Mr. Robert Gibbs: A study in snideness

Okay, I'm going to link to a bunch of videos of Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary for the Obama administration. Watch him dodge, talk down, skirt, condescend, use sarcasm and more to never, NO NOT EVER, answer tough questions satisfactorily. 

Now, some of these reporters are a little much too, but we're focusing on Robert Gibbs, the PR guy for the WHITE HOUSE. 

Number 1: 

Snideness...

Here's number 2:

Did you see the total misdirection? The total air of superiority he adopts as soon as he's pressed?

Here's number 3:

Look for the shot he takes at the press as a retaliation for pushing him and calling him on his inability to answer questions he should be able to answer:

Moving on to number 4:

First, he makes fun of the reporter's approach to the question with a derogatory grin and gesture, then he simply doesn't answer the question. The question was about the long form, Gibbs.

Here's number 5:

Gibbs' strategy: stall until you can think of something snide and cutting, then move on. I see this a lot in my 'discussions' with progressives.

Number 6 is simply pure superiority:

Wow. That's transparency eh?

Number 7, watch for the Uh and Um. Wow:

These nominees have major tax issues wherein they did NOT pay them. Transparency? Ethics and accountability? Seriously? We're talking about what Obama did, not these nominees-- essentially, what was Obama thinking even nominating these folks? The answer? Obama ain't responsible or accountable. It's all Daschle.

Number 8. How dumb does he think we are?

Number 9:

Look. You're in a position of respect and responsibility. Stop acting like a teenager.

So there you go. A taste of Mr. Robert Gibbs' superior attitude and his approaches to tough, persistent questioning.

As a final note, compare the speaking styles of Gibbs and Obama. Same speech coach? Lots of "Uh" and "Now." The use of "Now" is a deliberate move to take a position of superiority-- a lecturing tone.

Some excerpts from a book by David McCullough

I think these excerpts are extremely appropriate today.

I have to say I am disappointed in myself for not engaging with our nation's history more fully earlier in my life. Too much of what I say now appears to be a reaction to our current president and his administration.

It's not-- at least not entirely. I feel to point out, however, that I am growing increasingly disgusted with the notions that are hustled and hawked by the 'Progressive' factions today. Their dismissal of history is destructive at best.

These excerpts come from the concluding chapters in Brave Companions, which is a small volume of short biographies. I highly recommend it.

Excerpt 1

Imagine a man who professes over and over his unending love for a woman but who knows nothing of where she was born or who her parents were or where she went to school or what her life had been until he came along-- and furthermore, doesn't care to learn. What would you think of such a person? Yet we appear to have this unending supply of patriots who know nothing of the history of this country, nor are they interested.

Harry S. Truman, who never had the benefit of a college education but who read history and biography and remembered it, once said, "The only new thing in the world is the history you don't know."

These words put a tremble in my body. We are not measuring up, I believe, in fact are not even surpassing the kneecaps, of the shadows cast by our forebears. And I state here that this is because we are allowing ourselves to forget them.

I had a discussion recently with a self-styled political 'moderate.' She told me to get in the moment, to stop citing useless history of presidents from "centuries" ago. I had referred to FDR, Truman, Nixon and more recent presidents. She dismissed any reference to this relatively recent history by saying, "we need to focus on the current future...and how we all can contribute to making it better. Let's not get sidetrack [sic] bringing up past centuries.."

So there you have it. Let's not get sidetracked by history.

What have we become?

Excerpt 2

Why do so many politicians feel obliged to get away from [Washington D.C.] at every chance? They claim a pressing need to get back to the real America. To win votes, many of them like also to deride the city and mock its institutions. They run against Washington, in the shabby spirit made fashionable in recent presidential campaigns. It is as if they find the city alien or feel that too close an association with it might be somehow dishonorable. It is as if they want to get away from history when clearly history is what they need, they most of all, and now more than ever.

This requires no commentary.

Excerpt 3

Harry Truman used to talk of Potomac Fever, an endemic disorder the symptoms of which were a swelled head and a general decline of common sense.

Has your Representative to the House, or your U.S. Senator started suffering from this highly contagious disorder? Get them help: remove them from office immediately.

