Opening the Day: McClellan Takes the Dirty Hippy Narrative Mainstream

by: Matt Stoller

Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:40


What I'm noticing is that the chatter around Scott McClellan is not dying down.

  • His turn against the White House continues to dominate the media narrative about the war and the press.  I'm not sure why, but perhaps it's confirmation of what has been obvious to many of us for a long time, presented by a messenger the elites cannot avoid ignoring.  I've been thinking about this for some time.  In The Second National Risk and Culture Study, five social scientists found that people tend to believe a story that contradicts a preset narrative they hold only when it is presented by someone who looks and sounds like them.  They did this study looking for an answer to political polarization and the warring tribes of America.  If you look at the DC press and political party leaders as a tribal culture, it fits perfectly.  Glenn Greenwald has more,  pointing to Jessica Yellin's admission that she was pressured to do pro-war stories by corporate executives.

  • Relatedly, Oliver Willis shows that David Gregory belongs to this tribe, and thinks the press did nothing wrong in its coverage of Iraq.

  • McCain's response to the McClellan revelations?

    "I strongly opposed the failed strategy after visiting Iraq on several occasions," he told reporters. Asked if the revelations in the book will hurt his campaign, he replied no. "I'm sure people will judge me on my record including my advocacy for, and strong opposition to the failed strategy in Iraq and for the strategy that is succeeding. I'm quite confident of that."

  • There's a new Hillary Clinton boosting 527 running ads for her in Montana and Puerto Rico.

  • McCain is screwed.

    Back in Washington, the anxiety level of Republicans is rising. "The McCain camp is now acting without much rhyme or reason," says a prominent consultant. "And it all goes to the top." Another Republican campaign strategist, in a thinly veiled reference to McCain, says, "Somebody is behaving impulsively is the point."...

  • Insiders are worried that reporters have too many chances to throw him off his daily talking points. "That's not how you win an election!" says a McCain associate. "McCain is about the only person left who thinks we ought to keep the bus going. Obama keeps the press at a distance. Why? Because he's trying to win!"

  • If you stop thinking of the international labor movement as a set of organizations, and think of it as a story, the comments from this blog post, where Microsoft employees from America and India complain about management, is remarkable.

  • Josh Kahn at the Next Right has an interesting observation about 'microtrends' and Congressional campaigns.

  • The New York Times endorsed Frank Lautenberg for his reelection against conservative Democrat Rob Andrews in the New Jersey Senate primary.  

  • I'll be at Brookings for a luncheon on campaign finance reform and the internet.

What are you reading?
Matt Stoller :: Opening the Day: McClellan Takes the Dirty Hippy Narrative Mainstream

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Opening the Day: McClellan Takes the Dirty Hippy Narrative Mainstream | 15 comments
McClellan's Book is a gift for McCain (4.00 / 2)
This book is the first step in the lead up to november of conservative elites distancing themselves from Bush and his failed administration.  By making Bush look like a well-meaning idiot who was misled by a few Rasputins, conservatives can make the argument that McCain is the true heir to the Reagan legacy and the movement will survive through him.  I'm really surprised the netroots are applauding this book as some sort of revelation.  Just wait until McClellan is back in his old job for President McCain fielding questions on the preparations for the invasion of Tehran.  

Guys like Scottie don't repent for their sins, ever.  They know where the wind is blowing and they tack accordingly.  

So far, McClellan is an apologist (4.00 / 1)
for George W. Bush.  I caught his interview on NPR this morning on the way to work.  He was stead-fast in his contention that poor, little Georgie was not responsible for the "propaganda campaign", that somehow, the "Deciderer" was out of the loop.  But, not in a negative way, of course, it was just that he was so caught up in trying to "do the right thing" in response to the 9/11 attacks on the country that he loves, he had "good intentions" and should not be held accountable, even when he started to believe the spin put out by the likes of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.  

Fits in perfectly with the general attitude that this kind of BS was a "one off", just something that these "insane Neo-Cons" that hi-jacked our government did.  No reason to get excited about it, really, because soon these "whackos" will be out of DC and back in the corporate/lobbying world where we won't have to worry about them any more.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Interesting take, except (4.00 / 1)
McClellan doesn't focus the blame on Bush alone in his book, and it would take the kind of GOP media propaganda effort that I don't think they can muster anymore to convince the public that everything was really Bush's fault.  

Additionally, conservatives aren't going to rally around McCain as a Reagan heir.  Trust me; I'm neck-deep in red state and I see their despair.  

That's why I intend to campaign hard for Bob Barr - he just might gain enough traction with these poor conflicted souls to split the conservative vote and turn Texas blue.

