As BlatherWatch predicted just yesterday, Fox Radio's Tony Snow (or Snony Tow, as President Bush calls him) will probably be named White House Press Secretary, according to CNN.
"It's all done except for dotting the t's and crossing the eyes," CNN's Suzanne Malveaux told Wolf Blitzer Monday evening.
Snow has had a recent bout with colon cancer- (not uncommon for clench-sphinctered Republicans) which accounts for his hollow-eyed, narrow-foreheaded, Frankenstein look lately.
It's probably a good move for the beleaguered White House, whose fearless leader's approval ratings dropped to 32% today in the new CNN poll. That's a point drop from the weekend's Fox poll which gave him 33%.
Who will fill the position on KVI's 9 ta noon? Although we don't believe the 13 share he supposedly pulled last book, Snow certainly has been a player in that vital slot in Seattle.
Snony is a smarmy pontificator with a Republican haircut, but he's a capable and experienced communicator well liked by his media peers. He might be able to gussy up the corpse of this administration.
And don't expect those exclusive Fox News interviews with Bush, Cheney, or Rummy to get spread around to other networks. The Fox is in charge of the henhouse.
We have to admit, we enjoyed Snow's recent description of outgoing press secretary Scott McClellan as a "...baby seal for the press to club every day 'til he's bloody. Then they drag his bleeding carcass off until the next day; then put him back out there for it all to happen again."
(McClellan's mother is Texas State Comptroller and loose cannon independent gubernatorial candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn; who's in the process of collecting signatures to have her name placed on the November ballot. If successful, and she beats fellow independent hopeful, Kinky Friedman, (yes, that Kinky Friedman) she'll face incumbent Republican Rick Perry in the general election. A fast talker, she says “My kids say I speak 365 words a minute.” She claims she learned to speak quickly because her mother would let her lick the beater when she made a cake, but wouldn’t turn the machine off first. She recently said about son Scott: "How can he know about Afghanistan if he can’t make up his bed?”)
Snow's appointment is another example of talk radio's influence on Republicans and the Party's almost instinctual turning to it when they need to reconnect with the electorate.
Snow's a likable guy who's schtick is "reasonable," but he's as conservative as anyone in the administration. Talk radio has worked well for Bush and the GOP many times before. It's been a back-beat of Republican memes and conservative framing for years; and it's served them well.
The Democrats have nothing that comes close to reaching as many hearts and minds as the right has with talk radio. It's measured in sheer numbers of hours, days and years of reframing, and redefining issues and scorning the progressive philosophical status quo set in the 1930's.
Snow is one of the legion of talk hosts who is not only conservative, but partisan. These are the water buffalos of the Republican Party toiling on the daily airwaves with Party strategery and spin always at the forefront.
In this category are Snow, Limbaugh, Medved, Hannity, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, John Carlson, Kirby Wilbur, Sytman & Boze, etc., who rarely stray off the reservation, even when Bush & Co. stray from the Reagan conservative boilerplate they all claim to abide by.
Other conservatives talkers are either more independent, more libertarian, or too conservative to always go along with "my Party, right or wrong." These are talkers like O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Mike Gallagher, G. Gordon Liddy, Lars Larson, Larry Elder, Janet Parshall, Hugh Hewitt, Dori Monson, Frank Shiers, Lou Pate, and more. They're falling away from Bush as are a lot of R's- on immigration, Iraq, the astounding deficits, and the hugely expanded government.
It's sad that all the administration seems to wanna do is change the faces of the front men while leaving in place the faulty policies and the fuck-ups who have failed so miserably to implement them. Americans won't be fooled by this- things have gone too far.
Bush has done too much, too little, too badly.
tory, methinks you took her bait :-)
Posted by: sparky | April 27, 2006 at 06:36 PM
Go Tory!
Posted by: MorganB | April 27, 2006 at 06:40 PM
Well, hell, I think she's laid enough of it out there... :)
Posted by: toryrogan | April 27, 2006 at 06:42 PM
Censorship is being done by both sides. The Bush Administration has done it and the Clinton Administration did it - so its a Mexican standoff.
The mainstream media does it by omission of relevant information or distortion of their reporting so that it conforms to their hate-Bush and mainly leftwing agenda. I wish they could be more honest about the wrongdoings of this administration, but they don't wish to operate that way. Who gets shafted from all of this ? Us/You.
Posted by: KS | April 27, 2006 at 07:09 PM
Oh RadRachel - you spent so many words telling us all how much better everything is but not one specific.
So, what is better? Tell me, pleeeeese, since I can't get it anywhere else! Pleeeese, pleeeese, just tell me all the things that are better - pretty please?
KS: you're still "klueless."
Posted by: joanie | April 27, 2006 at 07:33 PM
If I was a pubbie, I'd be worried too since it's Rove's 5th time before the Grand Jury. Tony Snow cannot save him...
