Fair & Balanced White House?

Finally, total synchronicity. Fox News and the White House are merging into one entity. Well, not really.

CNN just reported that a few weeks ago new White House chief of staff Josh Bolten asked Fox News's Tony Snow if he would be interested in replacing Scott McClellan as White House press secretary. CNN did not report whether Snow responded affirmatively and Snow refused to comment publicly. Funny how his website boasts of "The Power of Fox. The Connections of Snow."

This causes us to think of other potential White House hires:

Lou Dobbs as head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement?

Geraldo Rivera as Secretary of Defense?

Bill O'Reilly as director of Faith-Based Initiatives?

Why not call it a day and hire Roger Ailes as communications director?

Comments (54)

1. Will this make White House press briefings officially what they've always been in the Bush regime: Snow jobs?

   Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/18/2006 @ 5:41pm

2. Actually, this gives me hope. I'd like to pretend it's true. Sure, they could have picked Hannity or O'Reilly. Snow would be perfect. He's quite articulate and that monotone voice would put even Helen Thomas asleep. Plus he's a strapping fellow; bucks like David Gregory wouldn't push him around like they do with the adorable little Scottie.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/18/2006 @ 5:57pm

3. To TJB:

   . . . and I'm sure Tony Snow is a better liar than Ari Fleischer. But then, I used to feel sorry for Ari, whose personal constitution was so ill equipped to handle the job of Bush regime press secretary.

   Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/18/2006 @ 6:01pm

4. To LL:

   But there's diffrence between Fox and the others. USNWR and CNN are legitimate news organizations.

   Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/18/2006 @ 6:02pm

5. Were all of you equally outraged when David Gergen left US News and World Report to work for Clinton? Joe Lockhart worked previously for CNN and ABC before working for Clinton.

   Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/18/2006 @ 5:59pm

   Yada Yada Yada.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/18/2006 @ 6:09pm

6. To Oraibi:

   LL left out when Ron Nessen left NBC to take the same position that Snow is reported to be seeking under President Ford. No, I didn't complain about that, either.

   Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/18/2006 @ 6:12pm

7. Jack,

   When David Gergen was reporting for USNWR, there was a difference with a distinction among MSM outlets; not much distinction nowadays.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/18/2006 @ 6:12pm

8. "CNN are legitimate news organizations. "

   ????????really?????must be why their viewership and readers are disappearing and Fox is growing...

   Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2006 @ 6:13pm

9. LL,

   Clinton picking Gergen was viewed as reaching out to the Right. As for Lockhart, Deputy Assignment Manager for CNN and an Assignment Editor for ABC Network News? Even for those on the far Right who wish to believe that ABC and CNN are the liberal equivalent of FoxNews, Lockhart's presence within those networks is hardly the same as a man who hosts his own political opinion show.

   If you wanted to make a better point, simply select George Stephanaposopasiodpalis--a visible figure in the Clinton campaign and White House and now with his Snow equivalent on ABC.

   The bigger issue is the continued muddling of news, personality, and entertainment. The public ends up ill-informed. I experience this frustration constantly with so many stations that are supposed to be news only and yet there is no news. What the hell happened to Headline News? How often is CNN presenting the results of an investigation rather than the same tidbits over and over. MSNBC, Fox, and CNBC are so personality driven that it is impossible to trust a single word that is uttered.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/18/2006 @ 6:15pm

10. To Orabi:

    No, I would disagree with that. Most of the MSM are sorry excuses for news gathering that have been way too compliant with the Bush junta. Fox is outright propaganda with no prentensions to jounalism.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/18/2006 @ 6:16pm

11. To JM:

    Perhaps you're right. CNN would rather tell us about a missing blond teenager in Idaho than Bush's lies. It's slipped pretty far in resent years; but at least it started out as something better.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/18/2006 @ 6:19pm

12. And on the flip side is the use of marketing techniques of recent and current administrations. What better way of selling their actions than to have a man whom the base already listens to with gusto?

    Is it news? Is it politics? Is it real? Is it just on TV?

    Yes.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/18/2006 @ 6:19pm

13. Jack,

    You're probably correct - - pollyannish thinking on my part.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/18/2006 @ 6:22pm

14. I am beginning to feel none of the "news" networks do anything but create the news and are interested in their own celebertyism.

