Wanna see Scott McClellan redefine audacity?

This Fishbowl item is worth the entire read:

Politics & Prose Really Supports Journalism

A FishbowlDC spy was at Scott McClellan’s book signing at Politics & Prose last night (a bookstore that’s already come under fire recently for some heavy-handed practices) and tried to ask the former White House press secretary some questions following his remarks.

Said one P&P employee (paraphrasing) to our tipster: “Are you with media? There’s absolutely no questions. Not even one or two. The media shouldn’t be here. We can’t allow you to ask him anything.”

Huh. So Scott McClellan is making loads of money off a book in which he admits to deceiving the American people and failing to properly answer questions from the media…and then during his book tour for said book, he again won’t answer questions?

Redonk.

Or perhaps he’s just got an exclusive contract with Olbermann.

Any chance Olbermann will recognize McClellan as the Worst Ironic Person In The World?

Now here’s the friendly Washington reception Scott McClellan has been hoping for to drive book sales.
AP reports:

President Bush’s former spokesman, Scott McClellan, will testify before a House committee next week about whether Vice President Dick Cheney ordered him to make misleading public statements about the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity.

McClellan will testify publicly and under oath before the House Judiciary Committee on June 20 about the White House’s role in the leak and its response, his attorneys, Michael and Jane Tigar, said on Monday.

In his new book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” McClellan said he was misled by others, possibly including Cheney, about the role of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in the leak. McClellan has said publicly that Bush and Cheney “directed me to go out there and exonerate Scooter Libby.”

The statements prompted House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., to invite McClellan to the hearing “concerning reported attempts to cover up the involvement of White House officials in the leak of” Plame’s identity.

It’s always good when friends get together.  Maybe Conyers will say that he still has great personal affection for McClellan.

Keith Olbermann last night:

Scott McClellan, I don`t want to get too fulsome on you, I don`t think you`re going to be dining out on the book for the rest of your life, but I think this is a primary document of American history. I`m very impressed with it and I think at some point, people will be teaching history classes based on it.

Might be the same classes who teach this.

The Scott McClellan road-show continues.  The “Today Show” this morning, C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” on Friday (7:30-8:15 a.m., taking calls.  Here’s hoping Helen Thomas calls in to offer praise).

Meantime, Rick Moran writes a great column in Pajamas Media today.  A favorite excerpt:

It’s a safe assumption to make that without George Bush, Scott McClellan would still be in Texas, glad handing other state senators, eating greasy barbecue on the campaign trail, watching endless baton twirling routines by cute little 8-year-old girls in hideously revealing outfits (and being forced to clap), and giving interviews to the Turnbull Weekly Shopper. Instead, he became the second most visible person in the White House, calling star reporters by their first name and able to get Ben Bradlee on the phone anytime he wished.

Whoa — Ben Bradlee?

Ben Bradlee, the former executive editor of the Washington Post?  Like Ben Kenobi ( “There’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time”)?

Bradlee retired back in 1991, when he turned 70 years of age.  He’s 86 now.

The only reason Scott McClellan would need to call Ben Bradlee is to change the time of a bridge game.

But, then again, given how many bridges McClellan’s burned with his new book, playing bridge with Ben Bradlee may be his only option.

Here’s Bradlee in 2007, when he was a spry 85 years-old.

Interesting take on Scott McClellan by CNN’s Jessica Yellin on “Anderson Cooper” last night:

It strikes me that what Scott is doing right now is expressing a little bit of guilt. I mean, he was remarkably evasive over and over on any number of issues, from Katrina, to the vice president’s shooting, to the CIA leak, and WMD.

And, at this point, he has become more than just disillusioned. He has become deeply, I do think, personally hurt. By the time he left the White House, he was expressing a lot of sort of regret.

Guilt? Disillusioned? Hurt? Any other touchy-feely words we can use? How about a little word that psychiatrists use. What is it? Um, oh yeah: Disloyal.

Let’s talk legacy.

Some government officials are known for successes in the war on terror and Communism.  Some government officials are known for advancing and implementing pro-growth economic policies.  Other government officials are known for helping restore America’s diplomatic might.

How about Lurita Alexis Doan — how will the departing General Services Administration chief be remembered?

Here’s White House press secretary Dana Perino yesterday:

“She also worked to make sure that all of the numerous buildings in the federal government are as energy efficient as possible.”

Now that’s legacy.  A thousand points of florescent light.

We learn this from the Wall Street Journal:

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson is expected to announce his resignation Monday, according to people familiar with the matter, a decision that will deal a blow to the Bush administration’s efforts to tackle the housing crisis.

The exact reasons for Mr. Jackson’s decision couldn’t be learned. Earlier this month, two Democratic senators, Patty Murray of Washington and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, sent a letter to President Bush urging him to request Mr. Jackson’s resignation, arguing that accusations of wrongdoing had made him ineffective.

Fair enough.  But what about HUD itself?  Is HUD effective or ineffective?

As a two-time HUD staffer, I continue to maintain that America needs to seriously assess what the federal government does right in housing, and what it does wrong.  Part of that assessment must be whether HUD is part of the solution or part of the problem.

HUD’s history is replete with examples of wrongdoing — corruption, even.  Are the leaders all solely to blame, or could it be the place itself?

