Paul Krugman: In The Matter Of Robert L. Gibbs

[Hissyspit]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/in-the-matt...

August 11, 2010, 9:00 PM
In The Matter Of Robert L. Gibbs

There he goes again. What gets me is how unprofessional the whole thing is.

- snip -

Welcome to reality. It’s my reality — and I’m just a professor/columnist. Someone actually in the White House has to be prepared for much more of this kind of thing — and if you don’t have a thick enough skin to take it, find another form of employment.

- snip -

I’m not saying to turn the other cheek and always say something polite as a general principle; by all means lash out at your critics, if you have something to gain by doing so. Rudeness at the proper moment can serve a purpose — as I hope I’ve demonstrated over the years. But if you vent for the sake of venting; if you alienate people you’re going to need; then you’re just being stupid.

And that, I’m afraid, is what’s going on here. Rachel Maddow isn’t going to go away, or turn all meek, because the White House Press Secretary implicitly denounced her. Even more to the point, liberal critics have an audience because they’re reflecting real concerns of real people. Those concerns need addressing, if necessary in the form of explanations of why their expectations can’t be met. Denouncing the people giving voice to those real concerns as the “professional left” is both unfair and, as I’ve said, stupid.

And both the president and, more important, the country deserve better.

MORE

[NJmaverick]

1. Ironically Krugman mentions Rachel. She is definately not who Gibbs was talking about

[foxfeet]

Did Gibbs specifically exempt Rachel from his comments?

[Hissyspit]

2. And what difference does it make if we don't know who he was talking about?

He was actually talking about numerous people and muddied the message enough so no one knows who the hell he was talking about.

[bvar22]

56. He was clear.

He was talking about those of us who want to End the WAR, and believe that Americans deserve the same quality of Health Care that the rest of the civilized WORLD takes for granted.

[RainDog]

3. did you get the memo to let you know who Gibbs was talking about?

I never saw him provide a list of targets.

[boppers]

46. You couldn't figure it out from the context?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white...

[RainDog]

50. since njm claimed knowledge of Gibbs' intentions

I just wondered where he got his special information. But, again, like other statements he's made, he pulled this one out of his ass.

[dsc]

4. someone should tell Rachel as she surely feels that he was talking about her

[malaise]

8. I doubt it

Obama mentioned Rachel's list of his accomplishments publicly.

[dsc]

14. watch the rerun of tonight's show or go on line

Rachel made several remarks that shows she believes it.

[Hissyspit]

20. Olbermann made it clear that he didn't know if Gibbs was talking about him or not...

and that was part of the problem with what Gibbs said. I didn't watch Rachel tonight. She didn't say much about it last night.

[rhett o rick]

64. Well who do YOU think Gibbs was talking about? Pretty clear to me. nm

[laughingliberal]

33. Yes. She certainly saw fit to bring it up on tonight's show-seemed she felt included. nt

[eridani]

5. Nope. He was only talking about the 60% of health care providers who

--want "Canadian health care."

[EFerrari]

6. When the Obama administration keeps a Bush policy, Rachel points it out.

Just about every time.

[NJmaverick]

24. Rachel has NEVER said Bush and President Obama are the same

she is far too smart to say something like that.

[EFerrari]

32. I'm beginning to think you have a basic reading problem.

Repeat: When the Obama administration keeps a Bush policy, Rachel points it out nearly every time.

[liberation]

67. Oh, his problem is not with reading....

[kenfrequed]

66. It was a Straw Man

Seriously there was little call and no reason for this, what Gibbs said was logically and strategically bad and factually iffy. I'm not sure why you are bothering to defend it.

[rhett o rick]

91. I doubt that anyone has said "Bush and Pres Obama are the same". That is a strawman.

Many are upset that Pres Obama has continued some of Bush's policies. Like the Patriot Act, domestic spying and DADT.

This isnt the first time the WH has taken nasty shots at the left. Look hard and you will see a pattern. The question is why.

[fogonthelake]

12. Did god tell you that? Or do have the ear of Gibbs?

[Poboy]

13. Rachel is on the list now. Did you see her program tonight?

[BrklynLiberal]

54. It was amazing...and she sure appeared to feel that she was part of the "professional left"

that was being excoriated.

I was looking for, but did not find, a thread about the show and how magnificent she was.

[NJmaverick]

19. Rachel Maddow appears in the President's address to the Netroots nation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so-Uuooz-Zo


That makes it pretty clear she was not who Gibbs was referring to. That and Rachel is too smart and astute a person to ever say that the President is the same as George Bush.

[moksha]

37. I don't think Gibbs even knows who he was talking about.

It was just the boogey-man radical liberal that all pearl-clutching conservatives of both parties should hate.

It was broad-brushed liberal bashing. We all were included.

[Laelth]

49. If Rachel isn't "the professional left" then who is?

-Laelth

[Enthusiast]

58. Yeah, we know.

He was talking about we crazies that want Canadian style health care instead of this 'killer' health care system we enjoy in the U.S.

[rhett o rick]

62. I think Rachel is exactly who he was referring to. Who do you think is the "professional left". nm

[ProSense]

7. Krugman felt the need to address this twice?

It's interesting that people are making this about Gibbs vs. liberals. The comments weren't even all that. They were true, but still, what is it about Gibbs making the point that Obama is nothing like Bush that they find so offensive?

There is a point where some of this is beginning to look intentional or manufactured. Congressmen coming out of the woodwork, commentary by every left pundit. Even Bob Shrum weighed in.

[EFerrari]

9. Definitely intentional. No one is stupid enough to say that kind of stuff by accident. n/t

[ProSense]

17. I was referring to the commentary. Also, there is this point by Krugman

"by all means lash out at your critics, if you have something to gain by doing so."

Maybe Gibbs (Burton and the WH) believes he does. Maybe, as Grayson points out, Gibbs is doing a lousy job of promoting the administration's significant achievements, which Grayson seems mighty proud of.

[EFerrari]

22. Yes, Gibbs is doing a lousy job and blaming others for his failure. n/t

[ProSense]

26. Doing a lousy job at what?

Do you agree with Grayson that the administration isn't getting the credit it deserves because of Gibbs?

There are people who ignore every achievement while claiming Obama is like Bush (the targets of Gibb's comment) and those who believe the achievements are significant (Grayson), but blame Gibbs for not communicating this effectively.

[EFerrari]

29. Gibb's job is to get the administration's message out.

If they're not getting the credit they deserve, he's failing at his primary task.

[ProSense]

40. "If they're not getting the credit they deserve, he's failing at his primary task."

He's getting lambasted for making this very point: some people refuse to give the administration credit.

It doesn't matter who makes the announcement. The President himself could make an announcement and these same people would reject it.

[rusty fender]

51. Of course, it's the professional left's fault

for not "getting" the propaganda right, and then, worst of all, they aren't "catapulting" it on the public. If only the professional left was sensible, like, well, Robert Gibbs.

[Liberalynn]

84. BINGO

[blindpig]

97. He's doing a good job of getting out the message...

it's the message that sucks.

[moksha]

38. Gibbs is a failure at strong framing, which is his number one job.

[Hissyspit]

18. It's his blog. Blogs tend to be like that.I guess he thought of some other points he wanted to make.

"Obama is nothing like Bush" was only part of what he said, most of which he shouldn't have been said at all. Also, there is the problem when Obama policies ARE like the Bush administration policies, at least continuation. To brush over that is disingenuous.

Intentional or manufactured? On whose part? Why did Gibbs do this? Frankly I don't think it is intentional or manufactured on anyone's part, but who knows at this point?

I think all the hub-bub about it is because people are really disgusted he said some of the stupid things he said. I understood some of the, in my opinion, valid points he was trying to make and what he said was more revealing of how much he does not get than of the points he was trying to make.

[ProSense]

23. Not everyone agrees it was stupid.

It's also hard to imagine why Krugman of all people would take the comments out of context when it's clear Gibbs was very specific.

[flyarm]

81. have you visted any Democratic web sites lately????????

I didn't think so..and heaven forbid you do and read any of the comments.

Gibbs is getting shreaded!
You say:

Quote" Not everyone agrees it is stupid."

No YOU don't, but you are in a very select, very small minority! Very ,Very, Very, small!

But don't worry , reality will hit you in Nov.

[EFerrari]

28. I agree that most people really don't know what the administration has done.

I don't think they get enough credit. But the solution to that isn't bashing the left, although it seems to be their habit. That's just guaranteed to make the situation worse.

[liberation]

76. Sorry, but results and good leadership are self evident.

If they need so much PR, chances are their product is not that good.

Furthermore, this administration is so politically daft that they have literally gotten out of their way to own the GOP's mistakes. TIme after time, when FOX has said "jump" this admin's response has been "how high." They always show up with kiddie gloves to knife fights. And rather than picking up fights with the GOP who are actively undermining them, they simply decide to piss on part of their base. They have failed at their only"redeeming" strength: marketing. The fact that Gibbs went into full prick mode because the left asking "where's the beef" got under his skin is way too telling about which side this administration's butters their toast.

[Marr]

21. Yeah, I know. Why don't they talk about the positive news coming out of Iraq-- er, the White House?

Bunch of nattering nabobs.

[rhett o rick]

63. This was intentional as you suggest. There seems to be a definite tactic to remove all doubt that

Pres Obama is a leftist. This has happened time and time again since Obama was inaugurated.

[DeSwiss]

10. "But if you vent for the sake of venting.....

....if you alienate people you’re going to need; then you’re just being stupid."


Therefore, one can only deduce that they've determined that they don't need liberals -- in which case they are stupid.

K&R

[BootinUp]

11. 1) Elect more liberals

2) stop blaming the President because when you can't, it really doesn't help.

3) Ok go ahead, condemn Gibbs because it feels good, then go elect more liberals.

This is not too complicated for such an intelligent crowd.

[DeSwiss]

16. Then why tell us what we need to do if we're so smart???

[L0oniX]

25. 1) of course we don't need no stinking votes from a handful of lefty pro liberals

2)reading into this a little ...where's the huge group of Obama haters? ...O yea they are called "repukes"

3)I suppose it made Gibbs feel good to lash out at the handful of lefties

Are we intelligent enough to remember that we lost and election over a handful of votes in Florida?

When is it ok for you or anyone to insult a small lefty group of Dem voters ...like you are here on DU?

Is that intelligent?

[BootinUp]

27. try the the alert button

if that doesn't work, try ignore. Opinions vary on what makes for intelligence here I have noticed.

[girl gone mad]

52. The attitude of Obama's fierce advocates..

has turned off a not insignificant portion of the electorate.

[BootinUp]

53. And vice-versa dear fellow member. nt

[flyarm]

82. and one will vote and the other stay home..wow you are really smart!!

duh!

And by the looks here at DU and many many other dems web sites..you seem to be in the minority group..severe minority.

Good luck with all your votes in NOV!!

[zipplewrath]

60. Well......

1) Elect more liberals

We're trying but Obama is fighting us by campaigning for Lincoln and Specter.

2) Stop blaming the president because wehn you can't, it really doesn't help.

Who else am I suspose to blame for supporting Specter and Lincoln? Who else am I to blame for escalating the war in Afghanistan, or sticking to Bush's SOFA?

3) Ok go ahead and comdemm Gibbs because it feels goo, then go elect more liberals

See #1.

[BootinUp]

85. Specter lost (Count me happy)

and Halter is no more a progressive liberal than Lincoln imho. If these are your major problems with Obama I trust they can be worked through.

But I think your REAL problem is the Afghanistan war he inherited and that he campaigned on pledging to "win". He made a pledge, a promise to improve the strategy, judge him on that or prepare to be ignored on it.

SOFA? I am not up on that acronym, its probably having to do with tortue or rendition I'm guessing. Please provide some factual evidence for your complaints.

[zipplewrath]

88. Status of Forces Agreement

Halter was preferred by the unions, and didn't have the "track record" of Lincoln. Lincoln should not have been "rewarded" with presidential support. Specter was a GOP candidate.

His strategy in Afghanistan is confused and isn't working, and is backing a corrupt government. He hasn't defined "winning" at all and he sounds dangerously like his predecessor.

[BootinUp]

89. A relatively brief response to your points

No Specter was not a GOP candidate. You might think he is no better than a GOPer, but clearly he had switched parties and supported Obamas efforts. I don't like him either, I think Sestak is a much better choice but have seen arguments on DU both ways.

The Obama admin took a relatively hands off approach to the Ark primary as far as I could tell. Yes Rahm lambasted the progressives after they lost for wasting money. But I never got the impression they actively participated in the race.

You can't turn around a fucked up war effort overnight. The Obama admin has put much more thought into this than Dems give them credit for. I believe they will make the right call after sufficient time to evaluate the effects they are having. Obama is not banging the war drums to maintain public support in the face of all odds. If public support continues to drop, he will have to pull the plug anyways.

I will have to read about SOFA, doesn't ring a bell, no time right now.

[zipplewrath]

90. And made the wrong choice

"You can't turn around a fucked up war effort overnight. The Obama admin has put much more thought into this than Dems give them credit for."

Biden tried to get him to do a much scaled down version of the war. Obama chose to support the corrupt Karzai government and triple Bush's troop commitment. That was a choice that Obama made, nothing forced upon him.

The Status of forces agreement was negotiated between Bush and Iraq in 2008 before he left office. It laid out the time table for withdrawl and Bush worked hard to make it as long as possible. Obama has made no substative changes to it's length or size. And he kept on Gates who was instrumental in its negotiation.

[depakid]

15. Only two conclusions here really

1. Gibbs (and by reference and/or ratification his boss) have a propensity for stupid behavior:

See: THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY

http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html

2. They're so obsessed with capturing the ephemeral center and the right that they think gratuitously insulting their constituencies will earn them points.

(That on its face- based on the record also suggests stupidity).

[Cleita]

30. LOL!

Best evaluation of this crazy situation yet.

[EFerrari]

31. Did you look at that link? I'm afraid to.

lol

[depakid]

34. It's a brilliant piece and it'll make you howl (at least, it did me the first run through)

[Cleita]

44. Yes, and Krugman is right on, however, I was

commenting on depakid's assessment.

[Karenina]

48. It's HILARIOUS!!!

[Marr]

36. 3. They're setting up their excuse for coming electoral losses.

The corporate wing of the party always blames the left, early and often. If they lose, it's the fault of the left and proof that the party should move rightward. If they win, it's proof that center-right politics win elections.

[Hissyspit]

41. dupe - delete nt

[Hissyspit]

42. That makes the most sense of all the speculation on where this Gibbs crap

came from.

[raouldukelives]

61. + 1

[liberation]

69. That actually may make some sense....

Nader is not running this electoral cycle, so they may need a new liberal escape goat.

The DLC has the political acumen of a fruit fly, their basic electoral strategy seems to be in a nutshell: throw the liberals who may vote Dem under the bus, in order to amuse the conservative voters which will never vote Dem.



I mean, not even the GOP is that monumentally stupid as to alienate part of their base, much less their more active elements.

[liberation]

68. I also want to add that those two conclusions are not mutually exclusive either.

In any case, what Gibbs said and the spin by the traditional pro-DLC contingent is nothing but run of the mill abusive behavior:

Abusers may blame their victim for their abuse: "see what you made me do?"
And their psychopaths simply pile on the blame on the victim: "obviously she must have done something to deserve that abuse"

If what Obama et al meant by "change" was to add the Dem leadership to the abuse of the left by the right, frankly they can take their "change" and stick it where the sun don't shine.

[laughingliberal]

35. K & R nt

[pipoman]

39. Admittedly I don't really know Gibbs

I have been following this story. Bottom line, I don't think he is going to make it. I can't think of a single press secretary who has personally alienated a segment of their party who has continued to be press secretary. Press secretaries, while holding office,by definition, don't have opinions or attitudes. They are messengers, and messengers only. They are often very politically savvy people, but while acting as press secretary you must not demand attention.

