MoveOn says McClellan should not profit

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: The Washington Times

The liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org today launched a petition drive calling on former White House official Scott McClellan to donate the proceeds of his book to veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The petition drive, intended to create pressure for Mr. McClellan to be asked about it on the morning news-interview shows Sunday, is the latest signal of a backlash by Democrats and Republicans alike against the former press secretary for turning on his ex-boss, President Bush.

MoveOn's petition e-mail, sent out to its supporters Saturday morning, said that Mr. McClellan's "coming clean is admirable.”

"But McClellan shouldn't profit off the role he played in our nation's largest foreign policy blunder,” the release reads.

Read more: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/31/the-liberal-anti-war-group-moveonorg-yesterday-lau/

[Faygo Kid]

1. Got to say, MoveOn has a point here.

Scott McClellan is no hero.

[Prophet 451]

35. Not yet

Perhaps I'm being too kind here (which is surprising, given my habitual cynicism) but it could be that McClellan is gradually trying to turn his life around, slowly waking up and trying to make ammends in the same way that Arianna Huffington and David Brock did. If he donates his cut of the book (or even a hefty chunk of it) to some anti-war or veterans group (let's say, the VA) and/or testifies to what he knows of the Bush reign of error, he'll take a giant step toward public redemption.

[redtornado]

2. He wont give up the money.

This was never about coming clean with the people. He wanted to sell books. If he'd quit during the war due to his conscience, then Id understand. But he saw the writing on the wall and wanted to cash in.

[Skittles]

34. you are absolutely correct, redtornado

he was a repuke whore then and he's a repuke whore now :puke:

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

3. I wouldn't hold your breath on that one

[Sterling]

4. Move On has become a liability

I unfortunately have had the unpleasant experience of dealing with them personally during the last election and it was clear they are extremely full of themselves, IMO cut throat and focused more on growing the org than actually helping create positive change. They are incredibly shrill, most often far behind the curve in terms of their positions and acknowledgment of reality (they just recently caught on to peak oil around the same time CNN told them it was OK to talk about without being labeled "conspiracy theorist, tin foiler types"). A lot of political groups are the same but I have been specifically disappointed by the positions Move On has taken, more and more all the time.

They are the stereotypical South Park self fart sniffing elitist. IMO they are bandwagon jumpers and are far behind the knowledge and dignity of your average DUer. Power corrupts all, they have tasted it, they are no longer a positive force IMO

[az chela]

7. This is untrue and very unfair

[Sterling]

14. Really?

Care to support your position? Like I said, I have had the unfortunate experience of knowing many people in that org personally. I went from thinking they were a critical part of the solution to realizing that they are just as power mad as any other group and should not be counted on to be a positive force for change. They are consistently behind the curve and far more concerned with preserving their own jobs than leading a useful public dialog. I witnessed them act less than honorably IMO to people who had done a lot of work for them. Promises were made by Move On agents, not kept and seemingly after MO got what they needed the people who had helped could go fuck themselves as far as MO was concerned. Not a great impression given what they are supposed to stand for in my eyes. You don't shit on your volunteers or people who stuck their necks out to help you, I don't care how important you think you are.

There is a great sense of elitist entitlement IMO from what I have witnessed. Maybe you have been lucky enough to still be in the dark about what MO is really all about. I have not, unfortunately. However, you could just see what they chose to spend their time and money on to understand they are not what we need to help lead the charge for progressive issues.

They seem to be more of a mechanism for certain extremely wealthy people to lure young 'hipsters" into the process, under the pretense of pacifying them and convincing them to think in terms that the elite can still control. A great example is the peak oil issue I pointed out before. Such a basic thing for a progressive group to support the public acknowledging but they have acted as oblivious as the Corporate News on this subject and others. Only after it is part of the mainstream dialog does Move On take a position. They are supposedly one of the more advanced, cutting edge groups on the progressive side, they should be less concerned with upsetting the status quo but from what I see they are all about the status quo, granted on the left leaning mainstream side, none the less pro status quo IMO.

The closest thing I have seen in terms of organization would be scientology, although that could understandably be viewed as a bit hyperbolic the similarities are too close for comfort. I could be wrong but they have even held events at a facility in NYC owned by the moonies. The Hammerstein Ballroom, by the Hotel New Yorker. Not the absolute worse thing in the world but Move On is a political action group that in theory is the antithesis of the Unification Church, not some Rock Band on tour that just needs a venue. Principle is not what I see them use as their guide to how they conduct themselves.

[Kolesar]

32. "pacifying young hipsters " ?

You're a riot :rofl:

[zeemike]

25. I agree with you as a long time member.

I donated to them way back when they were defending Clinton against impeachment, but not now.
And it really pisses me off that they do not think McClellan should be rewarded for blowing the whistle on bush.
The right wing would never do that. They make sure there operatives are well rewarded (remember the million dollar pay check for Paula Jones?) and it tends to encourage others to come forward.
He deserves to be rewarded.

[Uben]

5. I disagree

He risked everything (including his life against these buffoons) by writing the book. For him not ot profit might discourage others from coming forward and telling their story..... a risk/reward thing. Let him have the money. If that is what it takes to get to the truth, it's worth it! I don't think he did it for the money, though. The publisher he used does not pay big up front money.

I would like to think his conscience got the better of a caring American.

[populistdriven]

20. My thoughs as well!

thanks for saving me the typing

[az chela]

6. I just received a petition from move on

and they asked Scott if he isnt in it fro the money to give the money to our vets and they will ask him on CNN tomorrow.If it isnt about the money he should agree

[JI7]

10. he got 50 thousand for the book

if it was about the money couldn't he have bargained for much more by telling them he was going to write the stuff he did.

