Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Serious Question: name someone Gibbs *was* talking about

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:53 PM
Original message
Serious Question: name someone Gibbs *was* talking about
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 06:56 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
Some say it was a broad rant against the left.

Some say it was targeted against specific "splinter" or "fringe" types.

Gibbs said he was not talking about people in "America", a place that exists "outside Washington." (No RW framing there...)

We seem to be talking about "liberal pundits"... and parties of such influence that the WH notes and resents their critiques.

But who are we talking about?

Krugman level?

Olbermann level?

Maddow level?

Kos level?

Hamsher level?

I seriously doubt that Gibbs was bothering to rant about posters on DU (!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Probably the "Hamsher (basement) level"...
Of course, none of us know and he may not have had particular individuals in mind anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. The White House and others would do good to learn from much of what is posted at firedoglake.
Instead of attacking them. There is much excellent analysis there. There is stuff that needs to be defended against, and silly stuff, too, but there are important points of view.

Demonizing instead is worthless, short-sighted, and ill-informed.

When people trash someone as principled and brilliant as Marcy Wheeler and call Tom Tomorrow absurd names, then they are clueless, or rationalizing to an extreme, or have ulterior motives. They may get what they want, but they will do it at a very bad cost.

(I am talking about whomever this applies to, Gibbs, anyone.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. Dillon Ratttigan could be one for sure. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Dylan Ratigan is NOT a liberal. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. Maybe not in your opinion, but I remember how thrilled we all
were when he beat up on the Pubs who wouldn't answer his questions, so from what I've seen f him, he's sure not a Pub!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. So what? Doesn't make him a liberal.
And if Gibbs was using something Ratigan said as an excuse to bash the Left, then he doesn't even know who the Professional Left are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimmyflint Donating Member (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. IDK, what does the professional left mean?
Did he mean professional as in white collar? or was he talking about paid leftist activists?


:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fogonthelake Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. I got the impression that Anthony Weiner thinks it was his type just now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
6. Basic Poli Sci
If you believe silly shit like legitimacy and power go from the base, up... he screwed up.

If you believe power percolates down and institution are in charge and society follows... then you'd have a point.

Personally I think it is a mixture, and in a country that has such low voting in off year elections... pissing off the people that got you elected is either tone deaf (I will give them that benefit) or on purpose...

Your choice.

But in my view... Gibbs was also talking about that POLITICAL BASE that has been putting pressure on the government. I mean after all we are the government of the people... or somehow I missed the memo when that changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. Point is, we shouldn't have to wonder who he was talking about. He is the White House
PRESS SECRETARY, and communication is supposed to be what he does.

Mr. Gibbs has called his remarks "inartful" and I think that term gives him the benefit of the doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
34. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lint Head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. If Gibbs continues to be grilled on this should he be referred to as
Barbecue Gibbs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. I would start with the Carvilles.
and plenty more where they came from.

people who think Gibbs meant the schmucks here... that's hilarious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. a lot of people want to think Gibbs was talking about them
it makes them feel important while still playing victim at the same time.

Olbermann is another one. there is no way he was tlaking about olbermann but he does have an ego and i guess it feels good to think gibbs is watching him all the time and commenting on him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. How exactly is it that you know that Gibbs was not talking about Olbermann?
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 07:10 PM by Hissyspit
Even Olbermann stated multiple times that he was not sure he was included and that he was not clear who Gibbs was talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. because of what Gibbs said , Olbermann doesn't fit into that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. and I bet Keith doesn't know which would be better for his image.
I wouldn't put him near the top of the heap like the Carville fuckstains, but he's a theatrics person too, they all are.

Look at ME!!! Look at ME!!!
Marshall McLuhan's The Medium is the message has now become:

The ME is the message!! The ME is the message!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
10. Cockburn
although i think he is a wingnut troll.

the ones from that wsw something socialist site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. LINKS INSIDE, if you really want to to know....plenty have equated soft or hard, OBama to Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
14. He was talking about a DU poster. He savored the vicious, hateful, verbal barb he threw at that DU
poster while the deed was in progress.

He'd been watching this poster's OP's & replies on DU for years, having nothing better to do with his time other than help get Obama elected. From the privacy of his cubbyhole off the Oval Office he lurked at DU and watched this poster's OPs & replies with growing malice in his heart...while he scanned the internets from the Rose Garden on his lap top he dreamed of the day he'd be able give an interview, and cut that poster to the quick with his dastardly one-liners.

