Suggested questions for the White House press corps to ask on Tony Snow's first day
National Journal's "The Hotline" reported on April 25 that "Republicans close to the White House expect Pres. Bush to formally name Tony Snow as his new press secretary." Snow, a syndicated columnist and Fox News host, has emerged as the front-runner to replace outgoing White House press secretary Scott McClellan, who announced his resignation on April 19. Throughout his tenure as a columnist, Snow has offered various opinions on President Bush, the Bush administration, the Republican Party in general, and top Democrats that the White House press corps may want him to expand upon should he be named press secretary. Media Matters for America suggests the following questions:
Do you still think President Bush is a "wimp" and looks "impotent" for not "veto[ing] a single bill of any type"?
From Snow's September 30, 2005, column:
Begin with the wimp factor. No president has looked this impotent this long when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives. Nearly 57 months into his administration, President Bush has yet to veto a single bill of any type. The only other presidents never to issue a veto -- William Henry Harrison and James Garfield -- died within months of taking office.
Could you elaborate on the "leaden phrases" and the "unbearably abstract and dull" portions of Bush's "Social Security sales pitch" that made it "stink[]"?
From Snow's May 4, 2005, column:
Polls indicate President Bush is taking a pounding on the issue of Social Security. I will explain tomorrow why many of these reports are exaggerated. Today, I'll focus on the simpler issue of why his Social Security sales pitch stinks.
[...]
Check out the leaden phrases: "the math has changed ... 40 million retirees receiving benefits ... more than 72 million retirees drawing Social Security benefits ... 16 workers for every beneficiary ... 3.3 workers for every beneficiary; soon there will be two workers for every beneficiary ... In 2017 ... by 2041 ..."
Not one syllable of this stuff resonates with people sitting at home watching on TV. It sounds as if some rogue accountant has invaded the president's body, and filled his head statistical dross.
I agree with the president, and I actually sympathize with his argument, but this is unbearably abstract and dull. So what would I, Mr. Smarty Pants Radio Host, do instead? I would speak Dinner Table English.
With the failure of Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination, do you consider Bush's presidency effectively over?
From Snow's October 7, 2005, column:
So now things get interesting. The president has stirred up a lot of mischief, but Miers has to clean up the mess. The upcoming confirmation hearings will determine her fate -- and the president's. If she defies expectations, George Bush will look like a genius. If the Senate rejects her nomination, his presidency will come effectively to an end.
Do you still believe that Republicans nationwide "behave like reckless heirs to someone else's fortune"?
From Snow's November 11, 2005, column:
Elected Republicans and their legislative leaders nationwide have fallen prey to the natural temptation to view power as their birthright, rather than a reward for hard and righteous work. This explains why they behave like reckless heirs to someone else's fortune. It's a little difficult to mock Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean when George W. Bush can't even say no to peanut institutes in Alabama or gambling halls (rather than, say, repaired levees) in Louisiana.
Would you still argue that the Republican Party is "packed with cowards"? Or that the president's "compassionate conservatism" is "a slogan that exceeded skeptics' worst expectations"? Or that Bush "lack[ed] not only conviction, but vision" when he signed McCain-Feingold? If not, what has caused you to change your mind, aside from having accepted this job?
From Snow's December 3, 2005, column:
When Democrats gibber about Republicans' writhing in a culture of corruption, they're on to something -- but not what they think. The Republican Party in Washington is in trouble not because it's overrun by crooks, but because it's packed with cowards -- and has degenerated into a caricature of the party that swept to power 11 years ago promising to take on the federal bureaucracy and liberate the creative genius of American society.
[...]
Hence, George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" -- a slogan that exceeded skeptics' worst expectations. That phrase, aimed at reassuring suburban white moms and queasy left-wing Republicans, became a white flag on the core issue of government size and might. Bush insiders even began boasting about "big government" conservatism -- oblivious to the fact that big government does not conserve or preserve; it crushes and digests, devouring institutions that challenge its supremacy.
[...]
When House Speaker Denny Hastert broke arms to secure votes for a pork-packed highway bill, calling the legislation a "jobs bill," it was an embarrassment. When the president signed a campaign-finance bill he called unconstitutional, he seemed to lack not only conviction, but vision.
In your estimation, has the "Conservative Movement" bounced back after Bush's and the Republicans' spending policies "shattered" it "like a broken mirror, into dozens of jagged, sharp and discordant pieces"?
From Snow's September 1, 2004, column:
In addition, George W. Bush has made it clear that "compassionate conservatism" is expensive conservatism -- a formula many Republicans consider oxymoronic (and others, just "moronic").
[...]
When it comes to spending, George W. Bush is the president who hasn't said no. He has approved the most dramatic expansion of government activity and expense since Richard Nixon and unlike Nixon, or any other modern president, hasn't vetoed a single bill in his first term of office.
[...]
Not so long ago, one could count on Republicans at least to defend the idea of limited government, but no more. This is the chief reason the Conservative Movement has shattered, like a broken mirror, into dozens of jagged, sharp and discordant pieces.
Will you pursue amicable relations with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), even though he "behave[s] in such an inane manner," and "made official his descent into the Moonbat Grotto"?
From Snow's September 26, 2005, column:
Harry Reid was a famously nice guy before he became the Senate Democratic leader. Although reliably partisan, he built a well-earned reputation for playing the role of nice guy, the man of genial calm.
No more: The senator this week made official his descent into the Moonbat Grotto by issuing a lame rebuke of John Roberts, the president's choice to become the next chief justice of the Supreme Court.
[...]
Reid's performance raises an interesting and vital question: What on earth would persuade a naturally nice man to behave in such an inane manner -- and why would a majority of Democrats join him in voting against John Roberts, who may be the strongest high-court nominee in a century?
Tony Snow: "These purported phrases from this 'Tony Snow' person you keep referring to are under investigation so I can't talk about"
I predict it will be something along the lines of, "I appreciate your interest in the statements I may or may not have made in the years past as a journalist. However, this is a new day, and I'll be glad today to try to answer questions pertaining to current matters concerning the White House and the bold directions this president wants to take America in the future."
Or some such malarkey.
The question is, "Were you lying THEN, or are you lying NOW?" when the witness is caught in a direct contradiction.
The result, of course, is to IMPEACH the witness and destroy his credibility.
What a perfect development: To hire a spokesperson whose credibility is already in shambles. Like buying a "distressed" pair of jeans with holes, so you don't have to go to the trouble of actually destroying the jeans yourself.
The items posted by MMFA re Tony Snow represent his opinions on matters relating to the Bush administration. Opinions can certainly be wrong, I wouldn't classify a wrong opinion as a lie if it were wrong.
Anyway, his new responsibility is to represent the White House, not himself as he was doing as talk show host, so if there are any contradictions between what he says now vs then it would be attributable to the White Houses position differing from his personal opinion.
--"his new responsibility is to represent the White House, not himself"
If he isn't responsible for things he's said, then he'll fit in PERFECTLY with this administration and their utter lack of accountability.
In representing the views of the administration he doesn't actually need to believe any of it?
Does this mean that he is allowed to roll his eyes in incredulity at the stuff he is saying while he is in the middle of the press conferences, or must he wait until the conclusion?
Would hand gestures be included? Could he, say, use the right-handed 'wanking' gesture while reciting White House press releases to show that these are the opinions of his employers and not neccessarily his own?
This seems like the reverse of what's been happening: people leave the government and then start speaking their minds about matters.
This guy sounds just like Bill "The Liar" O'Reilly. Why not just hire him?
After all, what difference does it make who lies for the President?
While I can't speak about mmfa's reasons for publishing this article, I can tell you that Mr. Snow's credibility as the White House's spokesman would be quite low. People on the right would wonder about his loyalty, while those on the left would dismiss him as a Fox News hack. I will be shocked if Mr. Snow gets the job.
I'm not really shocked by Snow's appointment. He represents the ideals of the most conservative elements of the administration, especially the "no compromise" mentality. His appointment would appear to be the proverbial drawing a line in the sand.
Snow has also demonstrated a remarkable disregard for the truth. He should fit right in at the White House.
At first I thought this was a bit unfair. People like Snow who have a wide range of opinions are bound to have been critical of the administration at some point.
The thing that makes this fair is the way the Whitehouse has regularly treated its critics. Whenever a critic (John O'Neal, Wesley Clark, General Zinni, etc.) would arise, the administration instantly questioned the credibility of the critic by pointing some compliment the critic had given the President at some point in the past and say "He wasn't saying this back then...Which view does he/she really believe?"
This tactic cuts both ways. Which Tony Snow are we going to see in front of the podium? We all know the answer and we all know why.
...fancies himself a big time journalist and his ability to whip up a batch of Kool Aid that suits the taste of both the Reagan-loving and the 41-loving mucky-mucks most assuredly puts him in good standing with Karl and Dick.
Duhhbya probably likes Tony 'cause it'll give him lots of possibilities for spiffy nicknames.
MMFA should know that Duhhbya won't have an issue with what Tony's written.
After all, he doesn't do newspapers, right?
As for Snow being a "journalist", if Ed Murrow came back to life and saw what's being passed off as journalism, he'd never stop throwing up.
So let me see if i understand this.
If you're a conservative who now and then criticizes your own party, then you're not fit to be a press secretary? All conservatives media types should be partisan drones, because clearly this site doesn't hate the bad elements of the republican party, it hates the entire republican party.
Yet when Tony Snow, and the other fox news anchors are blatently spinning the lies that come out of the white house, you're first to blacklist them on your website?
Make up your mind.
Unfortunately, Vince, you're spinning THIS story. This posting by MMFA does not say that Snow is not fit to be press secretary. Instead, it is a suggestion of some questions that could be asked of Snow to determine why, perhaps, he took this job. Does he think the administration has gotten better? Does he think he can perhaps change something in the administration? Or is he following the scent of power?
Can you honestly sit there and think that these proposed questions are not fair? As long as the quotes are accurate, then it seems legitimate that he should have to explain why he has agreed to work for a "wimp" and a "coward," an "impotent" president, a president who's administration is "effectively over," a president who acts like a "reckless heir[] to someone else's fortune," and a president who can't give an effective sales pitch (although he basically ran as the business-president, the anti-lawer president).
Just some food for thought.
Background: Tony Snow was always a big Jack Kemp supporter, wasn't he? I've read that, unlike many in the GOP. Snow and Kemp were anti-racist, so I always associate the two of them.
That's not, of course, even _close_ to saying they are decent to poor people.
Reasons: Why would Snow want to take a job for a man he doesn't quite love? Perhaps because he thinks it would give him some opportunity to discuss matters with the President?
I'd take the job of Defense Secretary for George Walker Bush, not because I like the man or his policies, both of which make me deeply concerned for the long term future of the security of the whole world, but because I'd be able to... well, probably resign the first time he insisted I do something wrong.
He would probably respond, "Where I stand depends on where I sit."
Actually, I was quite surprised to read these candid criticisms of Bush and the republicans (Keith Olbermann reported some similar comments on Countdown) - I never heard anything like this when he was sitting in for O'Reilly on The Factor....wonder why? I would be inclined to give him a bit of credit for candor, but, like O'Reilly, I suspect he has criticized Bush and co. not because their actions are bad for the U.S., but rather because they are bad for the republican party. Snow and O'Reilly are not watching out for us, they're watching out for themselves. Plato
consist in bitching that conservatives are not conservative enough. They are not real criticisms.
Anybody catch Bill O'Really last night? His pet (allegedly liberal) poodle, Juan Williams, was on once again working hard to earn some Fox News face time by sucking up hard to Bill by gushing enthusiasm for Tony Snow. Juan - and I still can't believe anybody could say this - wondered out loud how such a straight-shooter could take a position that would require him to spin the news.
