So much for the claim that Gibbs doens't criticize the right

[ProSense]

BREAKING! Gibbs attacks "professional right"

by Eclectablog

Seems a lot of people think Robert Gibbs only mocks and criticizes "the left". So I took a look into that.

<...>

March 16, 2009

Question: "One quick followup: Former Vice President Cheney was on State of the Union yesterday. He had a lot -- a lot of criticism of this White House.

"To boil it down, on national security, he said the president's policies were making the country less safe. And on the economy, he was charging that the president is taking advantage of the financial crisis to vastly expand the government in all kinds of ways -- health, education, energy.

"How do you respond to those kind of allegations from the former vice president?"

Gibbs: "Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy ... so they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal.

<...>

April 5, 2010

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs got a few oohs and aahs in today's press conference, when responding to embattled Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's recent claim that both he (Steele) and President Barack Obama have a "slimmer margin" for error because of the color of their skin.

I think that it is a very silly comment to make. I think Michael Steele's problem isn't the race card, it's the credit card.

June 17, 2010

"It's hard to tell what planet these people live on," Gibbs said, when asked about the litany of attacks on the White House's treatement of BP coming from multiple Republicans.

"It's hard to understand their viewpoint but it may explain their votes on financial regulation," he continued. "It explains how they view whether or not the banks ought to be able to write their own rules and play the game the way they played it several years ago that caused our economy to crash."

July 8, 2010

CNS News’ Fred Lucas asked about a comment from Obama appointee Donald Berwick about rationing…

Lucas: “You said you were confident there would have been a confirmation had there been a hearing. But do you think that it would have been politically troublesome in an election year to have all of these comments aired out about rationing and redistribution that Dr. Berwick had talked about in the past?”

Gibbs: “You just read comments. Is there, like, a secret comment book that somehow you got and that nobody else got?” <Laughter> “And you just read them to me and somehow they wouldn’t have come out? Did he say things like ‘rationing happens today, it’s just a question of who will do it?”

<...>

By the way? If you don't think Obama is just like Bush or that the Pentagon should be eliminated or the even Dennis Kuccinich isn't liberal enough? Well, then, HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU!!!

more

CNS News!

:rofl:

[phleshdef]

1. And with that, all the overreactive, anti-Gibbs shit is blasted into oblivion.

[moksha]

36. Actually, no.

It is good he attacks the right. But, he fucked up big time in bashing the left.

The Professional Left heard his call, and will be coming at him full force, now. We're just getting started. :bounce:

[billh58]

2. +100!

[DirkGently]

3. Smash that strawman. Doesn't change the facts.

By the way? If you don't think Obama is just like Bush or that the Pentagon should be eliminated or the even Dennis Kuccinich isn't liberal enough? Well, then, HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU!!!

Mr. Gibbs wasn't asked about people who think Obama is just like Bush or people who think that the Pentagon should be eliminated or people who think that Dennis Kucinich isn't liberal enough.

He was asked what he thought about criticism from progressives. Just like a few people here, he turned a rhetorical trick and characterized that criticism as blah blah Obama is Bush blah blah no more Pentagon. He conflated real criticism with nonsense, then smashed the nonsense and declared victory. This exactly the same thing people do when they claim those who criticize the state of Israel are anti-Semitic. It's conflation -- falsely equating two different things.

The two things in this case -- progressives who critique President Obama -- and people who allegedly just say he is "another Bush" are NOT the same.

Everyone is also aware that Mr. Gibbs has commented on the right. That's rather obvious. It does not invalidate the perception that an unfair shot was taken at the left.

These are the facts. They may be uncomfortable, but that does not change them.

[phleshdef]

5. Godwin's law needs to be extended to people that overuse the term strawman.

Its becoming the defacto "I can't win this argument so I'm gonna say X instead" type of thing. Its getting pretty damn old.

Whats worse is that its not a strawman. People on this very board have made numerous comments in threads about this saying "Why doesn't Gibbs talk shit about the right", in almost those exact words. Thats what this post is in response to, that might make you uncomfortable, but you can not change that.

So what if the interviewer asked about progressive criticisms? Some on the left have in fact said that Obama is no different than Bush and Gibbs has every right to say those people are fucking nuts and express that. He also has every right to say the same thing about people getting angry because of currently unpassable policies not being passed.

I know you want everything Gibbs was talking about to be about YOU. But guess what, it wasn't. You just aren't that important.

[DirkGently]

6. You purported to smash an argument that wasn't made

And with that, all the overreactive, anti-Gibbs shit is blasted into oblivion.

The thrust of the discussion and criticism is not that Mr. Gibbs never criticizes the right. While it's possible someone might have hyperbolically stated that, or may have noted he has seldom been as vicious to the right as he was to the left in the comments discussed yesterday, the issue here was what he said about the left.

Therefore, stating the obvious -- that he has indeed criticized the right -- is off the point to begin with, and further does not "blast" the argument about his vicious attack on liberals "into oblivion."

Mischaracterizing your opponent's argument so that you can more easily destroy it IS a strawman argument. Ironically, that is exactly what Mr. Gibbs did when he characterized progressive critics as wild-eyed, drug-addled crazies who "want to get rid of the Pentagon." That's hardly the critique leveled at the administration from the left, now, is it? So that too, was a strawman. It's always easier to beat an argument you made up for your opponent.

If you'd like to make an argument that what Mr. Gibbs said was defensible, please do. But trying to either claim he was only speaking to the ridiculous charicature of liberals that he himself painted, or attempting to switch the argument to one over whatever he has said about the right, is a canard, fallacy, rhetorical trick -- however you'd like to put it.

You are more than welcomed to your point of view, but it would be more persuasive if you stopped trying to slip past the fact that Mr. Gibbs broadly attacked progressives who have criticized the administration. That is what happened. He did not limit his remarks to "people who want to eliminate the Pentagon." He mischaracterized the administration's critics on the left as idiotic charicatures of liberals who would make such an argument.

Sorry, but there's just no way to spin this one. Why try so hard? If you think left-leaning critics of the administration deserved to be blasted, just make the argument. Why try to pretend that's not what he did?

[phleshdef]

9. Your first sentence completely invalidates your post.

This thread was made to be about people claiming Gibbs isn't ever critical of the right, PERIOD. You didn't write it, you don't get to decide what its about.

But yea go ahead and blast out the word strawman about 6 more times, pretend that Gibb's comment was a broad brush (it wasn't and only a complete liar would read them and still say it was) and give me some more bullshit self righteous lectures about how I should formulate my arguments. I could give a fuck.

[DirkGently]

10. On the contrary, I responded to your false claim that

the "anti-Gibbs" "shit" was "smashed" by the post about Mr. Gibb's comments on the right. This is again an attempt at obfuscation. The criticism of Mr. Gibb's comments does not depend on whether he ever criticized the right.

If you wish to make a small, immaterial point that anyone claiming that Mr. Gibbs "never" criticized the right is exaggerating, you may do so, but to pretend that the "anti-Gibbs shit" as you call it was "smashed into oblivion" is a wild overstatement.

In addition, you might note that I was responding to the comment included in the OP containing the fallacy you have repeated, attempting to defend Mr. Gibbs' comments on the basis that "if you don't think Kucinich isn't liberal enough or don't want to eliminate the Pentagon, he wasn't talking to you." I actually took the time to place the quotation from the OP in a text box before responding to it.

Do you have a response to my comments about that? Do you see that trying to say that Gibbs was only talking to the ridiculous liberal charicatures he invented in his response is a bit of rhetorical fallacy? He wasn't asked about "people who want to eliminate the Pentagon," was he? He made that up in response to being asked about progressive critics, right?

Edit: Why not just argue that Gibbs was right to lash out at progressive critics, if you think they've been too harsh as he apparently does? Why get all wound up about trying re-interpret in some way to pretend he didn't lash out in the first place?

Might be more constructive to just state your case that progressives should get off Mr. Obama's case, if you feel that way, or that Mr. Gibb's was driven to make an ill-tempered comment by relentless criticism. He said what he said, and it meant what it meant. Let's leave the spinning to the professionals, eh?

