MoDo Applauds Gibbs for Making Shit Up
I know. It almost never pays to read one of MoDo’s columns seriously. But enough good lefties are pointing to this one approvingly, I thought I’d do them the favor of pointing out how typically stupid it is.
Let’s start with this lovely four-sentence passage:
Not because of his outburst against the “professional left.” He was right about that. In an interview with The Hill last week, Gibbs once more proved Michael Kinsley’s maxim that a gaffe is just truth slipping out.
He said the president’s lefty critics “ought to be drug-tested,” would only “be satisfied when we have Canadian health care and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon,” and “wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.”
MoDo says Gibbs “was right” in his intemperate rant early this week. Then she goes on to repeat two attacks Gibbs used–that we should be drug-tested and we want to eliminate the Pentagon–that he made up out of thin air. Even CBS’ Chip Reid–not usually one to point out blatant lies–called Gibbs on the fact that no one, in fact, has ever actually called to eliminate the Pentagon.
Q Well, who wants to eliminate the Pentagon?
MR. GIBBS: I think that was — wasn’t that a proposal during the presidential campaign? Didn’t Dennis Kucinich — or maybe it was adding the Department of Peace.
Q The Department of Peace —
Q There’s a big difference between adding a Department of Peace and eliminating the Pentagon.
(Though I will say I am among those who believes Canadian health care would be an improvement.)
Shorter MoDo: I think Gibbs is at his best when he just makes shit up about people I don’t like.
Much of the rest of MoDo’s column illogically complains that Democrats aren’t as effective as Republicans at using their activists, but then accepts the DC narrative that Dems shouldn’t embrace their activists because we’re “radicals:”
Rand Paul and Sharron Angle aside, Republicans often find a way to exploit their extremes for political advantage, while Democratic extremes typically do damage to a Democratic president.One of the most disgusting things about Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl, and now the former maverick John McCain, is that they are happy to be co-opted by the radicals in their party to form one movement against President Obama.
On the Republican side, the crazies often end up helping the Republican leadership. On the Democratic side, the radicals are constantly sniping at Obama, expressing their feelings of betrayal.
Therein lies MoDo’s blindness: the problem here is not with liberal activists espousing real solutions. The problem is the fact that Democrats are so disdainful of their activists they prefer demonizing them rather than embracing their moderate solutions that are, themselves, pragmatic compromises. MoDo’s column, then, is actually part of the problem, not something to link approvingly.
Besides, why would any self-respecting liberal link approvingly to what is basically more self-indulgent bitching from the press?
MoDo’s “clever” point is ultimately that Gibbs should be fired not because he made shit up in his attack on the party’s base, but because he is mean to journalists.
He needs to communicate more clearly. And, in that department, Gibbs isn’t helpful. He’s often unresponsive and sometimes hostile to the press. His adversarial barking has only heightened tensions with a press that was once lampooned for fawning over his boss.
Call me crazy, but I think any press spokesperson who gets caught blatantly making shit up about any topic should be fired because he should, after that point, lose all credibility.
But not with this press corps. Not with MoDo, who finds Robert Gibbs most right when he just makes shit up. And then complains that Robert Gibbs doesn’t take “journalists” like her–the ones who applaud him for making shit up–seriously.
I hope this gets front paged ASAP.
Fantastic piece EW.
One of the best closings to a post I have ever read!
I don’t think Gibbs should be fired. We need more press secretaries who tell the truth, even if it annoys ObamaLLP.
Boxturtle (ESPECIALLY if it annoys ObamaLLP)
The only one I want to see fired is the spineless duplicitous git that puts his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office and high fives Rahm Emmanuel. Unfortunately, I gotta wait a couple of years.
Unless we get a challenger from the left, Obama will ost certainly be the lesser of evils in 2012. ObamaLLP has that assessed correctly, at least. He’ll get my vote if I must, but not my money.
Boxturtle (Cthuhlu for president! Don’t settle for the lesser evil!)
I’m predicting that 2012 will be a re-run of 1964 (LBJ vs Goldwater) with similar sequelae for the next decade.
Bob in AZ
I’m down with that.
As to your post EW, MoDo has been a whining self-centered gasbag for decades. It is always about her and clearly it still is.
And of course her reading of the electoral consequences of the “extremes” on both sides,
is back assward.
The Tea baggers have almost certainly destroyed Republican chances for retaking the Senate.
What exactly is the problem people here would have with Rand Paul? I mean for every vote against cap and trade (which will come from whichever candidate KY elects, in any event) with Rand Paul you get a Senatorial hold on the Patriot Act, or similar. I don’t get the manufactured outrage.
Have you even seen his platform? With the record of consistency in his family, we absolutely take it seriously:
“■I will never, ever vote for a taxpayer bailout of a private industry. Whether it’s big banks, automakers, or any other industry — you succeed or fail on your own.
■I will not vote for an unbalanced budget. I will not vote for a tax increase. Ever.
■I will fight for new rules like a Balanced Budget Amendment and Term Limits.
■I will not take ANYTHING off the table in the fight to balance the budget. Anyone who says something like they will “freeze non-defense discretionary spending” is blowing smoke at you and hoping you won’t notice. That would balance the budget — MAYBE — in about 80 years.
■We have to keep our promises to seniors and keep our country strong, but every area has things that can be cut. Every agency has things that are duplicative or that could be done better or cheaper.
■I will propose and force a vote on an Enumerated Powers Act, to force Congress to point to the part of the Constitution that justifies their bills.
■I will fight for the Bill of Rights. Democrats often love the 4th amendment. Republicans the 2nd. I will fight for them all, which means fighting for your free speech, gun rights, and civil liberties. Laws that infringe on ANY of these make the federal government more powerful, and we cannot continue to allow that.
■I will not allow our troops to be the world’s policeman, and I will force a vote on a Declaration of War if any President seeks to commit our military to battle.
What you’ve just read above is an agenda unlike any politician in the country. While solidly conservative, it also shows first, a great loyalty to the Constitution and to our freedom. You cannot fight for liberty while voting for bills that embolden the state. You cannot fight for some of our founding rights without others. And you cannot enable change in Washington by sending the same old people there. “
What’s wrong with this laughable fool? Here’s a start:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rand-paul-quotes-05210
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/21/rand-pauls-past-quotes-may-complicate-his-kentucky-senate-race/
Open your eyes and stop being deceived by this radical fraud.
I know more about those so called incidents than you do, I suspect, but if you aren’t willing to do the research yourself to look into why those sources you cite are drivel, I doubt anything I say will convince you.
The question I was asking is why are you inclined to believe drivel in the first place when the substance of what he is fighting to achieve would, I think, be attractive to many here.
Clearly, thinking may not be your strong point.
Don’t bore me with your “knowledge,” the fact that you support this mental midget shows that you are seriously deficient in this department. If adherence to your dogmatic ideology is more important than checking facts, don’t post here. Libertarians aren’t exactly real popular here.
I actually think we have a few libertarians in the crew, you would be surprised at the ideological spectrum; the uniting thread is being pissed off at things being as they should not be. It’s the mental midgetry that doesn’t fly real well.
Mislabeling, euphemisms and lies don’t fare too well here, either: Obama as a “liberal” or a keen respecter of the rule of law; keeping 50,000 troops and a similar number of mercenaries in Iraq and calling it “leaving” (and “on schedule”); cutting Social Security in a recession as “necessary” and inevitable while the top 2% of Americans pay the smallest share of taxes since William McKinley was in the Oval Office.
He likes to drive on dirt roads and wait for the volunteer firemen to show up and watch the house burn down, I guess.
More seriously, taxes are what pay for all those services that government is supposed to be providing everyone: it’s providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare. Which he and many other ‘conservatives’ seem to think should only apply to people they approve of.
Re: Rand Paul
I think he regards NOT continuing the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich as a tax increase. Therefore, if he gets a chance to vote for continuing the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich, he will vote for it. I hope he never gets the chance.
Bob in AZ
Paulnuts and Palinites are proof positive the educational system in the US is down the crapper.
“Leave No Child Behind” had the effect of emphasizing Math and English skills to the detriment of everything else, including Civics. That may not have been an accident that Kennedy failed to perceive in his support for the original bill.
Bob in AZ
Start thinking rationally and get your hands on some economics books. He wants to balance the budget and also protect seniors? How’s he plan on doing that when balancing the budget will consist of cutting programs that help people instead of corporations? The defense budget wouldn’t get cut; tax loopholes wouldn’t be closed to increase tax revenues; changing the tax code to make it more equitable by instituting a one-rate for everyone system would be regressive to the max; and doing away with the Fourteenth Amendment as it’s been applied to “private” establishments, you know, like lunch counters and restaurants and hotels, things like that just illuminate his neo-Confederate leanings.
The guy is another conservative liar. He won’t even try to get us out of Afghanistan – he supports that war. Libertards are in love, though. What can you do.
Because you seem rather dense as you do not Understand the “problem” I have with little wingnut asswipe Rand Paul, here you go:
1) Items 1-4 of your little bulleted list are crap; I do not agree with them in the least. Such unthinking, simplistic rote rules for economic administration are idiotic.
2) The sixth item on “forcing a vote on an enumerated powers act is fucking gibberesh. Laws already have a testing mechanism, it is called the legal branch and the thought of having the morons in Congress putatively subsume the role would violate separation of powers and effectively gut the Constitution. This is jackassery at its best.
3) As to item 7, what a crock of shit. First off, Paul won’t “fight for the Constitution”; he is a hack dime store eye doctor who has no training or legal knowledge and does not even understand the Constitution. His statements are mostly dismissive and destructive of the Constitution as we know it. Item 6 is a fucking lie.
4) Item 7 sounds alright, but real life is, of course, much more complicated than Rand Paul’s little bullshit plattitude.
You are right, it is a platform and agenda nunlike any other. I am thankful that there are not more insane, crazy, addled unconstitutional hacks like Paul around.
Applauding. Paul in many ways reminds me of Reagan because he provides simplistic answers for very complicated questions and the wingers all nod. They think it sounds wonderful and that he really has the answers. He is incredibly ignorant re the Constitution and our laws. He will probably get elected and will manage to make a larger mess than we already have.
I too am amazed at the third grade thinking of Paul and his supporters.
I’m not up to date on my child development, but isn’t it somewhere around 16 that one acquires the ability to process complex thoughts? Clearly these folks have not hit that benchmark.
It’s ironic I suppose, but I watched the Meek-RichGuy debate from Florida and while Rand Paul is full of idealism and his two ideas Meek’s opponent has absolutely no ideas except to make more money. Neither of those bozos are fit to be a Representative or Senator.
Kendrick Meek is smart, eloquent and would be a fine senator for Florida. But then, there are a lot of strange people in Florida, so it’s hard to say whether they will realize he is the one they need.
What problem do I have with Rand Paul? He thinks it is OK to exclude people like me who have disabilities and people who are not white from society. Why would you support somebody like that?
And when someone is careful, frugal and responsible, but the world economy crushes them Rand Paul can say that person or small business or bank failed because they, and not world events, made it happen. Blame the innocent?
Democrats want everyone to succeed and will use government to help that happen.
Then he will allow a major disaster to destroy America, despite the oath every federal officer takes to protect it.
Term limits prevent the public from electing their leaders and is therefore unAmerican.
Democrats promote Democracy here and everywhere. Would Rand Paul promote Chinese “Democracy” instead?
Balancing the budget is important, but other things like national defense are too.
How does he know “every” thing can be cut? Has he studied the budget that closely? Maybe he should name three things he wants specifically to cut because it’s wasteful or duplicative.
That’s the job of the Supreme Court, not a first-term congressman from Kentucky.
Will he fight for all our rights as well as those enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments? Do I have the right to eat Neapolitan ice cream on Passover?
That’s why Obama and the Dems are in charge. The public voted for “Change” and the Dems are delivering.
Right now Americans are wondering about the economy and jobs. Why does Rand Paul say NOTHING on that in his ‘platform’?
What does he think about our involvement in Afghanistan & Pakistan?
Does he think foreign trade should be ended along with reinstating the gold standard?
How does he feel about unions and the way Republicans have tried to destroy workers from using them?
Does Rand Paul believe we need to fight climate change and carbon in the atmosphere?
Does Rand Paul support continuing subsidies for the oil & gas industry?
There is a lot to America and Rand Paul has only one or two things to say. Democrats get the big picture and the policies we need to move America forward. Rand Paul does not.
More forgettible drivel from DoDo, perhaps what she could have written about is how we competent professionals on the left take exception to amateurs like Gibbs and their hackery. At least Gibbs did us the favor of labeling us professional, something he could only aspire to be.
But giving us credit for competency would not have fit in with the cheap and insular Beltway/MSM (un)orthodoxy.
Actually I’ve heard that the left can now be called conservative in that we want to retain the Constitution and Social Security and other social programs and the right can be called Radical because they want to change everything ( in a really bad way)
Pardon my not being up to date. Who is MoDo?
Maureen Dowd.
Thanks.
Maureen reminds me of nothing so much as Carol Burnett playing Scarlett O’Hara. Except Carol knew she was doing farce. She also fell down the stairs with much more style.
Send her a curtain rod.
MoDo reminds me of nothing so much as “Phoebe” (All About Eve last scene.)
And if it were Mildred Pierce, she thinks she’s Eve Arden but she’s really Veda!
Hmm:
(Tough getting here late.)
What is missing in all this discussion is the media’s treatment of the “Professional Left” and the media’s treatment of the Tea Party. The press is mostly condescending to the Professional Left despite their well articulated positions that overwhelmingly are argued for the good of the country. While the Tea Party feels they are doing this as well without understanding the actual issues, the Professional Left puts pen to paper, or characters to screen and actually engage their brain to make substantial, well-reasoned, and more importantly, reality-based suggestions to move their ideological policy forward.
The Tea Party, which the press is so deferential to them and covered their rallies extensively, forwards its agenda with lies and innuendo – at least those that are most vocal. The press treated them as if they were a true movement in this country, when in reality, they sprang up with the help of the Professional Right. Lobbying firms such as Freedomworks helped to organize these rallies and the press did its best to hide Dick Armey’s hand in all this. And there is video of rally tea party members being questioned about their positions and all they could do is mimic Limbaugh and Beck without substantial reasoning as to why they favored their various policy positions.
MoDo may feel she is being ”fair and balanced” by attacking both the Professional Left and Professional Right – but really, all she can point to is Ryan and Angle? Has she listened to McCain lately? How about Kyl and Sessions arguing to repeal the 14th Amendment? Imagine the shit storm if Feingold or Franken discussed repealing the 2nd Amendment. And what of John Boehner? In her own paper last year, Boehner was quoted as saying the health care reform could lead to euthanasia. Is that not bat shit crazy enough for Modo?
The shorter point is – and yes, probably should of one-lined this comment – is that the press fell all over itself to report and interview the Tea Party, while the press has simply ignored the strength and growth of the “Professional Left” over the years despite it making a much bigger impact than the Tea Party will ever hope to make.
Chris Matthews has been slamming the Tea Party for over a year now. Had had lots of them on. He does not have a hard time exposing their massive gaps. “Where were you duing the last eight years” “what is with the gun toting at political events”
“what is with the totally unnecessary inflammatory language”
He has been hammering.
Although the coverage that the MSM has given their marches, rallies etc far surpassed the minimal coverage that Rachel, Chris, etc gave the single payer rallies in D.C. That (went to two of them) had great speakers, well behaved crowds etc. Kept saying that we needed to be toting water pistols in holsters to get the MSM’s attention. Of hold the rallies in Iran so that Rachel would cover them endlessly
Of course MoDo loves anyone who makes shit up she makes a living out of doing the same thing. Gibbs needs to stay right where he is seems he has the ability to reveal the sad truth about what POTUS thinks but doesn’t have the balls to tell his base. I have a message for Obama as well I will be sending it next time he’s stupid enough to think I will vote for him again.
Maureen Dowd is the Times’ new Norma Desmond. The ever fashion conscious Ms. Dowd thinks affirming the president’s attack on his progressive critics, on those who think a would be constitutional scholar president ought to show a tad more respect for the rule of law and less for the no-holds-barred mentality of his rightwing predecessors, is a jolly thing. She also thinks she’s still the “lefty” in her family and still has the creative energy, incisive analysis and investigative balls to fully occupy her prime real estate on the New York Times Op-Ed page. Wrong again, MoDo. It has become de rigeur to populate the Times’ Op-Ed pages with writers as fawning to power and as out of touch as Dean Broder.
And completing the circular mash-up, MoDo descends Norma Desmond’s staircase wearing Carol Burnett’s Scarlett O’Hara curtain rod strung through Margo Channing’s antebellum ball gown, to the awed obeisances of Broder and the other waxworks.
(Can’t decide whether BoBo is a premature waxwork or Joe Gillis. Maybe that gun had a theatrical blank in it.)
That skit was probably Carol Burnett’s and Harvey Korman’s best.
“The problem is the fact that Democrats are so disdainful of their activists they prefer demonizing them rather than embracing their moderate solutions that are, themselves, pragmatic compromises.”
BINGO!
Wonder how many pieces have been written about Gibbs stupid and unnecessary remarks? Unless that is they wanted to watch the scramble.
His stupid remarks are in direct opposition to what Obama said to the Netroots. Just does not make sense
EW,
Good post. I see we already have a new post upstairs but I want to comment on this one.
Mr. Gibbs ticked me off when he said those words about the “Professional Left” but in retrospect he gave us “Professional Progressive Left” folks a label we can live with and wear proudly.
“Liberal”,”Progressive”, I really like the “Professional (Progressive) Left” tag he put on us and now I see some commenters asking for buttons, t-shirts, etc. I would wear one of those proudly because it says a lot about what I stand for and believe in.
On Friday, Alexi Gianoullis (sp.) wrote on Kos that if he is elected he would form a Senate Progressive Caucus immediately and create a bloc of votes that Harry Reid would have to deal with on any legislation by drawing a line in the sand in order to get their votes. Giannoullis is running against serial liar Mark Kirk here in Illinois.
From Frank Rich’s column:
thi$ i$ all about $ocial cla$$ – the cla$$ we ain’t in, the cla$$ she i$ in.
ever since these despicable scum joined with repeating fascist talking points about the great liar 29 years ago, their fir$t, la$t and ONLY concern ha$ been keeping their cu$hy a$$ job$ lying for fucking fascists.
robert murphy
seattle.
Geez, I had to hit the “edit” button three times to correct and make the post sound coherent. Preview is my friend and I should use it more often.
Ah a Peace Department within the Pentagon. Oh we can dream. My dear friends Bev and john Titus who lost their dear daughter Alicia Titus who was a stewardess (sweet Alicia Titus website) on one of the 9/!! United Flights. Oh yes they dream and have worked their asses off for a Peace Dept. Along with other 9/11 families for a Peacefull tomorrow.
Bet Dodo would never even consider writing a piece about these folks. Her imagination is unable to stretch that far
Unable to link. Go to SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH FAMILIES FOR PEACEFUL TOMORROWS
“John Titus Goes to Italy to Meet with Peacemakers and Students
by John Titus
June 1st, 2006
John Titus is a steering committee member of Peaceful Tomorrows. He lost his daughter, Alicia, on September 11th.
Gianvito Padula, representing the Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, Servizio Obiezione di Coscienza e Pace, arrived in his car in front of the Hotel Calypso in Rimini at 8:30 A.M. for the 40 minute drive to Forli. It was pouring rain when we met up with Massimo, a teacher of philosophy and history at the Liceo Scientifico Fulcero secondary school. He took us the rest of the way to school where the third year students had been waiting patiently for several minutes. There were between 50-60 beautiful smiling faces awaiting our arrival and laughed warmly when I greeted them in rudimentary Italian. I could feel their empathy as I showed a picture and explained about “mia figlia” Alicia. The designated interpreter hadn’t arrived yet but they seemed to comprehend much of what I was saying. She (Luciano) arrived after about 20 minutes.
I shared our journey of loss and grief, shared about my beautiful daughter, our chosen path of peace and nonviolence and gave an overview about September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. I was surprised when they told me I would have an hour and a half with the students but it worked out nicely in the end. The students were very attentive, holding onto every word and, when I open it up for questions I was astounded by their depth of understanding and insight into our culture.
They questioned us about the war in Iraq and how the American people felt about it since it had been entered into under false pretenses. They wanted to know what I would say to President Bush if I saw him face to face; I assured them I would have much to say but I didn’t think he would listen. They were also concerned about further American aggression into Iran, Syria, North Korea or elsewhere. One question, in response to my assertion that violence only begets more violence in a never ending cycle of violence from a 18 year old was one I would expect from an older more mature person; it went like this: During WWII, the American forces freed us from the Nazis, who had destroyed much of their country. They were obviously terrible people who perpetrated many atrocities and killed innocent people. In this case isn’t war just and necessary? I took it as an opportunity to talk about the increasing number of innocent victims of war and violence, the need to explore alternatives to fighting violence with more violence, the destructive capability of our technologically advanced weaponry, addressing the root causes of and the conditions that perpetuate violence, and current efforts to develop a Department of Peace in the United States. ”
More at Peaceful Tomorrows
Wonder if Gibbs would want my dear friends (definitely would fit under his professional lefty slam) to be drug tested for working for a Peace Department and being part of Obama’s base. They had better get their wordsmith shit together or they are going to lose remarkable folks like this.
Good job, EW, on catching MoDo for her whining about how the “lefties” aren’t pragmatic enough, and on her the personal-is-political nonsense.
Two points: MoDo isn’t actually dumb herself, and it’s worth noting that she is correct about the Democratic Party containing inherently serious divisions, between the “pragmatists” and the “leftist”, if you will (though I wouldn’t use those categories). But certainly there is a left and right wing within the Democratic Party, and they have different programs. Those programs are increasingly unassimilable.
Second point: I have a different take on the “eliminate the Pentagon” meme. Rather than fly from it, i.e., no one is saying this, we need to address why Gibbs even brought that up. There are serious people who want to see the power of the Pentagon and the military commitments and extension of the the United States seriously cut back. That includes many who would like to see withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan, and that means total withdrawal. Not to embrace the latter is to maintain a form of Wolfowitzian Bush Doctrine. But to the militarists (and that includes Obama), to the Pentagon brass and the mainstream press that covers them, a serious cutback in military spending and presence is tantamount to “eliminating” the Pentagon.
It is utopian nonsense to call for “eliminating the Pentagon,” even a pacifist knows that. But the response should be, no, not eliminate the Pentagon, but a serious, qualitative change in the military policies of this country is in order. There are too many people in the world whose real concern is that the Pentagon will eliminate them!
Such great points.
Secretary Gates after belt tightening cutbacks. Those contractors have to be sweating bullets. How many billions are unaccounted for in Iraq? Was it 9 billion?
Neither MoDo nor Bobo, neither Gibbs nor Douthat lack intelligence. The question is to what use do they put it.
I hadn’t read where credible critics on the left advocated doing away with the Pentagon. although many of us would rather we not spend as much as the rest of the world combined on military and intel “services”.
I agree there are at least two Democratic wings, a progressive minority and a corporatist minority (which happens to be in power and to despise its in-party competitor). But neither is accurately described by Gibbs nor Ms. Dowd, though MoDo seems increasingly given to using in-girl talk as a substitute for straight-out conversation (maybe it’s the company she keeps or no longer has). That amounts to a failure to communicate to a wider audience that is increasingly kept away from the inside and insiders.
At one time I didn’t know who this woman was. Then I started reading about her on liberal websites: MoDo this, MoDo that. All commentary about how great her analysis of George Bush was.
Then I heard her on Wisconsin Public Radio for one hour. There’s no there, there was evident within five minutes.
Intellectual lightweight is what this woman is.
Shorter MoDo: “It’s all about meeeeeee!”
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. (Thank you, Sally and Harry.)
I wonder if Gibbs’ comment about “abolishing the Pentagon” might not reflect an underlying fear within the White House about the long term future of America’s existing military establishment. At the moment, the U.S. spends about as much on war as the rest of the planet combined. For that money, you get a military that can fight wars on the other side of the planet, but not win them decisively, as events in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated. In the long term, the current system of having hundreds of U.S. military bases scattered over the whole world is simply not sustainable. The U.S. economy has been in decline relative to that of the rest of the world for decades, which makes America’s current “imperial overreach” increasingly hard to pay for. And yet, Obama and the rest of the Washington establishment is totally committed to maintaining the military status quo. So I think Gibbs’ slur about “abolishing the Pentagon” may reflect a concern about how long the current system will survive, just as his comment about “Canadian health care” reflected concern about just how long a parasitical insurance industry (which Obama also supports) can continue to suck up most of the money Americans spend on “health care”.
Certainly, the shrinking American middle class cannot keep devoting its tax contributions toward more military toys and games than the rest of the world spends combined. Frankly, the rest of the world can’t afford us to do that either.
Seconded. This is basically what I was saying @31, but you made it sound more comprehensible, I think.
To EofH @49, you note the existence of “a progressive minority and a corporatist minority” within the Democratic Party (I suppose the remainder is a wobbly center). But what do you think of the sustainability of such a coalition? I think it’s not sustainable. I’d go so far to say that the real lesson of the Obama administration is that DNC-style corporatism has a lock-hold over the party apparatus, and that anyone who hope for real progressivism taking command there is mistaken. And the sooner we wake up to that, the better. What may be holding us back is the current lack of an actual political alternative. The failure to find or construct such an alternative constitutes the underlying crisis of our time.
(My emphasis added.)
You are so, so right. Well said.
“…I think any press spokesperson who gets caught blatantly making shit up about any topic should be fired because he should, after that point, lose all credibility.”
Exactly!
This is what happens when a semi-beautiful leggy hotdog doesn’t age gracefully. You want her to age gracefully, you have to leave her alone and ignore her.
Ah, sem-my beautiful! Takes me back.
oh lordy, that photo will never get old.
It will actually improve with age, while Ms. Dowd’s writing does not.
Reps embrace their crazies and that helps them, and is a good thing. Dems demonize their ‘radical’ base and the problem is that those people get upset about it? MD, thy name is Loon.
Hmmm…
Maureen Dowd says Gibbs should go…
So…the argument here is:
WHY, exactly (and believe me, it’s about EXACTLY why) should he go…?
With attention paid to the nth degree about WHY (not whether or not) Gibbs sucks…
I’m actually starting to like Gibbs…
He’s probably (certainly…?) more honest than those calling for his head.
Gibbs is a lop-eared yahoo.
It’s the CEO’s message; Gibbs is merely the vice president assigned to deliver it. That Gibbs feels the need to double down on that message ought to tell us how adamant his boss feels about it. That’s what we should be worried about, not whether Mr. Gibbs’ ears resemble those of the much funnier Will Smith.
Hey there, I like your comment and your handle!
ot
Juan Cole has a great one up (unable to link)
An Israeli Attack on Iran would reduce Barack Obama to a One-Term President
Yeah, well, wouldn’t that be the least of our problems ;-)
The link to that article is here.