[Hissyspit]

43. .

[yowzayowzayowza]

45. Paul, methinkz this was precisely Gibbs point:

"But if you vent for the sake of venting; if you alienate people you’re going to need; then you’re just being stupid."

[liberation]

72. Holy Buddha.

You just can't be effing serious...

[yowzayowzayowza]

94. Effing serious. n/t

[Hissyspit]

47. .

[BrklynLiberal]

55. Paul Krugman....

[bvar22]

57. Gibbs' smug "No Apology" condescension yesterday...

..only made things WORSE.

I refuse to believe they are THAT stupid.
I can only deduce that they WANT to LOSE seats in November, and BLAME the LEFT to justify (and cover) an even stronger lurch to The Right.
Remember, THAT is when the Cat Food Commission's Recommendations come up for a vote.

It is the only logical conclusion.

[October]

70. They only apologize to the extreme right-wingers

[defendandprotect]

71. Agree completely .... and Gibbs should be fired .... and Obama should be apologizing .. . !!

If we're "lurching" we had better make it clear that we are lurching to the LEFT -- !!!

So there can be no mistake about it!!

[bobburgster]

59. Professional left might heed his words too....

[bvar22]

79. Oh, his words have been heeded.

Those who want to End the WAR, and believe that Americans deserve the same quality of Health Care that is taken for granted in every other Civilized Country in the WORLD got the message Loud & Clear.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Romulox]

65. Does Krugman strike anybody else as something of an opportunist?

Also, when did Paul Krugman become a "leftist firebrand"--I thought he was the free-tradin' economist to the "New" Democrats for the past 20 years?





It is no defense of Gibbs to say that Krugman does NOT speak for me.

[liberation]

75. Right, you're not here to "defend" Gibbs, you're just the bus driver...

LOL

[Romulox]

93. Oh, I agree with Krugman on this matter, I just don't trust him... nt

[SoxFan]

73. Krugman may know his economics...

but he has shown time and again that he has the political accumen of an artichoke.

[liberation]

74. No kidding, Sun Tzu 101:

"Piss off you ally when you need them the most in battle"

Right? I mean it is common 3D chess playing technique, duuuuh.

[bluethruandthru]

77. He's got more than Gibbs. n/t

[SILVER__FOX52]

78. Gibbs is NOT THE STORY, here............

The real story is that, this is a common point of agreement in the "inner circle". To me, the greatest issue here, is that this contempt for the base is sign of political immaturity and hubris. Kinda scary coming from the Whitehouse.

[northernlights]

80. I'm not the "professional left,", I'm a former independent...

but the rudeness and stupidity of Gibb's statement, his half-assed non-apology, his follow-on claim that he has not stuck his foot in his mouth, followed by additional insults to the democratic base left me turned totally off.

I'm so looking forward to the zillions of emails I expect asking me to donate time, money, etc. I'm looking forward to responding, "Sorry, I'm too effing retarded to give to you!" "Make me support you. Go on. I can't do it without you making me."

[MsPithy]

83. How about...

"I can't donate right now, I'm late for my drug test!"

[Liberalynn]

87. good one

[ncteechur]

86. I believe that Robert Gibbs is entitled to his own opinion just like Krugman is.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

92. And you are VERY mistaken in that belief

Krugman is 1) a professor and 2) an op-ed columnist.

He is paid to 1) be devoted to truth, and 2) to hold and state personal opinions.

Gibbs is the White House Press Secretary.

He is paid to say what the Obama Administration thinks.

He is expressly NOT entitled to his own opinion when he is acting in his official capacity, which is 24/7 when it comes to talking to reporters.

He has a human right to hold whatever views he wishes.

He has a professional responsibility to keep them to himself.

[ncteechur]

95. I am absolutely correct. This was not a press conference, it was a private interview.

And Gibbs doesn't give up his freedom of speech because he is the press secretary.

[mdmc]

96. ..