White House Reporter Protects Cheney, Accuses Gibbs Of Taking “Swipe”
One of the odder things we’ve seen from some members of the White House press corps this year is a kind of zealous over-protectiveness of the previous administration — Dick Cheney, in particular.
Back in March, after Cheney accused Obama of putting the country in danger the first time, White House press sec Robert Gibbs defended Obama by describing Cheney as a member of a GOP “cabal.” The comment triggered outrage from the MSNBC gang and other reporters who said Gibbs hadn’t shown the former Veep proper deference.
Today during the briefing, another reporter (I’m not sure who) attacked Gibbs again for being mean to Cheney. The reporter said Gibbs had taken a “swipe” at Cheney. What was the swipe? Earlier in the briefing, Gibbs had responded to Cheney’s attack by puckishly saying he had a lot of time on his hands. That was the swipe.
This is just weird. Cheney delivered a 5,000 word speech today blasting Obama and Dems as unwilling to defend us from terrorists. He called them phonies and hypocrites for condemning torture. He accused Obama of closing Guantanamo in order to “receive applause in Europe.” And Gibbs is taking heat for gently pushing back?
To be clear, this isn’t a partisan question. Should Obama aides attack the next administration once they’re out of office, it would be equally buffoonish for them to expect deference and respect in return.
This is an odd habit on the part of the White House press corps. Not sure what it’s about.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Birds of a feather…
The fact that the press not only covered all of Cheney’s speech but are even trying to defend him is just unbelievable to me.
I try not to see race in everything but has anyone asked why Cheney who came to the inauguration of the first black President in a wheelchair as if he couldn’t be bothered and is now going around attacking him in the first few months might be doing this because he is a racist? I’m starting to think that if Cheney could, he would just call Obama a young boy who shouldn’t have his hand near any buttons.
It’s about how truly, profoundly, indescribably pathetic the White House press corps is.
My jaw is on the floor. What the heck?!
Which is why Obama should use the power of the bully pulpit as effectively as possible with this. My thoughts on the two speeches can seen on my blog. But I will add here that all Dems need to get on message with this and hammer it home.
The inmates are running the asylum.
I believe it was Chip Reid, Greg. I also think you want “hadn’t shown” instead of just “hadn’t” in the second graf
“Not sure what it’s about.”
Cheney is a former Vice President, Gibbs is wh press secretary.
thanks, SG — I was wondering who it was. And come on SBJ, that’s just weak.
Just the Beltway media protecting its own. Wouldn’t surprise me if it were Chip Reid, seems right up his sycophantic alley.
It might be ‘weak’ but I do think that’s what it is about.
Disdain amongst equals is okay – disdain from this Gibbs fellow? Who does he think he is? Obama himself is more than welcome to call Cheney a gutter rat – he can – he’s the President. But Gibbs is almost lower than a rat, he’s a mouthpiece.
It’s an elitist thing. It’s the same message MSNBC (your link) offered up before:
“Is Robert Gibbs’ open disdain for Cheney acceptable to a president who promised to move beyond petty political squabbling?”
When Gibbs treats his ‘betters’ with disdain he is presumed to be speaking for himself and not as wh spokesperson.
Chip Reid is a ginormous tool. He’s the one who took Cheney’s part last time. I’m sensing a pattern.
sbj, you are deluded, or else a troll, probably the latter. Gibbs is a spokesperson for the entire administration. When Obama is not behind the microphone, Gibbs is Obama’s official voice. It is at the top of Gibbs’ job description to counter Cheney’s spurious claims.
sbj – would love to see a copy of your many letters to Ari Fleischer advising him that his derogations of the sitting President are the squeakings of a gutter rat inappropriately disdainful to his betters. You can post them here.
sbj’s reasoning is pretty contradictory. On one hand, if Gibbs is just a private citizen, then of course he can criticize Cheney. Isn’t that what we do? On the other hand, if Gibbs is Obama’s mouthpiece, then since Cheney took a swipe at Obama, it’s prefectly reasonable for the WH, via Gibbs, to criticize Cheney.
Only in the case where Gibbs were to lash out at a relatively unknown private citizen would this be out of bounds. Since Cheney isn’t one, it seems that the reporters are just protecting someone they perceive to be “one of their own.”
Mr Bli whatever – you misunderstand.
Gibbs IS the voice of the admin, correct, but the wh press TREATS him as such ONLY when he “remembers his place.” When Gibbs gets “uppity” and makes snide remarks about his elite superiors (Cheney, Helen Thomas) then they ask questions like, “Is Robert Gibbs’ open disdain for Cheney acceptable to a president?” In other words, the wh press elite put the lowly mouthpiece back into his place.
It certainly is Gibbs’ job to counter Cheney’s claims but, according to the press corps, a group of elites themselves, he has to do so while carefully choosing his words and remembering who his superiors are.
Chip Reid has a history of seething dislike of the Obama Administration and of being the buttboy for Cheney. Remember he’s the one who got all offended in March CBS’ Chip Reid Asks Gibbs: Is This The Official Tone Toward Cheney?
//Reid: Can I ask you, when you referred to the former Vice President, that was a really hard-hitting, kind of sarcastic response you had. This is a former Vice President of the United States. Is that the attitude — is that the sanctioned tone toward the former Vice President of the United States from this White House now?
//
*
That Chip! He loves him some Dick Cheney.
Bernie: I am not defending the wh press corps – just offering a theory for their weird behavior.
Chip Reid has a history of seething dislike of the Obama Administration and of being the batboy for Cheney. Remember he’s the one who got all offended in March CBS’ Chip Reid Asks Gibbs: Is This The Official Tone Toward Cheney?
//Reid: Can I ask you, when you referred to the former Vice President, that was a really hard-hitting, kind of sarcastic response you had. This is a former Vice President of the United States. Is that the attitude — is that the sanctioned tone toward the former Vice President of the United States from this White House now?
//
*
That Chip! He loves him some Dick Cheney.
How about this:
sbj. Chip Reid is a personal friend of the Cheney family is and has serious conflict of interest.
Greg – Eric at TPM notes the silliness of the question as well and describes it as an instance of Washington yet being wired for Republican dominance. I think that’s correct but insufficiently definitive. If we look back at cases like Jeff Gannon or Judith Miller or the folks who were actually paid (covertly) to forward pro-Bush policy and talking points or the project to push pro-Bush/pro-war ex-military in front of the cameras in prime time news shows, we see a pattern of purposive manipulation of the media narrative through the use of agents. The whole story is surely much bigger and with much more organization than we presently understand. We ought to expect it to continue now.
And here’s Reid again with his seething dislike of the Obama Administration:
CBS’s Chip Reid – "Democrats Raising Their Ugly Heads" | Crooks and Liars
Yep. That Chip! He loves him some Dick Cheney.
Cheney has been one of the Cool Kids at Beltway Junior High for thirty years. Just because he’s a liar and a thug doesn’t make him less cool. Never mind that Obama is the elected president, to Reid he and Gibbs are just nerds from out of town. Reid is with the school newspaper, a Cool Kid wannabee. There isn’t much Gibbs could say or do that would change Reid’s dog loyalty to the old clique.
Not sure what it’s about? Yes you are. It’s always about doing everything possible to avoid being labeled a member of the Liberal Media.
{tin foil hat}
Surely you don’t think the previous Admin’s domestic wiretapping and snooping activities were limited to uncooperative politicians, do you? Presumably the resulting illicitly obtained knowledge would be useful for controlling the Fourth Estate as well…
{/tin foil hat; and yeah, I’ll stop calling you Shirley}
sbj – BS. You offered up a notion of appropriate/inappropriate discourse between an out of office VP and any spokesperson acting for a sitting President. You offered up a notion of hierarchy. And you used terminology such as “rat” in doing so. I think the whole formulation you put forward extremely thoughtless. But at the very least, you could attempt to be consistent and bring Ari Fleischer or Perino and what they’ve been saying about Obama over the last three months. You could offer up criticism of how they (and others) have referred to another ex VP – Al Gore.
