Should McClellan give book proceeds to charity?

[RunInRed 16,492]

Coming clean is admirable, but Scott McClellan shouldn't profit from the role he played in our nation's largest foreign policy blunder. Let's call on him to donate all of the proceeds from his book to a group that helps Iraq veterans.

http://pol.moveon.org/mcclellan/?rc=homepage

[BamaGrad03 0]

He wrote the book. He wasn't setting policy...just reported it. He should get the profit if any should be made.

Typical democrat concept though...tell someone else what should be done with their money.

[channonc 466]

He wrote the book. He wasn't setting policy...just reported it. He should get the profit if any should be made.

Agreed.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Although, it would pretty much erase the republican talking point that he is just doing this for money.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Don't care. Either way, none of his profits will be coming from me.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Don't care. Either way, none of his profits will be coming from me.

Truth hurts.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Don't care. Either way, none of his profits will be coming from me.

Truth hurts.

Are you OK? We can tell by your last post that you tripped and bent over again.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Although, it would pretty much erase the republican talking point that he is just doing this for money.

He may be just doing it for the money. He may not. But if anyone can write a book that people want to buy...I say they deserve the profits.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Don't care. Either way, none of his profits will be coming from me.

Truth hurts.

Are you OK? We can tell by your last post that you tripped and bent over again.

Late night last night, really need to go to bed.

[AUTiger1 0]

Although, it would pretty much erase the republican talking point that he is just doing this for money.

He may be just doing it for the money. He may not. But if anyone can write a book that people want to buy...I say they deserve the profits.

Agreed.

You have got to be kidding me about wanting him to give the profits up for charity right? He wrote it, it's his work, why should he have to give up the money he is going to make?

[RunInRed 16,492]

I'm not calling on any thing...the post/concept is a direct quote from MoveOn...as noted by the link.

But I do think he could dramatically boost his credibility if he did some thing like this.

[sogaaufan 27]

By the time Bush's henchmen get through with their character assasination of him he may not be able to earn another paycheck the rest of his life. He'd better keep the money.

[aumd03 2]

I'm not calling on any thing...the post/concept is a direct quote from MoveOn...as noted by the link.

But I do think he could dramatically boost his credibility if he did some thing like this.

And you can dramatically decrease yours if you keep quoting Moveon.org. Come on, you can think for yourself. Try real hard.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Won't make his story any more valid, one way or the other.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Nor less valid.

Not to mention, if McClellan really wanted to make the big bucks, he'd have done much better to just keep this to himself and take advantage of the contacts made within that circle, serving on boards and such. He's virtually cut himself off from any of that now and he knew that going in. The publisher he chose does not give big advances either.

I hardly think he did it for the money, otherwise there are any number of other bigger publishing houses that would have given him a huge advance, not to mention a much larger marketing budget.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Nor less valid.

Not to mention, if McClellan really wanted to make the big bucks, he'd have done much better to just keep this to himself and take advantage of the contacts made within that circle, serving on boards and such. He's virtually cut himself off from any of that now and he knew that going in. The publisher he chose does not give big advances either.

I hardly think he did it for the money, otherwise there are any number of other bigger publishing houses that would have given him a huge advance, not to mention a much larger marketing budget.

No, McClellan is that incompetent and short sighted. You say he'd have done this or that if he were REALLY in it for the money, but I submit that he's simply not that capable or bright to have figured all that out. There's a reason why a predominantly Left wing publisher is all who would take on this goofy story from the start. It's because they knew they could " tweak " the story to suit the interest of their intended target audience...... the extreme, Bush hating far Left wing. And that's exactly what they got.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

And I'm sure you'll be showing the proof of said tweaking and McClellan's inability to understand the differences in money to be made.

The reasons that were given behind the scenes for McClellan leaving (from the administration's perspective if you buy that he was nudged out) was that they wanted someone more aggressive and better at fending off the press. That job has a unique set of challenges that even the most competent people otherwise could have trouble with given the carefulness with which things have to be said, the rapid-fire nature of the questioning and so on. He wasn't "incompetent" or too stupid to do the job.

Raptor, you sound ridiculous.

[tiger88 934]

Nor less valid.

Not to mention, if McClellan really wanted to make the big bucks, he'd have done much better to just keep this to himself and take advantage of the contacts made within that circle, serving on boards and such. He's virtually cut himself off from any of that now and he knew that going in. The publisher he chose does not give big advances either.

I hardly think he did it for the money, otherwise there are any number of other bigger publishing houses that would have given him a huge advance, not to mention a much larger marketing budget.

He has gone from being a below average employee in one camp to a hero of sorts in another. I think it is safe to say that his financial future is a wee bit brighter than it was before the book was a reality.