[Sterling]

17. 50k is a joke

I can't believe I wasted this much time on Move On's stupid crap. Done.

[zeemike]

27. But Newt got 5 nillion for his book n/t

[Sterling]

16. Move On is bored?

Why are they so concerned if Scott gets paid? He just did something that we should approve of. There are serious issues that need to be addressed and this is what they want us to focus our energy on? Jesus, who are they trying to help anyway?

Why don't we ask Move On personnel to work for free? Why doesn't Move On make public the salaries of their agents? I am curious to know how much of their budget goes to staff and what goes to projects. Is Soros the only guy paying these people or do they have other donors to answer to? Very interesting given they seem to concern themselves with the earning potential of people who in reality at this point we should be supporting for turning away from the dark side and doing the right thing (late but better than never).

I wish Move On would just...... Move On.

[JI7]

8. i'm not sure i totally agree with this

how likely is it that he will get another job. he could have probably got some job in Fox or some other media whoring for the administration. but they wont hire him now.

if his book sales are very good then maybe he can give some to the veterans. but i'm guessing at least for the near future he wont really get many job offers.

[magellan]

15. And whose fault is that?

Scotty made his living lying to the American people on behalf of the government. If he can't find a job now it's his own damn fault. He should have thought of that earlier. WAY earlier.

[Sterling]

18. Well in that sense, a lot of Dem pols should work for free.

This war took both parties to make possible.

[magellan]

22. A lot of them should not be re-elected

But they will be.

I agree with MoveOn. And if Scotty's not a lying opportunist, so would he. If he genuinely feels so bad about what he did, if he's telling the truth that he was "in a bubble" and didn't realize that he was taking part in the biggest con of America yet (yeah, right), then his contrition should move him to donate a significant portion of the proceeds from his book to the vets.

He would also understand that he deserves to be snubbed in the jobs market. Fortunately for him, there's little integrity in politics. I have NO doubt he'll be snatched up by some consulting firm or another before long, or raking it in with speaking engagements.

On top of profiting wildly off his book because he's suddenly so "brave". :puke:

[Yavapai]

9. I think he should keep the money,

he is going to need it for the coming shit-storm.

Also,it probably helps to encourage future whistle-blowers to come out with truth.

The John Deans of the world are a needed species.

[girl_interrupted]

11. When Richard Clarke spoke up, he was ignored. MoveOn is wrong

Better late than never. The more people speak up, the better it is in trying to convince some of those bush loving butt heads, that bush was "sincere" & trying to "protect us" by invading Iraq. When Richard Clarke spoke up at the 9/11 Hearings, and said almost the exact same thing, that Bush wanted Iraq from Day 1, no one followed up on it. I still can't believe how the media totally ignored his testimony. Now if anything, Scott's book may help Valerie Plame in her civil suit. I don't know where MoveOn is coming from, but they are dead wrong.

[Sterling]

19. They are reaching for relevance

This is just a pathetic distraction. Move On needs to find something useful to work on.

[Donnachaidh]

12. Baloney! MoveOn jumping on the Bash McLellan bandwagon?

If anything, the man should be thanked for coming forward with this information. And with the book's success, hopefully MORE whistleblowers will come forward.

MoveOn needs to back the hell off. Nothing they've done recently has been this productive with getting the issues out and talked about.

[Psephos]

13. McClellan was fired. Ergo this book. In his mind he earned whatever he makes.

And I dare anyone here to say they wouldn't feel the same way, too.

[creeksneakers2]

21. I like the book deal money

To get the book deal money, insiders have to reveal a little more than was previously revealed. This will help get more proof for the truth.

I remember the GOP tried to make Clarke and others give up their book money. That was to discourage others from writing books.

[robinlynne]

23. BUllshit. I say Halliburton should not profit.

[McCamy Taylor]

24. Bullshit. This is like a whistleblower lawsuit. No one will step forward if they can not become

financially secure. McClellan has lost his chance to profit off his association with the WH. If he had no chance to make money from his book, then financial considerations might force him to keep his mouth shut so that he could work for Republican firms or special interest groups in order to support himself. Since we know that Bush will not allow himself to be sued, a book like this works like a whistle blower lawsuit. It encourages an employee to come forward and turn in a corrupt boss, knowing that even though he will now be black balled, it will not matter. He will have enough money to live on.

John Dean did the same thing.

[ogsbee]

26. This call is so F'd up it makes you wonder exactly who Moveon is

and who they work for. F*ck them.

[otohara]

28. How About A Compromise - Say 50%

I like compromises - then everyone's happy - (well, not everyone, as we learned today)

[LibDemAlways]

29. McClellan should receive whatever he is

entitled to under his contract with the publisher. I could never stand to look at Snotty Scotty at the podium. I thought he was a pompous ass. I can't say I like him any better now, and I do wish he had spoken up sooner. When all is said and done, however, it's his money and he should be able to do with it as he pleases. It's none of MoveOn's business.

[high density]

30. MoveOn wouldn't have the stage they do today without Bushco fucking everything up

So I could say they are benefiting, if not profiting, from this disaster as well. And that's even with the group's lousy, gaffe-filled decision making abilities.

[mbperrin]

31. I signed up for MoveOn very early. But they are wrong on this.

Whistleblowers must be allowed to profit.

The reason both parties are jumping on SM's "disloyalty" is because they cannot dispute the facts of the book. They're both in it up to their eyebrows. Any way some truth can come out is a good way.

Could it all be better? Sure. For instance, we might start with impeachment against a sitting President, IF the opposition party (that's US) would allow it!

We've spent a couple trillion on this war and other useless shit. If it costs a few million to expose it, that's cheap. Really cheap.

[CJCRANE]

33. MoveOn should be encouraging others to step forward

not haranguing someone who already took the risk.