues. I'd call that a success.