As for Cole, I can’t believe he takes Obama’s goal of “a decisive and timely withdrawal from Iraq” seriously. The U.S. military has no such plan. In fact, they intend to keep 50,000 or so soldiers there as “advisers”, and there will be another 50,000 or so contractors there as well. Major intervention in Iraq will continue.
What stays the Pentagon’s hand in Iran is the over-extension of the military after the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions (both still ongoing, esp. Afghanistan), and world-wide military activities (including the little known operations in Yemen and Somalia, AND the games played with North Korea). The neocons are a bit bolder, they may go for broke if they get the chance. But the underlying differences with the current administration are minor, at best.
We would be drug in. As far as “least of our problems” I was thinking more about the people in Iran. Seems like enough people have died, been injured and displaced due to unnecessary wars
I would never have thought an occupation force of 50,000 soldiers met any colony’s definition of “leaving”.
The government also continues to understate the role and cost of its growing ranks of mercenaries. The MSM gives Team Obama a pass, describing many of them as Malaysian “cooks” (is it thinking of Casey Ryback?) or Korean workers, ignoring the intel guys, the spooks, the ex-special teams players, as well as that it costs considerably more to field a colonial army with them than our own soldiers.
CEO to HR VP: “I want you to cut our head count and get the size of our staff down by 35%. We have to show the board we are being frugal and ruthless in our staffing decisions.”
*fast forward six weeks*
HR VP to CEO: “OK, boss. I’ve got good news and bad news on the head count front. The good news is we trimmed our workforce by 38%. The bad news is we have had to bring in consultants and independent contractors to make up for it.”
CEO: “Why is that bad news?”
HR VP: “Because the consultants and contractors end up costing us three times as much as the staff we let go.”
CEO: “That’s all right. At least the head count numbers will look good to the board, and that’s all that matters.”
As a former GM CFO once said about losing something like $600 per car during an especially bad downturn, “We’ll make it up in volume.” Car sales would be up, which he could brag a out to the street, but so would short-term losses, which he would ignore and hide behind “cash flow”. The science of big company management often seems to have little to do with economics or finance or team leadership, and an inordinate amount of time with covering the boss’ ass from the perspective of whichever mirror-on-the-wall he thinks does that.
Big company management is not a science, it’s an art form.
In terms of GM, the question is whether their future IPO will generate the $50B so the bail out can be payed back…
What’s their new Prez have up his sleeve… hopefully the goods.
The new head of GM? Nope, he is another Wall Street profit asshole that comes from yet another telco and the horrid Carlyle Group. He does not know his ass from a hole in the ground about automobile manufacturing and is an asinine selection. Just pitiful. The government may have saved GM, but they have certainly done them no favors, and incredible harm, with the “management’ they have installed at GM. It is very fucked up.
They saved jobs, didn’t they?
Maybe I’m listening too much to CNBC, but their profit last quarter
was $1B…
You mean once “fucked up”, always fucked up”
I agree the selection of the Prez came as a surprise…
My question, is what’s behind the move…
Yes, that profit should not have been there in that high of an amount. It was ginned up in order to prop up the accelerated IPO they are determined to pull off to get out from under government management and restrictions on compensation packages. Whitacre himself was given promises, options and warrants that he will cash out on with the IPO and make a killing; the others need to get out from underneath the government to make their killing. It is not good what is going on. They are shitting on the plan put in place by Wagoner, Henderson and Lutz which, by the way, is what is really responsible for the “GM turnaround” not what phone boy Whitacre, Rattner and this new putz have done. The only thing the government has done to assist is to shove the BK through that allowed the fast cut of deadweight; that did not exactly take management genius, only belligerence and a willingness to screw people and make a mockery of BK principles of fairness, notice and right to contest.
As long as we get our $50B back, and the firm remains healthy, I’ll be
be as happy as Bob Sheppard announcing with clarity and dignity “Center
field, number seven, Mickey Mantle. Number Seven.”
(even though he is a Yank)
The profits first Wall Street goons are gutting that which was intended to put the company on a truly healthy and stable for the long term path. That is the problem. What you see now is the work of the people they trashed and burned, and the new people don’t have the goods, mentality or ethos to reclaim it. It is getting progressively less healthy. Fast. Out of greed, mismanagement and ignorance. Typical of shit Barack Obama touches.
Wouldn’t you rather have profits than losses?
Not sure, I’d hire you to manage the Red Sox?
GM has “renewed vigor and less dead weight”
You don’t believe press releases… (grin)
And now all the jobs that are coming back are not really coming to the US.
I second that motion. Appointing the head of the Carlyle Group as the top dog at GM is a sure sign – one no one still working at GM will miss – that the plan is to slice and dice GM, probably to the Chinese, not make it a better run and more well-managed going concern. When a bottom feeding, politically-connected, asset striping “investment” bank’s head becomes your boss, neither you nor your company as it currently exists are long for this world.
I predicted that outcome a year ago when they put a phone guy in charge of an auto giant. If that’s what comes to pass, and it’s hard to imagine the corporatist Obama administration doing anything but encourage that outcome, it will be another unnecessary tragedy for Detroit, for Michigan, for the Midwest, for America, and for GM and its supplier network.
Only Carlyle could strip more fees out of a GM “restructuring” than Goldman Scratch, and now they’ll get the chance to do it. It will figuratively resemble what the Russians did to Berlin in 1945. We’ll be told that what’s good for Carlyle is good for GM and for the USG. In reality, it will be good in the way that mountain top clearing is good for the Appalachian hills.
And taking over right as the IPO infusion comes. Probably just a coincidence…….