Our government is supposed to derive its power from the people. Guess what? It does, and rather handily.

As we sleep through our citizenship, our government grabs power. Why? Because we allow it to.

Let's wake up and show our government the limits to the power we want them to have. Let's stop dismissing history as irrelevant. History is a vital, crucial part of the equation, or formula, for the solution to today's problems.

We are the sum of yesterday's conflicts, today's aspirations and tomorrow's challenges.

A Conversation with a Liberal I Love Like a Brother

I've been having a nice discussion with a good, close friend. We disagree mightily on the role of government.

Our conversation was sparked by a recent Glenn Beck video on the current healthcare reform bill under discussion on Capitol Hill. Here's the vid: http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=6964953&referralPlaylistId=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50204809c04&maven_referrer=facebook

Here's our discussion in its entirety... so far!

ME: He's a little over the top.. but all good points.

Daniel: I bet his employer offers insurance. I wonder if he's ever spent time talking to people who don't have coverage, or who have been bankrupted by their uncovered prostate/cancer/whatever treatments, or who got dropped from their insurance because they got sick, or who were told by their insurance company that they could pay $25 a month for the "preferred" drug that doesn't work, or they could pay $100 or more a month for the "non-preferred" drug that does. People who get cancer and can't go to the hospital don't go crawling down the street - they die quietly at home.

ME: Daniel, really now. I love you man, but you might want to try to move beyond the expected talking points and actually try to specifically defend this absurd plan. Are you paying enough attention to the details of this bill? Certainly not enough of our representatives are-- and no surprise. It's massive. I have yet to hear how this bill is going to make things better. All I hear is that it will change things-- but nobody has specifically explained how it will make things actually better. I am doing my reading, a lot of it, and am seeing a lot of expert opinion on how this bill is bad news all around, particularly in the areas of quality and availability of care. I don't think we should maintain status quo-- so don't go to that talking point either, please. Truthfully, I think that a move in a far different direction will help. I'm more in line with Ron Paul's approach.

Daniel: Jared, we're coming from completely different philosophies about the "correct" role of government. I don't know if you accept the libertarian label or not, but much of what you say seems to fall into that category - free markets, limited government, and a premium on personal freedoms. I respect that position, but I happen to disagree with it. We're always going to have fundamental disagreements about what's "best." Longer waits and lower quality of care aren't ideal, but, for me, a more critical issue is expanding availability of care. Glenn Beck's public/private school analogy was perfect. Clearly someone who has the money to make that choice would choose private school. But in healthcare, if you can't afford private "tuition" there is no public "school" to turn to. And Obama's plan, as I understand it, is exactly that - a public option that will exist alongside the private one for those who don't want or can't afford it.

ME: Hey Daniel,

You'll have to forgive me, but this is the United States of America. Free markets, limited government and personal freedoms are exactly what the founders of this nation endeavored to create, which is why the Constitution is worded the way it is. The main problem I see is that for decades, the government has been constantly pushing at the boundaries the Constitution imposes on it. This has got to stop. As government takes over industries such as the automotive industry, health care, energy and the like, freedoms of the people are eliminated. We're talking about freedom to choose your career, your health care, your children's education, and to pursue happiness after the manner you see fit. Anything that eliminates free agency smacks of something you and I both rejected in the pre-mortal existence.

But that's not even the main point here. The transforming of our government, and by inevitable extension our nation, is apparent. History shows what happens when this type of transformation is effected. You get socialist states which then become full-on communist regimes. Have you spent any time in a communist regime? How about socialist? Dude, our quality of life is better. Even the quality of life of the poor people in our country is better than of those in the communist countries. This is because America as have known it has given people the freedom and space to break free of poverty cycles. Communist regimes simply don't allow this. America as we have known it is being threatened. I don't know how you came to the belief that America needs to transform into a socialist state, but if you think that your life is going to get better, think again. History guarantees that it will not.

Incidentally, I'm not a rich, white mid-westerner sitting on stability and pontificating. I'm a freelance writer whose large family lives at well below the poverty level. But we live after the manner of happiness. I fight the desire to seek handouts every day. That's not what I'm here for. I'm here to work out my own salvation, and my own success and freedom. I believe in helping those who have nothing. I don't believe it's the government's place to do that. The government's place is to encourage private endeavors to that end. is more effective, do you think? Your fast offering or the welfare system?