Tony Snow? Spin? C'mon. This is the guy who covered the protesters at a Bush conference and dismissed the whole story claiming they were irrelevant, nobody's listening, end of story. The man is a hopeless conservative apologist.
Oh, and more to the point of the above article, Tony Snow is like all the other died-in-the-wool right wingers at Fox News. Sure, they'll criticize Republicans like Bush. Even foaming right-winger Rush does that. But it's just the shepherds trying to guide the sheep back onto the path of ideological purity. When they go after liberals it's the liberals hate America venom that spews from their mouths.
Is Fox the media branch of Bush Inc. or is Bush Inc. the political branch of Fox News?
we've been asking the same question about Air America and the Democratic party for months now...
Our tax dollars pay for neither Air America nor the Democratic Party, but they will pay Snow's salary.
Tony Snow, mild mannered, charasmatic, right wing ambitious paragon of Republican virtue is the new press secretary for the criminal cabal known as the Bush Administration. Hang on folks, the B.....it is about to get deeper. Fox News...its your final stroke of infiltration into the upper corridors of power and just think of the influence you will have now! This country continues down the landslide toward third world status, one right winger at a time. R. Wagner.....Scottsdale
Does the president believe the government should support stem cell research focused on improving cancer therapy?
( Nb... HHS does: [link to grants.nih.gov] )
Did God tell the president to appoint you?
Now although these seem like churlish questions, they are awkward to those that are wary of upsetting the Christo-taliban base. Especially in an election year.
Anyways, as much as Snow's opinion columns might provide hours of fun, questions about his views matter little. He's King George's spokesman, and questions need to be framed as to ask him what the president's view is.
Oh yeah - one relevant personal question is whether he holds financial interests in any media companies...
Incredibly, this Rush sub has the job. It is a new low for this conservative White House and I imagine it will bite them in the ass. Does the White House really assimilate the Fox News madness? Apparently they do. I know guys who would vote for O'Reilly as president, Hannity as VP and the toe sucker as secretary of state. We should all use this tragic event to be sober and watchful of what will come next.
Snow will simply continue Scotty’s work of speaking yet saying nothing… that's the real job description...
[link to blogdebogs.blogspot.com]
I'm not understanding this item. Snow's criticism of Bush is proof of conservative misinformation? Have none of you ever had criticism of your boss? I think Snow's statements here are pretty clear and can stand on there own. Why would these questions need to be asked at the first press conference? To diverge from real issues at hand maybe?
get real - anyone who said these things about a potential future boss would never get the job, nor would they keep it if they already had it!
Wolf Blitzer's seal of approval. Last night's situation room had the following mutual admiration society love fest going on ([link to transcripts.cnn.com]
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, Tony Snow, who also happens to be an anchor over there at the "F" word network, is likely to take the job as White House press secretary. President Bush can do worse -- not a bad guy. But it might be too late.
Sources close to the White House say they expect Snow to announce his decision within the next few days, maybe as early as tomorrow.
Snow joined FOX News in 1996. Before that, he was a nationally syndicated columnist with "The Detroit News," a columnist for "USA Today," and he worked for the editorial pages of various newspapers.
The conservative radio talk show host also worked as a speechwriter for the first President Bush in 1991. I wonder if he wrote that line about "Read my lips... no new taxes"?
Here's the question: How would you describe the relationship between politics and the media?
E-mail us at caffertyfile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/caffertyfile.
This will be a step in the right direction, I think, Wolf.
BLITZER: Yes, Tony Snow, I've known him for a long time.
CAFFERTY: Good guy.
BLITZER: He used to be on "LATE EDITION." He used to be one of the panelists before the FOX News channel even started. He was one of our regulars. He's a good guy indeed, Jack.
Thanks very much."
Good guy, indeed ... we'll see.
No where in all of the coverage I have seen on TV (I have not seen a newspaper article on the subject) has anyone mentioned Mr. Snow's battle with colon cancer or the fact that his family survived their house burning down. Aren't these the kinds of details that normally get reported as background information in situations like this?
