False and fundamentally dishonest framing: "Gibbs meant the 'just like Bush' types."

[Zenlitened]

With his comments regarding health care, Gibbs criticized quite a large majority indeed.

His comments included more than the "just like Bush" angle, though I can see why his defenders want to focus on that aspect alone.

It's easier to defend him on that one sentence alone.

Especially if we ignore all nuance in criticisms that compare specific policy choices by Pres. Obama's compared to Bush policies, rather than Pres. Obama and Bush as individuals.

It way very well be a fringe that says "Obama is just like Bush."

Would have been nice if Gibbs had stopped at that.

But as we all know, he didn't.

And so, when those who defend Gibbs try to focus the discussion solely on the "just like Bush" bit... well that's false framing.

And it's fundamentally dishonest in any discussion.

[joeybee12]

1. Trying to have it both ways...appease the right by bashing the left...

...then try and get the left not to be offended.

[bvar22]

52. Worse than that, BLAME the Left for being offended.

---bvar22
A fringe FDR Leftist who WOULD like to defund the Pentagon by at least 50%, and who also believes that Americans DESERVE the same quality of HealthCare that the rest of the civilized WORLD takes for granted.

[sandnsea]

2. It all goes together

Those people, the professional left, who say Obama is just like Bush, need drug testing. It's crazy.

They want Canadian style health care. They want the Pentagon closed. It's not realistic.

They'll never be happy. They wouldn't be happy if Dennis Kucinich were President.




Take the whole thing, I don't care. It's all still true. Professional left, amateur left. They have unrealistic expectations and that's all there is to it.

[NJmaverick]

4. Yup, people's statements are not a buffet where you can pick and choose what was actually said

[ProSense]

5. Exactly,

It doesn't matter if someone is among the "professional left," claiming Obama is like Bush is delusional.

It's that damn simple.

[Zenlitened]

13. And if they never uttered the words "just like Bush" but...

... feel the President failed to lead the charge on health care reform?

From The Hill article:

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: "They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president."

Link:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left

Do you truly insist that Gibbs' comments can't be taken to mean any and all who "complained" or criticized the HCR outcome?

It takes some incredible parsing of words and outright verbal gymnastics to make that argument, IMO.

And rather than working furiously to inspire one round of huzzahs for Mr. Gibbs, I think it'd be much more practical to acknowledge that he caused a lot of ill-will with his eerily right-wing rant.

To acknowledge that he screwed up. It's that simple.

[bvar22]

53. YES. They WILL.

Thats their story, and they're sticking with it.

[Zenlitened]

6. See, that sounds a lot like telling anyone on the left whose expectations...

... exceed what you consider appropriate... well, it sounds like telling 'em all to FOAD.

That's a terrible message for the President's spokesman to send, IMO.

[ProSense]

10. No, it's not.

The problem is that even though Krugman and Maddow broadened this to include themselves, they were not the target of Gibbs' comments. First and foremost because they do not believe that Obama is like Bush. Secondly, here is an example of the professional left.

"which is how so many people who should have known better voted for Obama"

"Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are as bad as the right wing; they are all playing the same wing, nobody is addressing the institutional methods that are strangling us."

You can also do a google search and find this piece by Hedges: "Ralph Nader Was Right About Barack Obama"

I don't think Hedges is President Obama's base. People who distort the administration's record in attempt to portray Obama as equal to or worse than Bush are not the President's base.

[Zenlitened]

16. Your definition of "professional left" is highly subjective, carefully selected.

And that's an example of the false framing going on, right there.

You might explore the age-old put-down phrase "professional complainer" for a definition more grounded in common parlance.

That's how his "professional left" comment was received, obviously: As a riff on a common put-down.

The wide-spread negative reaction to Gibbs' flippant flip-off of the left has nothing to do with signed paychecks. And certainly nothing to do with Hedges.

[ProSense]

25. "that's an example of the false framing going on, right there." Right

you trying to declare what Gibbs meant is gospel, but an actual example of someone who fits the description and is known to many is bogus?

[Zenlitened]

29. Laugh out loud funny: "trying to declare what Gibbs meant is gospel"

Did your keyboard burst into flames as you typed that?

[philly_bob]

62. +1.

[sandnsea]

27. Gibbs was quite specific

Canadian style health care. Closing of the Pentagon.

I'll add to the list.

Full government funded abortions. Government jobs for all. Nationalizing banking, oil, electric, water, etc. Pacifist security policy. Open borders. Large tariffs. Income limits.

It isn't a question of exceeding what *I* consider appropriate. It's a simple statement about what is realistic. I would love to end the military bases all over the world. It's just not realistic. I'm not going to throw a fit and tell the Democratic Party and President to FOAD because it doesn't happen. That's the difference.

[Zenlitened]

30. I think that's at the heart of the wider debate here: what's realistic.

This, of course, is ground that's been well-covered. But not settled, by any means.

No matter how matter-of-factly you intone the word "realistic."

[Usrename]

94. Do you even hear what you are arguing?

Do you really think it is unrealistic to live in an America where the presumption of innocence prevails, where we have a right to fair trial, where it would be a crime for the president to order our murder without due process?

Do you really think that is an unrealistic dream?

[zipplewrath]

9. Who are "they"

Who called for closing the pentagon?

No one can figure out who he is supposedly talking about since no one knows who called for the closing of the pentagon?

[ibegurpard]

50. well, that kind of argument makes it quite clear

that the message control police are getting their marching orders straight from the top:
"you want to close the pentagon"
"you want him to wave a magic wand"
"you want a pony" etc, etc, etc...ad nauseum

[laughingliberal]

90. Nuts, isn't it? I've never heard anyone call for closing the Pentagon.

So, if he's only talking to people who want Canadian style health care and to close the Pentagon, then he's talking to no one but some voice in his own head.

[NJmaverick]

3. Your post provides a false framing

his comments in regards to healthcare addressed the current results, not ultimate goals.

Plus you can't ignore the "Bush=Obama" clarification, just because it's an inconvenient truth.

[dmallind]

7. Not only that, but "they" is defined exactly opposite to the OP's claim

because clearly it does refer to the group first identified, those who think Obama are like Bush. They is a pronoun that has to refer to an identfied group.

Think of it like this. If a person said "those people without any religion, those atheists drive me nuts. They will never admit that religion does any good, they complain about the slightest bit of spirituality, and they rely on science", are they criticizing atheists or people who like science and rely on it? The group is as clearly identified as Gibbs' - those who think Obama is like Bush. Every single they refers to them, just like every single they in the sentence above refers to atheists. He is describing the various behaviors of a single group, not listing new groups with every statement.

[NJmaverick]

11. Very well said and thought out

you nailed it

[Zenlitened]

17. I'll have to ask you for a response more substantive than...

"I know you are but what am I?"

:hi:

Insisting "bush=obama" was a clarification... that's just not true.

From The Hill article:

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: "They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president."

Link:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left

[NJmaverick]

21. No that is disingenuous as you were given a detailed explanation

of your mistake. As I said in another post to be intellectually honest you can cherry pick partial comments like it's some sort of verbal buffet.

[Zenlitened]

32. I guess my point is that I find your credibility lacking on the topic of...

... intellectual honesty.

Particularly when you project "cherry-picking of partial comments" as an accusation, in order to defend... your cherry-picking of partial comments.

Ballsy, I'll grant you that.

:hi:

[boppers]

37. I thought it was rather Rovian.

Attacking others for your own weaknesses changes the topic for many a weak mind.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xchrom]

8. Recommend

[alsame]

12. It's a rightwing tactic - take the most extreme position, one that is

hard to justify, and assign it to a broad group in order to marginalize them.

It was also interesting that he combined things like Obama = Bush, (which apparently came from blogs) with a misrepresentation of a campaign comment from a sitting Congressman (Kucinich) and a desire on the part of Americans for better healthcare. See? They're all crazy.

[Zenlitened]

18. Yep, that's what makes it so distressing.

Well-said:

It was also interesting that he combined things like Obama = Bush, (which apparently came from blogs) with a misrepresentation of a campaign comment from a sitting Congressman (Kucinich) and a desire on the part of Americans for better healthcare. See? They're all crazy.

[NJmaverick]

22. That would be another false framing. He addressed an extreme position

yet many here on DU are talking that extreme group and broadening it to include many that Gibbs was not talking about.

[alsame]

23. Just keep kicking the thread. nt

[CakeGrrl]

14. So, a couple of days beyond this thing, what's now the point?

People's positions are pretty well set. People who think Gibbs should go still think so. People who don't, still don't.

Against that backdrop:

1) We're told that Gibbs isn't going anywhere.

2) We have statements from Dean and Kucinich supporting the President in 2012 and calling for party unity.

So what are posts like this about? A need for a wailing wall? To pile up some recs? What?

[FrenchieCat]

15. Folks will hold on to this as long as possible.......

and it will be thrown in the face of whomever gets in the way.

It's not what happened that counts,
it's how long it can be used as a weapon
that serves.

[Zenlitened]

20. Well, I'm glad you can admit that Gibbs' comments were stupid and insensitive.

I wish others would acknowledge this simple fact. It would certainly speed up the moving-on.

:hi:

[Zenlitened]

19. "So what are posts like this about? A need for a wailing wall?"

Yeah, you can build it right next to the stable for my pony, huh?

:eyes:

The topic is Framing. Says so right in the subject line.

Party unity seems like it will be difficult to achieve in an atmosphere of denialism, false framing and "Leftbaggers-Who-Needs-'Em??!!!1" that some here on DU put forth as a defense, somehow, of Pres. Obama.

[CakeGrrl]

24. Party Unity? Which to you, seems to mean

'Come to my way of thinking and we'll all get along!'

Yeah, right.

As I said, I think people are pretty solid with their positions on this issue.

Your theory about false framing is one with which I don't agree. Does that make me wrong? No. It puts me in disagreement with you.

And so now what? Without me seeing this issue your way, is "Party Unity" now unachievable?

And then what does THAT mean? That people are voting 3rd party or sitting on their thumbs in 2010 and 2012? THAT is the real bottom line.

[Zenlitened]

28. Uh huh. Yeah. That's exactly what I mean. I'm the one enforcing message discipline.

I'm the one saying "Shutupshutshutup and Sing All Praises With Me!"

Ya got me.

[CakeGrrl]

33. This isn't about one-upmanship (I think), but

as I said in another response, what's the endgame here?

We can argue back and forth (to no avail, IMO) about whether Gibbs did this or that or whether he intended this or that, and you're just not going to see consensus.

So what we've seen in terms of public commentary on the matter, which I recapped a couple of posts ago, I'm still wondering about the goal of this and other posts like this where people seem to simply be restating their opinions. What is it that you're looking to accomplish?

[Zenlitened]

35. As I said, I'm interested in exposing the false framing.

And I think the facts do indicate that the effort to focus solely on the "just like bush" angle is dishonest.

[Zenlitened]

36. P.S. re "What is it that you're looking to accomplish?"

I sure hope you'll pose the same question to the "Gibbs was spot on! Yay, Gibbs!" contingent.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. The point is that the posters who defended him did it with

tactics as bad as Gibbs' own, dishonest, and indirect. Denial of the scope of the quotes, coupled with the fact that neither Gibbs nor those in his defense group can point out a single example of any liberal in televised media saying what Gibbs claims to hear so often he is about to pop. The whole thing is a straw man he foisted, and it was done to paint a wide swath of Democrats in nasty colors, not to address specific over the top statements. Gibbs had a list of whines. None of which can even be proved to be real things.
Taking up a methodoloy and set of tactics says things about a poster that have nothing to do with the subject they are talking about. Intellectual dishonesty and ill intentioned framing are the choice of the poster. Playing games with words and facts, it is just disrespectful, and is only done by those with no other choices, no real arguments. It is a form of cheating, to play 'rewrite what he said, then post it as if it was the whole thing' games.
I do not even agree with those tactics when I agree with the point they try to make with them.

[CakeGrrl]

31. Can we agree that that tactic is not the sole purview of the

Gibbs "defenders", for lack of a better term?

At the end of the day, this is just going to come down to agree to disagree. What is the endgame in this situation?

[Bluenorthwest]

68. No one ever said they were the 'sole purview' you know.

That is your extreme framing of what I said. This is what I am talking about, you see. The last line of my post, one more time, for the hard of reading: "I do not even agree with those tactics when I agree with the point they try to make with them." What part of that sounds like I mean only those who defend Gibbs in this current debacle? It is the method to which I take exception. Gibbs said many things, and to reduce it to one phrase and claim that is the whole is simply a way to tell a lie, the exclusion and intentional removal of facts is a form of lying. It makes the very thing anyone attempts to defend appear to be weak, petty, and willing to cheat to win. It is as the OP says, intellectually dishonest.
So I dig your desire to say 'they do it too' but the only 'they' I am speaking of are those who truncate the truth, remove the facts, edit quotes to alter the meaning, use extreme framing that attempts to distort what other have said. You are trying to make this about 'us and them' and I am talking about specific tactics and methods which are vile no matter who uses them to what end. The end does not define the value of the means in my world, as I am not much of a good Pragmatist.

[burning rain]

34. Quite foolish for Gibbs to have come out with that.

His statement can only rile some lefties, while winning the president andother Democrats no support either from moderates or conservatives. Even if the administration dislikes large numbers of lefties, it would be politically wiser to pretend otherwise.

[grantcart]

38. Gibbs words were clear - he was talking about people who use outlandish

rhetoric, like equating Obama with Bush who have lost touch with reality.

It is those at DU who make a habit of using such outlandish rhetoric like equating Obama with Bush who have reacted with hundreds of threads because it is they who have been shown to be completely out of touch with the base.

If you believed the strident voices at DU that have continued to compete with increasingly fanciful hyperbole then simply by shouting angry manifestos with red faces that the electorate would return Democrats with landslide margins, and yet the results of Colorado and Feingold's weak numbers in Wisconsin show that the such a position doesn't hold water.

What proves the point is that except for a few responsible voices none of the 'outraged' bloggers admitted that ANY of the blogosphere comments are the LEAST bit irresponsible. Despite an onslaught of opinions that many times are simply expressions of emotion and dellusional statements that you can read today in DU that range from accusing Obama taking money in his pockets to a grand conspiracy that is going to hand the Presidency to SOS Clinton none of the outraged commentators MADE ANY ALLOWANCE FOR ANY POSSIBLE TRUTH in what Gibbs was saying.

Ironically some of these 'profesionals' like Hamsher are actively, publicly and proudly joining hands with reactionary elements to try and defeat the President.

There is a lot of crazy shit about the President being posted here. There have been hundreds of locked threads at DU but none of the several hundred outraged threads at DU in the last 48 hours included a phrase "while some of the expressions of left have been inaccurate and have taken irresponsible in attacking the President's charachter Gibbs statement . . . "

It is this singular lack of perspective, of comity, awareness of historical context that makes what Gibbs said true before he said it, true when he said it and true today. There are people on the left in the blogosphere who may be people of great compassion and arguing for policies that we agree upon who are in fact so aggressively strident in statements about the President that one is wondering if they are posting under the influence of a controlled substance. That was the framing. It is not the majority, not a significant presence in the elctorate but it does exist and the fact that 'the outraged' make no concession for any of the slander only show that they have to some degree participated in it.

[NanceGreggs]

39. ...

:thumbsup:

[depakid]

40. Oh come on now- you're smarter than that

You know exactly who Gibbs is referring to- and who he and the administration meant to insult.

That's one of lamer rationalizations I've seen and quite frankly, it makes me question your credibility and the objectivity of other analyses you might post.

[Radical Activist]

49. I'm not surprised you took it personally.

But you don't represent most of the left.

[depakid]

54. I'm not who he's directing criticism at so much as Americans like Glen Greenwald

who point to the record. Or others who've gotten it right time and again but who've been ignored by the insular, group think ridden members of the administration's inner circle. Nothing the arrogant like less than being proven wrong, having the results of their arrogance, poor judgment and even negligence out there for all to see.

Even worse is when they get "I told you so's. Those types inevitably lash out- and their followers either point their fingers or engage in twisted rationalizations in an effort to deny the obvious.

And I have news- my views on the issues are pretty mainstream and are by far the majority, as the evidence has shown again and again.

Do I need to report that material (for the hundredth time?

[Radical Activist]

61. I'm thrilled with pundits who stick to the record.

Broad statements like calling everything Obama has done a favor to corporations have nothing to do with the record.

For example, the last financial regulation bill included an agency for consumer oversight that Nader has been advocating for at least two decades. Facts about the record make the hysterical denunciations sound hysterical.

[Zenlitened]

57. LOL!

You don't seem to represent any of it. :rofl:

[Radical Activist]

66. "You can't take away from the President his accomplishments" - Dennis Kucinich

I agree with Dennis on this one. Push him left but don't ignore what's being done.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/08/rep-kucinich-wont-challenge-obama-in-primary.html

[Zenlitened]

78. Virtually everything I've seen you post the past few days is an example of false framing.

This thread is epic, both for the OP claim that:

Why do so many people think their only job is to sit back, relax and complain when Obama doesn't do it for them?

... and the many absurdist comments you go on to post to replies. This one's a particular gem:

awwwh boohooo

Did the poor babies get their little feelings hurt?
I can't believe people still nurse a petty grudge over Rahm's comment. It's a silly emotional appeal.

If any group gave up their plans only because of one line from Rahm then they're pathetic....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8938594

Epic. Truly epic.

[EFerrari]

60. The was an entire, long and sad thread with the same material

around here somewhere. It's too sad to go fish up. I'm going to let it die in peace.

