NEWS: Tony Snow Asked To Be The New White House Liar

I am soooo glad you are back!

Well, I have no expectation that the Bush team would hire anyone but a "Pro-Bush" person to be their press secretary. I mean, would you want a cheerleader who doesn't like your team.

But, the fact that they picked someone from Faux News is just too, too funny. I mean, why bother, they could just tell the press to tune in to Faux news every night and save the salary.

Also, it is not his opinions that bother me so much as the fact that he is an obvious hack. I would like to see a bit more professionalism in the job. McClellan was loosing his.

Sort of like launching a one man crusade to turn everything the Bush Administration does into a horrific scandal?

The sarcasm and juvenile attacks on people's integrity exhibited in every single one of his threads appeal only to the lowest common denominator, and I'm simply trying to have an intelligent discussion where we can hopefully look at both sides of the argument. It is ridiculous of you to suggest that several incredibly slanted news items have merit, but my disagreeing with them does not.

Entertainment goes in the "Silliness" forum, news goes on the Newswire.



[Edited on Apr 27, 2006 by FireBomber]

This is almost hilarious- It completely escapes you that by telling me I shouldn't continue to voice my disapproval, you are engaging in the exact behavior you criticize me for.

If you can't understand my point about Snow's position as an analyst guaranteeing inconsistencies in the past, you already have your mind made up and obviously are not open to considering any other viewpoints.

To suggest that I called for suppression of the articles is ludicrous. That's paranoia at work ,my friend. "That guy doesn't agree with me? He's tryin to censor me!! Must be one of those crazy Bush brainwashees.."

i was wondering how long it would be before we had a freeper in the administration.

I only try to bring the soaring political rhetoric back down to earth so we can have an intelligent discussion about it, but all it results in is my being criticized for attempting to be one of the few voices on this board advocating discussion of both sides.

My comments have all been responses. It's not like I'm starting threads to express my dislike of someone, or complaining to SG management. If FearTheReaper is going to open these matters for discussion, then discussion he will get. I'm sorry if the fact that I have an opinion, and want to express it as often as he does offends you.


[Edited on Apr 27, 2006 by FireBomber]

And Bush swore he hadn't used Snow since the 70's!

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Oyaji's point is well made and seemingly overlooked by you altogether. Discourse is good - we encourage it here and if you have opinions about the topic, you should discuss them. But to continue the monotonous drone about your dislike for titles or worse, that you disagree with the slant taken - well - save that for one the Neocon blogs where you are not wasting the readership's time and energy, because frankly, we don't care if you feel that way. We do care of you have a point to make that reflects the content - so get on with it.

[Edited on Apr 27, 2006 by Adroitbeing]

Ummm, how incessant could this "barrage" be, he's only been on the site two weeks, and he's only made a handful of posts about the administration. Given that he's you know, the politics editor and the subject at hand is, you know, the administration of the most powerful office in the world, those hardly seem like big numbers.

No, one person raised that fact without comment and you were off to the races. If there is critical response to that fact it would be that Snow, like the rest of the Fox Soma eaters criticizes Bush, principally for not being conservative enough.

You are mistaken. The content is newsworthy and the perspective of the person reporting it simply cannot erase that. Moreover, you have done little in your numerous posts to this board but carry water for whatever conservative meme got you panties in a bunch. The idea that you are merely standing up for enlightened discourse is comical.

Every one of my comments has to do with the content- it's a non-item. I have offered an opposing viewpoint to the author's assertion that Snow is a liar. You and several others are the only ones who have chosen to ignore the issue at hand, and attack me instead.

Don't come on like a moderator or instructor by telling me how I should construct my posts. Perhaps if you feel Oyaji's point is so well made, you should take the advice he gave me: If you don't like it, then don't comment on it.

Me, on the other hand....I don't find ignoring something I disagree with to be constructive. If that's what floats your boat, then by all means- ignore me.

I stand by my assertion that Tony Snow's mixed feelings about George Bush's administration are not cause to label him a liar, as well as making him a better choice for the job than a super conservative Bush-bot.

You want me to "get on with it"? Okay, I ask you this: Would you have preferred that the job went to someone who has a perfect record of backing everything Bush has done since he was in office?

You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty reading for content. You are the only one who has drawn any negative inferences from Snow's criticism of the administration. The actual post in question begins "Snow's had his more positive moments".

The reason people are calling Snow a liar is because he is. There is a laundry list of false statements he has made, not as a spokesman, but as a purportedly objective journalist. These have nothing to do with his criticisms of the administration, you have not rebutted a single one of them, and they are cause for concern if his job is now going to be the principal spindoctor for the administration.

You may be missing a couple of key points:
Firstly, the relationship between Faux News Network and the Bush admin is akin to some odd reciprocal love fest. There is nothing fair and balanced about FNN - so in the face of demands from Repubs and Dems alike to shake up the white house staff - selecting someone from FNN as press secretary, regardless of the odd uttered criticism, is ridiculous.

Second, it would be challenging to find anyone as conservative as Tony - he is as close to a Bush-bot as can be found willing to field the arrows. The fact that Bush selected him after Tony leveled criticisms at Bush for failing to be conservative enough, might be simple pandering to that audience.

It's another, in a long line of macabre jokes one never knows whether to laugh or express the sincere dread we all feel that this administration has drifted from incompetence to illusory.

Damn, I thought for a minute there that you'd get through an entire post without slipping in a jab at the White House!

It's nice to know that even after all the bloviating about how irritating it is when I point out someone's shortcomings, you still have to toe that Liberal line and get in a shot at the Government by calling them liars. It's cool, I'm sure lots of people will back you up. Safety in numbers here on SG with all the other cool anti-Bush kids. Pot, meet Kettle.

I wonder....what on Earth will you do to feel better about the problems of the world when Bush is out of office? Blame everything on the "lasting effects of Bush", I'm sure.

Good point. You should have written the article, because that is a theory worth discussion. The original topic tried to make news out of the fact he was a politician who may have *gasp* LIED, or maybe even contradicted himself in the past, which is an obvious and ridiculous angle to use when trying to stir up disagreement with the nomination.

Snow has never really been a "journalist"(journalist=reporter) He wrote columns, editorials, ect. He didn't report the news he commented on it. I don't know that he was ever supposed to be an objective journalist

I am having a hard time with something. It appears that your definition of the word liar, differs from the definition that other people are using. I am relatively familiar with the other definition, it simply defines a liar as one that tells lies. To understand that though, you also have to understand what a lie is.

Please help me understand your views, define the word liar for me, so I there is no more confusion. I am having a great deal of trouble with what you're trying to say here, and need a more detailed explanation. Perhaps, if you were able to explain your views with greater clarity I might change what I believe.

What I currently believe is the following:
People are calling this administration liars, because they have told the populus things that are not true, deliberately in the past. That is not taking shots at them, and it is not
toeing a liberal line, it is not pointing out short comings it is simply stating a fact. Luckily there are so many examples of the lies:
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
Granted some of those lies are perhaps exaggerations, where the people relating them are not aware of the truth. However, many of those examples are from reputable sources. So many examples show that this lying is habitual, hence the term liar is quite fitting when describing the current president.

Now, as for the lucky person who has a job working for this liar, it appears that being a liar would be good experience when working for a liar. I haven't supporting evidence to back that statement up, because "Liars who work for liars and their effectiveness" studies aren't easy to dig up (in fact they may not even exist). However, a truth teller working for a liar just doesn't seem like a good idea.

I'll admit, I don't know much about what this Tony Snow guy might or might not have lied about in the past... but at least he seems more articulate than the telegraph pole that has been in the job for the last couple of years.