[ Parent ]
I don't think that's the point, exactly (4.00 / 1)
As I see it, the point is to make the whole fiasco look like the fault of a well-intentioned Administration that just got a little bit too caught up in their patriotic zeal and crossed a few lines in pursuit of an otherwise noble goal.  


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
If caucuses don't matter, why did HRC spend 74 days in Iowa? (0.00 / 0)
Redistributing the benefits of an open economy (4.00 / 1)
I just read Martin Wolf's fresh perspective on preserving the open economy in the Financial Times:


Yet if the US is to have a more generous welfare state, including universal health provision, as in every other high-income country, taxes will have to be raised. Indeed, they will have to be raised even to meet existing commitments. Mr Summers argues, in response, for international action against harmful tax competition. He argues, too, for greater international agreement on regulation. In some areas, notably finance, the latter makes sense. But the view that the US must obtain such agreements if it is to raise some of the lowest levels of taxation and weakest regulation in the advanced world is unpersuasive. If Sweden's taxes can be 56 per cent of GDP, it is not tax competition that keeps the US at just 34 per cent. The mobility of capital and people is an excuse, not a justification, for low US tax levels.

What is desperately needed is an honest debate about these issues. Such a debate would, I believe, reach four fundamental conclusions. First, whether or not citizens of the US (or other high-income countries) welcome it, the global spread of economic development is ineluctable. Second, protection against imports is a costly and ineffective way of dealing with the consequences. Third, parties of the centre-left should argue for redistributing the spoils of globalisation, not sacrificing them. Finally, a necessary condition is higher taxation of the winners. But the chief obstacle to that is a lack of domestic political will. Globalisation is not a reason for low taxes, but an excuse. It should be discarded.


Hear! hear! (0.00 / 0)
Good analysis.  Taxes on the winners will have to go up.  It's the only way, and it's only fair.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
McCain (4.00 / 1)
"I strongly opposed the failed strategy after visiting Iraq on several occasions... I'm sure people will judge me on my record including my advocacy for, and strong opposition to the failed strategy in Iraq and for the strategy that is succeeding. I'm quite confident of that."

This... what?!? This may be the best thing McCain's ever said.

Its well beyond Kerry-esque (0.00 / 0)
"I advocated for the war, before opposed it, and now I want to stay the course, only do it better and longer"


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I don't even know what to say at this point (0.00 / 0)
"I opposed the flawed Iraq War before I advocated for the successful Iraq War"?!
[ Parent ]
That works too (0.00 / 0)
Apparently, Tom Friedman should be considered a potential running mate for John McCain.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately (0.00 / 0)
Obama's sole credential on the Iraq war is a 2002 speech about which nobody ouside the blogosphere cares.  Iraq is a bad issue for him because it puts his complete lack of any relevant experience into sharp relief.  He's better off running an "it's the economy, stupid" campaign.
[ Parent ]
He can take a stand against the Unitary Executive (0.00 / 0)
and pledge to follow the US Constitution by promising to seek an official declaration of war, should any such events warrant it during his administration.

He can write an article for Foreign Policy in which he officially and declaratively retracts, renounces, and rejects the Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive War.

Hillary Clinton could do this too, by the way.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
It seems that the media is in a bit of a panic about McClennen (4.00 / 1)
it enforces the narrative that the traditional media has almost no credibility.  Instead of probing and fact checking McClennen's comments, they simply parroted his comments.  But as another poster pointed out, McClennen is also sounding apologetic and doesn't blame Bush directly for the failures which I think is total bullshit.  

I also found it interesting that Rachel Maddow wasn't on Race for the White House last night because they did a special roundtable to discuss Scotty's book.  Maddow had some great points on this but mostly I sensed that they didn't want her there pointing out why none of them fact checked or probed harder where the administration was getting their "facts" from.  But like Glenn Greenwald points out, Kennedy, Gore and Howard Dean were all howling about what bullshit this war was but were getting the short shrift when it came to the news cycles.

Absolutely right about the media not fact-checking (4.00 / 1)
and that is not to be over-looked, or forgotten.

But the US Congress didn't do any "fact-checking" either - they did not do their job, which is to declare war (or not) after a debate on the issue.  This is a particularly glaring abication of their constitutional duties because they had every opportunity to do so BEFORE the invasion began.  This is completely unlike the situation for the Gulf War perpetrated by Poppy Bush in response to the invasion of Kuwait, where the deed was already done by the time the US Congress got a chance to do their job.

This is points, directly, at what I consider the root of this problem, the rise of an Imperial Presidency (or Unitary Executive, if you prefer) which was a stated goal of Dick Cheney and should have set off warning bells all over Capitol Hill.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Opening the Day: McClellan Takes the Dirty Hippy Narrative Mainstream | 15 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox