http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12486665/

A bit surprising but not totally unexpected.

My question:

What do you think of this choice and what bizarre spin does this put on the white house now?

I am not exactly sure why any of this would be considered bizarre. Changing press secretaries is hardly Earth shattering.

Is Tony Snow bizarre?

Only to the extent that Bush picked for his mouthpiece someone who once called him "impotent."

Among Tony Snow's commentaries on the President:

"No president has looked this impotent this long when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives.” [9/30/05]

– “When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can’t say no. In each of his three years at the helm, the president has warned Congress to restrain its spending appetites, but so far nobody has pushed away from the table mainly because the president doesn’t seem to mean what he says.” [The Detroit News, 12/28/03]

– “George W. Bush, meanwhile, talks of a pillowy America, full of niceness and goodwill. Bush has inherited his mother’s attractive feistiness, but he also got his father’s syntax. At one point last week, he stunned a friendly audience by barking out absurd and inappropriate words, like a soul tortured with Tourette’s.” [8/25/00]

– “George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” [11/11/05]


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/25/snow-on-bush

Yeah, he sounds like somebody who's not going to have any problems going in front of the White House press corps and putting a big smiley face on Bush and his initiatives.

Not.

The quotes by nighttimer (a longer list is available at mediamatters.org) point out that Bush has selected someone who isn't lockstep with his administration. This can only be viewed as a good thing.

Plenty of left wing sites are going on and on about Tony Snow's criticism of the President's past performance. Of course, they leave out that almost every conservative has had issues with the President's performance, especially on domestic matters--immigration, domestic discretionary spending, and similar issues.

It has been reported that Tony Snow insisted that he be able to participate in policy decision making and not merely be a mouthpiece. This would be a breath of fresh air and a welcome change.

I would think that we could all agree that Bush should not be using "bobble head doll" on a resume as a prerequisite for hire.

I, like Amlord, am very confused at the problem with Tony Snow...If the new press secretary was George Bush the III, we'd be hearing complaints about yet another Bush yes-man who is a clone of the rest of the government...Now we get someone who has openly criticized the President, that seems like a step forward to me. I'm not really sure what the actual argument is against Snow, but I'm curious.

CP

Tony Snow criticized George Bush for not being conservative enough. Kudos to Bush for hiring a man who dared to level critique at him (reportedly, it doesn't happen often), but let's be clear here - he hired a solid conservative. People who expect any change at the White House are waiting in vain.

I am not exactly sure but Bush is hardly conservative. Out of control spending, introduction of huge bureaucracies (Homeland), and his immigration policy are hardly conservative. I know to many liberals anyone to the right of Clinton is too conservative, but I’ve always thought Bush was a moderate that paid lip service to his base.

What do you think of this choice and what bizarre spin does this put on the white house now?
I think that it's high time that the Bush administration found somebody who is an effective communicator, and intelligent to boot. Ari came off as sort of dense and Scotty was just plainly lost and out of his element.
Snow is articulate and has always struck me as no nonsense and independent. I can't actually think of a better choice for the position.

It's about time the crew at 1600 Pennsylvania got something right.

I think it's a brilliant pick.

Tony Snow is well spoken, highly intelligent, and an independent thinker for the most part. To point out his statements against Bush only shows that regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, nobody thinks 100% alike. I see nothing wrong with that. This is one of the first things Bush has done that actually looks like he's trying to unite people.

I think there are some problems on the downside. Fox News used to be a reasonably balanced show. But now, you'd have to have your head stuck in the sand not to see they are very-pro Bush. So, could people deem this a quid pro quo? Give the White House favorable coverage and we'll give you access to the White House and policy?

But Tony Snow couldn't turn that job down. He doesn't even have to move his office...

Not surprisingly, Bush needs to be more conservative in my opinion and in the opinion of most conservatives.

I believe Bush's poor poll numbers are a result of his psychophrenic nature: hawkish foreign policy combined with liberal spending patterns all around. I doubt there is anyone on the planet that is entirely happy with him.

Snow does bring a level head to the White House and if he gets to pipe up in the policy debates, he will be a good addition to the White House staff.

I think it's a very bold choice, IMHO. How many press secretaries did you know before they became press secretaries...and how many did NOT disappear after they left?

Tony Snow is a more credible version of Rush Limbaugh. We all know him and we'll all know him after he's done as press secretary.

I don't know if it will be a good choice for Bush, he typically does a horrible job of picking people compatible with their job titles. The only thing I know, is that it could become very entertaining! Snow has his own flashy personality that may make Bush sorry he chose him.

We'll see what happens. Like I said, it will be very entertaining early on to see where this goes.