If Al Jackson is eventually proven of wrongdoing, clearly the right thing to do is to get rid of him.

But HUD will remain.

And so will the potential for more wrongdoing.

My old boss, Jack Kemp, once said of the department’s scandals that preceded his tenure as HUD Secretary: “We are cleaning out the stables.”

Still a noble cause — but what if we just shut the stables down?

We learn this from the Washington Post:

The Pentagon confirmed this month that the cost of the fleet of 28 new super-sophisticated helicopters has jumped from $6.1 billion when the contract was signed in 2005 to $11.2 billion today. Outfitted with cutting-edge communications equipment, antimissile defenses and hardened hulls, each of the VH-71 helicopters, to be dubbed Marine One whenever the president is onboard, will cost $400 million — more than the most recent Boeing 747 jetliner outfitted to serve as Air Force One when it was delivered in 1990, even when adjusted for inflation.

Wasn’t life a lot simpler — and cheaper — when our helicopters looked liked this?

Well, as they say, if you live long enough, you’ll see everything.

But would you believe you’d ever live long enough to see neocons get the blame for — transportation policies?

Probably not, unless you read today’s Washington Post article: Letting the Market Drive Transportation, Bush Officials Criticized for Privatization.

The two personalities you need to know:

• Tyler Duvall, assistant secretary for transportation policy
• Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure highways and transit subcommittee

How do they fit together?  This quote:

“Tyler Duvall is a little pointy-headed neocon with grand ideas about the future of transportation, and they all involve tolling,” DeFazio said. “He’s bright, young, energetic — just totally wrong, and has a bizarre, neocon view of transportation.”

And what, pray tell is the “neocon view on transportation”?  Perhaps it’s Jews who want America to battle for private roads in Iraq to somehow benefit Israel?

Tough to tell.  We’re just waiting for the neocon influence to rear its ugly, traitorous head at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

As a passionate blogger, I always like to see more folks joining the craft.  Even the U.S. Government.  So it’s a good thing, for instance, that there’s an official State Department blog, called Dipnote.

Sure, it’s not the most bloggy thing we’ve ever seen.  It’s more typical of a PR organ than an interactive conversation.  But heck, baby steps, right?

Sometimes, though, the steps can be in the wrong direction.

Like when the blog is used to determine what U.S. policy should be in, say, the Middle East.

Consider this recent Dipnote posting:

Question of the Week: Should the U.S. Engage Hamas in the Peace Process Between the Israelis and Palestinians? 

Talk about interactive.   The comment section literally exploded, to use a Middle East term of art.

It’s probably not an unhelpful thing to ask that question — but more as an intellectual exercise in a place other than an official State Department outlet.  After all, shouldn’t they be the ones with the answer?

No wonder this exchange occurred at a later State Department press briefing with spokesman Sean McCormack:

QUESTION: Sean, on Dipnote, the question of the week is actually: Should the U.S. engage Hamas in the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Can you explain why this is up for discussion within the State Department since you very firmly have said that Hamas is considered a terrorist organization and you won’t (inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it’s not — again, it’s not a question of policy. This is our official blog. It’s not — it’s meant to generate conversation among people.

QUESTION: Are you taking notes of what people within the Department are saying? Taking note of what people are saying within the Department on this?

MR. MCCORMACK: We always take a look. I personally always look at the blog. I’m the one who started it. So, you know, we always take a look at what the comments are. But it doesn’t — that doesn’t mean that it’s going to change the policy. The policy is what it is.

QUESTION: What’s the purpose then, Sean, to have that? What’s the — there must be a reason for this question to be up there versus another question. So what are you taking out of the whole thing?

MR. MCCORMACK: I didn’t write this particular question, but again, it’s meant to generate — I mean, you guys here are asking me in a public forum these kinds of questions. This is just another form of a public forum.

QUESTION: So is it meant to just sort of solidify and confirm your policy that you should not talk to Hamas? Are you expecting the parties to –

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it’s a –

QUESTION: — I haven’t looked at it recently.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, the whole idea behind the blog is to try to build a community of people who are interested in reading about and discussing and providing their inputs to — on matters of foreign policy. It’s an attempt to let — and this question isn’t indicative of it — but it’s an attempt to let people on the outside who may not have any interaction with the State Department, who don’t have the opportunity to travel with the Secretary of State, to get a little bit of an insight to what we do at the State Department and why we do it.

We’re also interested in hearing the views of people outside, both positive and negative. There’s — if you look at the blog, there’s criticism of the State Department, there’s criticism of U.S. policy there. There’s also statements of support. There are people who are asking questions. It’s, to my mind, a critical way in the 21st century of interacting with publics and communicating with publics and hearing what they have to say, not just broadcasting out but also hearing what they have to say.

I mean, we put — I mean, to your question, Nina, we’ve put all sorts of questions up there previously talking about Cuba policy and all sorts of other things. It’s not a statement of policy; it’s just something that the questions tend to be very topical and to generate discussion. There are a lot of people with a lot of different views, a lot of people that don’t share our views with regard to terrorist organizations.

No, the State Department shouldn’t stop blogging, in whatever form they think blogging is.  I doubt any other country has such a vibrant open forum.  But let’s equally hope they don’t blog away a strong U.S. position against terrorists, or anything else.