Snow steps down

[Coriolis]

Link niced and polished

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House press secretary Tony Snow will step down from his position as early as next month, sources inside and outside the Bush administration told CNN on Friday.

White House press secretary Tony Snow will step down from his position soon, sources said Friday.

When contacted by CNN about his possible departure, Snow said, "I'm not making any announcement."

Snow told conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday that "financial reasons" may prevent him for serving the remainder of his boss's presidency.

"I'm not going to be able to go the distance, but that's primarily for financial reasons." Snow said. "I've told people when my money runs out, then I've got to go."

According to The Washington Post, Snow makes $168,000 as the White House spokesman.

CNN has previously reported that Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told senior White House staffers that unless they could commit to staying until Bush leaves office in January 2009, they should leave by Labor Day.

Snow, 52, had been treated for colon cancer in 2005. In March, during surgery to remove a growth from his abdomen, doctors discovered that the cancer had returned and spread to his liver.

Five weeks later, Snow returned to the White House podium and continued to work as the president's chief spokesman as he underwent chemotherapy. In recent interviews, he indicated that his health situation had stabilized.

Before coming to the White House in April 2006, Snow had worked for the Fox News Channel and hosted his own nationally syndicated radio show.

He took a significant pay cut to take the job of press secretary and has talked publicly in the past about the financial sacrifices, as well as his passion for the post.

People close to Snow said that he felt he needed to make some more money to help his family, which includes children readying for college.

Speculation on who might replace Snow has centered on his deputy, Dana Perino. When asked about Snow's plans to leave, Perino told CNN, "I've got nothing on that, nor would I speculate."

No comment. How much do press secretaries get paid anyways?

[Darth Fanboy]

What would the irony level be if Tony Snow's medical issues make his heart grow three sizes (a-la the Grinch) and lead him to become a spokesman for health care reform?

[Darth Fanboy]

Oh and also from here.

* According to the Washington Post, the senior staff at the White House were knocking down $161,000 each in 2005. That might have been bumped a few percentage points at the beginning of the year, but we know that Executive Branch appointees (except for Cabinet Officers) cannot make more than Members of Congress.

* And I'm not talking about Alan Mollohan or Duke Cunningham money. I'm talking about the $165,200 base rate for non-leadership positions.

I'm not familiar with this source, but if it is an indicator of Snow's salary, then it would appear that he either has severe financial problems or he would prefer to live a more opulent lifestyle. (Lose your nest egg in the stock market the last few days there Tony?)

[Stormbringer]

I'm not familiar with this source, but if it is an indicator of Snow's salary, then it would appear that he either has severe financial problems or he would prefer to live a more opulent lifestyle. (Lose your nest egg in the stock market the last few days there Tony?)

It's possible that he's getting wiped out by health care costs related to his cancer. I don't know what arrangements he's got through the government but cancer treatment can get hideously expensive, especially if he hasn't deigned to be treated like the peons.

Of course he might just have been making more at Fox News and simply can't downscale his finances to his new salary.

[SCRawl]

No comment. How much do press secretaries get paid anyways?

According to the article you quoted, $168,000. Not exactly chump change, but if you're used to making five times that (and continuing to live as though you do) that won't go very far.

My sympathy meter: nope, still zero.

[Adrian Laguna]

Did you people even read the article? The answer's right there, no need to ask or go speculate using wikipedia.

According to The Washington Post, Snow makes $168,000 as the White House spokesman.

[Adrian Laguna]

Dammit, beat by a minute.

[SCRawl]

Dammit, beat by a minute.

You snooze, you lose!

[Coriolis]

No comment. How much do press secretaries get paid anyways?

According to the article you quoted, $168,000. Not exactly chump change, but if you're used to making five times that (and continuing to live as though you do) that won't go very far.

My sympathy meter: nope, still zero.

Whoops, missed that part. But still, how does $168k amount to "financial issues"?

[Civil War Man]

Whoops, missed that part. But still, how does $168k amount to "financial issues"?

There may be issues involving his cancer (as was speculated). I can't imagine that he wouldn't have insurance, but if his coverage sucked, the costs of that alone would be eating him alive even with a six-figure salary.

Especially if, as others have hypothesized, he is used to living in opulence, and doesn't scale down his spending in the wake of larger and more frequent medical bills.