    The storys are always the same on the MSM and even in the same order on each network. I would rather have networks tell us their slant ahead of time(no crime there)so we can dispense with the horse shit about we are unbiased and her just here to report the news. None of these guys has ever "just reported" what they saw. As a result, all of us, on the left, right and middle are not being served. We are being manipulated.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2006 @ 6:44pm

15. Attention dimwit apologists:

    Watch "Outfoxed", see your propaganda network exposed, and realize how ignorant and lemming-like you all are, then shut your collective holes.

    And this:

    oh jesus is one of the cranks trying to justify this thing?!

    Posted by ZERO 04/18/2006 @ 6:11pm | ignore this person

    I thought the exact same thing, Zero, but there is no low they will not sink to. We know that...

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/18/2006 @ 6:44pm

16. Maasch -

    Alert the media (irony)!

    I rarely do, but boy, did I agree with you on that last post of yours. Nowadays, you have to shove the chaff of every news show you can find into the hopper and spend all day seeking the grain of wheat...

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/18/2006 @ 6:46pm

17. Is Fox part of the MSM?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/18/2006 @ 6:47pm

18. TJ -

    "George Stephanaposopasiodpalis"

    Dude, I laughed so hard I almost wet myself.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/18/2006 @ 6:48pm

19. Liberty posts, with no sense of irony:

    "It has nothing to do with anything. BTW Snow previously worked in the Reagan Administration before he went to Fox. He would simply be returning to government service."

    If he went to Fox, he never left government service...

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/18/2006 @ 6:49pm

20. "Is Fox part of the MSM?"

    I think they are close, but what might keep them out is total viewer numbers and the fact they pitch the same story in a differnt slant than the others..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2006 @ 6:51pm

21. So do regular viewers see Fox as having a "different slant", or do they see no slant in comparison to the others?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/18/2006 @ 6:54pm

22. And another thing,,,

    when was the last time you a news anchor woman with small breasts and 50 lbs overwieght with stringy hair and bad legs, if any legs?

    Or a bald fat man with his thighs rubbing together with yellow teeth and a case of mild acne?

    No normal people to be seen anywhere,

    or better yet, I am working here for $ 23,500 a year and not $ 15 million...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2006 @ 6:55pm

23. I see a different slant. I can't speak for others.

    It gets noticed as all the others had the same slant.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2006 @ 6:56pm

24. TJ,

    Fox News -- an oxymoron.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/18/2006 @ 6:56pm

25. foxymoron

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/18/2006 @ 6:57pm

26. foxymoron,

    interesting because most of the women on Fox are hot, especially when you see them on the street.

    KVH is also hot, especially if you see her in person. She should smile more, tho.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2006 @ 6:59pm

27. How many women have their own shows on Fox: it seems even more male dominated than the others, which are awfully bad.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/18/2006 @ 7:01pm

28. Here is something I saw on the web...and even tho I use it as an example of why Democrats should be in charge of nothing..

    "Democrats accused President George W. Bush of an "absence of leadership" for failing to slow the rapid rise of US gasoline (petrol) prices, which now have breached the three dollars per gallon mark in parts of the country. "

    Any 5th grader knows the president is NOT in charge of oil prices and that the market with India, China, US and the crap in Iran is affecting the price.

    For grown, supposedly educated men and women to espouse crap like this, much less government officials, shows they should not be in charge of an out house with free admission.

    Idiots.Yeah, vote for these guys instead of repubs and you will be in good hands...

    sorry for the loss of thread.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2006 @ 7:51pm

29. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/18/2006 @ 7:51pm: Any 5th grader knows the president is NOT in charge of oil prices and that the market with India, China, US and the crap in Iran is affecting the price.

    Right. There is absolutely nothing Dear Leader can do about gas prices. Or Iraq. Or New Orleans. Or anything bad that happens. George can not be blamed for the bad things that happen while he is President because any 5th grader knows the president is NOT in charge of bad things. And besides, all the bad things are Clinton's fault.

    And, when oil prices shoot over $100/barrel after Georgie Boy bombs Iran, that won't be Dear Leader's fault either.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/18/2006 @ 9:07pm

30. Orwell,

    Iran won't be bombed, but oil will go to $100 a barrel...and then drop back to about $ 50, where it should be as there is no shortage of crude stocks, but a tight refinery problem.

    Speculation and high world demand will drive it up. In the long run it may help alternative fuels by the private sector smelling of demand for new techno and bio fuels and profit.

