Fox is reporting Fox’s own Tony Snow as having been approached to fill Scotty’s shoes.
More refreshing news, if it means Fox has stopped pretending.
I notice that you lept immediately to the defense of Moyers and not Salinger. That says something right there, doesn’t it?
He always came across as inept to me. I know he had a lot of shit thrown at him and he had little to work with but in front of the press he just seemed to shrink.
I’ve grown up watching British Politicians and spokesmen on BBC being grilled by very good and professional journalists sometimes in very aggressive ways and most leave Scot in their dust when it comes to giving a non-answer to a hard question or even an actual answer.
I’m not really talking about the policies or anti-Bush admin feelings here as I’m looking at the performance of the press secretary and how he presents things not what he is actually presenting. He just came across as slightly amateurish to me. Where’s the talent YMMV naturally.
Don’t shoot the messenger…? 
Scotty seemed like he was so overwhelmed by the job that he went home and cried himself to sleep every night. (Of course, he could’ve used some better material to work with, too!) There have to be dozens of people in Washington who can do a better job.
That you’re so fucking partisan you’ll jump at any chance to try to deflect some heat onto someone else?
Yeah, that seems like what you’re saying.
-Joe
Uh huh.
When Clinton and Johnson administration officials go to work for ABC, CBS, and PBS, what are we to make of objectivity at those networks?
That was really my point. As I said this isn’t about what he actually was saying it’s about how he said it and how he came across. I would expect a world class person to be presenting the policies of the US to the journalistic and viewing world no matter what party was in power.
McClellan was no way world class IMO. In fact he was decidedly little league from what I’ve seen of him.
That those moves go in the opposite direction, for starters. :rolleyes: (if you’d realized that, you’d have mentioned Ron Nessen leaving NBC to be Ford’s PS, but you didn’t). For another, that inside information and insights are highly valuable to political commentator who can keep them in perspective, and of course that that makes them valuable to a network. Your point in attempting to tu quoque Snow’s change of the logo on his paycheck but not his actual job function was, well, what?
How do you conclude Moyers is not respected, btw? As for Salinger, his foray into the conspiracy theory about the Navy shooting down TWA 800, when he should instead have checked himself into the Old Fools Home, does detract from his final respectability score, but he went strong for decades before that.
Or when CNN had two of their political commentators actively working on the Kerry campaign. Interestingly enough, I see that Wes Clark is now a FoxNews analyst.
Who? Candy Crowley? 
Let me be clearer on the subject of Moyers and Salinger.
Pierre Salinger turned into a sadly delusional man in his later years, buying into weird theories that the Lockerbie crash and the TWA 800 crash were caused by agents of the U.S. government. He hated Republicans so much that he left the country upon Bush’s election to live in France.
Do I respect this? No. And I doubt many here do.
As for Bill Moyers, for all of his many qualities he also personally greenlighted the disgusting "daisy " ad of the 1964 Johnson campaign, a low mark of negative campaigning and a disgusting slander against Barry Goldwater.
I don’t respect that either.
I hardly see where that matters. If anything, it is far worse.
But I’m not talking about political commentary, which I agree ought to be exempt from this sort of thing. I’m talking about administration officials who then go and take jobs as supposedly objective straight news reporters.
The examples I had in mind were Moyers (CBS and PBS), Salinger (ABC), and George Stephanopoulos (ABC).
Then you got some 'splaining to do.
All of them are (or were, RIP Pierre) commentators, *not * straight news reporters. Has Fox been that successful in eliminating the difference to you?
I don’t believe that Goldwater was even mentioned in that ad. By the way, that ad ran ONCE. That’s one time. One less than twice. Two less than thrice. When compared to the very real slanders repeatedly perpetrated by the Swift Boat Liars for Bush, it’s chump change.
Scott McClellen is the second coming of Ron Zeiger. From Doonesbury in 1974 or thereabouts:
"- Ron, does the President have any comment on the most recent disclosures in the Watergate case?
– NO! Watergate! Watergate! What is the matter with you guys?! What is this senseless orgy of recrimination week after week?! I’ve already said all that I’m going to! So why don’t you stop wasting both our time and ask me questions I can deal with?
- Ron, what color shirt is the President wearing today?
– That’s better. Blue."
Already stipulated. Now how about all the decades in between? Did they not happen?
Goldwater was never mentioned, nor any of his policy proposals directly referred to, nor for that matter was Johnson. Any inference to the contrary was provided by the watcher.
You need to go learn what “slander” is before you toss the word around again so loosely.
Do you have any issues with Turd Blossom’s push polling about McCain in South Carolina in 2000? Same same.
TOTALLY different.
-Joe
I wasn’t quite born yet in 1964, but I think the implication was pretty clear.