Daniel: Never said we should become a socialist state. I'm all for free markets where they work. I'm also for oversight when your free market creates conflicts of interest - like the need to provide your stated service (be it financial, healthcare, or what-have-you) and the need to make a profit. And I reject the assertion that government oversight automatically restricts free agency. Are GM's workers less free because their company got a bail out? How free would they have been if GM had gone under, especially if they have no other prospects for a job?I also reject the assertion that government involvement necessarily leads to socialism necessarily leads to communism. Where is that happening? Is Canada becoming communist? They have social health care. Is the United Kingdom? Australia? Last time I checked, communism was severely on the decline. Are there any besides China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos? Communism has proven a failure.

As for socialism - what was that United Order all about, anyway? Isn't that supposed to be the "ideal" society? It didn't look much like the American Brand of democracy to me - no private ownership of property, for example. And I'm not a socialist (depending on which definition of that dangerously amorphous word you use), but I really, really, don't think that our particular system is the best possible system. We have room to grow and adapt and change. And I have the utmost respect for the founding fathers and our constitution, but I'm not a fundamentalist. I believe that we live in a different world than they did - with problems and challenges they never could have imagined. What I admire about the constitution is its flexibility to adapt to those changes.

ME: No socialist state: check. Great!I totally understand the desire for oversight when there is a potential or real conflict of interest. I think the oversight should result in a ban on malpractice suits. I could get into how I think the healthcare system would work better, but that would take a long time. In brief: you pay for something and you get it.

You can reject my assertions all you want, and in an ideal world, you would be spot on. But the legislation currently wending its way through our Congress absolutely restricts free choice in health care and several industries. Again, read the stuff.

Government involvement doesn't lead to socialism. It IS socialism. And that doesn't necessarily lead to communism, true. And yes, communism is a failure. All of the countries you cited with socialist governments provide crappy qualities of life for their citizens. Socialized healthcare in the UK, Canada and Australia sucks. Ask them. Seriously.

Now, the Constitution is wonderfully flexible and the founding fathers certainly couldn't have imagined where our country would be today.

But, and this is important, fundamental principles do not adapt to changing times. I'm talking about moral absolutes here. They exist. Not every personal belief is a moral absolute either.

Truth to tell, where we are is appalling. Extraordinary government expansion, which began in the '30s, has gone unchecked for nearly 80 years-- transforming our nation beyond belief.

I say start over. Either everyone in government gets gone and we start again, or immediately set term-limits on everybody. Neither party will entertain that notion, of course, because really once you have power, your main goal is to keep it. So what do we do now? A moderated process of scaling back. It's the only way.

Daniel: I love you too, Jared, and we've totally hijacked Barry's post. Sorry about that! Should we take this discussion to private message? The States Rights issue was debated from the drafting of the (failed) Articles of Confederation down to the Civil War. And many red-blooded, patriotic, citizens believe that it was the Civil War that cemented the Federal Government's supremacy in the states-rights debate. Other red-blooded, patriotic citizens believe that, Civil War notwithstanding, it is still the states who should have supreme authority except where it's explicitly given to the Federal Government under Article IV. It's a difference of opinion, and the debate will go on as long as we have divided power between multiple govenrments.

I have addressed, how the Obama plan intends to make things better: by providing coverage and access to services to all, by giving people a choice, and by creating competition for the insurance companies. What kind of specifics do you want?

ME: Too right on the States Rights issue. Personally, I think what Lincoln did with the Civil War was unconstitutional, but that is not an issue that's worth messing with.

Water long under the bridge.

Okay, you've made broad claims, but have not addressed how the government will actually accomplish those things you (and Obama and Pelosi... shudder...) say. Exactly how is this reformed system going to actually provide coverage and access to services for more than 300 million people? Can this be done, truly, without destroying the financial future of our nation?

How is it that an institution--government-- which has never before created competition for private companies, is going to provide said competition? Lower prices? Who subsidizes those lower prices?

Hey, I have no (0) money and I have a choice: only pay for medical costs when I need to. I pay cash at the doctor-- they give me enormous discounts actually. And I only go to the doctor when necessary-- meaning almost never.