[CBR]

41. +1 nt

[sandnsea]

43. Good points

:thumbsup:

[SeattleGirl]

44. +1

:thumbsup:

[Whisp]

45. Agreed - his message was clear

but the distortionists here are doing their work.

[Scurrilous]

47. Yep.

:thumbsup:

[SoxFan]

51. +44

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

59. Good luck blaming the base for the hamfisted triangulations of Mr. Gibbs.

No one is buying it. And no matter how many times you try to blame the base for his stupidity, no one will still buy it but your echo chamber.

[Arkana]

64. Why bother?

The left has already thrown context out the door and decided that Gibbs thinks all liberals are scum, and nothing you do or say will change that.

Just like the Rahm Emanuel comment FROM A FUCKING YEAR AGO.

[impik]

74. Wow. Amen. Big F******* AMEN!

Gibbs spoke the truth, and that's exactly why so many people has gone so crazy. He exposed them for what they are.

[sabrina 1]

87. Reactionary elements?

Like Grover Norquist? What is reactionary about that? The President's own Deficit Commission Appointee, Republican Alan Simpson, invited Grover Norquist to advise the President on the economy. There was no outrage from those who routinely bash Hamsher for her far less influential association with him as far as the American people's interests are concerned.

I think that ends the idea that signing a petition that Norquist also signed, is reactionary. It's pragmatic, isn't it?

Norquist has been legitimized by the President's bi-partisan commission. So we'll have to move on to trashing Hamsher for something else, unless of course you are as outraged as many 'on the left' that people like Norquist have resurrected from the trashbin of politics which WE worked hard to throw them into. But it can't be both.

We cannot be outraged at Hamsher's associations with 'radical elements' like Norquist, while giving a pass to this administration for its Republican associations, like Gregg and Simpson, Lindsey Graham et al.

I was never a big fan of Hamsher going way back and I definitely didn't approve of her associating with Norquist. But then I didn't see the outrage over that considering Obama's policy of post-partisanship and pragmatism. It seemed hypocritical to be honest.

The least we can do is try to be consistent, otherwise we confuse people and lose credibility.

[Spheric]

89. It's a two-way street that is being depicted as a one-way alley..

How many of the centrists who now call themselves "the left" and "liberals" have admitted that expanding the unitary presidency to give the president authority to assassinate American citizens without any due process of law might not be a progressive thing to do? How many have admitted that this just might be anathema to liberal principles and values? How many have agreed that congress had absolutely nothing to do with it except through acquiescence?

I start there because it is an extreme example, just like the "Obama=Bush" example proffered by Gibbs.

But, Gibbs didn't stop there. He went on to denigrate those who support single-payer health care - the very system that has proven itself to work much better than what we currently have throughout the civilized world. The most economically stable countries in the world use a single-payer system, and their citizens love it. It is what most liberals - Christ, even most Americans - want. Medicare For All! Yet, it is held in such contempt by the White House that it could not even be discussed in the debate leading up to Health Care Reform. It was the only option left out of the discussion.

And why is that? The only argument I ever hear in support of that decision is that "it can't be done here - Americans are too corrupt - wake up and smell the coffee." I have yet to hear anyone try to explain how inserting insurance companies (and their incredible vast profit motive not to pay for care) between patients and doctors improves the system in any way. In fact, every argument I have heard (including from candidate Obama himself) has tended to provide evidence of the opposite. So, please explain to me how mandating the continued interference of insurance companies by law is an improvement of the system? How is this what normal every day liberals want?

I could go on and on. But, the point is, not one person from the White House on down to the President's strong supporters here on DU will ever give those on the left who are fighting for change - real change - even a cursory nod that the problems they see and the values they are trying to uphold are legitimate. In fact, the truth is, they are continuously denigrated for their troubles.

Those who still envision and work toward an America that provides "equal justice for all" are now somehow dreamers and idiots. But, I will tell you this - if you don't know where you are trying to go, you will never get there.

So, I will ask "the other side" to stop dismissing us all as wackos and leftbaggers and whiners and at least acknowledge that our vision for America has some merit. That is, if you truly are liberals.

At that point, it is just possible that we can begin working together once again to move our country forward. And, we can begin discussing tactics in a more reasonable atmosphere that doesn't include outlandish things like unicorns and ponies.

[BklnDem75]

42. Unrec

Saying a certain group will be satisfied when we get something unobtainable at this time isn't an insult. Sorry. Just another attempt to play victim.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

46. This is an important distinction to make....

providing that one's fundamental purpose in posting on this website is to find ways of dividing Democrats in advance of the mid-term election.