    As stated, any 5th grader knows no president can control prices..Nixon couldn't and neither can Bush.

    As for all things bad and Clinton, no I don't beleieve that either, as nothing happened on his watch, thank God. As for all bad things are in Bush control, only you here actually believe that.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2006 @ 9:38pm

31. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/18/2006 @ 9:38pm: Iran won't be bombed

    Wow. I feel relieved. Your source for this statement is ???

    Can I assume that if Iran is attacked, you will, of course, oppose it?

    As stated, any 5th grader knows no president can control prices..Nixon couldn't and neither can Bush.

    No one has stated that Bush can control oil prices. American government policies, however, do influence oil prices. For example, if we attack Iran, oil prices will go up.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/18/2006 @ 9:50pm

32. Jack Rabbit I believe you struck the fundamental truth of the difference between the credibility of the Clinton administration vs. the Bush administration in your initial post to this thread. At least from a male perspective, who wouldn't prefer a blow job to a snow job.

    Peace to the fascists (a bit of tweaking since they seem to consider such a greeting as insulting and perhaps unmanly). It is truly a pity that the American paradise created by such conservative icons as Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan had to be spoiled by the fiscal policies of an FDR and a William Jefferson Clinton. Gee, with any luck at all, we'll fianlly get to experience the thousand year prosperity founded by their current group of visionaries. Oh, but wait, a thousand years is way far remote from the impending rapture. Perhaps they will be able to blame God for meddling with the conservative paradise this time.

    Posted by canaar at 04/18/2006 @ 10:43pm

33. Jack Rabbit I believe you struck the fundamental truth of the difference between the credibility of the Clinton administration vs. the Bush administration in your initial post to this thread. At least from a male perspective, who wouldn't prefer a blow job to a snow job.

    Peace to the fascists (a bit of tweaking since they seem to consider such a greeting as insulting and perhaps unmanly). It is truly a pity that the American paradise created by such conservative icons as Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan had to be spoiled by the fiscal policies of an FDR and a William Jefferson Clinton. Gee, with any luck at all, we'll fianlly get to experience the thousand year prosperity founded by their current group of visionaries. Oh, but wait, a thousand years is way far remote from the impending rapture. Perhaps they will be able to blame God for meddling with the conservative paradise this time.

    Posted by canaar at 04/18/2006 @ 10:43pm

34. To Canaar:

    I was thinking of snow job in the sense of a con artist's sales pitch or just good old fashioned steer manure.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/18/2006 @ 11:34pm

35. Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/18/2006 @ 11:35pm

36. Any 5th grader knows the president is NOT in charge of oil prices and that the market with India, China, US and the crap in Iran is affecting the price.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/18/2006 @ 9:38pm

    Which is why during the 2000 campaign ol Gee Dubya swore up and down that he would "make a phone call" if oil prices strated to go up.

    It's nice to now that you fellas knowingly elected a guy who isn't as bright as a fifth grader to be our president.

    (but then Schtoopid is as Schtoopid does)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/19/2006 @ 06:07am

37. Back on topic...

    Just curious, if a future "President Feingold" Administration offered "Chief Domestic Policy Advisor" to Katrina vanden Heuval or John Nichols....outrage by the Right WOULD be justified then, right?

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2006 @ 08:43am

38. Hey! What about hiring Tim Russert or Chris Matthews or George Stephanopulus(sp?)? Oh; they've already been in the government and probably wouldn't want to go back.

    Posted by woodyee at 04/19/2006 @ 09:41am

39. "CNN are legitimate news organizations. "

    ????????really?????must be why their viewership and readers are disappearing and Fox is growing...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/18/2006 @ 6:13pm

    Exactly! You may have noticed many people in this country support the GOP no matter what. They aren't looking for truly fair and balanced news, they are looking for a cheerleader of administration policies that passes itself off as news. Thus the genius of R Murdoch inspired him to tap the market.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/19/2006 @ 10:21am

40. George can not be blamed for the bad things that happen while he is President because any 5th grader knows the president is NOT in charge of bad things. And besides, all the bad things are Clinton's fault.

    Posted by ORWELL2005 04/18/2006 @ 9:07pm

    Subtle and funny!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/19/2006 @ 10:26am

41. "No one has stated that Bush can control oil prices. American government policies, however, do influence oil prices. For example, if we attack Iran, oil prices will go up. "

    We haven't bombed Iran and oil is going up anyway. My source for not bombig Iran is the same as the dolts here who are saying we are..

