The spin that Gibbs' comments were aimed at a small group of liberal elites

[whatchamacallit]

that don't represent, and have nothing in common with, "real democrats", is pathetic at best. The dude fucked up plain and simple. The sooner the ass covering stops, the sooner we can move on.

[PBS Poll-435]

1. Personally, I wish Natural Born Killers tanked at the box office and VHS release

Then this conversation would be moot.

[PBS Poll-435]

2. .

:blush:

[phleshdef]

3. Its not spin. Its a matter of being able to read someone's comments with common sense.

Face it. People WANT Gibbs comments to be about them so that it validates their overblown sense of self importance.

[whatchamacallit]

4. Bullshit

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8931719&mesg_id=8932415

[phleshdef]

6. No, not bullshit. I know you want it all to be about you, but it just isn't. Sorry.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Silly fucking game

It's not about me, it's about beliefs and ideals, and how those are regarded by the administration.

[phleshdef]

11. Its about you taking the context at comments clearly directed at a vocal fringe...

...a vocal fringe that many at DU have been saying the same thing about for months and trying to turn them into something that is inclusive of all who associate with the left in order to further your agenda to paint the administration as being anti-liberal.

I agree 100% with what Gibbs said. The FDL branch of the left that has insistently tried to paint Obama as George Bush with a tan need their fucking heads checked. And people that are actually angry because the administration can't give them a liberal utopia where national defense is not an important issue and where we are able to muscle through single payer healthcare with a completely unwilling Senate need to have their sensibilities examined. They aren't living in reality. Put the most liberal of them all (ala Kucinich) in the Oval Office and that shit still wouldn't happen and they would still be unhappy.

If that includes you, so be it.

[BeFree]

12. So

You think the people who want real health care and a trimmed pentagon are out and out wrong?

That they should be shouted down and made to be powerless?

[phleshdef]

15. No, I want all of those things. I'm as rabid leftist as it gets in the things that I WANT.

That wasn't the point. The point is getting angry at the administration for not fighting what would end up being losing battles and instead going for the art of the possible. If you refuse to be happy with the work an administration is doing because it can't deliver on things that are undeliverable, then you are being unreasonable. I doubt there is much difference between any of us on the left when it comes to the things we ultimately want. The difference lies in how personal we take it when we can't have all of that right now.

[Scuba]

21. Then why a trimmed down health care bill when NO Republicans voted for it?

[phleshdef]

26. Because the Democratic senate doesn't have enough progressives.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. Thanks to Rahm, both in 2008 and subsequently.

[phleshdef]

44. No. Thanks to redneck ass, conservative states that are culturally unwilling to elect a liberal.

[Edweird]

56. Grayson makes that DLC talking point obviously false.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

58. Rahm started it in 2006. Systematically supporting conservadems over progressives for congressional

seats. When Obama selected Rahm as COS, I knew we were screwed.

[BeFree]

28. And why give up?

"No we can't" is just plain dumb. That is what you are saying and what Gibbs claims.

Used to be the idea was "Yes we can".

Thank gawd we still have some Lefties who are brave enough to believe we can change the country. Fuck Gibbs for shouting us down. Fuck him.

[whatchamacallit]

16. Gibbs' statements are just the icing on the cake

The disdain for the values of many, if not most, DUers is evident in the direction of governance taken by this administration. You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's utter crap.

[phleshdef]

18. Yes, being able to accurately read and interpret comments for what they are...

...and not for the blown out of proportion, ME ME ME bullshit you want them to be is utter crap.

[gratuitous]

17. Wow, the mighty White House, totally stymied by what, three people?

Hard to believe that something like three people madly scribbling their thoughts at a small-traffic website could so discombobulate the White House, but the proof is right there.

Somewhere, I'm sure.

Hmmm. Nope, not here.

Not here, either.

You know, it's looking like Mr. Gibbs got his fee-fees hurt, and in spite of having a do-nothing job where he pulls down six figures annually and does no heavy lifting, he's so upset he can't even talk right. This guy's supposed to make his living with his mouth, and he prattles on that recklessly?

[phleshdef]

19. Nothing wreckless about it. What he said was 100% true.

[whatchamacallit]

22. The fact that you're at odds

with so many liberals professional or otherwise, say more about your reality than mine. Carry on with your slavish devotion.

[phleshdef]

24. I'm at odds with people that can dish it out but can't fucking take it.

[whatchamacallit]

27. Ha, sure man whatever you say (nt)

[gratuitous]

25. Really?

Then tell me: Who is advocating for the elimination of the Pentagon? There are people working to see that our federal tax dollars are apportioned a little more towards butter and a little less towards guns, but who says the Pentagon should be eliminated? I'd appreciate names, dates, links if you have them, and your explanation for why that person is so influential as to completely offset the power of the White House to do anything.

If what Gibbs said "was 100% true," I anticipate no difficulty in proving it.

And when you're done with that, we can go on to "Canadian healthcare" and the impotent job the Obama administration did in giving away single payer as an option before they even sat down at the negotiating table.