The day came. The deed was done. And he's probably lurking in GD right now, a big smirk on his face, watching the reaction his hateful screed has provoked.

I'm not naming names, buuuuuut.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
16. The "Mainstream Liberal Media"
As exposed by Faux Snooze, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golddigger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
19. He was talking about the people
who want "Evil" Canadian health-care and people who support Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boxerfan Donating Member (710 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
21. Anybody who won't be lead by the nose-I believe MJ use is common with free thinking
Like me!

Sadly it took a major tendon tear to get legal but whatever works. Not trying to hijack but I believe a major percentage of the "unindoctrinated" are also pot smokers. Not saying cause & effect. Thats like a chicken & egg thing.

But thats who Mr. Gibbs was talking about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
22. K&R for the honest question.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 07:27 PM by Ignis
Aravosis obviously felt Gibbs was talking about him, so I think we can safely include him.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
23. I think he kept it vague on purpose.
Either because he's a chickenshit, or he wanted to leave it open to interpretation. Or both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Electric Monk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
25. TDSWJS ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
26. Me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
27. Anybody who objects to a TRILLION dollars being spent on defense annually
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 08:06 PM by kenny blankenship
against a ragtag enemy of a couple thousand goat fuckers - meaning it was directed at pretty much the entire Progressive Caucus in the House. His broad brush swept up anybody who, like Jane Hamsher, or Matt Taibi, or Mike Moore, or Physicians For National Health Program, objected to the calls of the people for health care reform being preempted & suckered with a plan to legally force them all to buy defective insurance products from companies with a murderous record of killing for profit. It was aimed at anybody who, like Glenn Greenwald or the ACLU, has noticed that the President has continued most of Bush's 4th amendment abuses, and has defended Bush's detention policies and shielded numerous Bush admin figures from prosecution. In short, it was a slam against any traditional Democrat who has criticized the President for his full-on corporatist health "care" swindle, or his imposture as a sometime opponent of imperial wars, and the civil rights abuses that come with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
28. I think we can rule out Mel Gibson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
29. definiotely Jane Hamsher and Glen Greenwald
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
30. definiotely Jane Hamsher and Glen Greenwald
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
31. A question that has been much on my mind
And I have asked many here. Gibbs claimed to hear several specific statements frequently on liberal cable tv. And yet he can not name one instance of any of it. But of course, he had much else to say, those who want universal health care as a right are included in his attack, and that is a hell of a lot of people.
The reason he can not back up his wild allegations is because he was making stuff up, going off, letting Gibbs be Gibbs, which is what he is always about, never about the job or the President.
His defenders keep up the same McCarthyite tactics. "some say". Well, who? Gibbs claims this is all he hears, and he can not stand it anymore. So where did he hear this, even once?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jannyk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
32. Me, mine and all....
...the others that won't be satisfied until we have 'Canadian' (Universal) Type Health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
33. How about "community organizers"?
Can I get a "you betcha"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
35. One explanation among many - he was railing at the malcontents
who keep pointing out embarrassingly that the appearance of reform does not constitute actual reform. The names of people doing this are legion - many media folks on TV, radio, print and blogs - Rachel, Keith, Ed Schultz, Thom Hartman, Amy Goodman, Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Bill Greider, Matt Taibbi, and yes, the liberal blosphere in general, whom they just had to face in their own lion's den at Netroots Nation. (Notice how many on the list are also on the verboten or close to being verboten list here.)

By using the frame "professional" I think Gibbs was attempting to smear all these folks with the implication that they are paid to hold these viewpoints, they couldn't possibly sincerely believe the points they are espousing. He was basically asking - Why can't they just accept the items are on the checklist and be done with it? We have posters here with exactly the same viewpoint. Gibbs didn't use the words "pony" or "whine" but he didn't need to. Then he dug his hole deeper with the smarmy suggestions about drug testing and being weenies weak on defense. The White House should seriously consider getting rid of him because his performance this week has been one of shocking incompetence - picking needless fights and alienating people because of his personal pique (perhaps shared by others in the admin) that they were being hounded by a large group of liberal ingrates who insist on clinging to their "unrealistic" expectations of healthcare comparable to the rest of the world and a possible end to war everlasting. The great thing about what Gibbs did is that he absolutely clarified once and for all, that those goals mentioned are NOT shared by the White House and anyone who thinks they are is a certifiable loon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
36. kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chiyo-chichi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
37. Michael Moore?
I side with Moore, Maddow, et al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
38. The deputy legal director of ACLU was on Amy's show today
talking about Gibbs and about their last report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC