Comments on: First Read Joins Chorus Hitting Robert Gibbs For Being Mean To Cheney

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 22 May 2009 01:14:31 +0000

What is it with Republicans and their apologists? Were they all raped as children or something? I’m stumped for an explanation for their toxic world view. I mean, even Hobbes like animals …

By: Semkamanz

Semkamanz — Fri, 01 May 2009 03:53:34 +0000

nokia 6131 программы для nokia n81 Mau =^-^=

By: mrspeel

mrspeel — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:19:15 +0000

As you’ve stated, the thing that bothers me in “First Read’s” assessment of Robert Gibbs’ answer about Dick Cheney is that they seem to see nothing wrong with what the former Vice-President said! To go before the American people and try to instill fear in us by saying President Obama is making us more unsafe is beyond the pale, not to mention inexcusable. I suppose it’s also alright that John King referenced his question by using the extreme right-wing rag “Human Events” to frame his question in such a way that it would practically demand the answer it illicited from Cheney, is also alright in their opinion? MSNBC is NOT seeing things very clearly lately and the opinions read there seem to be sliding a lot further to the right. They should change their slogan to “The Place For Right-Wing Politics” since they are apparently devolving into FOX News TWO. They must sure love them some ratings!

Dick Cheney is one of the main reasons we are hated in the rest of the world and is NOT a person worthy of ANY respect. If he chooses to go out on the public airwaves and pull a Glenn “the sky-is-falling” Beck, then he should answer for it and deserves the criticism that comes from such a performance.

Go Robert “Tell It Like It Is” GIBBS!!!!

By: Smart Woman

Smart Woman — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:43:43 +0000

Little did I realize that Cheney was such an admirable person, at least in the eyes of MSNBC. I listened again to Gibbs’ response to the idiotic question and it was appropriate, especially given the insane statements of Cheney. In fact, it was quite witty. Cheney is an enemy of the people and democracy. Let the folks at MSNBC live in HIS world. Talk about revisionist history…

By: Cal Damage

Cal Damage — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:36:35 +0000

Who was the Republican stenographer (I’m assuming, based on his haircut and uniform) that posed the question to Gibbs to begin with? It just sounded like it came direct from the Ailes/Levin/Norquist fax machines. Has he dodged responsibility for being a plant?

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:24:36 +0000

This isn’t about Gibbs. It is about the whiny, unprofessional behavior of the White House Press Corps, a group of overweening, egotistical but highly oversensitive frat boys who wine and dine with their Republican friends at MediaBistro cocktail parties. Remember Ari Fleischer? “Watch what we say, watch what we do”? Did these overprivileged over-blow-dried frat boys throw a hissy fit about all the nasty stuff Fleischer did? No. They didn’t. They stood in the Rose Garden and guffawed along with George W Bush the day he announced that his administration had approved the committing of war crimes (September 15, 2006) In addition, they sat in their little White House cubicles for eight years while their overlord Dick Cheney plotted war crimes and designed systems to spy on these very same overprivileged adolescent reporters, who never dared ask where Cheney was and what he was doing. Sat there for eight years while Bush Press Secretaries lied to them to their face. And they knew it. Yes they did. But the cowardly little weasels said nothing, all those years. They knew. But their six-figure salaries meant way more to them, so they shut up and said nothing, all that time. No, this isn’t about Gibbs. It’s about them.

By: johnfree

johnfree — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:23:14 +0000

I have the same response as to misbehaving children – “when you act worthy of respect, you will get respect”.
In this case — If you act like a partisan hack (or worse) fifty days after leaving office, you will be treated like a partisan hack.
pretty simple.

By: ACLS

ACLS — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:31:27 +0000

Do you suppose Cheney’s feelings were hurt? He always struck me as the type to put on a big show of being tough, but is actually deep down really sensitive. Put on a face for the media and then go home and cry into his pillow. Gibbs should be more considerate of other people’s feelings.

But seriously: WTF?

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:19:44 +0000

Greg, that comment at 12:26 is highly inappropriate. I hope you will see fit to remove it.

By: JMC

JMC — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:15:53 +0000

I completely agree that giving this man a platform for his ‘best defense is an offense’ is outrageous. Cheney obviously did this to blanket the news of his private assassination ring. But worse than just being ‘wired for Republicans’ there is a witches’ brew in the media now, with lies, myths, and most of all fantasy dominating: reminiscent of only one historical example–the one that came out of an emprisoned German fantaisist several decades ago. He too was the spokesmodel for gigantic corporate wealth; be very wary of this trend…

By: pseudonymous in nc

pseudonymous in nc — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:11:22 +0000

Cheney’s going to be Village aristocracy until the pacemaker battery runs out; Obama will be an uppity interloper until he leaves Washington, after which, Sally Quinn will say how the Obamas “never quite fit in” to “their” city.

By: Ajax the Greater

Ajax the Greater — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:08:17 +0000

What I like most about commenters like Mary Francom above is that it is clear that they don’t even have to watch Gibbs (or Cheney), or have the faintest notion of what this discussion is about, in order to have a very strong opinion about it: all they do is cut/paste whatever their “leaders” tell them, be it the drug addict or Coulter or Hannity or Free Republic.

The way you can tell this is because all of their responses are exactly the same, and are intentionally non-substantive so they can be used whenever someone’s name comes up regardless of date or substance.

In this most recent example by Ms. Francom, I received multiple emails from Republican co-workers yesterday and this morning using “rude, disrespectful, smug and lacking decorum” in describing Mr. Gibbs. The EXACT SAME WORDS from 5 different far right apologists is simply too many to be a coincidence. I have to hand it to the ever dwindling right wing here in America, at least they are good at coordinating their daily marching orders to their willing flock.

My suggestion to Mary and others like her: turn off the radio and form your own opinions. Just because you think that a guy is cool because he loves oxycontin and viagra parties in the Dominican doesn’t mean that you have do believe everything he tells you.

By: Marty Francom

Marty Francom — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:38:53 +0000

This is issue is about Gibbs – not about what Cheney said. You’re using sophistry to make your point and twisting the argument. It’s not the job of the White House spokesman to ADVISE people not to pay attention to what someone else says and that’s what he said about Cheney – I can decide for myself who I want to listen to and agree with … And does Gibbs represent what the WH believes – he sure spends alot of time using the word ” I ” and gives HIS opinion way too often. He’s rude, disrespectful, smug
and lacking decorum. Sophomoric also – I thought Obama was for change and civility in the public debate. I’ll be happy when Gibbs is gone (and I think it will be sooner than later)

By: Winston Smith

Winston Smith — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:34:07 +0000

**** Dick Cheney and MSNBC.

By: Ajax the Greater

Ajax the Greater — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:12:50 +0000

Credit where credit is due, CBS, normally one of the usual suspects in the compliant and complicit traditional media brigade, actually presents an objective back and forth on this Cheney vs. Gibbs kerfuffle:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/17/politics/washingtonpost/main4871333.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4871333