[SCRawl]

No comment. How much do press secretaries get paid anyways?

According to the article you quoted, $168,000. Not exactly chump change, but if you're used to making five times that (and continuing to live as though you do) that won't go very far.

My sympathy meter: nope, still zero.

Whoops, missed that part. But still, how does $168k amount to "financial issues"?

Well, if you're used to making, say, a million bucks a year, then you're probably going to have a house that's worth that much or more. (If you can scale up from a more realistic salary, your principal residence can easily be two or three times your annual salary.) If he has a mortgage, he's not going to be able to pay it with his government salary. He also mentioned having kids in college, and at $40k/year that's going to put a dip in your savings too. He might have habits that he can't do without (or a wife in the same position), so that can be costly.

Anyways, I'm still unsympathetic. Not because he's a first-class knob (he is), but because he's a pussy. If the work he's doing were really that important to him, he'd do everything he could to keep doing it.

[Vympel]

Taking a pay cut because you think its important to tell outrageous lies and downright absurd non-sequiturs right to people's faces. That Snow was a real principled man.

[Frank Hipper]

I could easily believe this is health-related (I know what cancer treatments can do to a body but, c'mon, the man looks like hammered dogshit; aged 10 years in less than 1), but why make up a story about it?

[SCRawl]

Taking a pay cut because you think its important to tell outrageous lies and downright absurd non-sequiturs right to people's faces. That Snow was a real principled man.

Do we assume that he does what he does because he's evil, or because he believes in what he's doing? Part of me would like to believe that all of the Republitards are just cackling to themselves, and twirling their moustaches, but I honestly think that some of them believe that all of their shenanigans have a higher purpose. I also believe that they're horribly, horribly misguided.

(Of course, some of them are just in it to gorge themselves at the public trough, or help out their pals do the same. It would seem clear that Snow isn't one of these, unless he's cut himself some impressive side deals.)

[Stormbringer]

I could easily believe this is health-related (I know what cancer treatments can do to a body but, c'mon, the man looks like hammered dogshit; aged 10 years in less than 1), but why make up a story about it?

Because there's good reason to believe it is financial? The guy took a substantial pay cut from his news days. He was raking in quite a bit from Fox News and more from various columns and punditry positions (I've heard from low hundreds of thousands to a million plus) and all that went bye bye when he took a White House job. I'd imagine he simply is hard up for cash like he says given the comparatively lower salary and regulations on what he can do to make money.

That said, the biggest reason to believe it's not a lie is that there's no reason to lie. Sure the Bush Administration lies all the time but cancer is a ready made excuse (as well as the standard oldies but goodies). Saying he's leaving because he's hard up for money doesn't really play well. So why lie? It's far more likely that the financial hardship story is true.

[Patrick Degan]

That said, the biggest reason to believe it's not a lie is that there's no reason to lie. Sure the Bush Administration lies all the time but cancer is a ready made excuse (as well as the standard oldies but goodies). Saying he's leaving because he's hard up for money doesn't really play well. So why lie? It's far more likely that the financial hardship story is true.

Probably because, with this gang, lying comes about as naturally as breathing.

[Stormbringer]

Probably because, with this gang, lying comes about as naturally as breathing.

Wow, I had entirely forgotten. Thanks for that wonderful contribution.

Given the Bush Administration track record anything they say should damn well be scrutinized for distortions and lies. But assuming they're lying just because is as knee jerk stupid as the people that accept whatever they say as gospel truth. And in this case there's no evidence of a lie nor any reason to lie and there is reason to believe the story is true. So people might just have to accept that for once the Administration has actually told the truth.

[Patrick Degan]

Probably because, with this gang, lying comes about as naturally as breathing.

Wow, I had entirely forgotten. Thanks for that wonderful contribution.

Given the Bush Administration track record anything they say should damn well be scrutinized for distortions and lies. But assuming they're lying just because is as knee jerk stupid as the people that accept whatever they say as gospel truth. And in this case there's no evidence of a lie nor any reason to lie and there is reason to believe the story is true. So people might just have to accept that for once the Administration has actually told the truth.

And exactly what in this maladministration's record lends confidence to that surmise?