And that's it for now. Thoughts? Anybody winning yet?

Call this an open letter to America the Beautiful

Or you can just call it American Days

It’s been many years since I last set my eyes upon those amber waves of grain. Years made of days that have left their indelible mark on my face and my heart. Some of those days were, as with so many other Americans, filled with great joy. Others with stunning heartbreak. Some American days passed in the quiet majesty of a baby’s first breath. Other American days tore deeply into the fabric of my soul, changing me in ways both grand and tiny.

American days.

What do they mean to me today? Do these American days mean anything to anyone beyond me, here at this dinner table? I don’t hear echoes of my family’s last dinner, but I do see the final, fading shadows of my daughter’s perfect joy as she pushes her chair out, eager for the busy playing. My cherub-son’s rosy cheeked shadow joins her in noisy life.

Her hug, tight and fragile. She had a bad dream.

My privilege, precious and divine. A father. Living these American days.

What do these American days mean? A president both worshipped and despised. Movements growing; fading. Anger, rapture, tears of fear and joy. All of these happen each day—and these American days continue. No war; no secession. Those American days have passed.

So what does America’s today mean?

American days mean nurtured potential. They mean love of God, country and family. They mean strength, moral authority, the holding up of a light. American days mean duty, honor, and the capacity to choose a prosperous, righteous destiny.

To me, American days do not represent a shifting of values to match modern attitudes.

I have had the remarkable privilege of residing in twelve of the fifty states in the United States of America. I have been exposed to countless religions, philosophies and moralities. I have had the opportunity to spend significant time immersed in the language and culture of Brazil, England, Japan and Taiwan. Throughout these journeys, I still lived American days, because I was and am American.

I now believe that every country is filled with potential, based entirely on the good people of the individual nation. But I refuse to fight the feeling that the United States of America is closer to fulfilling the measure of its potential than any other country. Even in our modern American days, this nation seems better equipped to reach that ultimate potential as well.

I feel like American days plead with me to become more than myself, to seek the good for shining seas and a banner that yet waves.

I think about early American days—those of John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and their colleagues. What did those days mean to those men who I see as great Americans? I have read about them and seen their flawed humanity. I have felt their fear but also their courage. I have watered pages as I walked with them down the road of righteous treason for the love of their God, family and country.

I have felt to raise the torch of independence and freedom, to join with these men in revolution against injustice and tyranny. Sometimes I wish my American days were theirs.

What of good have I done with my American days? I have loved my God, my family and my nation. I have read declaration and highest law. I have shaken with simmering anger at American days that seem determined to become—other days.

I do not accept a fundamental shift in my American days. The bedrock of my nation is faith founded in firm principle, morality and hope. Hope for better. Hope for solutions. Hope for American days that stretch forward into prosperity.

I plead with my keyboard that this nation not abandon its American days and turn to convenient philosophies that will not save our future. I shake myself from a stupor, determined to not blindly follow partisan days or special interest days.

I follow American days and I am not alone. Though I felt alone as a child, I am not alone in America’s today. When I was young I lived without a family or love, but I lived American days, like millions of others. When older, I lived American days teaching in foreign lands, fighting against the entropy of laziness. Now I sit at my family table, basking in the joy of blessings and peace, worried about bills and accounts, wishing I could make my voice louder. I love today. I want to love tomorrow.

Now I see American days where a president went from beloved to hated in short years, yet I love these days.

Now I see American days where a man can become not himself, yet still somewhere inside, himself—and become outside a president. I still love these days.

Now I see American days filled with media misrepresentations on all sides, and I love these days.

Now I see American days where money like sand is spent on entertainment and filming anteaters in Borneo, while people suffer from hunger and the miasma of entitlement. Yet I still love these days.

Now I see American days where highest law is forgotten by convenience, power and status quo. I fear for our days, but I still love them.

Now I see American days filled with people who cannot argue with respect, cannot see the other side, cannot get off their horse—and yet we are still here and so many still believe. And I love these days.

Now I see American days where the divide between people seems like an intractable ocean, but we are still here—we are still living American days in relative peace. I love these days.

Now I see American days where I can sit in a bus station, watching people of all sizes, shapes and colors—and I have no reason to think any of them are not living American days. Lord, how I love these days.

I love an American day that, when parades are done, hot band uniforms removed, and charcoal is cooling, allow for reflection. I celebrate my American day.

I love these American days. I admit that I fear for future American days.

But my hope is stronger than my fear.

If any of this resonates with you, I urge you to share. This Independence Day--let's truly celebrate our nation.

Jay's further comments and my replies:

In his next comment, Jay said...

Your logic that since the majority is Christian, we are a Christian nation, is faulty at best. We are not a "white" nation because we have a majority of whites. Same with the idea that most of the founding fathers followed Christian principles, so we were a Christian nation. Yet again, we were not a white nation, we were not a slave-owning nation, we were not a nation of politicians. Trying to apply the Constitution writer's characteristics and lives to the document they wrote is a logical fallacy in and of itself.The idea of bringing up concepts probably not being in the constituion itself is ridiculous. If the founding fathers had intended the Constituion to be set in stone, it wouldn't have been allowed to make amendments to it. Trying to apply 2009 issues to a 1787 document is not always going to work. I am IN NO WAY advocating the altering of the constitution, but trying to pretend that we still live in 1787 political climate is just counterproductive.


JaredNGarrett said...
Hi Jay,
Thanks for stopping back by. Nice to have repeat visitors.

The logic you cite at the beginning of your second post is your logic, not mine. I hope you understand that. Here's what you said in your first comment: "We were NEVER a Christian nation. Many of our founding fathers, and even the writers and signers of the constitution were NOT Christian." Do you see that you were making that 'logical' conclusion yourself?

When you commit a logical fallacy, it's okay, but when you think I did, it's not?

Incidentally, take a closer look. I didn't say anything of the sort. Notice I didn't address whether or not America was or is a Christian nation in my reply to your post. The subject I discussed was the so-called separation of church and state, the phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson and misused by both sides of the aisle today.

You have no thoughts on that?

I purposely avoided the issue of Christian nation-ness because I didn't want to bother.

However, since you insist:

For this argument, I am going to call the folks who came over on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth the pioneers of this nation. Yes, there was Jamestown and the Dutch and Spanish, but the Plymouth colony was the most enduring. They made a compact, called the Mayflower Compact. The first line: "In the name of God, Amen." Not Allah. Not Yaweh. God. This is the accepted Christian way of addressing Deity.

Next, they said they made the compact by the Grace of God, for the Glory of God and for the "advancement of the Christian Faith," in that document. They then proceeded to set forth the fact that this was their governing document. The first government, although they claimed Britain as sovereign, was established for the explicit purpose of advancing the Christian Faith.

Later there were other settlers, some fleeing religious persecution, some fleeing a king high on power. They also made compacts, most or all modeled after the Mayflower Compact. One of the more significant colonies was in Massachusetts and was led by John Winthrop and was decidedly Puritan.

In 1646, just as an example, there was a law on the books that set forth penalties for religious heresy. It was partly because of laws like this that the founding fathers said Congress had to stay out of religion.

However, it is clear that the original charters and compacts of the colonies were very much religious-- Christian in fact. Anothr reason they made this amendment was because English lords had been converting Puritan and other protestant churches to Anglican meetinghouses.

Do I really need to quote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or have you got the idea yet?

The Declaration (some excerpts): to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions; with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.

That is very religious, and because Christianity was the religion of the time, very Christian language.

The Constitution uses language like Blessings and Our Lord as well.

No, Christianity was not, and was not supposed to be (as seen in Article VI) the official religion of the nation. But these documents were composed with Christian tenets and doctrine as a guide.

But then, taken as a population question, the vast majority of this nation's population at the time of its founding was Christian. That is not the case anymore.

However, abandoning the principles, tenets and morals that guided the founding documents of our nation is a recipe for a country that is no longer America.

What's funny is that this debate of whether this is a Christian nation is relatively very new.

Finally, I appreciate that you don't advocate altering the Constitution. That's a good sign. And I agree that they could not be fully prescient of all that this nation would face and experience. That doesn't mean we should have the federal government adopting powers that do not belong it.