I didn't think I'd ever say this, but - thank God for Scott McClellan. With Thursday's Olbermann interview, tomorrow's Russert interview, and a spate of op-eds in the middle keeping this story alive, McClellan's book is the gift that keeps on giving. The more the media's Republican lens is on George W. Bush, the better off we'll be come November, and perhaps just as importantly, the Republican Party's reaction to the book is giving the mainstream media new insight into how the Bushies' minds work. Although it's nothing new to those of in the Netroots, a spate of quotes from folks like Mary Matalin and Bernard Kerik are making headlines by showing just how low the Republican elites can sink, valuing loyalty over corruption and honesty.

What first struck me when this book came out was not its "shocking" content, but White House Press Secretary Dana Perino's reaction: "Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House." Perino seems to be saying there is only one possible explanation for criticism from a former employee: they're disgruntled. It is absolutely impossible for someone to work with Bush and Co. and have any real complaints; things here are so wonderful that if you're not in bliss the whole time, there's something wrong with you. Criticism is never based on truth; the only possible logical explanation is a lack of gruntle. Right... let that speak not to the fact that these people were blinders, but to just how big those blinders are.

Of course, you expect that kind of a reaction from the White House itself; they have to defend themselves. So maybe Perino gets a pass this time. With a paycheck and job description like hers, she hardly reveals the typical Republican mindset. We can get a better handle on the party by looking to folks without current official ties - folks like Bernard Kerik, who sent out an e-mail this week calling McClellan's truth tourettes, "DISLOYAL, SICKENING AND DESPICABLE DISLOYAL, SICKENING AND DESPICABLE."

It's typical of Kerik, he of nanny trouble, abuse of power, conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax fraud fame, to value loyalty (to Giuliani, to Bush, to I'm guessing Spiro Agnew) more than ethics or truth. Mary Matalin, who's under indictment for absolutely nothing, joined him, saying of McClellan's loyalty: "This will stand as the epitome, the ultimate breach of that code of honor."

So honor, apparently, does not mean fighting for the weak, telling the truth, exposing hypocrisy, bringing down the corrupt, or even keeping your zipper zipped. No, to these people, honor is sticking with the guy who put you on TV, no matter what sacrifices that entails. We haven't heard word one attacking McClellan's actual points, only his loyalty, which is why these people are unfit to run for even county dogcatcher.

But that is not to say Scott McClellan actually has honor. There is one Republican I do agree with: Bob Dole, who e-mailed McClellan to say, "There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues."

McClellan is helping us from a PR perspective, and his effect on the media and campaign may help to prevent the future from being as bad as the present. This is a good thing - but the fact of the matter is, he could have helped us keep the present from getting as bad as it is. If McClellan were just now seeing the light, I would welcome his conversion and not cry "Too little, too late!" But this is not a recent conversion. He has been shopping this book since January 2007, and was appalled at some of these abuses of power while still in the White House. There's no honor in unfailing loyalty, but there's also no honor in sitting on the truth until you can cash in, allowing the administration to keep killing for that much longer. Dole says he won't read the book, not for his anger at betrayal but for his anger at hypocrisy. That, I can respect: "If all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job."

McClellan, like 98% of Bush's second term staff, has little honor, but we should still be thankful for him. He has brought the nuts out of the woodwork, and the louder our alarm clock, the faster this nation will wake up.

And with that, we turn back for more of the RBC and campaign 2008.

Update [2008-5-31 17:16:24 by Transplanted Texan]: RandomNonviolence has a compelling comment about those who place a high value on loyalty.

There's more...

    I normally do not make it a habit of coming out against a candidate, I have from time to time brought to light a candidate's inconsistencies or outright lies but rarely have I made the case against a candidate. This will only be the second such case, the first was Rudy Giuliani because he is running on a misleading and often times false set of circumstances concerning 9/11 and his role in the Bernie Kerik fiasco. In the case of Mitt Romney I am willing to once again demonstrate a basic character flaw which is so entrenched in my opinion it should disqualify him from being elected President.

There's more...

We may be witnessing the last days of Rudy Giuliani as a Republican front-runner. New flavor Fred Thompson is getting ready to formally announce and my bet is that Thompson will come out ahead of Giuliani in the red state/blue state GOP smackdown.

But while Rudy is still with us, we can ask a few questions in relation to his dropping out of the Iraq Study Group to speak at one and two hundred thousand a pop. Not whether Rudy was "greedy" or whether he knows anything about Iraq like other liberal bloggers and writers. Since when has greed been bad for the Gordon Gekko Party and who said Republican candidates needed to know anything about the Middle East. George Bush didn't know a Sunni from a Shiite and Doug Feith used to filter out job applicants who knew too much about the Arab world. Why do we think Republican voters will care what Giuliani knows?

1. CAN RUDY AFFORD TO BE PRESIDENT? The president of the United States only makes $400,000 a year plus perks. Maybe that's not enough. Remember, Rudy's a partner in a big law firm (no doubt a rain-making partner rather than actually practicing law) and a big-time public speaker. You have to assume that he's living a seven or eight figure life as well--the houses, the cars, the clothes, the travel, the trophy wife, all the ex-wives and their kids. Hey! Maybe he lost a lot in the stock market slump of 2000-2001 as well. It adds up. Rudy probably needed the $300,000 he got from those speeches. Some $10 million a year anchor who can sympathize with Rudy's problems needs to ask.

There's more...

Reprinted from The Satirical Political Report http://satiricalpolitical.com

By now, you've surely heard about the leak of a 140-page secret dossier laying out Rudy Giuliani's masterplan for a 2008 presidential bid, including aides' concerns about his chief vulnerabilities. But press reports have left out the most explosive revelations contained in this highly confidential document:

10. "Mr. 9/11" sleeps with a Teddy Bear given to him by Bernard Kerik.

9. Rudy's biggest liability with evangelicals: perception of name as "Jew-liani."

8. Rudy's biggest liability in South: not abortion stand, but NY Yankee logo tattooed on ass.

7. Rudy's biggest asset in South: that his first wife was his cousin.

CONTINUED at: http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=494

There's more...