Reminds me of a company that hired a new GC, whose only experience as a GC was to sell off his company to a bigger fish in its industry, and then denied that such changes were in store. Three months later, heads began to roll and the company’s ownership began to change. De rigeur deception for today’s American management.
For every moment I am upset with Gibbs and O, I am equally upset by a long list of GOP obstructionists. One from Ohio tops the list.
Should they slice and dice to foreign manufacturers, that will hurt the economy quite a bit. That would be devastating. Our tax dollars should not have been used for setting up “devasting”.
I guess Carlyle just can’t get enough of CDS’s. They are addicted and we have not passed enough reform to stop this.
This is sick.
Does anyone know anything about O’s grandparents’ political background?
I regard that as magical thinking. This management change is not a recent outcome based on new facts. It fits the pattern of how Wall Street focuses on asset stripping, not managing a going concern. The difference in fees for the boys on Wall Street is orders of magnitude greater for the former than the latter, and those fees are stripped out much earlier in the process.
Whatever the multiple deals Carlyle, Goldman and the government have in mind for GM, they have little to do with making better cars, a better GM or a better employment, industrial, and technology base for America.
It is hard for an imperial power to leave a country it has conquered, unless by catastrophe (e.g., South Vietnam). It took the Brits a long time to disengage from Iraq after the British “mandate” ended in 1932 (see history of The Kingdom of Iraq.) Note how current this bit of history sounds:
The British “presence” continued in Iraq for another ten years, and ultimately there was another British occupation. See the wikipedia article cited above for details. Look for history to repeat itself.
Bob in AZ
Requirements singularly at odds with traditional notions of state sovereignty, much as we demand from our own colonies.
Here you go. (Cole: “Israeli Attack on Iron Would Reduce Barack Obama to A One-Term President”)
thanks
Exactly. In our upside-down world, the corporatist DLCers are perceived as the practical ones when they are nothing but. Doing the same thing over and over (e.g. coddling the banksters) and expecting a different result (e.g. improving the economy) is nuts.
Lessig wrote a great piece as well. We’re just holding Obama to his promises.
– Tom
Yeah, there was some good in there; and, remember, Lessig was one of the biggest and most dedicated fanboys driving the Obama bus from the outset. I would put it in starker yet terms than Lessig, but to see him go there, even to the extent he did, is pretty damning.
Heh. I just posted my take on this column over at The Seminal. It was not done in an approving manner.
Just to stake a claim, and to be sure the Overton window remains exactly where it should, I’d like to say that I wouldn’t mind at all if the Pentagon closed for business.
WTF? I just went to NYT to comment on MoDo’s crappy column and “comments are no longer being accepted.”??????????????????????? If they are going to publish her crap they shouldn’t be hiding behind THAT. Thank god I can vent here at Empty Wheel.
I RESENT being dismissed as a “radical” because I am unhappy with Obama’s weak positions. I own a home, work a corporate job, save for retirement and emergencies, am paying off (for the next 30 years) medical bills from a hospitalization when I was unemployed, donate to charities, etc. etc. There is not one damn thing “radical” about my belief in single payer healthcare, equal rights for my gay neighbors, reduction in military spending and compassion for illegal immigrants here working to feed, house and cloth their families.
What was the general tone of the comments that were posted before they closed it up?
Were those comments as acidic and negative as the ones here?
not like her tone was “negative or acidic” But what is amazing to me is how folks are in such a tizzy about Gibbs comments. Does anyone think this was done purposely? Or was it really off the cuff?
Hi there and welcome, your fonts are new to me. And, yes, you are a radical-American. Be proud of your designation by MoDo and her Village People, it’s a designation you share with approximately 60-70% of Americans.
Heh, I join Teddy and Mary in welcoming you to EW; please stick around, I think you will fit in nicely.
A-freakin-men.
I keep wondering how the hell I became a leftist radical.
Maybe they’re still taking comments at the Julian Zelizer piece
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204734.html
A much more credible effort, anyway.
Mary “I keep wondering how the hell I became a leftist radical’
How does that go “”During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” — George Orwell
You really do seem like one of those “professional lefties” demanding that the rule of law be applied. And your desire to witness accountability for serious crimes these days definitely makes you a “leftist radical”
MauDo tries the usual rhetorical tack of trying to get incipient value systems to issue divisive rhetoric as if she could be the leader in the complainant parade.
Gibbs has a right to his own gaggle-speak. Moderates long have uttered similar putdowns. I have no problem with his plain vanilla thrust and parry, especially given the tedious prefabricated talking point stories which are the foundation of many of his **questioners** * interrogatories.
I think Gibbs reveals the worry he likely shares with many in his organization concerning the new eloquence and cogency of professional people who have made pointed critiques in public NewMedia outside the traditional media network.
The Pentagonlessness concept is a historical cannard from 4+ decades ago, commonly heard in political argument in those difficult years. The department of peace, I think Secretary of State HClinton would agree already is part of her portfolio.
There is an article in The Hill from July 22 2010 reminding that Republicans are planning rebranding of the Boehner Armey Gingrich plan to shutter Departments of Energy, Education, Commerce, and to resuscitate the BushCo2 concept of morphing social security into a **derivative** instrument traded in securities markets; there. I can understand why MoDo would prefer to prescind from including in her Gibbs-related remarks such a shortlist for failure as those Republicans espouse; however, her silence is somehow enduringly appealing, provided one ventures onto op-ed pages, and shares her polity; and quite a proviso that is.
MoDo
Er, WHAT?!?