[Stormbringer]

And exactly what in this maladministration's record lends confidence to that surmise?

Why Patrick clearly your knee has jerked so hard so hard it's wound up stuck in your mouth.

Anti-Bush hysterics aside, there is exactly zero evidence that this is a lie and no known motive for them to lie. To me that the facts themselves speak louder than rabid partisanship.

So what reason, aside from it simply being Bush, do you have to believe this is a lie?

[Patrick Degan]

And exactly what in this maladministration's record lends confidence to that surmise?

Why Patrick clearly your knee has jerked so hard so hard it's wound up stuck in your mouth.

Anti-Bush hysterics aside, there is exactly zero evidence that this is a lie and no known motive for them to lie. To me that the facts themselves speak louder than rabid partisanship.

So what reason, aside from it simply being Bush, do you have to believe this is a lie?

The reason that this maladministration has shown a very... Soviet disregard for truth. Indeed, they operate very much like the old Soviet rulership —always projecting an image of strength and confidence every moment of the day and fearing even the hint of weakness or error. They lie about the most trivial things as much as the most significant.

Bush saying he saw the the first plane hit the first tower live on TV: even though there was no TV coverage of the WTC event until the first tower had been burning for nearly an hour. No reason to lie. Except for some reason he does.

Dick Cheney continuing to flog the "Atta-in-Prague" myth three years after it had been exploded so completely that there wasn't a hope in hell of reassembling the microscopic particles of it. Just admit it never happened and the story is forgotten. No reason to lie. But he keeps doing so at every and any opportunity long after the story would have died had they just admitted they were wrong. It's not even the most obvious or significant of the many lies attached to Mr. Bush's War but Count Dick hangs onto it to "prove" an Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection.

Bush saying he'd only got to know Ken Lay in 1994 and tentativly at best even though they had a financial relationship stretching back two years earlier. He tells this trivial little lie just as Enron is melting down even though there isn't even the hint of maladministration wrondoing in the affair and none that Bush had any involvement on any level in Enron's various machinations. No reason to lie. But he does. And such a trivial lie at that. It's almost comical.

The whole "Clinton's people trashed the White House" myth Ari Fleischer helped spread in the first days of the maladministration's term in office. There wasn't even any point to that lie except to simply slander Clinton and Gore after the fact.

Just four examples of the trivial, even ridiculous, utterly pointless lies told by this gang in the White House. No reason for them whatsoever but they get uttered or repeated ad-infinitum anyway.

So why would Tony Snow or the White House have to say anything other than the fact that he's stepping down because he's simply too sick to continue doing his job as White House press secretary? Everybody would understand that. It's clear the man is ill. Everybody understands what cancer means.

Except they've got to say something other than the plain truth. Even though there is absolutely no reason to do so.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Woodward and others have openly documents how the White House instructions all employees of the Administration to avoid giving any information for any reason if they can help it, regardless of the political sensitivity. There's a culture of contempt for accountability and an adoration for secrecy and deception.

[Stormbringer]

Except they've got to say something other than the plain truth. Even though there is absolutely no reason to do so.

So once again, you have zero proof that this instance is a lie. You just keep insisting that they are because they have in the past. Gotcha.

[Flagg]

Except they've got to say something other than the plain truth. Even though there is absolutely no reason to do so.

So once again, you have zero proof that this instance is a lie. You just keep insisting that they are because they have in the past. Gotcha.

And we need more than that with these fuckers? If every other word out of someones mouth is a lie, even concerning shit that there's no need to lie about, then why should anything they ever say be believed?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Except they've got to say something other than the plain truth. Even though there is absolutely no reason to do so.

So once again, you have zero proof that this instance is a lie. You just keep insisting that they are because they have in the past. Gotcha.

Notice you say exactly jack and shit about all the other times the Bush Regime lied for lying's sake. Just because the broken clock is right twice a day doesn't mean we can't call you on your carrying the fucking water for the Bushies!

[Stormbringer]

And we need more than that with these fuckers?

If you're expecting it to be taken seriously, yes. There is still such a thing as an evidentiary standard if you want to actually make a claim; so far there has been nothing but baseless generalizations. I certainly don't disagree with the notion that Bush should not be trusted. But that does not mean that everything out of his mouth or his staff is automatically a lie.