[phleshdef]

29. Apparently you have trouble interpreting the use of mild sarcasm to make a point.

This is what I mean by people not having any common sense with this kind of stuff.

[gratuitous]

31. Well, was he sarcastic, or was he 100% true?

Because I sure as the world didn't read anything sarcastic in his comments. I did hear echoes of "some people say" and other dog-whistle language that I'm accustomed to hearing from another faction on the political spectrum. The one that sets up ridiculous dichotomies like "family values" or "tough on crime" as if there's anyone who really truly wants to break up families or is in favor of criminals going unpunished. But it serves their purpose to divert the conversation away from whatever the issue at hand is, and spend time down the blind alley of who's family friendlier or tougher on crime. Now you'd like to turn the conversation to who has "common sense" as if you and Gibbs hold the monopoly on that.

But let's move on to health care, and the perfectly justified criticism the administration has earned. Before they even began to work on the issue, they gave away single-payer, which would have covered more people for less money, made health care (and not just insurance) available to everyone. Now, granted, it would have had the deleterious effect of cutting out insurance companies and limiting the amount of campaign contributions politicians are accustomed to receiving from Blue Cross and Aflac and other assorted parasites. But I'm sure they would have found a niche providing gold-plated benefits for those who could afford additional premiums so they could jump to the head of the line at the offices of the top-flight doctors they're used to seeing. But millions more people would have lived longer, healthier lives under a health care system more closely approximating the proven benefits of a single-payer system. Or was Gibbs being sarcastic and common sensical there, too, in a way that people who are dying from lack of health care just can't seem to appreciate, what with their dying and stuff?

[phleshdef]

42. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that he didn't literally mean...

...that people were calling for the Pentagon to be shut down. Anyone thats ever spoke exaggeratively when frustrated, like a lot of normal people do, would know that he was referring to the constant bitching about every pro-national defense move the administration has taken. And I'm not saying that some of that criticism isn't valid, some of it is. But at the whole, some on the left have allowed Bush to turn them off to the idea of national security so much that any advances in that area are considered cowtowing to the military industrial complex.

No one gave away single payer. You can't give away something you never had in the first place. If you have any political instincts at all, you know as well as I do that single payer, in this day, in this year, in this country, is a losing battle. Hopefully we wake up on and see the light on that. Hopefully when the mandate kicks in, people hold government accountable for the responsibility of ensuring everyone can access the very thing government is mandating. If that day comes, then we will have a more single payer-esque system. But that day is not today and today there are a lot of other problems that can be solved and solutions that can be legislatively delivered. Its not the job of the President to fight losing battles. Thats the job of activists. The President's job is to get something done to justify his tax payer funded paycheck. Pushing for single payer would have been a waste of time that would have done nothing more than stroke the egos of its fiercest advocates... only to let those same people down anyway when it failed to get anywhere.

In either even, its painfully obvious when someone is exaggerating to make a point as Gibbs was. If you can't detect it, then I suggest you re-evaluate your sense of communication interpretation and realize that if you take everything that everyone says as literal, then you are going to end up misreading a LOT.

[gratuitous]

45. Shift the ground again, will you?

How very dishonest. Is Gibbs saying things that are 100% true, or is he indulging in hyperbole, because it can't be both. You stake out a ridiculous position, and then shift the second someone points out how ridiculous it is. You and Gibbs (a man who pulls down a very good salary for running his mouth) really need to learn what communication means, because the acid test for any communication is comprehensibility. Gibbs, whatever in hell he was trying to say originally, failed miserably, and you're reduced to bleating non sequiturs in a vain attempt to wrest coherency out of such a mess.

But thanks for playing.

[phleshdef]

46. LOL, actually yes it can be both. You don't get out much do you?

Thats one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. People tell the truth and indulge in hyperbole as a method to convey their feelings all the time. And thats exactly what Gibbs was asked to and thats describe how he felt about something. I've shifted nothing and my position is the same as its been. Gibbs was 100% correct in the context of what he is saying and the level of hyperbole he may have used to get his point across is irrelevant. If it makes you feel any better, I'll revise my statement that you are having such a little shit fit about. Instead of "Gibbs was 100% correct", I'll amend it to "Despite the exaggeratory nature of Gibb's language, the underlying message is 100% correct".

[philly_bob]

35. Does FDL really say that "Obama is George Bush with a tan"?

I don't follow FireDogLake so I don't know.

But I sincerely doubt that Jane Hamsher & FDL has ever said that. If they didn't say that, then Gibbs -- and you phleshdef -- are just heroically fighting a straw man in a manner that is wounding your very real non-straw voting and contributor base.

[phleshdef]

41. Are you communication skills so poor that you think I meant they literally spoke/wrote those words?

Are people no longer allowed to use a figure of speech to make points around here because people like you will totally miss the point because you are too caught up in literal interpretations?

