Talk:Scott McClellan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scott McClellan article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject University of Texas at Austin, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to The University of Texas at Austin, the people, history, and sports teams of the University, and promoting development of related articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
UT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


Contents

[edit] Book

The Bush administration is "puzzled" that a loyal aide would turn his back on them? Yes, it's a sad day for America when a man puts his obligation to his country above political loyalty. <sarcasm/> Seriously, they hung McClellan up to dry on the Plame scandal and Iraq. They completely used him to take the heat for their crappy policies. And now they're surprised he's firing back? What were they expecting him to do, bake them cookies? It's telling that a even a loyalist, a Bush loyalist for God's sake, is critical of this administration... —Preceding unsigned comment added by The infinite (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Old comments n Questions

What is Scott up to now?

Barr said Scott was s'posed to get married in Austin on the 40th anniversary of the JFK murder.[1] Did he go though with that? He took a break at the right time.[2]

[edit] Date of birth

He is described as age 35 in this article (10 July 2003) and this article (23 September 2003). If my arithmetic is correct, he was born between 24 September 1967 and 10 July 1968. Tim Ivorson 19:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

165.247.218.75. Thanks for adding McClellan's birth year to the article. I have changed the categories to reflect his date of birth. Tim Ivorson 10:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That sounds right. He and I were in the same class in sixth grade; almost all children in our class were born between 1 September 1967 and 31 August 1968. We were pretty good friends; unfortunately I don't remember (if I ever knew) when his birthday is. --Angr 15:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plame scandal

The article needs to be updated in light of McClellan's role in the unfolding Plame scandal, as spokesman for the White House and as a grand jury witness himself. We ought to include a few quotes from McClellan about his colleagues Rove and Libby from September and October 2003, when he proclaimed their innocence and called their involvement in the leak "ridiculous" and "not true". Contrast this to his "we do not comment on ongoing investigations" stance after July 11, 2005, and all of his hand-over-heart proclamations to the White House Press Corps from that point on that he (at least) is personally honest. Shariputra 18:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Would a quotes section work?

I think McClellan, who I personally think has the most thankless job in the White House, has probably some quote-worthy deflections. They're already becoming a part of the pop culture lexicon, particularly on shows like The Daily Show. Bobak 17:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • He has a thankless job because he's the voice of the anti-christ.--DannyBoy7783 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Press Secretary

  • Just to make it perfectly clear, Scott McClellan is still the Press Secretary until a replacement is found. Am I right? --Shawn 03:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname suggestion

Mc Mc Mc Mc

Van Slyke


Kenji Yamada 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akin to a Whistleblower

I believe Scott fits into the definition of a "whistleblower" with his book and such a decision to come forward takes much courage. Congratulations Scott! I like the Biography and would request the following information - although it's a very thorough Wiki page - what else did he do when he wasn't in front of the podium? What kind of grades did he get at UT/Austin? Favorite food? Exercise? Pets? Travel - been where? Wants to travel to in the future? Favorite books? Movies? Music? What would he say would be THE PERFECT JOB NOW (- with his new found wisdom?) He's only 40!!! The world is at his fingertips! I can imagine, he is finding out who is REAL friends are... and he is probably going to find out that he's an oak tree...a nut that stood its ground.Stlind Seaord (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Stlind Seaord (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Stlind Seaord (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He's not a whistleblower. He's more of an activist/reformer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.104.164 (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I see him more as a man who wrestled with his circumstances, reflected upon his past, and decided that he must follow his highest calling — the Truth (with a capital T). --Art Smart (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
While I'm tempted to add my opinion of McClellan's decision to start pursuing The Truth at this particular juncture, probably best to save the talk page for discussion of specific improvements to the article. MastCell Talk 06:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Affirmation

It has been my thinking all along that the Bush Administration has persistently deceived the American Public. I remember during the President's campaign, that he said, that he was going to reach across the aisle in Washington, and create working relationship with the Democratics.

From what I have seen, that is far from what has been done.

Also, I believed that this was a manufactured reason to go to war in Iraq. And Mr. McClellan's account of things seems to support that. I believe that the President instill the atmosphere of fear across this nation, and who would not support the war based on the misinformation that was received?

Mr. McClellan did exactly what was correct. Stay in the administration and gather all the information that he could, so when he did go public, no matter when, his information would be solid. If he had come forth with data prior to it being substantiated, the press and critics would probably say that his information was faulty and parties would make provisions to cover it up.

My hat is off to him for exposing and affirming what I had been thinking all along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.27.63 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue criticism

A relatively new editor has repeatedly inserted the following text (with my correction to the citation):

The high profile, frequently contrarian pundit Christopher Hitchens, after reading McClellan's book proposes, amongst other matters, a profit motive behind McClellan's current "tell-all" and commented, "So it goes with the ludicrous figure of Scott McClellan. I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! ... the talentless McClellan is currently so far out of his depth. For one thing, he doesn't supply anything that can really be called evidence. For another, having not noticed any "propaganda machine" at the time he was perspiring his way through his simple job, he has a clear mercenary interest in discovering one in retrospect." A Tale of Two Tell-Alls : If you want to read a serious book about the intervention in Iraq, look to Douglas Feith

This text is unsuitable for inclusion for several reasons. The quote is excessively long, dedicating entirely too much weight to an unconnected critic, violating WP:UNDUE. The presentation is completely one sided, violating WP:NPOV. There may also be WP:BLP concerns, as there are some very disparaging comments. Given that there is an explicit advertisement for a competing product, I don't see how it's possible that this can be included. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing "disparaging" there --silly (violating WP:NPOV) accusation itself. It's literary technique using metaphoric language to emphasize the writers overall impressions about the man and his book. There is no "advertisement" or "competing" product. Another illogical straw man assertion. It's merely the title of the article. Try reading in future. (Archilles last stand (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))
I think that some of the language needs changed, and the selection should be reduced, but Hitchens' comments still warrant mentioning. Trilemma (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Outright namecalling and insults, as well as the other problems mentioned above, make this unsuitable for inclusion. I've removed once more; if we need to call an RFC on this issue I'm confident the community will agree that the comments are over the top and violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and should not be included. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Blaxthos WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, continues to vandalise the newly trimmed, quite moderate, Slate magazine source, and commentary from Christopher Hitchens, and is POV pushing once again. Blaxthos, please desist from further inflaming Wiki editors, engaging in edit wars and your current unproductive disprutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.36.252 (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Senate testimony

I believe that we should mention McClellan's upcoming voluntary Senate testimony. I know it's been covered on MSNBC and elsewhere. I also think it's germane to mention that the Senate report issued last week pretty much corroborated the claims made in What Happened, though I'm unsure of the exact place (here and/or there) and verbiage necessary. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Due to recent edit warring, this page has been protected for 4 days. Please use the time to establish a consensus on what should and should not be included on the page. If you reach a consensus before the expiry of the time, you can make a listing at WP:RFPU for unprotection.

Please also refrain from using the term "vandalism" to refer to material that is merely the subject of a content dispute. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

See discussion here. Also please note that the account in question has been blocked for a month. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)