Yes indeedy. If one's sole purpose is to ensure disruption and division among Democrats and to pave the way for further Republican gains in November, it is vitally important that one picks up on these nuances and continues to hammer wedges between Democratic voting blocs.

I mean, if I were a Republican operative, say. And the RNC was desperate to try to beat down Democratic turnout in November, having Democrats at odds with themselves -- even if its over issues of semantics and what may or may not have been intended by the Presidents Press Secretary, well then by God I would be out on every website I could find.

I'd be making posts to tell Democrats how disrespected they've been by the Administration in hopes that they'll be just disgruntled enough to stay home.

That's what I'd be doing, by God, and I'll really take offense is somebody called me a sniveling little rat fucker for doing it.

[Zenlitened]

58. Oh, name-calling would be so trollish, don't you agree?

Much better to lay back in the reeds and hurl slime at life-long Democrats, all the while claiming to be defending the Obama administration.

:hi:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

63. I'm not hurling slime...

I'm just saying that if I were a rat bastard intent on making sure the Republicans take over in November, I'd be looking for every opportunity I could to sow dissent. And I'm sure there are mother fuckers out there who want to see this administration fail, and they're working night and day to make sure that Democrats don't come out for the mid-term elections.

I have no idea what you're talking about, frankly.

[Zenlitened]

65. Oh I would never accuse you of such a thing. I was speaking in general terms.

:hi:

[Radical Activist]

48. Could you let us know what drugs made you hear words that Gibbs never said?

Thanks.

[Zenlitened]

56. You really ought to read up on the topic before commenting.

People might start to think you're not very bright.

[RollWithIt]

55. Honestly, I think he just used a terrible example....

His overall premise was actually correct. The Canadian comment was a terrible example. But he's the press secretary and should have known better.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. His 'examples' were terrible because they were not examples

but straw men. Had his premise been correct, he would be able to attribute at least one of the quotes he claimed to hear constantly from cable liberals to at least one actual cable liberal. He could offer exact quotes. You know, actual facts. "some say some things" is simply not honest, in a deep and meaningful way it is dishonest. A tactic to be faced down when anyone attempts to bring it to the public square.
Honest people stand and speak honestly, they do not insinuate, nor make arch comments when they lack actual facts, and wish to pretend that they have them.
Again, who said the things Gibbs claimed to have heard again and again? He said he heard those things. So often that he was ticked off about it. Yet he can not say who said what where, he can not prove that his accusations are true of anyone.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

67. Framing is fundamentally dishonest in any discussion....

He said, while simultanously trying to frame Gibbs' actual words into the context of policy decisions by the Obama Administration.

Let's start with the fact that framing is another word for perspective, and every individual brings some sort of perspective (consciously or unconsciously) to any discussion. Democrats frame the Estate Tax as a matter of inter-generational fairness and Republicans frame the Death Tax as punishment to people who have been successful. They're both framing and outside of politics, it's the only way human beings have to understand their surroundings.

To state that framing is "dishonest" and to leave the inference that you would NEVER do it yourself is a) framing and b) fundamentally dishonest by your own standards.

Junior College graduate, right?

[Bluenorthwest]

69. Most people in my Jr High School understood that

editing and making exclusions from the words of another in order to make them fit the point you are trying to make is intellectually dishonest. When a person says several things, and in writing about it another claims he said just one thing, that is hugely dishonest, and obviously beyond the realm of mere personal perspective. Kids know this. One can lie by omission, of course.
Again, it is obvious that the OP is not talking about perspective, but about dishonest methods. Misquotes, edited quotes, leaving out half of what was said, in this case by Gibbs.
The basic level on which Gibbs was dishonest was his failure to point out even a single example of what he claimed to have seen over and over again. He played 'some say' games and then wrote for 'some' what he claims they say. He is unable to attribute any of his claims to any cable media liberal, not one. So none of it was about anyone other than Gibbs, for all of that crapola sprang from his own mind, his own needs. No one said that stuff on TV, not liberals. And no one on DU can show any 'professional' saying the Pentagon should be closed. Or that Obama is the same as Bush. That is not said by liberals. Some policies are the same, some I'd love to see changed, but the two men are near polar opposites, in many, many ways, all of which favor Obama, of course.
And of course, vast millions of Americans would love to have single payer health care as a right as they do in Canada. So each of us who favor that, Gibbs chose to describe, using made up gossip, as being unreasonable. Funny, because my Rep voted for the bill, even though he and those he represent want far better reform. Just does not strike me as all that nuts, to speak one's mind while doing what can be done right now, and never stopping the quest for better.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

71. Well, after you graduate from Junior High....

some of this stuff will make more sense.