[phleshdef]

12. It was smashed. It illustrates that Gibbs takes on critics in general...

...and is not gaming for anyone of any particular ideology.

And I can't really respond to comments where you phrase questions with factual inaccuracies in them. There is no ridiculous liberal caricature invented by Gibbs. He was speaking directly to the kind of rhetoric I hear and read from a few vocal members of the left all the time. He was asked about progressive critics and he addressed the ones that he has a problem with. If you are included in his criteria, then that means you. If so, cry me a river. If not, then get over yourself and stop pretending its about you.

Anti-Gibbs shit = SMASHED into oblivion, by this post. Thats my statement. I stand by it. And there is nothing you can do about it. But, you will live.

[DirkGently]

18. Mr. Gibbs viciously attacked liberal critics of the administration.

... and there is nothing to be done about that, actually.

He may be a fine man, he may also attack the right, and it be sunny outside, and many other things may be true.

But there is simply no way to spin this that Mr. Gibbs did not viciously attack progressive critics by falsely characterizing them as drug-addled crazies who want unreasonable things like eliminating the Pentagon.

Again, he was not ASKED about extreme, unreasonable, drug addled people with unreasonable demands like eliminating the Pentagon. He responded to a question about progressive critics, and falsely and insultingly CALLED progressive critics drug-addled crazies with unreasonable demands like eliminating the Pentagon.

Saying that if someone is not a drug-addled crazy with unreasonable demands like eliminating the Pentagon, then Mr. Gibbs was not talking about you is like when someone uses a racial slur to describe somone and then saying, "Well, if you're not a *****, then I wasn't talking to you."

The fact is that progressive critics of the administration are largely NOT drug-addled crazies with unreasonable demands like eliminating the Pentagon. Mr. Gibbs was using that description in order disparage progressive critics.

Again, if you feel that progressive critics of the administration deserve to be attacked that way, or if you believe that progressive critics of the administration actually ARE drug-addled crazies, please make the argument honestly.

Thank you.

[phleshdef]

20. The same people that fit the bill of what he was talking about have said a lot worse...

...about this administration, particuarly President Obama.

As I pointed out in a thread yesterday, many of the same people getting super offended about this, get on the Internet everyday and make attacks just as or more viscious. Then they turn into angry little babies if anyone from the administration dares back talk. Its ridiculous.

[DirkGently]

33. Hmmm. Who are the leaders, and who are the People?

And what are their respective roles in the political process? Politicians get called every name in the book, and criticized in every possible way. That's because their jobs affect a lot of people with a lot of different points of view.

It's a little immature, don't you think, for the Executive Branch of the Government of the United States of America to stoop to calling anyone drug-addled crazies?

But the issue here is larger, because Mr. Gibbs called progressive critics, who are ostensibly on "his side" of the political spectrum, and who likely helped his boss, the President get elected, and speak for many more who did the same, drug-addled crazies.

Who did the "drug-addled crazies" vote for? Why is their outrage an insult to be dismissed as deranged ranting?

Would it not make more sense to say, single out a particular critique and defend it, if the White House thinks it's unreasonable, than to dismiss progressive critics in general as all being about unreasonable, bleedingly-extreme leftwing desires?

Part of why Mr. Gibbs comments seem so out-of-bounds is that a lot of the progressive criticism is hard to knock with argument. Why ARE we still holding secret prosecutions of accused teenage "terrorists" in Gitmo, when closing Gitmo was such a big priority in Mr. Obama's campaign? Why DID Mr. Obama abandon things like obtaining Canadian drug prices for Americans? Why WOULD he try to expand warrantless FBI searches of citizens' private information?

What's infuriating people, I think, is that Mr. Obama ran as someone deeply committed to changing these things, and while he most surely has accomplished important and valuable things while in office, he seems to not only have abandoned some key issues over which he would appear to have significant control as President, and not only has not explained why he has reversed course on huge issues like secret prisons and searches, but on a few occasions, his closest advistors have seemed to be concretely dismissive and derisive about the views of the people he told he would represent on these issues.