As far as being someone who won't be the running joke/punching bag that Scott McClellan was, Tony Snow should be able to hold his own and give as good as he gets from the press corps.

But let's get it straight. Bush could hire Julia Roberts to be his press secretary, but it's the policies that's going to have to change, not the person trying to sell it. It's the message, not the messenger that's the problem in the Bush Administration.

Changing lead vocalists doesn't necessarily mean a rock band suddenly starts playing disco. Tony Snowjob may present a new face, but the song remains the same.

Rest assured I won't be holding my breath that Bush changes his polices to make you happy nighttimer.

For all the bad news Bush has endured the past year or so would it take that much for him to rebound? Gas prices are the only issue that I'm not sure he can rebound from. The economy is great and if Iraq is able to police itself and the US can leave and turn more attention to Iran, all the sudden the guy looks like a genius. This is not because he is, but because the opposition has been so fierce.

Bush’s biggest threat politically is from the Right. Conservatives are increasing growing tired of the spending and waffling on the immigration issue. After six years of this he is going to have to do some convincing to get them out to vote.

Anyone, I mean anyone would be better than watching Scott McClellan pitifully squirm and try as he might to justify the Admins scandals, lies and absurd positions.
Scotty was just not a good liar and did not have the 'never let them see you sweat' disposition. Mostly you just felt sorry for him. He was out of his league.

Now, the commentator Tony Snow ( and all at FOX) is superb at spinning lies to appear to be truths, twisting wrongs into rights, making hay of mud and dung, I think he will do well for them, bad for us, because now we have a professional spinner. Gone will be Snows anti-Bush commentary, just another robot on the line.

Of course, this will make it easier for the Admin to 'leak' information to FOX and get special airtime for elections, as if coverage wasnt already blatantly biased.

Its a perfectly incestuous marriage, a coup for the Admin.

If gas prices are his only problem, why are his poll numbers bad on everything else, including the economy?

I realize that the cable stations and the the Wall Street journal are raving about the economy, but does this translate to welfare for the average person? Most people don't have large incomes from stock, so who cares where the Dow is. And who cares about economic growth if it means you work twice as much for half the pay. And what good is job growth if the jobs are low paying?

I think people are severly down on the president for more than just gas prices.

Tony can spin, spin, spin and there's a good chance he'll get himself in trouble if he lies.

There was a poll by Rasmussen a month ago that said 55% of Americans are better off now than they were four years ago. Iraq is the big reason why Bush's poll numbers are down. All the news is bad coming out of that country and Bush invested his entire Presidency into that war.

I don’t own any stock, neither do my parents. We’re both better off (no thanks to Bush btw). Obviously the US economy is regional. I know Michigan is struggling but the South is booming. The unemployment in my town is 2.4%. Overall the economy is strong regardless of negative spin out there.

Americans are in a pissy mood at the moment. Three years of Iraq can do that to a person. Then the gas prices are daily reminder of Iraq.

What do you think of this choice and what bizarre spin does this put on the white house now?

I’ve been hesitant to post in this thread because I don’t watch Faux..er, I mean Fox (I’d just as soon have root canal done by a blacksmith with a rusty drill and no anesthetic, thank you ), but this whole situation just tickles me to death. Pity poor, loyal Scotty, who did his darndest to prevaricate and obfuscate, and was still told to fall on his sword for dear leader and step aside for a hard-nosed, perfectly coiffed, white-toothed, camera-ready, experienced TV wonk.

While not at all surprised that W picked someone from the Fox ranks (after all, don’t they all work for him anyway?), I was somewhat astounded that the chosen one was someone who had actually ( ) made disparaging comments about the prez. I actually had a moment where I thought that Bush had appointed someone who actually had a mind of his own.

But, wait a minute....

Aw, man, that’s exactly what I would expect. Backpedal and claim you didn’t really mean it. Welcome Scotty II to the job. About the only thing different here is that now we have a really cool catchphrase for the WH Press Secretary - "Snow job".

I actually do watch Fox once in a while, mostly the "news" show with Brit Hume. Can someone please confirm or deny - I don't believe that Tony Snow has had a show on Fox News Television for at least a couple of years now. Everyone keeps referring to him as such, but I have not seen him, nor promos for him on that channel for a long time. He did have a radio show with Fox News Radio, which apparently runs in the same timeslot as Rush Limbaugh in many cities.


Saying that you "wished you hadn't written or said that" is the same as backpedalling? If I had referred to a formerly swaggering president as "impotent" and then went to work for the guy, I sure would have wished I had used a different word. Is that backpedaling?