Best of luck to you!

[Zenlitened]

73. Much of what you say in this post is true, and would be quite relevant to the thread if...

... you'd captured the entirety of my statement where I wrote that FALSE framing is fundamentally dishonest in any discussion.

Instead you truncated the idea or sentiment, and crafted an argument based on "framing is dishonest," something you claim I said yet which (as everyone can see) I did not.

Why, it's almost as if you engaged in an act of false framing in an effort to counter a post about... false framing.

Dude, that's deep, dude...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

75. Depending on your perspective, framing is ALWAYS false....

One side frames Gibbs as attacking the fringe elements of the left who compare Obame to Bush (which is true because that's pretty much exactly what he said). One side frames Gibbs as attacking liberalism in general because he referenced their demand to have Canadian-style health care (which is also true becuase that's pretty much exactly what he said).

Then there's another side -- those who simply want this issue to fester long enough to harm the Democratic Party in the 2012 election. Those people are rat fucking pricks who really ought to find something better to do.

Don't you think?

[Zenlitened]

76. In your first paragraph you've admitted that...

...focusing the discussion solely on the "just like bush" angle is a matter of false framing.

So, thank you for that.

It took courage. And, um, apparently a number of rats to be raped. :scared: (Dude, what is it with you and that imagery?)

As for the festering division... well, a bit less false framing of ALL issues would do a lot to heal that gash, wouldn't it?

Not to mention less tap-dancing. Say, when one is confronted with the fallacy in their argument on framing and perspective.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

77. More Framing....

You see, when you do it, you're just trying to have a serious discussion. When somebody ELSE does it, it's all dishonesty and "tap dancing." You have clearly chosen to frame yourself as the "honest broker" in this debate and anybody who disagrees with is just another racial stereotype, smiling and shucking and jiving for the white folks.

...speaking of imagery.

Rather than picking at the scab repeatedly to kept the wound fresh, you're just trying to "heal the gash" by putting the Obama Administration in the worst possible light, and if....oh, if only everybody were as high minded as you.

You know, sometimes what you write almost approaches clever.

Then I remember why you're doing it.

LEGAL NOTICE: No rats were fucked in the writing of this message.

[Zenlitened]

79. Can you be specific, please? Where is the false framing?

As for your rats, I'm glad to hear you'll be laying off them for a while.

Though not as glad as the rats, no doubt.

NOTE: The false framing here (I mean, you haven't ever admitted to being a rat-fucker) is deliberate. And obvious, I hope.

Think of it as a matter not of casting aspersions on a DUers character and intentions, but casting aspersions back.

That is, after all, how you entered this thread: with a passive-aggressive suggestion that you only just now fully articulated, in the post above:

Rather than picking at the scab repeatedly to kept the wound fresh, you're just trying to "heal the gash" by putting the Obama Administration in the worst possible light, and if....oh, if only everybody were as high minded as you.

You know, sometimes what you write almost approaches clever.

Then I remember why you're doing it.

Classy. But clueless. That sort of paranoia is often the last refuge of those engaged in denialism. There ARE valid critiques, as you know. You should also know, therefore, that not all critiques are delivered with sinister intent. Accusing me of such an intent certainly doesn't approach "clever." It's just lazy.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

95. Paranoia is often the last refuge of those engaged in denialism....

I can only assume that psychology is one of several subjects that you either failed or never attempted in college (or middle school - from the juvenile nature of your posts, it's hard to tell). Although I must admit that it's cute when you try to sound as though you know what you're talking about. Sort of like an eight-year-old wearing his father's suits.

I'm sure that in some circles, this sort of shtick passes for being intellectual -- among the same circles that find Newt Gingrich to be a deep thinker and who buy Sean Hannity's books. They don't read them, of course, but they buy them. Look on your bookshelf -- I'm sure you have a couple lying around.

You know what you're doing and you know why you're doing it. More to the point, everybody else on this board knows what you're doing and why you're doing it. This is not a critique of anything or an invitation to a discussion of the finer points of rhetoric or meta-communication - it's a tedious and transparent attempt to continually show the Obama Administration in the worst possible light.

And now you've become officially tiresome.

[Zenlitened]

96. You assume quite a bit. And project quite a bit.

All your talk of "juvenile nature" nicely sums up your own post. The whole tone of it sounds like nothing more than "Oh, yeah? Sez You!"