Posted by: chris | April 27, 2006 at 08:03 PM
Not clueless Joanie - I just see it from both sides, for which you seem to have a blind spot and soft spot for left. I know - its in vogue in these parts, but its also disingenuous.
Posted by: KS | April 27, 2006 at 08:03 PM
Just curious, KS, what did the left do that said "censorship" to you?
Posted by: joanie | April 27, 2006 at 09:28 PM
Joanie - Do you have amnesia about the Clintons ? They were also doing illegal wire taps for starters, not to mention the filegate flap which they hijacked ~900 files on high ranking politicians which may not be censorship itself, but rather political blackmail, but the Clinton Justice Department successfully stonewalled the evidence to bring any formal charges down. They censored those who voiced opposition to them by tax audits on these folks by the IRS - which is documented.
The Bush administration has been too hush-hush about their wiretaps, which were unsanctioned as were the one's the Clinton administration did.
What forms of documented censorship has the Bush administration been alleged to have done ?
Posted by: KS | April 27, 2006 at 09:59 PM
Refusing to call on reporters who ask tough questions. Political rallies allowing only party members . . . So called town hall meetings that are restricted to Bush loyalists. Reclassifying documents that have already been declassified. Using government obstacles to make using the freedom of information act much harder to navigate when trying to access information. Closed meetings with energy execs and refusing to release notes from these meetings. Editing the 9-11 reports leaving out paragraphs and whole blocks of information that reflects badly on the adm. Editing scientific reports written by government scientists to alter the perception of global warming. These are just off the top of my head . . .
I haven't heard all those accusations about the Clintons. I'll check them out but I'm curious if these are "facts" you heard on "O'Reilly."
Posted by: joanie | April 27, 2006 at 10:23 PM
Good Lord, KS! I just looked up "fileflap" and it was all about Whitewater which was a zillion-dollar attempt to get a president by the republican party. Nothing was proven and you should be ashamed of yourself for even harkening back to that shameful waste of taxpayer money!
Hardly in the same league with altering documents, blacking out portions of public hearings and reclassifying already unclassified documents! You are truly desperate to pull that crap back out. I didn't even like Clinton, nor did I vote for him . . . but at least I can be reasonable about how I characterize him.
In addition, it was that liberal NY Times whose ace reporter Judith Miller, (Chalabi's shill), that helped lead the way into the war. You people are bankrupt of ideas and integrity!
This has been a waste of time!
Posted by: joanie | April 27, 2006 at 10:31 PM
I keep telling you.......but do you listen?????
Noooooooo.....
Posted by: sparky | April 28, 2006 at 09:17 AM
The best thing that could possibly happen WHEN Tony Snow starts as press secretary (sorry Tory, I don't read communist sites like your CNN) is that liberal websites end up getting shut down and mouthpieces like all of you democrats on here don't have an outlet to spread your nasty liberal lies. You should all be locked up just to help President Bush lead the government. You all are nothing but a bunch of worthless, treasonous liberal liars.
Posted by: RedRachel | April 28, 2006 at 11:06 AM
yawn...
Posted by: sparky | April 28, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Hey Michael, do you know if anyone on talk radio is talking about the impending sex scandal at the Watergate Hotel? The florescent lights here at school are playing havoc with any kind of reception today and I cant get any stations to come in at all!
Posted by: sparky | April 28, 2006 at 11:31 AM
Hey Rachel, sounds like you need to get a little high
Posted by: towlie | April 28, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Sorry Tolie. I don't do drugs like all of you dope-guzzling waistoid homosexual libs.
Posted by: RedRachel | April 28, 2006 at 11:50 AM
Rachel's credibility just tanked
Posted by: shadow | April 28, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Then get laid.
Posted by: joanie | April 28, 2006 at 12:00 PM
I bet you would love to do all kinds of homosexual things to me, Joanie, but unfortunatly for you I'm not a homo liberal druggie. Sorry, try your liberal garbage on someone else.
Posted by: RedRachel | April 28, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Rachel, you might be suprised to learn that not all liberals are homosexuals.
Posted by: toryrogan | April 28, 2006 at 12:37 PM
i am
Posted by: StybleLvr | April 28, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Rachel still thinks Lincon was a democrat.
Posted by: shadow | April 28, 2006 at 12:39 PM
Joanie, Re: Clinton - I don't think so. Truly desperate - thats a joke ! Check your sources - Whitewater and File Gate were two separate matters, so wherever you got that from is not reliable. What documents did Bush allegedly alter ? None of what I wrote earlier was taken from O'Reilly, so you can rest easy on that one - it was taken from Keith Olberman (lol). Can you refute any of what I stated about Clinton ?