    Iran is a society where the re is an under lying unrest in the population. I think the best way to defeat Iran is left the Iranians do it themselves. Keep beaming in Western TV and MTV and Cable. These people are not Arabs and are Persian. They are more educated. I don't think the mullahs are that popular.

    They are coming to bomb us anyway as their current leaders support that. 40,000 suicide bopmbers ready to go?

    What will happen to oil prices when suicide bombers strike here? China ,Now the second larges oil importer to US, gets hungrier? or India, right behind them?

    US policy can't really affect oil prices any more and to tell the population this is wrong, just as the Dems are wrong to blame Bush for the same thing...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/19/2006 @ 10:34am

42. ZERO your lengthy post of 04/19/2006 @ 12:12am seems quite outlandish. Two-thirds of your scenario, which you portrayed as near certainty, is highly unlikely if not impossible.

    For example, Iran has nothing remotely capable of opposing the US Navy, thus the claim that they could substantially disrupt shipping is pure baloney.

    And a tidal wave of something (discord? unrest? anti-US sentiment?) sweeping into Saudi Arabia sounds kind of goofy. The Saudi royal family has already been under serious internal pressure for years; how do you propose that situation would be substantially altered for the worse?

    Anyway, that post comes across as demagoguery

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/19/2006 @ 10:35am

43. Iran can be defeated militartily in a few days. The aftermath of that defeat is where the problem lies.

    To defeat any country in that part of the world you must threaten their WATER supplies and not the oil supplies...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/19/2006 @ 10:37am

44. JOHN, speaking of oil prices, with the oil industry awash in record profits they can afford to build more refining capacity. Yet they do not. Is this the free market at work? Sounds like the opposite to me. Sounds like a small number of companies are dominating a market and deciding not to build new refineries in order to increase profit.

    The internal debate in Mr. or Mrs. Oil Exec goes something like this: "I could spend money to build another refinerey, but that money comes out of the bottom line. Or I could not spend money to build another refinery, which will drive up prices and enrich the bottom line. Hmmm, seems like a no brainer. And I know the other 4 guys who, together with me, control this industry. They are thinking the same thing."

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/19/2006 @ 10:42am

45. "JOHN, speaking of oil prices, with the oil industry awash in record profits they can afford to build more refining capacity. Yet they do not. Is this the free market at work?"

    You are correct..

    See Enviromental laws and tree huggers for inabilitty to build refinerys here. The regulatory process and enviro impact research would not allow a refinery to be built with in 5 years, from the first filling to the keys to the front gates....or maybe more years than 5.... Where do you think oil profits go? Into more crude stocks, maybe?

    Posted by john maasch at 04/19/2006 @ 10:54am

46. Are you going to blame oil companies when China and India buy more crude stocks than we do? And price goes up? When China turns on the oil producers and invades or forces them to take their "advice" are you going to march in protest? Write ther Nation? You need to take a look down the road in the future...Bush won't be the problem...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/19/2006 @ 10:57am

47. To ILP:

    You may have noticed many people in this country support the GOP no matter what. They aren't looking for truly fair and balanced news, they are looking for a cheerleader of administration policies that passes itself off as news. Thus the genius of R Murdoch inspired him to tap the market.

    You got it right, my man. FoxNews will survive and will always be with us, just like pornography.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/19/2006 @ 11:04am

48. So, sorry, Maasch, but you clearly weren't paying attention, and I know you're "smarter than the average 5th-grader"... You just like to ignore contrary stuff to make your points (something we all do from time to time, that you occasionally raise to an art form)...

    With gasoline prices hitting the stratosphere, the presidential candidate chastised the incumbent for not being tough enough on the oil producers.

    "I think the President ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say: 'We expect you to open your spigots. The President of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price," declared Gov. George W. Bush.

    He vowed to do just that with the "Saudis" and others who cut oil production.

    As Bush prepared to move into the Oval Office in early 2001, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D IL) reminded him of that campaign promise and urged him to jawbone his friends in the energy industry to keep prices down. Instead, he hired them.

    At the time Bush made his jawboning vow, oil prices were nearly $28 a barrel... They are over $70 now...

