Call Me Crazy
[Guest post by DRJ]
Earlier this week, Minority Leader John Boehner disagreed with the Obama Administration on bringing GTMO detainees to the U.S., and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Boehner was talking crazy:
“Asked about fears some Americans might have about Gitmo detainees being transferred to a prison in Thomson, Illinois, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today singled out House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, suggesting the tanned Ohioan’s comments were less than sane.
***
Continued Gibbs, “I will say this. I have seen some far crazier comments today — comments from people like John Boehner.”
It’s not just Republicans who the Administration thinks are talking crazy. Howard Dean disagreed with Obama on health care and now he’s on the receiving end of questions about his sanity:
“On Vermont Public Radio Tuesday, Dean called for Democratic senators to kill the bill.
“I don’t think any rational person would say killing a bill makes any sense at this point,” Gibbs said today.”
Obama vowed to change the tone in Washington and he did. Now if you disagree with the President, you’re not just partisan … you’re crazy.
— DRJ
Can you imagine the uproar if the Bush administration called an opposing Senator crazy? “They’re not just questioning our patriotism, they’re questioning our sanity!”
Some chump (7d157e) — 12/17/2009 @ 7:01 pmbut he is a good man.
Mr. Pink (bb8267) — 12/17/2009 @ 7:25 pmDidn’t the Soviets lock up a lot of “crazy” people in mental hospitals?
Machinist (9780ec) — 12/17/2009 @ 7:26 pmGiven that the next DSM is being done much like AGW, i.e., as “secret science,” can we expect “Demophobia” to be added as a categorizable mental illness, defined as “an irrational fear of government, evidenced by disagreeing with your betters”?
ras (1d003b) — 12/17/2009 @ 7:46 pmCall someone crazy, you’ve lost the argument. They seem to be losing a lot of arguments lately.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/17/2009 @ 8:04 pmI think this post took the wrong angle.
chaos (7c068a) — 12/17/2009 @ 8:04 pmTo tie this latest episode of Administration Embarrassment Theater into recent thorough analysis of invective and criticism here at Patterico, has the Administration’s incompetence actually spread to insults?
I mean, how would such an attempt at dismissing opponents have gone down here if attempted in the last few weeks? The Obama crew is worse at talking shit than a bunch of guys sitting in their pajamas yelling about intentionalism and interracial divorce. (First comes love, then comes marriage, then flip a coin to see if you need to get a head start on divorce lawyers…)
chaos (7c068a) — 12/17/2009 @ 8:09 pmchaos, I think it’s strange that you want to bring that up in this thread, considering that you don’t think it should be brought up in its own threads.
Makes it seem like you aren’t sincere.
But yeah, there’s obviously a need for Obama to do as he said and try to promote a good tone… to moderate his message. There’s a reason Obama isn’t talking ‘shit’ the way that you think would show skill at it… he doesn’t need to.
Threatening to shut down Nebraska’s STRATCOM is a lot more effective than saying someone’s an anti-semite. Obama’s actually really, really good at what he’s doing.
He made that IG look like a total buffoon at first, (most folks probably don’t even realize they’ve been had). His campaign did an excellent job fooling people into thinking Bristol was a legitimate target for ridicule and sexualization. I am not all that impressed with Obama’s political skill… he hasn’t really won all that many elections and was losing to John Mccain until the economy exploded, but he did a great job smack talking Hillary and Mccain.
Every now and then he slips into loser territory with a middle finger scratch or a lipstick comment, but usually Obama is very sophisticated in how he undermines people’s credibility. It’s not his message that is failing him, it’s that his policies are producing terrible results.
Anyway, did you want to talk about this stuff, because there’s a thread about intentionalism and you said you didn’t want to talk about it.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/17/2009 @ 8:53 pmThe arrogance is simply breathtaking. Does this crew EVER acknowledge any degree of legitimacy in their opponents’ concerns about any issue? I’ve been in media relations for 25 years–some of that time as a state agency press secretary–and I NEVER responded to an opposing viewpoint in that way. For the O team, that type of response is the rule.
RB (9c47f9) — 12/17/2009 @ 8:56 pmRobert Gibbs makes Baghdad Bob seem rational.
AD - RtR/OS! (2917cb) — 12/17/2009 @ 8:59 pmHe couldn’t get a clown job with Barnum & Bailey.
We know that Obama is asking for a hell of a lot, and that times are tough. He knows there will be many examples of people being enthusiastic, passionate, angry, and emotional in criticizing Obama and the democrats.