I downloaded the interview, and it was clear that Snow wasn't taking back anything he said. Dick Morris had the same problem when Clinton hired him - he said some really mean things and kinda shrugged "half is not true and the other half I wish I could take back." Snow was insistent that his inclusion in policy conversations would give him a voice in which he could be critical. I thought we wanted Bush to listen to critics?

I think that Tony Snow is a great choice. The few times I've heard his radio show he sounds very well informed and engaging. And he's a lot more telegenic than our last several press secretaries, and indeed the White House press corps for the most part.

Um....yeah. If you're retreating or withdrawing from your position, or modifying your opinion to make it appear less strong, that would be the very definition of backpedalling.

I'm sure he is a great choice; from The Decider's own lips:

Doesn't sound too taxing to merely be a conduit. I'd be willing to bet a year's salary that Snow will never again utter a disparaging word about Bush or his policies...at least while he's in this position.

carlitoswhey,

It appears Snow had a radio show up until the time he accepted Bush's offer.

According to the AP, Fox has already moved to fill Snow's time slot.



http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ip/14435571.htm

Even if Snow didn't have a regular spot on FNC, the radio program is part of Fox News. Pitting Snow against Limbaugh is irrelevant. You are splitting hairs on this.

Do you expect a President to hire a press secretary who will publicly disparage the Presdident's positions? How would that make him an effective conduit (read: that's the job here - a conduit) to the press? Snow obviously won't be writing columns or hosting a radio show anymore, so his public voice will be that of the President. I must have missed Joe Lockhart and Mike McCurry criticizing their boss when they served as press secretary...


Really, I wasn't trying to "split hairs" or "pitting him against Rush Limbaugh." I just thought it was relevant that the guys isn't on Fox News TV anymore, if he's not actually on Fox TV. I don't think I've read one news story that hasn't described him as a Fox News (TV) host. That's why I asked the question.

Apparently you didn't look at the AP story I linked to this thread. It specifically says "radio commentator job."





The AP piece goes on to explain Snow's relationship to Fox News (TV) immediately before he accepted Bush's offer.




http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ip/14435571.htm

Edited to remove belittling comment.Many conservatives (here and elsewhere) are making a big point about how Snow is not just a yes-man - look! he criticized Bush in the past! My point was merely that he is now doing everything he can to soften his criticism. I'd have more respect if he'd stuck to his previous statements.

Of course he's just a mouthpiece. Like, DUH.

I think I might have a different take on this whole Tony Snow thing. I don't think the choice is bizarre at all. I don't think it puts any spin on the White House. I think it's a perfectly logical choice. As a commentator on Fox, Snow was parroting the Republican Party line. Recently elements of the Party have wished to distance itself from the Bush administration's dismal approval ratings. Snow was loyal to leadership. He will be loyal to new leadership as well.



I agree that the White House should not be. But they always have. And this choice is no different. And I'm sure the White House knows it.

So past examples of criticism are ignored and the assumption is made that Snow will no longer have these criticisms?

So Snow's insistence on "having a seat at the table" is irrelevant?

Of course, in public Tony Snow will be the Press Secretary and as such will communicate the White House's views and not his own. That does not mean that behind closed doors his views will not be considered.

If I hire an ad agency to make a commercial for my new line of cosmetics, I don't expect them to include how cruddy the colors are or how many animals were killed in testing the products. I expect them to convey the message I hired them to convey: that my product will make you more beautiful!!

But those past examples of criticisms are examples of Snow conveying the last message he was hired to convey. I haven't ignored them at all. I've presented a theory which explains those criticisms in a light that doesn't make Snow into a kind of hypocrite, or something. I don't believe Snow is. I think his behaviour will be consistent. So I haven't ignored Snow's criticisms. I'm acknowledging them. I think Snow will be perfectly loyal to Bush admin leadership, same as he was at Fox.

If Snow doesn't make similar criticisms of Bush in front of the press corps, Amlord, I will have then assumed incorrectly, eh? If it does happen, I'll owe you a coke.

As far as assumptions go, I believe it's a more drastic assumption to say, "That does not mean that behind closed doors his views will not be considered." Knowing this White House, I doubt that they will.

edit: oops, I mean't to type "If Snow doesn't make similar criticisms... " (I just fixed it)

I honestly cannot think of anybody who would be better for this gig than Snow. He's not only highly articulate, but warm, modest, funny, quick-witted, likable and a sharp dresser. He will represent Bush better than Bush deserves.

But there is a downside to choosing him: I already miss his radio show. He's SO much better than Limbaugh, at least for my taste.

Ya, I know what you mean. Snow didn't (doesn't?) have the personal agenda Rush does. I stopped listening to Rush long ago (which might shock some people here ). I hope he does get input into policy, as is supposed to be the case...I think Bush could use it.