A week ago, I quipped that some reporter should ask Scott McClellan about Bush's reported meeting with Michael Crichton during the press gaggle. Well, it happened today. Here's the relevant exchange, which took place aboard Air Force One:
MR. McCLELLAN: The United States is leading the way in investing in the kind of technologies to help us address greenhouse gas emissions. That's something we -- remember, we're on track to meet the President's goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity that he outlined. And we also have joined in partnerships around the world to invest in research and development when it comes to climate change. It's an issue that the President takes seriously, and we announced the Asia Pacific Partnership, remember, and that is an initiative to help lead the way to address some of these issues associated with climate change.Q Do you take Michael Crichton on the issue seriously?
MR. McCLELLAN: What's your question?
Q There's a story --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think what I can point to -- I'm not going to get into talking about private meetings he's had, but look at the initiatives we've outlined, look at the leadership the President is providing to address the challenges of climate change. It is an issue that we take seriously, and that's why we've been investing billions in research and development to better understand the science of climate change. That's why we've initiated partnerships, like the Asia Pacific Partnership, to address these issues, as well.
Q But Michael Crichton as an expert or a novelist the President enjoys reading?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President read his book, and he was glad to have the opportunity to visit with him.
Q -- believes as expert opinion?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look at what we outlined, Jessica. If you want to ask the President about it, you are -- you're welcome to do that at some point. But I'm not going to get into talking about private meetings that he has.
Thanks.
If Scott McClellan was a Dickens character, he would surely be named the Artful Dodger. But his dubious attempt to preserve the president's "private" space on this matter cannot be allowed to stand.
First of all, Bush's reading list is often made public. So why have we not heard until now that he read Crichton's State of Fear? What are the criteria by which it is decided what parts of Bush's reading list are made public and what parts remain "private"?
Moreover, like it or hate it, State of Fear is inarguably a very ideological book. So it is a political statement, and not merely a private affair, for a president to read such a book and then meet with its author. That the White House never made this meeting public, reportedly for fear of outraging environmentalists, underscores that very fact.
In short, there was nothing "private" about Bush's meeting with Crichton, or about his reading of State of Fear. Such intellectual activity, on the part of the president, is a perfectly legitimate subject for reporters to ask about. McClellan is blocking public access to politically relevant information -- information to which we are very much entitled.
- Log in to post comments
w00t! The snowball rolls on...keep us informed, Mr. Mooney.
VelcroCityTouristBoard
"intellectual activity, on the part of the president"
I don't believe I've ever heard anyone combine these two phrases before.
Not since the Wilson administration, anyway ...
That McClellan is able to get away with what he does is due to unmitigated obduracy on the part his employer; that the Washington press corps hasn't called him up short on his evasions and dismissiveness is due to their timidity. They lose access and recognition if they have to up the ante to get information, which in turn is thrown back on them as insolence and aggressiveness. Repugnant as McClellan is, he does his job well, getting out only the information he wants to get out, deflecting meaningful inquiries, and making the press look like the bad guys. What the Washington press corps should do is simply boycott McClellan's daily briefings until the fundamental rules of the game are changed toward meaningful questions and answers. If only the major news outlets would have the courage to say in their nightly newscasts, "Our correspondents, and others, are in day seven of the boycott against the White House press office. Once spokesman Scott McClellan has something informative to say, our coverage will resume." Why am I suddenly hearing "When you wish upon a star..."?
I think we are beginning to see signs of cracks in the ice -- and not just on the Greenland ice pack.
Chris Mooney wrote (above) ... "State of Fear is inarguably a very ideological book. So it is a political statement, and not merely a private affair," ...
About a year or two ago, one of my co-workers was reading Crichton's State of Fear, while she was at work. Someone asked her if she liked the book. She said she was learning from it.
I held my feelings inside because I did not want to get another suspension for speaking my views on climate change while at work. The Hydrologist in Charge and the Meteorologist in Charge had both told me, many times in the past, that climate change was too controversial and political to talk about.
The Hydrologist in Charge told me in January 2000 that ...
"global warming was beyond the time window of our hydrologic forecast mission" ...
I disagreed with that, arguing that climate change was already happening in our regional area of responsibility, which I understood from having had prepared the annual spring snowmelt flood outlooks for the region, the Upper Midwest, for the last 20 years.
"Such intellectual activity, on the part of the president, is a perfectly legitimate subject for reporters to ask about."
Especially in a president who proudly proclaims that he doesn't read the news (which might have saved him some face during the Katrina debacle, but that's another kettle of fish).