She says that like it’s in the past tense. That’s all they ever do. That’s what this entire piece (of shit column) is. It’s about her trying to get on the right side of the current muckety mucks in charge and prove to them she’ll spout off about the perceived rabble below them and her
Shorter MoDo
Yes, that’s true.
Of course, this “making stuff up” by Gibbs happens all the time with the GOP, but I don’t hear any empty wheels complaining. The WH is always putting out straw man arguments; “you’re either agreeing with us on X, or you can destroy X.”
As long as it is about those people we don’t care about, then, so what.
But about us? Oh my God! This is a crime against humanity.
Besides, GIBBS DID NOT MISSPEAK. Please read the tea leaves. No harsh rebuke, no mild rebuke, no slap on the wrist, no nothing from anyone higher up. How much more clear can it get? He said exactly what he meant to say and was cleared to say.
Is the snark tag missing?
But if you’re serious, I think you should check the archives on this site
Gibbs had a meltdown and lashed out.
Folks have meltdowns all the time, and it’s good to vent.
For the life of me, I don’t understand why they want Gibbs head on the platter…
He’s pissed at all the negative vibes…
The question is whether Obama has betrayed people…
I agree with your post. My only quibble is that I think Gibbs was not just lashing out. The emotional force maybe, but the sentiment, etc., no. This was cleared.
Your last question IS the relevant one.
Baloney, it was a designed hit. Completely intentional and completely the desire of Obama and Rahm. All the way, and Gibbs’ insolence and arrogance in the aftermath only confirms it.
Why pick a fight with the progressives?
Nothing to gain, lot to lose.
Because they delight in it; have ever since they took office.
Are you dicking me?
What’s the expiration date of press secretary’s?
Gibbs is burnt out…
I’d like to see Obama have more press conferences, like Kennedy’s engaging
forays….
Oh, Gibbs is well past his use by date; but that is separate from this, this was a sanctioned hit and they are proud of it. There is no doubt in the world about that. None.
“this was a sanctioned hit”
What was the point? Progressives in a tizzy? How many words written about those comments? Distraction? In direct opposition to what Obama live broadcast to the Netroots. Keep pushing…make me do it. What was the point of that “sanctioned hit”
I read this site all the time, so I know what is here for the most part.
Since I have not seen any requests for Gibbs to resign because he said the GOP was for destroying something they weren’t (or one of those WH arguments of if your not for our regulations you are in favor of no regulations, or if you are not in favor of our policy, then you are for no policy” etc.,,etc, etc.), I’m guessing it hasn’t happened. Now, if such a request for Gibbs to resign has been made, I’d be very happy to read it if you can post a link I can follow.
I’m bringing up a point of principle. Trying to see if some motivation can be made for changing from the current common principle in action most everywhere of “if it forwards my cause, I like it; if it doesn’t, I’m against it.”
If the leak helps my side, I love the leaker. If the leak harms my side, throw the bastard in jail.
It looks like your fishing for something
Can you be more specific?
MoDo’s description of Obama as a “liberal” should be the first clue to her cluelessness.
I read Klugman for facts, I read MoDo for fiction.
Although, some times her metaphors are quite on point…
My favorite MoDo metaphor was Ms. Dowd implying that the elegant and popular, indeed, revered Catherine Deneuve, post-shopping spree and surrounded by a circle of friends at a five star Parisian hotel coffee room, was a “Chanel bag surrounded by Chanel bags”. Ms. Dowd seemed mean, adoring, wistful and bitter at the same time.
Oops, forgot to add this…
If the general election is between Meek and a Republican I wonder who Meek’s primary opponent would vote for. Someone should ask him.
replying to @107:
Looks like you slipped one past the Lurking Mod there.
Robert Gibbs theme song, or maybe Obama’s campaign song?
“Stay thirsty my friends”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/business/media/06adco.html
“President Obama is testing how elastic he can be, how much realism he can have before he betrays his idealism.”
As a contortionist, the man is so far up his own arse he can talk out of his mouth. Post-Bush: Be The Pretzel. There is really only one word need to re-butt Gibs, MoDo and “good lefties” with dispatch: Torture. Or, if you prefer your trifecta: Torture-Assassination-Kidnapping.
Hostis humanis generis. If violating the constitution does not do it for you, maybe fundamental rights could do it? No? Right – neither Gibbs nor a good chunk of the “good lefties” want to mention that the real upset with Obama should be – and isn’t? – about crimes past, present, and imminent.
Nobody round these parts gives a dead non-citizen about Obama’s tense relationships with his occasionally alleged and rumored “idealism”. If anybody is worked up, it would be about him having betrayed their idealism. Luckily, there is plenty to choose from before have to cut to the bones, right? Warren un-nominated from the nomination nomination list yet?
I remember well the anxiety that sent me to google any web site that would say something valid about the Bush administration. That google search sent me right here to this site. I have to say however, that the anxiety produced by being completely invalidated by THIS administration is almost worse.
I could analyze his comment calling liberal left pundits drug addicts for days. The power and control in that statement…was so much more than a slip of the tongue. It was perfectly crafted to invalidate. Perfectly crafted to give low information voters a good reason to ignore any and all information coming from that sector.
Some of the most common responses to this kind of invalidation are to escalate or give up. Perhaps Gibbs is absolutely right…the only way to survive this administration is to smoke some top quality weed…and blame on Gibbs.
It should did get my Hippy up!!
There’s also the tiresome false equivalence between the base on left and right. Of course, while she calls the ones on the right “crazies”, she can only muster the label “radicals” for the Democratic base.