You keep harping on the fact that he didn't get a big bonus. So, what? If he had went for a big signing bonus it REALLY would have made him look like even more of an opportunist. He would have been digging his grave in that respect. The fact that he received a small bonus shows that he was smart enough to know that a big one would have made him look really bad. Or at least it shows that those helping him orchestrate this deal knew how bad it would make him look.

Anyway you paint it the guy is a bit of a worm. Something tells me the actual $$ off of sales won't be the only money/benefits he sees off of his backstabbing.

[AURaptor 1,126]

And I'm sure you'll be showing the proof of said tweaking and McClellan's inability to understand the differences in money to be made.

The reasons that were given behind the scenes for McClellan leaving (from the administration's perspective if you buy that he was nudged out) was that they wanted someone more aggressive and better at fending off the press. That job has a unique set of challenges that even the most competent people otherwise could have trouble with given the carefulness with which things have to be said, the rapid-fire nature of the questioning and so on. He wasn't "incompetent" or too stupid to do the job.

Raptor, you sound ridiculous.

Proof ? McClellan even said so himself, precious. The press was annihilating him, and it wasn't even funny. It was clear to everyone, from inside and outside the administration, that SM was in way over his head, and THAT's why he was 'nudged out'. He absolutely was incompetent and too stupid for the job. Everyone knows this to be the case. It's not even an issue.

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.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2...-slams-limbaugh

Ok Huckleberry... who sounds "ridiculous" now ?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

And I'm sure you'll be showing the proof of said tweaking and McClellan's inability to understand the differences in money to be made.

The reasons that were given behind the scenes for McClellan leaving (from the administration's perspective if you buy that he was nudged out) was that they wanted someone more aggressive and better at fending off the press. That job has a unique set of challenges that even the most competent people otherwise could have trouble with given the carefulness with which things have to be said, the rapid-fire nature of the questioning and so on. He wasn't "incompetent" or too stupid to do the job.

Raptor, you sound ridiculous.

Proof ? McClellan even said so himself, precious. The press was annihilating him, and it wasn't even funny. It was clear to everyone, from inside and outside the administration, that SM was in way over his head, and THAT's why he was 'nudged out'. He absolutely was incompetent and too stupid for the job. Everyone knows this to be the case. It's not even an issue.

Reread, buttercup. There's a difference between not handling the predatory press corp very well and being stupid or incompetent. Many people who are plenty smart and able to do any number of things quite well would wilt in that situation, yourself and me included more likely than not.

The guy isn't stupid.

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.” http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2...-slams-limbaugh

Ok Huckleberry... who sounds "ridiculous" now ?

Still you.

You do realize that literally 90 someodd percent of books written this country have editors at the publishing house work closely with the authors to tweak the copy, tighten it up, help organize thoughts and so on. It's even moreso when the author is someone who hasn't written a lot of books. Even the books that say all the things you like and agree with go through such a process. You claimed it was tweaked to fit the left wing. You've still shown no such proof, just insinuations.

Somehow I get the feeling that if McClellan had come out with a book that said supported all the decisions this administration made and gave insights into the inner workings that were more in line with your own presuppositions, you wouldn't be dismissing it and calling him stupid. That tactic only comes out when it's not what you like.

[AURaptor 1,126]

TitanTiger, you're just too stubborn to admit you're wrong. You act as if McClellan was hailed as the best press secretary that W ever had. He wasn't. Despite your revisionist history, both supporters and detractors of the President routinely saw the incompetence of SM while he was on the job. And no one said it was an easy job, but Ari Fleischer and Tony Snow did worlds better, at the same position.

Also, I gave you blatant, direct proof , from SM's OWN WORDS, that his book was 'tweaked'. You reacted as if I had grabbed that word out of thin air, but in fact it was his own. Others state that the words in the book don't even sound like SM. And they've known him for years, so again, it's not just me and my " presuppositions" as you'd like to believe.

It's you who sounds ridiculous, and we both know that.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

TitanTiger, you're just too stubborn to admit you're wrong.

That's funny. I've been thinking the same thing about you.

You act as if McClellan was hailed as the best press secretary that W ever had.

Actually you need to brush up on your reading skills. I never said, nor did I ever imply, any such thing. In fact, I said the opposite. I said that he was let go because he wasn't aggressive enough and didn't handle the press as well as he needed to or the administration wanted him to. How that escaped you I have no idea.

He wasn't. Despite your revisionist history, both supporters and detractors of the President routinely saw the incompetence of SM while he was on the job. And no one said it was an easy job, but Ari Fleischer and Tony Snow did worlds better, at the same position.

