I keep saying that I steer clear of politics here, but keep tossing them out. However, I think this is a fairly apolitical question about a political situation.
If you, evidently like a few of my friends, have had your head under a rock, or in files, or in a gradebook/ classroom, the last few weeks, let me catch you up a little. Scott McLellan, press secretary for President Bush from 2003-2006, recently released a book criticizing Bush on his actions surrounding the war, as well as several other aspects of his presidency. This comes after he left the position under amiable terms, to the praise of President Bush.
My question for you: Aside from whether or not you agree with his accusations, would you be interested in hiring Scott McLellan now, knowing he may, at any point in the future, change his tune about you -- and declare it publicly? Or do you think you would like to reward him for calling a spade a spade?
14 comments:
The knowledge that my comment may be read by gentle people prevents me from saying how I really feel about the creeps that write kiss-and-tell books, so suffice it to say I harbor seriously malevolent feelings toward the former trusted staffer.
This latest book is yet another in a long line of examples of how our society is unraveling. It's just plain tacky to be so disloyal to people who have entrusted so much faith in one. Would I hire him? Not in this life.
I say to be in that position to begin with, you'd better be pretty dadgummed sure of what you think regarding that person's policy. . .and if you don't like it either leave or keep your mouth shut.
I don't think you need to be a kiss UP. . .I also don't think you need to spew venom after the fact. Wouldn't trust him.
I wouldn't hire him. I also believe that he is going to have a difficult time finding work, so his book better sell well. He bit the hand that feeds him!
hey, just wanted to say hello...so jealous you are done for the summer!! Also, nice post...I'd agree with the rest of the comments...your dad hit it on the head!
McClellen is probably just the tip of the iceberg among Bush administration insiders who would probably love to say exactly what he is saying.
Did he do it in a overly self-serving way? Yes. But he does not owe it to the administration to keep his mouth shut if he feels that the handling of national affairs has been unscrupulous. I hope that as an employer I never use the guise of "loyalty" to expect the absence of well-reasoned criticism.
Anon -- can one really call a tell-all book "well-reasoned criticism"? Perhaps I'm placing a scriptural model in politics where, heaven knows, there is none, but isn't well-reasoned criticism to go to someone in private and/or with a few trusted advisers at the time that the criticism could have an impact -- say, when you are still employed by that person? That's what I get from Matthew 18:15.
Seriously, I'm trying to look at this from an employers' point-of-view, and I'm just thinkin' it looks real bad for Mr. McLellan.
True, I think there is no doubt that McClellan was opportunistic in his approach to this matter. He certainly kept quiet while in the administration and is now letting it all out in a non-direct way.
But I do think we need to be careful with the Matthew 18 approach here. While his method is probably not the most noble approach, he is being publicly critical about public figures regarding public affairs. If we are going to point to Matthew 18 here, then this whole blog post and discussion is inappropriate, because you (I'm assuming) have not gone to Scott McClellan privately first to express your problem with his actions.
McClellan is essentially doing the same thing that is being done on this blog - publicly calling someone to question regarding public matters.
Practically, I think we all know that employment is not going to be an issue for McClellan.
I wouldn't hire him. I bet Pres Bush would admit he's made some mistakes - at least he'd admit it to his maker. How exactly do you prepare yourself to be thrust into something as horrific as 9/11? He turned his back on someone who trusted him to make a buck - or a thousand. I have no respect for that kind of behavior.
I think the main thing here is that if you disagree with someone either publicly, privately, politically, whatever, you need to tell them. If it for the greater good, you may even need to blow a whistle or testify in front of congress. You do not, however, run out and publish a sensational tell-all book to make a buck.
That is not for the greater good.
That is for your own good.
Don't treat me like I'm stupid by insisting that this is information I need to know for my own good when it's gonna cost me $29.95 to own the information.
I keep coming back here to see what Anonymous might say next. Who is Mrs. (or Ms.) Anon?
Or Mr. Anon? Hopefully this isn't a women's only club. ;-)
I just feel that there is a little bit of disingenuineness going on here towards Scott McClellan. Agree with him or not, he became critical of the administration based on his experience and he went public with his views, just as thousands upon thousands have done all through history. And I dare say that one of our fundamental political doctrines in America is the protection and even encouragement of those critical of government.
I would also dare say that many who are shooting arrows at McClellan right now because of what he did to Bush probably never said much about George Stephanopoulos and his expose on the Clinton administration.
Oops! That should have been (or Mr.)
Yeah, I suspected it was a Mr. Anon. My sitemeter tells me other interesting things... And I think s/he has valid questions and statements. But I still wouldn't hire Scott McLellan. One of the comments I got on this post on Facebook was, "Well, it depends on how well I need him to keep secrets." Again, valid observation. But, just fair warning -- Scott, do not turn in your resume' to me. And I KNOW you were on your way to do just that...
Yeah I figure your site meter probably gives me away. :-) It's hard being anonymous on the net these days.
Post a Comment