It's a lot more serious than crazed druggies demanding impossible change overnight, and dismissing these people in that way is not just insulting, but deeply chilling.

And let's be clear about one more thing. While it's understandable that blandly equating Mr. Obama with the unlamented former President Bush is anathema on a Democratic discussion forum, these security and terror policies that remain in place, which shocked the world and Americans alike, ARE Bush policies.

I can't think of anything more serious than liberals being told, BY the person they elected to reverse these policies, that they are crazy for expecting them to do so.

Can you?

[phleshdef]

44. Too much rhetoric, making too many arguments leaving out too many details.

I'm not playing the "bombard me with too many bullshit arguments" game with you. I'll only answer your question in your subject and the answer is "who the fuck cares?". Leaders ARE people and regardless of what you think, they don't have to sit around and be verbally torn apart by a group of people day in and day out and expect to never say anything back. I wouldn't do it if I were in their shoes and I don't expect them to either. Gibbs is on the inside and he, just like Van Jones said, knows what its like when the missles are coming at you. The drug adled crazies on the left that Gibbs is referring to are the ones that don't want to see it that way. They just want to get angry because not everything they want has been accomplished. And Gibbs is fed up with the lack of reason coming from them. There is nothing more to this story than that.

[great white snark]

4. A friggin' men.

Another strawperson bites the dust.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Chris Rock has a funny line where he lambastes fathers for wanting praise for supporting their kids

"Motherfucker, you supposed to take care of your damn kids! What you want? A medal?"

Seriously, do you want us to give Gibbs a medal for DOING HIS JOB as WH Communications Director now? What people are saying is that he needs to do a better job. He needs to seize the narrative from the Professional Right and control the message.

[ProSense]

22. The President isn't your father, despite

what Maureen Dowd says.

Chris Rock is hilarious.

[Hello_Kitty]

29. Neither is Gibbs. And he doesn't deserve praise for doing a barely adequate job.

[ProSense]

37. Who claimed Gibbs was their father? n/t

[CakeGrrl]

8. Big K/R

[no limit]

11. I think the claim he never talks bad about the right is a bit absurd, but this OP is too

Jesus, in 18 months you could only come up with 10 examples of Gibbs talking bad about the right? And then none of the examples point to major policy objectives? Remember, this is the press guy for Obama, he is out there every day preaching their policy. Every single day. And you found 10 examples, congratulations.

What Gibbs said was wrong and it only confirmed what the base already knows, that the white house doesn't give a shit about them. You can find as many examples of Gibbs talking bad about the right (you only found 10) but that completely misses the point.

On edit: When I say you I know you didn't write this, but clearly you think tbat message on daily kos just accomplished something major here.

[DirkGently]

13. Yes. It's a distraction to avoid the main point.

Perhaps someone overzealously claimed that Mr. Gibbs "never" criticizes the right. That is clearly neither the case, relevant to his recent vicious attack on progressive critics of the administration. Trying to make that the focus of discussion seems like an attempt to change the subject.

[ProSense]

17. From someone who

is trying to distract by claiming the question not Gibbs' answer is relevant.

[DirkGently]

38. Asked about progressives, Gibbs called them crazy druggies

That's what's relevant. Again, instead of pretending he didn't say what he said or mean what he meant, why not defend it if you'd like?

[alsame]

19. +1. Plus the fact that he's supposed to criticize the right. But it's

very telling that a defense is being made that equates the far right with progressive Democrats.

[DirkGently]

41. Yes. The "but he smears the bad guys too" defense. Weak.

[ProSense]

14. You were expecting a post of every incident in which Gibbs criticized the right? A few serves the

purpose of debunking the ludicrous claim that he doesn't. Still, if you want more examples, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8926202&mesg_id=8926202">here you go.

[no limit]

16. Awesome job ProSense, arguing against an argument that wasn't ever made

atleast not by anyone significant. The Chris Rock joke posted above is perfect.

[ProSense]

21. "Jesus, in 18 months you could only come up with 10 examples of Gibbs talking bad about the right? "

Well if not all how many were you looking for beyond 10? Is the number at the link provided enough?