Oh yeah, also what about the Clinton's pardoning of some despicable people like Marc Rich- probably the worst thing he did as president. Did not care for the method of his impeachment - one more time for you kool aid drinking lefties - It was about lieing under oath to a Grand Jury, nothing to do with sex.
That stuff is ancient history now. I am not denying that Bush has done a number of things I don't like either or necessarily out to compare.
Posted by: KS | April 28, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Rachel: I'd like do all kind of squidgie hetero stuff to you...how about some good conservative lovin? we could get married first, if you want.
Posted by: yick | April 28, 2006 at 01:08 PM
Yick, all I can say is YUCK!
YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK! YUCK!
Posted by: RedRachel | April 28, 2006 at 02:54 PM
You still need to get laid.
Posted by: joanie | April 28, 2006 at 03:40 PM
Man, KS!
I said:
"It's called "censorship" Rachel. It was called blacklisting in the fifties, Rachel."
KS responds:
"Censorship is being done by both sides. The Bush Administration has done it and the Clinton Administration did it - so its a Mexican standoff."
(Notice the topic is still "censorship")
Joanie provides examples:
". . . Closed meetings with energy execs and refusing to release notes from these meetings. Editing the 9-11 reports leaving out paragraphs and whole blocks of information that reflects badly on the adm. Editing scientific reports written by government scientists to alter the perception of global warming. . . " (Notice the SPECIFIC examples) AND REQUESTS EXAMPLES BACK . . .
KS Responds with
WHITEWATER AND FILEGATE
What do Whitewater and Filegate have to do with censorship?
KS, stay on topic. Finish your argument. You claimed the Clinton Adm. did it. Give me examples.
". . . Bush Administration . . . censoring, suppressing and distorting scientific analysis. . . "
"examples of alterations"
"Members of the commission, who have been allowed to read the August 2001 report but have not been allowed until today to discuss most of its contents, joined unanimously on Thursday in calling for the entire document to be declassified and made available to the public." (9-11 report)
". . . the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship."
"Critics say many of the president's appearances are open only to Bush supporters."
Finally,
"Court: Cheney Energy Policy Meetings Can Stay Secret"
So, cite a few specifics proving censorship on the part of Clinton. Actually, I can think of one example, but the court didn't let it stand - let's see if you come up with it. :)
Posted by: joanie | April 28, 2006 at 07:37 PM
This should explain the neo-cons whole appeal from one excerpt:
"Recall former Spokane Mayor Jim West, big scandal just recently, an outspoken and homophobic über-Republican on the outside, a guy who helped pass anti-gay legislation in Washington state and railed against gay rights in public, but who happily turned around and for over 20 years solicited 18-year-old boys in gay chat rooms at night and offered them free candy, T-shirts, sex, jobs. Bush is just like that. Abuse your issue openly during the day, screw it at night. And worst of all, give not a single thought to the brutal dichotomy."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/04/28/notes042806.DTL&nl=fix
Posted by: stodge charger | April 28, 2006 at 08:11 PM
Joanie - What is all of your excitement about those incidences of censorship ? I have a difficult time taking your sources seriously; Science and Engineeers for change - it reads left wing/ it praises Henry Waxman a staunch left winger, the NY Times - left wing/one-sided stories- Bush hating and CNN- the biggest rival of Fox News, which tries to incriminate Bush and Fox - their arguments seemed circumstancial at best - all of your sources have a blatant political agenda . I can find you sources of censorship by the Clintons from the American Spectator, but you would dismiss in a similar fashion as dismissed your sources.
" They were also doing illegal wire taps for starters, not to mention the filegate flap which they hijacked ~900 files on high ranking politicians which may not be censorship itself, but rather political blackmail, but the Clinton Justice Department successfully stonewalled the evidence to bring any formal charges down. They censored those who voiced opposition to them by tax audits on these folks by the IRS - which is documented." - speaks for itself
"Oh yeah, also what about the Clinton's pardoning of some despicable people like Marc Rich- probably the worst thing he did as president."
Censorship the way you described is small potatoes compared what was found last week; that the State Dept. in the Clinton admin. gave some purposely flawed nuclear weapons plans to Iran - Iran promptly took them to Russia, who corrected them, so thanks to the Clinton Administration- State Dept., Iran now has access to their nuclear weapons. With that said, I am ready to move on - as anything beyond this is a waste of time !
Posted by: KS | April 28, 2006 at 09:15 PM
Again, KS, nothing but blather from you. Not even correlated to the topic. No links . . . no specifics . . . you drink the Bush/Fox kool aid and have nothing beyond that to offer. Constant avoidance . . . generalizations. . . nothing substantial. You are in a box . . . just more railing and ranting without a hint of substance. Nice try but no cigar. :)
Posted by: joanie | April 28, 2006 at 09:20 PM