You ususaly don’t say things quite this silly.
Enough said:
http://conservativeamerican.org/dems-libs-socialists/obama/obamas-deficit-deception/
Quick tip for SBJ – The U.S. has never formalized its commitment to a caste system, though the GOP is quite committed to the cause, and the WH press corps is happy to back them (dependent as the DC media are on their own caste system).
I’m willing to be you never objected to the open disdain Ari Fleischer expressed from the White House – on behalf of himself and his President – for former President Clinton and the entire Democratic party.
This is another case of standard-issue double standards by the DC media, and is, at this point, passe.
Is this the same Chip Reid that made the comment: “Dems raising their UGLY heads”???
Hmmm… someone’s slip is showing…
And don’t forget that CBS is larding their newsroom with rightwing fanatics.
CBS News’ New Right-Wing PR Chief: “I Never Said Democrats Are Evil” | The Plum Line
So Chip’s just brown-nosing the new boss.
Considering the WH press corps’ slobbering affection for every trivial, ginned up “controversy” about the Obama administration, they really don’t have any room to speak of deference for political leaders. They’re just peeved that Obama makes them work too hard. He doesn’t speak in nonsenical soundbytes and doesn’t take enough vacations. Cuts into their cocktail party time.
Bernie: I never defended Chip, and Ari/Perino were just as much rats and mouthpieces as Gibbs is. I did not write it was inappropriate for Gibbs to say what he did; I offered a theory that the WH PRESS CORPS feels that it is inappropriate. It is not all that unusual to pose the idea that elites protect and defend themselves. The wh press corps is an elite group, ex-VPs are an elite group, mouthpieces like Ari/Perino/Gibbs are decidedly NOT elite – it’s like letting Rodney Dangerfield become a member of your golf club! If they “let” Gibbs insult Cheney with impunity, how soon will it be until Gibbs thinks he can insult one of their own and get away with it?
For the record (?), I don’t think Gibbs offered much of a slight (this time) at all. After eight years as VP, Cheney DOES have some free time – that’s not an insult. Perhaps it was that spooky/plastic Gibbs grin that got on Chip’s nerves.
Bernie (sorry to post so much): I can see why I have been misunderstood – my writing was quite sloppy. The whole thing should have been preceded by “The White House Press corps feels that . . .”
I meant to write, “[The WH Press Corps feels that] Disdain amongst equals is okay – disdain from this Gibbs fellow? Who does he think he is? blah blah blah”
It’s amazing considering Dick Cheney opened his speech by suggesting the sitting President of the United States didn’t have the right to give a 6,000 word speech on his policies. You know, he should limit himself to 5 minutes like they did in the House. Terribly PRESUMPTUOUS of the sitting President to think people should listen to a Presidential address. While, of course, it’s entirely appropriate for a vice-President to issue a 5,500 word address. After insulting the President.
Petty, petty man.
Also, DICK CHENEY LET OSAMA BIN LADEN GET AWAY.
Why exactly are we listening to a guy defend the crack “interrogation” techniques that let Osama bin Laden get away and led him to invade the wrong freaking country? He’s STILL going on about Saddam Hussein and WMDs.
When we get hit again, he’d like to pretend it’s the fault of someone other than the guy who let Osama bin Laden murder 5,000 Americans and then get away.
But he’s wrong.
sbj,
You are just wrong here. Dana Perino stood at her podium *every single day* and bashed the Democrats in a very unprofessional way, and the White House Press Corps said NOT A WORD about it. Nothing, nada. Tony Snow stood up at the podium every single day as the premier partisan hack bashing various Democrats on his watch. The White House Press Corps remained as mute as little puppies about it. Ari Fleischer did too. Not a peep from the sheeple in the White House Press Corps.
.
