I’m guessing Public Affairs paid McClellan up front approximately $50k. He’ll earn much more in royalties. Now, who knows: given the change in his original book proposal versus the finished book, other parties may have chipped in more money since last year, but it might have been negligible.

Some figures let their vanity get in the way of practicality. Not so Richard Clarke, who in 2004 got an up front advance of comfortable proportions (six figures) to write his scathing rebuke of the Bush Administration.

More tomorrow—

Just out of curiousity, what would you guess the range of his advance was? I would respectfully disagree with you on McClellan’s performance. Give the fact that McClellan is not quick on his feet and Russert had tons of material at his disposal, McClellan did about as well as someone of his ability could do. He is not exactly Joe Lockhart or Tony Snow or Ed Gillespie.

McClellan didn’t acquit himself as well as he could have.

His book advance couldn’t have been that great (I’m in the business, and am aware of what Public Affairs gives up front.)

He’ll nevertheless make money off the book, given the angry liberals who want to trash the president.

I happen to think some of his contentions are false. But regardless of whether they are true or false, bosses should have an expectation that certain conversations should remain private. McClellan, seems to have no concept of loyalty or disretion. Given his poor performance as press secretary and his tell-all book, I have to think his political career is over. Who would want an employee that they could not trust to keep certain discussions private?

Just watching Scott McClellan on Meet The Press, I think his credibility would be greater had he been like J. F. TerHorst, President Ford’s first press secretary, who resigned in protest after Ford pardoned Nixon. (Disclosure: I favored the pardon, as a young voter.)

But McClellan is a soft Texan who went along for the ride, and whose loyalty to a man who had been a great governor of Texas shrouded his judgment. (Read Bob Dole’s statement concerning his book and character.)

As for Cheney, I had admired him since 1975, when he was Ford’s chief of staff. But his conflicts have apparently caught up with him. Sad.

I am starting to feel like one of those Democrats in 1968 who began to feel that a war started by, and exacerbated by, a president of their own party, is about to cause repudiation of that party by the great middle in our country.

It is naive to think that one’s political consultant has nothing to do with the political candidate’s policies and/or that it will not become an issue. You were the same person arguing that Reverand Wright’s sermons should somehow hurt Barack Obama when Reverand Wright was giving spiritual and not political advice. So it is a little disingenuous to then argue that a pastor’s opinions matter but not a spiritual advisor.

If you are so confident of your opinions please post under your real name and publish in local papers your opinions on foreign policy matters. I am not even sure that the journal news would publish your opinions on Iraq.

Stopping the US from drilling for its own oil is just of dozens of examples. If it was any more obvious, it would be written across the sky in letters a mile high.

Finally, Pat Buchanan is about 75 percent nuts.

As I mentioned, you should be very careful about not writing defamatory material and ethnic slurs on this blog. I am not sure if other Westchester Republican party leaders are quite aware of your viewpoints and I think that when they do become informed, that your “consulting” career will come to an abrupt end unless you drastically change course. Although I am independent and not a Republican, I now realize why Westchester County is basically a one-party county. Voters don’t appreciate intolerance from party big-wigs. You are incorrect regarding the law about what is actionable. There is no speech and debate clause in the U.S. Constitution that is applicable to unelected bloggers.

I write this not to mock Yehoshua but to agree with him. As a progressive Israeli, I long to see a shift in US policy. With Yehoshua, I believe that the right actions by the US could awaken public support here in Israel for the steps needed to reach peace.

I also believe there’s no chance that President Bush will take Yehoshua’s advice. If a member of the US congress made a similar proposal, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) would almost certainly encourage donations to his opponent in November’s election. Does this mean that “the Israel lobby” controls the levers of US middle east policy, as John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt argued in their famous book of that name last year? Not exactly. (Mearsheimer and Walt are both distinguished international affairs academics from, respectively, Chicago and Harvard universities. Their book, which caused a storm of criticism and accusations of anti-semitism, argued that US foreign policy is distorted by unconditional support for Israel, secured by a powerful “Israel lobby.”) But they overstated their case in several ways. They credited a poorly defined “lobby” with exaggerated power, while failing to do the investigative research which could have painted a more accurate picture of the extent and limits of that power.

your view is limited to the AIPAC view…it is outdated
and does not serve the interests of the state of Israel

You are a conspiracy theorist without any facts at your disposal. I just demonstrated that your characterization of Clarke, Wolfowitz, and Kagan was completely false. Instead, of any kind of response you went off on a tangent about something else. Instead of responding to arguments, you recite talking points, OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

The Westchester Republican party needs to disassociate itself from you and your Lyndon LaRouche point of view and this blog needs to monitor your remarks. Failure to do so puts this blog in danger of being sued

One major factor that drew them inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed to American military preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third World causes [e.g., Palestinian rights]. In the Reaganite right’s hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote democratic values (and American interests), neocons found a political movement that would guarantee Israel’s security. [2]
For some time prior to September 11, 2001, neoconservatives had publicly advocated an American war on Iraq. The 9/11 atrocities provided the pretext. The idea that neocons are the motivating force behind the U.S. movement for war has been broached by a number of commentators. For instance, Joshua Micah Marshall authored an article in The Washington Monthly titled: “Bomb Saddam?: How the obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy.” And in the leftist e-journal CounterPunch, Kathleen and Bill Christison wrote:

Not only is the Consultant grossly uninformed but highly offensive and defamatory. See a shrink, man. I really just hope his views are not indicative of those whom he has allegedly consulted for such as the Spano brothers, DiFiore, or Pirro.

Not only should the moderators of this blog consider removing the self-professed “Consultant’s” comments but the Westchester GOP should sever all his ties with him. An openly racist person would not appear on television on behalf of the Westchester Republicans and neither should a person who harbors ill will to a certain segment of the American population based on ethnicity. Just because one has a Jewish surname, although no relationship with the jewish religion or culture, does not give him free reign to be a bigot.

Stuart Mackenzie: Well, it’s a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there’s a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.
Tony Giardino: So who’s in this Pentavirate?
Stuart Mackenzie: The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee beady eyes, and that smug look on his face. “Oh, you’re gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!”
Charlie Mackenzie: Dad, how can you hate “The Colonel”?
Stuart Mackenzie: Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartass!

This how ridiculous “The Consultant” sounds

Read about the mysterious and very powerful Maurice Strong, his goals and his close ties to Al Gore. See what Strong has been up to for a long time. Including Crestone, Colo. Read about who and what are running the “environmental” movements. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Earth Liberation Front, and many others. It’s the old left-wing socialist crowd and/or their followers.

Obviously, you have some issues with your own background. Otherwise, you wouldn’t find these conspiracy theories so persuasive.