Tony Snow’s ‘Michael Kinsley Moment’

Last week, [tag]White House[/tag] Press Secretary [tag]Tony Snow[/tag] raised the rhetorical stakes in the debate over [tag]stem-cell[/tag] r[tag]esearch[/tag] by arguing that the policy is “[tag]murder[/tag].” More specifically, asked to explain the president’s position on the issue, Snow said, “The simple answer is he thinks murder’s wrong.”

Snow’s choice of words put White House Chief of Staff [tag]Josh Bolten[/tag] in an awkward position on Meet the Press over the weekend, prompting Snow to backpedal a bit yesterday.

“I overstepped my brief there, and so I created a little trouble for Josh Bolten in the interview. And I feel bad about it. I think there’s concern. The President has said that he believes that this is the [tag]destruction[/tag] of [tag]human life[/tag].”

When asked specifically is the president regards the research as murder, Snow said, “He would not use that term.”

This struck me as fascinating for a couple of reasons. First, Snow “felt bad,” not because he argued from the White House podium that those who disagreed with him — including most of the country, Nancy Reagan, and several conservative lawmakers — tacitly support murder, but because Josh Bolten had “a little trouble” on Meet the Press. It’s an important distinction — the AP reported that Snow “[tag]apologized[/tag]” for last week’s comment. That’s only partially true; Snow seems to have apologized to Bolten, not to the rest of us.

Second, Snow’s pseudo-retraction was basically a semantics debate. Indeed, in retrospect, the initial “murder” comment was practically a “Michael Kinsley moment.”

A Kinsley moment is when a public figure commits a gaffe by accidentally telling the truth (or, in this case, the truth as Snow sees it). Last week, Snow tried to defend the White House policy and, in his always-cocky way, said what he was thinking. As far as he’s concerned, stem-cell research really is murder. That’s why [tag]Bush[/tag] opposes federal funding — because it’s financial support for homicide.

Except, in this case, Snow’s candid admission became politically inconvenient, so he backpedaled. He made a mistake by saying what he truly believed.

In fact, yesterday’s act of contrition had nothing to do with the substance of Snow’s original claim at all. As of yesterday, Snow said, the White House believes researchers are engaged in morally objectionable science that intentionally destroys human life. Is that “murder”? Well, Snow said, the [tag]president[/tag] “would not use that term.” It’s a distinction without a difference — Bush would use a different word to describe murder, but the White House still considers it murder.

I was offended by Snow’s remark last week, but looking back, I can at least appreciate his willingness to be bold and publicly acknowledge his bizarre and contradictory beliefs. Yesterday’s retreat, therefore, was just sad. It wasn’t an [tag]apology[/tag]; it was a subtle reaffirmation of what got him into trouble in the first place.

The Bush Crime Family has already scored all the points they’re going to by repeatedly using “murder” to describe stem cell research. Now that Russert got his jollies by calling Batty Bolten on the illogic of that use, they’re willing to backpedal … some. Not to quibble, but I’m not certain “destruction of human life” is any different from “murder” as they use the term, since the “destruction” remains intentional.

Anyway, the nuance of meaning is just another egghead fine point, like logic and empirical fact. More important: The knuckle draggers now know their Presudunt is with them on the “murder” charge. As the myrmidons they are, they’ll be repeating “murder, murder, murder” for years. What used to be the Press won’t call them on it. And Snow has apologized, hasn’t he? To us or Batty Bolten doesn’t matter since Democrats, being thoughtful and gutless (they did win the debating point, after all), will put the best spin on Snow’s intentions and never mention it again. ‘Tisn’t done in the old boys club, dontcha know? Nice Tony. Poor Batty Bolten.

  • So, where did the term murder come from? When they finally found a new White House Spokesmodel, Snow assured all that he ‘had a seat at the table’ and would be involved in crafting policy. Did the word murder accidentally fall from his lips, or was it a term from the ‘policy table’? Given the regime’s emphasis on message control, the former is ridiculously unlikely.
    I’m sure the blood soaked term
    murder appealed to those at the ‘policy table’ as a way to rouse the base. That’s the point of policy, right?

  • “A Kinsley moment is when a public figure commits a gaffe by accidentally telling the truth (or, in this case, the truth as Snow sees it).”

    Since the definition of Murder is the illegal killing of another person, Snowjob and Boy George II can’t really claim that disassembling an embryo is Murder until they work to make it illegal.

    Of course, killing can be wrong and still legal, so I suppose that is the position of the Bushites. Disassembling a frozen embryo scheduled to be discarded is ‘wrong’ and should not be funded by the Federal Government.

    Personally, I think it’s kind of laughable that Snowjob would be implying that 75% of Americans are somehow complacent in mass murder because we support federal funding for embryoic stem cell research, when the Bushites are responsible for the deaths of 3000+ Americans on 9/11 with their incompetence, more in Katrina, and directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis in their war of choice.

  • Russert jumped all over Bolten because Snow lost control of their message by using the right-wing-energizing term “murder,” thus opening the door to the accusation that this administration is extreme–which it is!

  • SnowFlake must’ve been offered one of those “heck-of-a-job-Tony” comments from the simian-in-chief—which would certainly have necessitated his course-change….

  • He either accidentally said what he actually believes, or he passionately argued for something he doesn’t believe.

    Either way, he’s a hypocrite–the only question is whether he was a hypocrite on Monday or Tuesday. The fact that he fell back to the “not-murder” position shows the administration knows where the numbers–and the logic–are.

    “The veto was for the base–a superstitious interest group comfortable with paradox, contradiction, and inconsistency. They believe they’ll one day be judged by an omnipotent superbeing on how well they follow his arcane, infinitely tedious rules. They’re nuts, but they’re happy, OK? Now please stop asking us about it before we run out of incoherent answers with which to distract and exhaust you.”

  • If it is murder why not stop invitro fertilization since these embryos are being destroyed. Or possibly couples who use invitro fertilization should be made to raise all of their embryos that can’t be adopted. They ran out of logic – either its murder or it isn’t.

  • Every year, thousands of human zygote are disposed of at fertility clinics. If Bush and the far right view these as human beings, why arn’t they charging doctors and other employees with mass murder? Whey aren’t they outlawing fertility clinics and stem cell research all together? Because to do so would be political nightmare for the GOP.

    The irony of banning federal funds for stem cell research is that it will not save a single zygot and will do nothing to stop the harvesting stem cells.

    And like so much of the religious right’s agenda, it does absolutily nothing to promote values and improve the family, anyway.

  • Comments are closed.