The very best way to undermine this is to attempt to get this ‘crazy’ meme out there. If Obama did was Chaos suggested, he’d be unemployed and playing video games all day. He can’t threaten to break my arm or call me a klansmen. This intelligent about avoiding racial hustling in particular was a huge factor in his likability. Whether this is accurate or not, people think of Obama as leaving racial grievances aside and attempting to be post racial.
In other words, he’s a good man, or knows how to play one on TV (despite plenty of evidence he’s an america hating socialist, that stuff wasn’t part of his crafted message). I’m glad Obama shows some understanding of what appearing as a good man is all about, and sorry to see him let the mask slip. His policy’s obvious results are all I think the right needs to win elections. Frankly, I always thought he obviously loved his family and was on a mission to change the situation surrounding his mother’s death. A good man* with very stupid ideas and no experience, put in a lofty position because he’s prettier than Hillary and Mccain.
*yeah, I know, not really
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/17/2009 @ 9:02 pmIs Gibbs imitating Jeff Goldstein?
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/17/2009 @ 9:16 pmThat’s a low blow. No one deserves to have Robert Gibbs connected to them even in such a tenuous way.
chaos (7c068a) — 12/17/2009 @ 9:24 pmOh and come off it Dustin my point was “you’re insane” is the kind of retort that would be gleefully torn to shreds – and rightly so! – by any number of people here. I wasn’t suggesting that the Obama Administration turn into Patterico at LMA’s or Jeff Goldstein whenever he’s in front of a keyboard.
chaos (7c068a) — 12/17/2009 @ 9:31 pmFor all this windy debate about intentionalism a lot of you people seem really troubled with, oh, divining intent.
“Oh and come off it Dustin my point was “you’re insane” is the kind of retort that would be gleefully torn to shreds – and rightly so! – by any number of people here.”
I obviously understood that. It’s banal. This is a conservative blog and all. If you wanted to say something clever and involve the topic you don’t want discussed, you could have done a better job. Your intent was pretty obvious.
Like I said, Obama’s much better at this kind of demogogery than, say, Sarah Palin or John Mccain. Every now and then the mask slips, but this ‘crazy’ attack is so much more clever than you’re giving it credit for being. It’s tailored for the future, to get a meme out that gets into people’s heads about who we want to trust… the people who are angry and unstable or cool Obama. I don’t agree with that characterization, of course, but it’s so much more intelligent than anything you’re citing (and I don’t see why you want to bring that up here, when you entered a thread on the topic and said it wasn’t worth talking about).
No need to tell me to come off anything. Don’t be a troll.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/17/2009 @ 9:45 pmit seems “chaos” has issues with dealing with chaos….
/and i need a new irony meter. %-)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/17/2009 @ 11:22 pmEntropy is as Entropy does, no?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/17/2009 @ 11:29 pmI keep wanting to give the benefit of the doubt to these buffoons by hoping
krusher (d7502e) — 12/18/2009 @ 1:54 amthey say and do because they’re inexperienced and stupid. Looking more
and more like it’s the Alisky’s plan to ruin our country.
OK: You’re crazy.
You asked for it.
Dr. K (adb7ba) — 12/18/2009 @ 2:47 am“I don’t think any rational person would say killing a bill makes any sense at this point,” Gibbs said today.”
My response to that would be, “Trying to pass a bill that is not receiving support from the public nor influential demagogues doesn’t make any sense either.”
As has been pointed out before, Americans love the idea of “universal health care” unless they think that money will be taken out of their own pockets to pay for it. Obama got elected by promising them that “the rich” would keep the entitlement gravy train rolling, but the top 10% of the population make up 40% of our consumer spending economy, and they simply aren’t spending money, nor are banks lending.
The whole government funding concept right now is ridiculously dependant on “extend and pretend” economic policies, which basically dooms any entitlement program in this country to eventual failure, especially when our population of over 300 million is expecting someone else to pay for their sweets and treats.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 12/18/2009 @ 7:08 amthe assertion that those who disagree with them are crazy points to thier philosophical pedigree in the ussr.
clyde (281d90) — 12/18/2009 @ 10:16 amOur President has indeed led the change in tone in Washington – from when it was mostly civilised (with occasional bouts of over-the-top), to the current levels of “Neener-neener, you’re just crazy!” …
Alasdair (41df69) — 12/19/2009 @ 6:33 am