Your theory doesn’t hold water.
While I appreciate and agree with comments about Chip Reid, I don’t think he was the guy that asked the question. I think it was a middle-aged, heavy-set, bearded white guy named Mark. Sorry, I did not catch his last name. Anyway, it could have been any of them; they are all cut from the same condescending cloth. What is amazing to me is that Chaney can open his speech with a dig at the President and they jump on Gibbs for a simple remark. Meanwhile Cheney shows huge disrespect & lack of patriotism and the press lets it slide.
James: You are gonna have to first offer up some examples of open disdain for “Gore” coming from the lips of Fleischer or Perino or Snowe – then I can look into the wh press corps response. “Various Democrats” are not analogous to the Vice President. We have more various Democrats sitting in Congress right now than all Vice Presidents in our country’s history combined. The VP circle is very small – very elite – as is the wh press corps; congressmen are a dime a dozen. (BTW, it’s just a theory, I’m willing to back down with some good arguments.)
I DO recall that Fleischer was roundly mocked when he warned that we have to watch what we say. And I’m sure that I can find numerous examples of Bush mouthpieces being aggressively challenged . . . just as I am sure that I can find examples of the wh press corps defending Gore . . .
I think they’re mad about losing the Bush admin’s paychecks…
sbj – gotcha now. Apologies for the misreading.
sbj,
Well, obviously Al Gore didn’t go around the country after leaving office making speeches about how GWB was making our country “less safe” and questioning his patriotism. So the situations aren’t equivalent. I’m just saying, if you are talking about the WHPC’s sense of decorum, it appears to be a MUCH higher standard for Gibbs than for the Bush press secs. Because I remember very clearly complaining about how unprofessional Perino was in bashing the Democrats and Obama (during the campaign), and the WHPC said NOTHING. They just shrugged it off, as well they should. I’m speaking as a person who watched the briefing almost every single day. So I don’t know what Reid is doing here except exhibiting his disdain and his bias. Because he certainly never called Perino on her Democrat-bashing.
Chip Reid is “a personal friend of the Cheney family”? Is he ******* Pete Williams perchance?
James – we’ll have to disagree, but I think that is typical when it comes to this question of double standards.
I would add that some of this has to do with the mouthpiece’s abilities? That is, Fleischer was terrible – the WHPC was fairly merciless in their attacks on him – that’s how I remember it. Snow was very polished and the WHPC knew that if they attacked him he would fight back and they would end up with their ears clipped. He even started putting out “corrections” to keep the media in line. I also remember that Bush’s spokespersons were very circumspect in their comments regarding Obama and McCain during the two years long campaign.
I am in the minority here but I feel that Gibbs is just short of awful. Tapper has already punked him several times and I have predicted that Gibbs would be one of the first admin members to give up their jobs – I don’t give him more than 6 months. (BTW – Gore was attacking Bush within two years of leaving office – “digital brownshirts” much?)
reid’s subservience and fealty to cheney is gonna be a hard habit to break, i’m afraid. afterall, that was eight long years on his knees…
True. But did Gore defend torture?
Eight years on his knees? Did he at least get a Kleenex to wipe up?
sbj,
Well, one thing we can agree on is that Gibbs is not the right person for the job. I think that Obama should have hired an ex-journo and would be better served if he put someone in there who had a better understanding of how the national press operates. I remember that Fleischer tamed the WHPC in very short order — they might have been “merciless” the first few months, but they (the WHPC) were *very* deferential after the “watch what we say, watch what we do” incident, and the “it’s been noted in the building” incident. He managed the WHPC pretty well. Snow was less effective; he liked to spar with his fellow TV prima donnas and bash the Dems. Perino, for all her partisanship, managed the WHPC expertly. They were compliant and deferential to a fault, while she stroked them and cooed, giving tea parties for the ladies. She *was* good at her job.
With all due respect, I don’t think the “digital brownshirts” is at all equivalent to what Cheney is doing. I’d like to hear your defense of that equivalence.