Is the fact that these things have not been reported a signal that the Washington, DC press corps has already been snowed? If so, this appointment may have already achieved an important purpose for the administration -- winning back the sympathy, if not outright support, of the national media.
"Which organization has a clearer right-wing agenda: this administration or Fox News?"
Fox news.
I did read somewhere that Tony Snow has been critical of the president on his radio show. Perhaps he will be fair as the presidents press sec.
Fark's tag was perfect: Fox News radio host Tony Snow chosen as new White House press secretary. Job description largely unchanged
We know that Tony Snowjob is going to distance himself from his past commentary if confronted directly by the White House press corps.
Instead, his past quotes should be worked into their questions on current issues such as....
Will the President veto the XYZ bill or will he be a wimp and look impotent by not doing so?
Does the President support the efforts of the coward-packed Republican Party's to do XYZ?
That's a Gannon-esque softball which just begs him to make you look stupid by pointing out that the Senate never even held hearings on, much less rejected, the nomination of Harriet Miers. If his final sentence had started "If her nomination fails," you'd have some traction, but it, umm, doesn't.
Perceive well, you do, how the Republican pundits split hairs. Thus you avoid the trap.
Snow's assessment may have been somewhat overstated, but the thrust of it is correct - a defeat in the Republican Senate of the Miers nomination would have been much more politically devastating than withdrawing the nomination, which is why they pulled it His approval numbers would have acheived their spectacular lows much more quickly.
Yesterday Tony Snow was a Bush propogandist and today he has to answer for all his differences with Bush. It's not as though Bush was going to pick someone we liked. What interest does it serve to nitpick on Snow's selected negative opinions of Bush. Would we prefer someone with no negative expressions of Bush? Snow is inconsequential in the big picture. Yes, he will spin, and yes, the next president's press secretary will spin. Is he better or worse than that stubborn brick wall McClellan? And what difference does it make? Would we be happier with Alan Colmes or would we be bothered that he came from Fox? Would he too have to answer for his differences with Bush?
Sincerely,
Cletus
i don't want to live in a world if a main can not relingish his integrity to be the public face of the most prestuious government in the world? be it as it may, he's already more credibal then scott and his heho friend "jim".
i don't want to live in a world if a main can not relinquish his integrity to be the public face of the most prestigious government in the world? be it as it may, he's already more credible then scott and his heho friend "jim".
"Do you still think President Bush is a "wimp" and looks "impotent" for not "veto[ing] a single bill of any type"?"
A: [Snow's] personal opinions are not important in his role as press secretary.
He'll discuss the administration's policies, not his own opinions.
"Could you elaborate on the "leaden phrases" and the "unbearably abstract and dull" portions of Bush's "Social Security sales pitch" that made it "stink[]"?"
A1: See above.
A2: The good policy is what's important, not the issues with some of the language in the discussion.
"With the failure of Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination, do you consider Bush's presidency effectively over?"
A1: No.
A2: The president looks forward to continuing to...
"Do you still believe that Republicans nationwide "behave like reckless heirs to someone else's fortune"?"
A1: See #1.
A2 (snarky): He can express that his desire to contribute to the government's effectivess, rather than to simply criticize, was a factor in his accepting the role (implying the journalist asking the question is 'simply criticizing).
"In your estimation, has the "Conservative Movement" bounced back after Bush's and the Republicans' spending policies "shattered" it "like a broken mirror, into dozens of jagged, sharp and discordant pieces"?"
A: The president is working with congress to vut the deficit in half in his second term...
"Will you pursue amicable relations with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), even though he "behave[s] in such an inane manner," and "made official his descent into the Moonbat Grotto"?"
A: The role of the press secretary is not the same as that of an opinion columnist...
I'd rather see the press push on some of *Bush's* hypocrisy, such as the Plame-related statements.
Make him defend some of the administration's worst statements as well.
It's one thing for Snow to spin his own messes, and another to make him spin for others.