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/19/2006 @ 11:35am

49. Continued, Maasch posted:

    "For grown, supposedly educated men and women to espouse crap like this, much less government officials, shows they should not be in charge of an out house with free admission."

    For a grown, supposedly edumacated man like Bush to espouse this crap, especially AS a government official, shows that he should not be in charge of an out house with free admission.

    And you defend him. Preposterous, John. Now, stop that.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/19/2006 @ 11:38am

50. Dawen,

    I am not defending him, I make the same statement again...no president can control oil prices. Period. And I chastise the last statement from the dems. Can I make this any more clear? The dems statement is where I focused, as it was made yesterday. Had I heard the Bush statement at the time it was uttered I would have blasted that, too. Why is this so hard to see?

    Posted by john maasch at 04/19/2006 @ 11:53am

51. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/19/2006 @ 10:34am: We haven't bombed Iran and oil is going up anyway.

    Many people believe that the recent rise in oil prices has been caused by the US's military threats against Iran. So, if anything, this adds to the evidence that US policies influence oil prices more than it refutes it.

    But, in any event, those of us that have gone beyond 5th grade are not claiming that US policies are the SOLE influence on oil prices. We are claiming that US policies influence oil prices. Obviously, there are other factors that influence oil prices as well.

    My source for not bombig Iran is the same as the dolts here who are saying we are..

    Hopefully, you realize that this statement makes absolutely no sense.

    I think the best way to defeat Iran is left the Iranians do it themselves.

    Unfortunately, Dear Leader does not appear to agree with you. Maybe you could pick up the phone and explain things. I am sure that the NSA would pass on the message.

    I don't think the mullahs are that popular.

    And that is based on conversations with how many native Iranians?

    They are coming to bomb us anyway as their current leaders support that.

    They are coming to bomb us anyway? My, you are a bedwetting pansy, ain't you.

    What will happen to oil prices when suicide bombers strike here?

    Nothing. Remember. According to you, US policies don't impact oil prices.

    US policy can't really affect oil prices any more and to tell the population this is wrong

    Actually, you are wrong. Even if you ignore geo-political effects, US policy could significantly reduce demand for oil. This reduced demand would lead to lower prices (as any 5th grader knows).

    just as the Dems are wrong to blame Bush for the same thing...

    Is it only the Dems that are wrong to blame Bush? If Republicans blamed Bush, would they also be wrong? Or, would their act of blaming Bush instantly transmorgify them into Dems?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/19/2006 @ 12:01pm

52. Had I heard the Bush statement at the time it was uttered I would have blasted that, too. Why is this so hard to see?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/19/2006 @ 11:53am | ignore this person

    What makes me and many others here completely incredulous about you, Maasch, is that since you didn't notice Bush's bullshit prior to voting for him, and you act like it doesn't really matter anymore, we sadly shake our heads at how many other well-meaning people got duped by this bullshit artist. Twice.

    He's just as full of shit now as he was then. He is a terrible man and a worse president.

    And the "Dems" you so wholeheartedly rail against do not occupy the power posts that these scum do.

    Damn it, Maasch, I know in you somewhere is a good and right and rational American. Let him out, for God's sake. He's choking on BushShit.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/19/2006 @ 1:13pm

53. It's interesting that we do have existing energy alternatives yet we are continiously led to believe that oil is the only viable source of energy. Magnetic Power Modules have been proven and prototype automotive applications are project to be completed by 2007. http://magneticpowerinc.com/.

    New engine designs that run on a tenth of the fuel needed. Another upcoming innovation that was actually designed in 1911 is the Tesla turbine originally designed as a steam application it has been redeveloped as a multifuel engine that can get 110 hp out of an engine the size of your lawnmower.

    Whats my point to these innovations well why are we so focused on oil? why hasn't the SEC stepped in to question the apparent manipulations of the oil futures? Are the record profits of big oil being reinvested in oil futures and is this a form of price fixing where is the SEC and why aren't they investigating.

    It all leads back to our felonious leader and his "friends". We are spoon fed excuses for protecting the oil industry instead of our environment, our poor, our elderly, just so a few very greedy people can get their 116 mil retirement packages.

    This is what currently passes for fair and balanced in this administration.

    Posted by dycel8r at 04/19/2006 @ 1:37pm

54. Just saw a story about our fearful leader in Tuskegee touting techno advances.

    HaHa will we be fooled again!

    Posted by dycel8r at 04/19/2006 @ 1:45pm