As for the books on my bookshelf (and the "Y-y-you're a Freeeeper" accusation in general)... if you only knew how wrong you are, you'd faint!

I guess scoundrels have several refuges. Not much in the way of imagination, but no shortage of refuges. Can't cut in in a discussion, just shout "Nyah nyah nyah!" instead.

Here's some advice: Stay tucked away in whatever refuge you can find. You just don't have what it takes to be roaming around on your own out here in the world of politics. You just don't have the instincts for it. Nor the insight.

G'nite, Chuck.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

97. Nice try

I love you Chuckles....

You practically know what "projection" means -- I mean, you were really close to using the term correctly. But then you go and post the phrases "Sez You" and "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah" which sort of undercuts that whole pseudo-intellectual persona that you've been trying to create for yourself.

I'm sure that given a little time you'll be able to pull of a discussion like this without looking foolish. But I have to say, given the limits of what you actually know, your condescending attitude is just adorable. Keep that up, because in the absence of facts or any sort of general knowledge, it's probably your best pitch.

[Zenlitened]

98. Oh, yah? I know you are but what am I? Nyah nyah!

P.S. Study up on the term 'projection.'

You've made it obvious once again that you're in over your head, and by doing so in the name of "support" for Pres. Obama... well, you're not doing him any favors.

Seriously, the whole never-ending "Operation Mighty Fists of Ham" you're a part of is just about the best voter suppression project ever devised.

Which, come to think of it, makes your repeated insinuations and "Hannity-Lovin-Freepurrr!" accusations seem all the more like... well, projection.

Funny, that, wouldn't you say?

[Zenlitened]

80. P.S. And try to stay on topic, please: FALSE framing, not just framing.

I concede that I should have written "you've essentially admitted," or maybe "the effect of your statement is an admission that..." or something like that, for better clarity of my own argument and intent.

:hi:

[Zenlitened]

81. P.P.S. So long for now, I'm heading out the door for a few hours. - n/t

[John Agar]

72. I am amazed that anyone would bother to defend his stupid remarks.

Mainly because I can't see anything but division coming from them.

Someone tell me, what good did he do by saying that?

I can't think of a single good thing that can come from this sort of rhetoric.

[ProSense]

83. "nuance in criticisms that compare specific policy choices by Pres. Obama's compared to Bush"

You're calling the discussion dishonest after making a statement like that?

What policies? There are criticisms that the administration has kept some of Bush's policies in place related to the whole war on terrorism thing, but many have been dismantled. Beyond that, exactly which policies do Obama and Bush have in common?

Also:

"His comments included more than the 'just like Bush' angle, though I can see why his defenders want to focus on that aspect alone.

It's easier to defend him on that one sentence alone."

Yes, that statement was spot on. What you are attempting to do is extrapolate it to encompass criticism unrelated to "Obama is like Bush."


People seem to have an inability to criticize the administration with resorting to gross distortions. When Gibbs points out a truth, it's distorted to encompass constructive criticism. Gibbs wasn't talking about, as Robert Kuttner claims, tough love. Kuttner is one to talk, he published a book in April titled, A Presidency in Peril. How long do you think it took him to write such a book that hits the market a little over a year into the President's first term?

[TheKentuckian]

84. Pro, under the bus! How date you say Obama and Bush are the same?

If you say a policy is the same...any policy then in woodchuckese you are saying Obama and Bush are the same.

Nobody on the left on cable news has ever stated Obama is the same as Bush beyond a similar contrast.
Gibbs is lying and you guys are spinning because the stated source of the frustration is the professional left cable tv talking heads that won't be happy til the Pentagon is shut down and say Obama is Bush and that is a fucking lie because there is no such animal.

[Zenlitened]

92. I can't even BEGIN to deconstruct the dishonesty in your post.

So I won't try. I swear, I think your keyboard must burst into flames when you type stuff like that.

[cliffordu]

85. Ah, bullshit.

[phleshdef]

86. Gibbs: " the vast majority of progressives and those on the left...do not hold those beliefs..."

"...and are pushing in good faith for a better country".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/gibbs-obama-still-wants-t_n_681691.html

[laughingliberal]

91. Yeah, after 4 days, they've figured out these remarks were not helpful.

Guess the internals showed pissed off liberals and (big surprise here) the right wing they've been trying to court still didn't fall in love with the President.

WTF was he thinking?

[Zenlitened]

93. 'Bout time. - n/t

[Jakes Progress]

88. "And it's fundamentally dishonest in any discussion."

Fundamental dishonesty is getting to be a problem with too many in this administration and too many of its defenders here.