[no limit]

24. You seemed to have missed the point I was making with that post

As I said in the title of the post the claim that Gibbs never criticizes the right is absurd.

But I also pointed out to you how absurd it is for you to come in here with 10 examples of Gibbs doing his job. If you had posted all the stuff you did in that reply in your OP it wouldn't be as absurd (even if you are still setting up a strawmen) but the fact is you didn't, you gave 10 examples of Gibbs doing his job in the last 18 months. Wow, 10 examples, congratulations.

[ProSense]

26. You seem to be making up your own point.

Regardless of the title of your post, claiming that you're unimpressed with 10 examples is irrelevant to the point of the OP, which is to debunk the claim that Gibbs never goes after the right.

[no limit]

30. Reading comprehension was never your strong suite

My point is right there in the post. I was unimpressed with the 10 examples for the reasons I stated above. As Chris Rock said, you want a fucking medal? It's your job bro.

[ProSense]

31. It's suit not "suite" n/t

[no limit]

32. You got me. Good job, you might want to take a picture since that almost never happens

hang it on your fridge or something.

[Phx_Dem]

15. I'm enjoying listening to the progressives cry.

Poor babies. They can criticize the administration nonstop and even say Obama should be primaried, but HOW DARE anyone criticize them!

:rofl:

[phleshdef]

23. Exactly. Some believe they are entitled to the privelige of mouthing off unchallenged.

[DirkGently]

39. Like Mr. Gibbs? 8)

[DirkGently]

25. They seem less desperate than the Gibbs apologists, though

don't they?

You don't see the progressives trying to argue that Gibbs didn't say what he said, or that the big point here is whether he also insults actual political enemies from time to time.

What I don't get is the spinning. Regular people have no need to spin things. It must be something we pick up from cable news shows. For example here, instead of people who are angry at progressive critics of the administration saying that they understand Gibb's attack, because they relate to his frustration and agree with his implied point that progressive critics are being unreasonable and going overboard, you see people trying to pretend he didn't reaaaally attack progressives, or that it doesn't matter because the real argument is now suddenly whether he's ever attacked the right.

Why not just talk about whether Gibb's frustration was justified, and maybe the political impact. How does it play politically for the Press Secretary to go after the ideological base of the Democratic Party? Or, is he signalling that the administration wants to distance itself from that base for political reasons?

Is the White House trying to establish that it dislike liberals and progressives to attempt to court conservatives or right-leaning liberals? If so, is that likely to work?

More honest and more interesting than a pointless ping-pong match over whether the guy said what he said and meant what he meant.

[Phx_Dem]

28. Whiny babies is a better description.

[DirkGently]

35. Who imploded in an interview? DU members, or Gibbs?

It's arguably more "whiny" to be trying to defend what he said with rhetorical sleight-of-hand than simply taking issue with a bald insult to the people who put Gibbs where he is today.

[phleshdef]

42. Oh, mark my words, give certain DU members an interviews and implosion will definately occur.

[NJmaverick]

27. K&R

[Jennicut]

34. How can anyone forget the hilarious mocking of Palin by writing on his palm?

Gibbs has made fun of and criticized Repubs plenty of times.

[DirkGently]

40. I know. He used to seem so cute until he went for the throat

of the people who put him in the position to be speaking on a national stage in the first place.

What gives, Gibby?

Perhaps he should be drug tested.

[Jennicut]

43. No, he needs to switch jobs or quit. He is burned out and making stupid mistakes.

The left bloggers will ALWAYS criticize Dems for not doing enough and the President is the focal point. He let it get to him. I don't think implied the left is on drugs, he implied that anyone who thinks Obama is Bush is "on drugs", which essentially means they are crazy. Anyway, he needs to quit soon. Press secretaries don't last that long. Bush had 4, Clinton had 5.

[Clio the Leo]

45. Robert Gibbs is a smart a** .....

.... and that is one of the reasons I love him!

And anyone who thinks he's criticized the left MORE than the right has missed about a year and a half worth of briefings.

He's a bull-shitter .... and you cant out bull-shit a bull-shitter.

He has his job for a reason.