**** Cheney. He’s a coward.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006571.php
(mcclellan trashing gore–i don’t remember hearing a word of objection from the media. i’m sure there’s more like it.)
Also, the Gore speech with the line “they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President” was in October 2005, well into GWB’s second term of office.
.
So that’s not “within two years of leaving office.”
Yes. The GOP always shows deference to former chief (or vice-chief executives) Jimmy Carter, Al Gore.
Nothing but a bunch of vituperative DFHs, we.
“Not sure what it’s about.”
Cheney is a former Vice President, Gibbs is wh press secretary.
Cheney is a War Criminal that Gibbs should verbally eviscerate every chance he can-
Not sure what’s it about? Really?
Let me tell you… It’s all about OMGZ!! A Black man be livin’ in the WH. He could not possibly no what the heck he’s doing and there’s no need to be respectful of the president or his representatives.
That’s what all this ish is about.
So the Obama administration is free to attack Bush/Cheney, Cheney responding thoughtfully and powerfully is out of bounds. I never heard such protests when Mondale and Gore attacked Reagan and Bush.
Cheney clearly won the day. He had answers and President Obama struggled with questions.
Thoughtfully and powerfully to the rubes and bedwetters who hide under the bed at the thought of brown people coming for them to steal their essence. [Noun!] [Verb!] 911! 911! 911! With us or agin’ us! Cheney still appeals to the dumbass cowards of the right. Obama made an articulate argument for his approach and answered his critics from all sides with courage and reason in coherent sentences and paragraphs. Of course, the rump bushies can’t follow a reasoned, coherent argument. So it’s no wonder they didn’t like it. Without 911!!!11!!! they got nothin’.
.
Pretty funny, reaching back to freakin MONDALE!! who never “attacked” Reagan. Gore didn’t “attack” Bush. What are you, 8 years old?
The “village people” love Dick.
This is not Gibb’s place, it’s their place and they don’t want him coming in and trashing it!
Gibbs is clueless and classless. Cheney, like any other American, is entitled to state his own world views. The problem for you so-called progressives is that you can’t handle the truth. You’re filled up with Hopium and wear blinders.
The WH press corps is “protecting” Cheney?
Are you retarded? What planet are you living on, you delusional moron?
“Not sure what it’s about.”
Two words: dad dee.
James:
Did I say two years? I meant a little less than a year:
“But is Cheney breaking a long tradition of former vice president’s who fade away into self-imposed silence? Consider his immediate predecessor, Al Gore. After losing the recount in the 2000 presidential election, Gore famously grew a beard, added a few pounds and stayed out of the limelight for a while. But his low profile didn’t last long.
During President Bush’s second year in office, Gore emerged as the most forceful Democratic critic of the buildup to war in Iraq. In SEPTEMBER 2002, a month before Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama spoke out against the war, Gore delivered a blistering speech against the resolution that authorized the war against Iraq.
Gore’s criticism of Bush came a little later than Cheney’s criticism of Obama, but it was no less severe.
Gore’s September 2002 speech accused Bush of playing politics with national security and declared that Bush had “squandered” the goodwill the rest of the world felt toward the United States just as he had squandered the budget surpluses left by the Clinton administration.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7564277&page=1
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/al_gore_hypocritically_attacks.asp
James – Gore didn’t even wait one year:
“Contra Costa Times, 1/10/02: “While praising President Bush for his leadership in the war effort, he went on to say that the economy was another matter. ‘I’m not here to make a political speech, but I am concerned,’ Gore said.”
Boston Globe, 4/14/2002: “‘They are wrong to vilify honorable men and women who oppose their right-wing domestic agenda and oppose a blatantly dishonest budget,’ Gore said. ‘They are wrong to imply that those who stand up to them are somehow unpatriotic.’” (Headline — “Combative Gore Lashes Out At Administration Policies In Fla. Speech, He Hits Bush For ‘Radical Agenda’”) [Note: So much for his assertion today that his early criticsm of the Bush Administration focused on policy.]
USA Today, 4/15/2002: “Gore’s speech was the emotional peak of the convention. With practiced skill, humor and a passion some delegates said they did not see during the campaign, Gore denounced virtually every element of Bush’s domestic policy.” (Headline — “Gore’s fiery speech raises questions of plans”)
NY Times, 4/23/2002: “Sounding very much like the candidate he was and may become again, Al Gore said today that the environment was a moral issue and the Bush administration was giving ‘policy payoffs to polluters.’ ‘Our environment is under siege,’ Mr. Gore , the former vice president, said in an Earth Day speech here to 400 students at Vanderbilt University. ‘The Bush administration has chosen to serve the special interests instead of the public interests and subsidize the obsolete failed approaches of the past instead of the exciting new solutions of the future. Instead of ensuring that our water is clean to drink, they thought that maybe there wasn’t enough arsenic in the drinking water.’”
LA Times, 6/30/2002: “In a speech Saturday night to local Democrats, Gore attacked Bush’s economic policies as “a total catastrophe.” He also noted that in the war on terrorism, the U.S. has yet to catch Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and he denounced the White House for “trying to use the war for political purposes.’” [I guess that's just more pure criticsm of policy ... .]
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/al_gore_hypocritically_attacks.asp
“sbj”, you come off like a sycophant to a war criminal whose sadistic torture was one of the factors that lied US into the Iraq war and then arguably increased the violence in Iraq.
.
Peddle that right wing worldview of dominance and submission elsewhere, “sbj”, it might fly in the Republican Party and it’s Village People but it’s inherently un-American.
.
Right winger Chip Reid isn’t a journalist he’s a Republican attack dog.
.
“CBS’s Chip Reid – “Democrats Raising Their Ugly Heads”"
CBS’ Chip Reid Asks Gibbs: Is This The Official Tone Toward Cheney?
.
Here’s my official “tone” towards war criminal Republican Cheney: he’s a sadistic, cowardly thug without a conscience and it’s revelatory how corporate media sycophants like CBS’s Chip Reid slavishly echo his viciousness.
Thank you for exposing the right-wing bias of CBS and MSNBC. The nurse will be stopping by shortly for your afternoon meds.
Chip Reid can go fnck himself.
Speaking of Jim treacher, how about those “Cheneykus?”
Remember, lefties
I’m not running for office
Your polls make me laugh
——————–
Hello, Jon Stewart
You cried on September 12
But haven’t since: Why?
—————
I’m bald and morose
I don’t look good in swim trunks
Eight years, no attacks
————–
Every time I sneer
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faints
Try that one, Barack
————–
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/introducing_the_cheneyku.asp
The question is, will the current administration attack the next administration. The answer is NO, why would they attack the next democratic administration. The Republican party would be better off changing their name.
Well,sbj, great that you felt like you had to dig around the weekly effin standard to prove a point, rather than engaging intelligently, but, oh well, that’s typical for all rightwingers.
.
If you are arguing that Gore’s infrequent speeches with mild comments on current policy are equivalent to what cheney and liz are doing, then you got nothin. Okay?
.
The original point was that the White House Press Corps, and specifically Chip Reid, thinks they need to enforce a standard of “decorum” in order to protect Dick Cheney from criticism. Your original response was about the PRESS CORPS, remember? I called bullsh!t on that and apparently you don’t have an argument so you resort to the typical rightwing red herrings and irrelevancies. I’m willing to engage but I’m not going to go off on a big red herring hunt so you can score an irrelevant point.
Why on earth would anyone show anything more than contempt to someone who so demeaned and diminished the stature of our nation in such a way as Dick Cheney by condoning and ordering torture in our names? Furthermore, Dick has been showing nothing but contempt for the administration that replaced his. The best thing to do would be to send his fat butt to Guantanamo.
I confess that I don’t read the transcript of every Gibbs press conference but how is it that these two examples (one of which is more than 2 months old) qualify as a “habit”?