I revised nothing. What I said was that not being good at that particular job does not make one stupid or incompetent. There are tons of smart, capable people who would not do that job very well. I can do many things, some of them quite well, but I am almost positive I would suck at that job. You have to think on your feet very quickly, you have to be able not only to respond without hesitation but to do so in very carefully parsed words to make sure you don't give the wrong impression, you have to be able to keep your cool and so on. I would either go off on someone every other day or stumble over words as I tried to say the exact thing that needed to be said and that would be the end of my tenure there. That doesn't make me stupid or incompetent. It just makes me unsuited for that task.

Also, I gave you blatant, direct proof , from SM's OWN WORDS, that his book was 'tweaked'. You reacted as if I had grabbed that word out of thin air, but in fact it was his own. Others state that the words in the book don't even sound like SM. And they've known him for years, so again, it's not just me and my " presuppositions" as you'd like to believe.

"Tweaked" (which is what every frickin publisher in the world does to virtually every frickin' book in the world) is different from "tweaked to fit a left wing agenda" (which is what you claimed). You gave no such "blatant" nor "direct" proof of that no matter how hard you wish it to be so, though the old college try with "guilt by association" is noted.

Frankly, if I were to start telling everyone in my family or my entire circle of friends how I feel about a number of things such as religion, politics, the war and so on, they'd probably tell you if they just saw the words on paper that it doesn't sound like me. They've known me for years and I've never expressed such doubts or anger or whatever. And in one sense they'd be right. It wouldn't sound like the me they've known because up to that point, I haven't shared the changes I've undergone in how I think about these things. The last time they had such a discussion with me, I was pretty much in line with how they thought. And since then, as I've thought and given a lot of consideration to things, read more, studied more, questioned my assumptions and so on, I've mostly kept that to myself and only recently have been openly saying some of those things on a message board. If I had spent that time writing a book and it came out tomorrow, you'd get the same reaction. But that doesn't make the thoughts any less my thoughts and my real perspective on things. It's just that my views have evolved as I've thought more and been presented with more information on these things. Some of them remain the same, others have changed. I can't help that it's not what my friends may remember about me, but it's doesn't make my views less honest or real. It just means that they haven't been privy to my thought process over the last two years.

SM has admitted to a similar process since he left the administration, began to think more and research more on the various issues, recall his dealings there and start to put words on paper. I get what he's saying because I've been there myself. Certainly you can understand someone changing their mind about something after giving it a lot more thought or coming into more information or whatever. Isn't that supposed to be a hallmark of a freethinker?

[arnaldoabru 11]

Nor less valid.

Not to mention, if McClellan really wanted to make the big bucks, he'd have done much better to just keep this to himself and take advantage of the contacts made within that circle, serving on boards and such. He's virtually cut himself off from any of that now and he knew that going in. The publisher he chose does not give big advances either.

I hardly think he did it for the money, otherwise there are any number of other bigger publishing houses that would have given him a huge advance, not to mention a much larger marketing budget.

No, McClellan is that incompetent and short sighted. You say he'd have done this or that if he were REALLY in it for the money, but I submit that he's simply not that capable or bright to have figured all that out. There's a reason why a predominantly Left wing publisher is all who would take on this goofy story from the start. It's because they knew they could " tweak " the story to suit the interest of their intended target audience...... the extreme, Bush hating far Left wing. And that's exactly what they got.

So Shrub hired someone that was incompetent?

[arnaldoabru 11]

And I'm sure you'll be showing the proof of said tweaking and McClellan's inability to understand the differences in money to be made.

The reasons that were given behind the scenes for McClellan leaving (from the administration's perspective if you buy that he was nudged out) was that they wanted someone more aggressive and better at fending off the press. That job has a unique set of challenges that even the most competent people otherwise could have trouble with given the carefulness with which things have to be said, the rapid-fire nature of the questioning and so on. He wasn't "incompetent" or too stupid to do the job.

Raptor, you sound ridiculous.

Proof ? McClellan even said so himself, precious. The press was annihilating him, and it wasn't even funny. It was clear to everyone, from inside and outside the administration, that SM was in way over his head, and THAT's why he was 'nudged out'. He absolutely was incompetent and too stupid for the job. Everyone knows this to be the case. It's not even an issue.

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.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2...-slams-limbaugh

Ok Huckleberry... who sounds "ridiculous" now ?

OMG, Osnos called Rush(I took enough pills a day to knock out an elephant), "bombastic, aggressive, and mean."

[Tiger Al 0]

Raptor, for what it's worth, Scott McClellan has done numerous interviews and he's never claimed that the 'tweaking' the editor did differed from his beliefs. Do you really think he didn't read and OK the final manuscript before it was printed?