[philly_bob]

52. In other words, NO. Plus gratuitous personal insult. (nt)

[tsuki]

20. Personalize the attack to diminish it. While that works for Republicons,

the political geniuses in the administration should have realized that it does not work for Democrats. You are correct. The divide is not about insider-outsider, professional-amateur, it is about beliefs and ideals.

Attacking Kucinish does not work for me.

[phleshdef]

30. Kucinich was never attacked.

[tsuki]

48. A sneer is an attack, like your post 11.

David Frum nailed it.

Your "sit down and STFU" is going to work for the electorate.

I brought six under 30 voters to the polls in 2008. I nagged and nagged and nagged. At my age, and the length that I have known them, I could do that.

They are working at menial jobs, sit down and STFU.

They have no health care, sit down and STFU.

One is gay, sit down and STFU.

The Gulf is CURED, not, sit down and STFU.

They won't have social security or medicare, sit down and STFU.

No job, no health care, no future, a ruined environment.

Yeah, they will be there in 2010, no, they are going to sit down and STFU.

[phleshdef]

50. Your cringe worthy, corny ass, hollow, passionless rhetoric aside, Kucinich was not attacked.

[tsuki]

51. String together all the DLC adjectives you want, a sneer is still an attack.

[phleshdef]

53. There was no sneer, there was no attack. Period.

[suffragette]

55. In Gibbs explanation, he connects his "eliminate the Pentagon"

directly to Kucinich.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/11/press-briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-8112010


Q Well, who wants to eliminate the Pentagon?

MR. GIBBS: I think that was -- wasn’t that a proposal during the presidential campaign? Didn't Dennis Kucinich -- or maybe it was adding the Department of Peace.

Q The Department of Peace --

Q There’s a big difference between adding a Department of Peace and eliminating the Pentagon.


Further, in this explanation Gibbs conflates the two.

The reporter is correct in noting there's a big difference between Gibb's accusation and what Kucinich proposed.

[sufrommich]

14. That about sums it up. nt

[Renew Deal]

33. Funny

But true. :)

[Solomon]

34. That's what I see too.

Satisfying poutrage. A bone to gnaw on.

[EFerrari]

40. It's absolutely spin. Go read his comments. The original ones

the walk-back and the following statements he makes talking to reporters about "criticism from the left".

It is a matter of being able to read. :)

[phleshdef]

43. You shouldn't give lectures on practices you are unable to exercise yourself.

In the same interview, he clarifies that he isn't talking about progressives outside the beltway drama. Its not a blanket statement regarding the whole left and there is no way in honesty you can spin it as such, unless of course you want to throw honesty out the door which I'm sure you have no problem doing if it furthers your ability to justify being a cry baby over absolutely nothing.

[EFerrari]

47. I'm not talking about one interview. I'm talking about at least three sessions.

And seriously, cry baby? What are you, 12?

[northernlights]

54. I don't think Gibbs comments were about me

but I do think they were unbelieveably unprofessional, boorish, and irrelevent to what's going on in the real world. To call it a "tin ear" is to be generous.

If Gibbs is so concerned about comments by the few "professional left," why doesn't he simply fill us in on exactly *how* this administrations "wins" are an improvement on the status quo.

[Laelth]

5. True, but it takes integrity to admit a mistake.

i.e. you're not likely to see that from Gibbs' supporters here.

-Laelth

[ljm2002]

8. Even if that were true...

...that his comments were aimed at liberal elites who are not "real democrats", it would still be reprehensible, since it is using the right's kind of framing, the divide-and-conquer type of bullshit that keeps us all divided all the time.

Shame on him, and shame on Obama for not disavowing his remarks.

[rurallib]

13. sure hit a large group with the ricochet and collateral damage

[sandnsea]

9. It fits all the whiners, professional and amateur

Doesn't really matter. Whiners will whine until the next new outrage. What was the whine the day before Gibbs' comments broke? Do you remember??

[TheKentuckian]

23. You ain't seem nothing yet. Apparently this administration needs more of a middle to operate in

if they have to resort to hippie punching with Fox talking points then the left is too timid and compromising to allow a rational middle.

If a foil is what is needed then lets give them a great one!

[mcollins]

10. Lots of DNC plants will disagree with you. nt

[Renew Deal]

32. But it's true.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

38. Not really. In the pressers that talked about the comments

the reporters used big general terms like "criticism from the left' and Gibbs never once corrected them. He never said, "I was only talking about a very small group of media professionals".

[G_j]

37. the spin is very desperate, and yes, pathetic. nt

[w4rma]

39. That spin is a lie. Gibbs was attacking us, directly. He knows it. We know it.

Obama knows it. Rahm knows it. They should expect a backlash. In fact, I think, for better-or-worse, they *want* a backlash.

[Bluebear]

49. +

[Steely_Dan]

57. I Just Don't Get...

the purpose behind such a comment...the timing, etc. It just doesn't make sense. It would be nice if he named names. That might help clear up the matter. And...why isn't our president distancing himself from such comments?