Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post dubs Jane Hamsher the founder of the carping cavilers of cyberspace. The name was inspired by Hamsher’s decision to liken press secretary Robert Gibbs to Spiro Agnew of “nattering nabobs of negativity” fame. To ‘carp’ is ‘to find fault in a disagreeable way; complain fretfully.’ To ‘cavil’ is to ‘make petty or unnecessary objections.’ I don’t think all of Jane’s complaints are petty or unnecessary. Many of them are misdirected, however. Other than that, I think Ms. Marcus has a winner. Also, it’s Rahm’s fault.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Looks good on paper but alliteration fail. Because it isn’t pronounced “kyberspace”.
Of course, given the etymology of the word from the Greek its arguable that it should be pronounced “kyberspace” and that everyone mispronounces it. But since that’s not how linguistics works – alliteration fail.
Substantively, I think Jane’s complaints are usually good ones. I don’t think Jane chooses good tactics to reach her end goals, but that’s mostly because she seems to be trying to use the tactics that the right used very successfully for the last 30+ years and applying them from the left. And I don’t think that those tactics work as well from the left as they do from the right. Time will tell, I guess.
“In that spirit, let me end by saying I don’t pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.” Barack Obama, 2005
Now if you’ll pardon me, I have to go pee in a cup, because only a drug addict (or someone who’s relentlessly negative and living etc etc) could possibly find fault with the Obama administration.
Did you miss the word “candor” in the quote you’ve selected? Seems that Gibbs comment was pure candor.
and as for your last sentence, you know as well as I do that the reference to drug testing was pure hyperbole and not meant to be taken literally – along the lines of “what are you smoking” and it was directly in relation to the people who say Obama is like Bush NOT to those who “find fault with the Obama administration”.
Another quote for you, from the inauguration:
“The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.”
I do sometimes think that his confidence in America was a bit misplaced.
And you know that politicians lie all the time, right? Or that, as I pointed out elsewhere in one of the recent threads, that Obama was/is a DLC golden boy just as much as Romanoff. Or maybe you are content with 15% Unemployment. Especially given that’s above the projections of Obama’s economic team.
really? that was hyperbole? You see, i am too HIIIIIIIGH to realize that.
But what i do realize, when the LSD wears off and the bugs stop crawling out of my eyeballs, is that smearing the left through the hyperbole that we’re a bunch of drug addicts plays right into conventional wisdom that the left is a bunch of hippys: unserious, stoned hippies who don’t understand reality.
meanwhile the stoned unserious hippies were right that the stimulus was too small, we’re going to be proved right that a surge in Afghanistan won’t accomplish anything, and and we’ll be proved right that a public option is necessary to control costs in health insurance reform (CBO agrees and says it will reduce the deficit.)
seems to me the people gibbs scoffs at were right, but pardon me I have to do some bong hits.
It’s amazing how progressives pile up a record of predictive accuracy and yet the country doesn’t became any more progressive as a result. But being right about what should be done doesn’t make you right about the reasons why those things are not done, or are done in half-ass fashion. Nor does it make it productive to spend all day bashing the wrong people about it.
“It’s amazing how progressives pile up a record of predictive accuracy and yet the country doesn’t became any more progressive as a result.”
that’s because none of our suggestions and predictions are acted upon. if i tell my friend not to drive when you’re drunk and you do so anyway, my record of predictive accuracy grows, but it doesn’t make my friend any less of a drunk driver.
“But being right about what should be done doesn’t make you right about the reasons why those things are not done, or are done in half-ass fashion.”
yeah, well I have my own eyes to tell me WHY they’re not done. And opensecrets.org helps too.
“Nor does it make it productive to spend all day bashing the wrong people about it.”
i’m not bashing the wrong people. Bob Gibbs said what was on his mind, the press secretary speaks for the administration, today he says he’s standing by it. I’m bashing the right person. and beyond that, it’s pretty much incontrovertible that on civil liberties, Obama is just as bad as Bush. You don’t have to believe relentlessly negative permanently outraged me: you can go read the impressive collection that Greenwald (who you respect because he deals with facts) has amassed at his website (including new commentary from the Interior that under Salazar, it’s bush’s third term).
Also, i’m not spending all day bashing Bob Gibbs. i have a job.
His record on civil liberties is not good. When he starts torturing people, he’ll be in Bushville. I understand people are angry about his record on civil liberties and I share that anger. But I don’t see anyone in Congress complaining about it on either side of the aisle. No one has had his back when he’s tried to improve our policies on detainees. We’re governed by a bunch of scaredy-cats and bedwetters. I have gone off on the bedwetters repeatedly.
But, if you are concerned about civil liberties, you still consider the Republicans near-universal contempt for them, the ACLU, and anyone who wants to build a mosque in this country.
I’ve said it before. The biggest threat facing this country is the Republican Party. We do not have the luxury of fighting a whole lot of side battles. The main force is arrayed against us and they have momentum.
“starts”?
I share your contempt for the GOP, which is why it’s so infuriating to see Obama go back on his word on… well, i just found this nice list at Dkos:
*Justify giving torturers and war profiteers a pass
*Justify prosecuting whistleblowers
*Justify ordering assassinations
*Justify claiming the right to imprison people FOREVER without trial
*Justify 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan at a cost of 30 billion dollars a year
*Justify appointing Ken Salazar
*Justify not firing Ken Salazar for his incompetent oversight of MMS
*Justify letting BP try to cover up the size of the spill through the massive use of dispersants…
*Justify candidate Obama’s 180 on FISA and subsequent lying about safeguards that the bill did not contain.
So yeah, i view the GOP with utter contempt. But i view all of this (all of which is true and documented) with the exact same contempt, and there is nothing you or anyone else can say that legitimizes any of this.
the republicans need to remain in the minority, but there’s no reason for me to stand for this nonsense silently.
Don’t stand for it silently.
But cast the blame for it equitably.
i think i do a decent job of that.
I try to certainly.
we really need to abolish the senate entirely. just get rid of it.
Is being right more important than getting something/anything done?
And comparing Obama to Bush in any way shape or form is simply wrong and stupid… kinda like doing drugs.
I will say that I think Obama didn’t push hard enough for the public option, but I also think that the public option will indeed happen eventually if for no other reason than it is the right thing to do, both morally and practically.
I also think Obama and his crew are flawed to think that the far Left acts and thinks in a way similar to the far Right. They can’t be treated the same or with the same tactics.
comparing Obama to Bush in any way shape or form is simply wrong and stupid.
so talking points memo, electronic frontier fededration, the ACLU, pulitzer prize winning reporter charlie savage, NYT’s Bob herbert, russ feingold and the NYT editorial board (among others in a list that could be longer) are wrong that Obama’s policies on gitmo and civil liberties are wrong? really? they’re wrong, or lying, or what?
I’d like some of what you’re smoking Andrew, clearly I’m not high enough.
i almost forgot, expanding the use of national security letters, that’s NOTHING like Bush.
or Obama’s embrace of the military commissions that democrats and progressives claimed to oppose when it was Bush’s policy: that’s totally different from Bush, the comparison is TOTALLY INSANE AND ONLY A CRAZY PROGRESSIVE CRYBABY WHO DIDN’T GET EVERYTHING HE WANTED would object.
in response to your brother’s statement that “When he starts torturing people, he’ll be in Bushville”, i present the ACLU.
crazy liberals.
There is a massive difference in the intent behind these policies as practiced between Bush and Obama.
Bush did it because he was a brain dead simpleton who preferred simple, blunt, stupid solutions.
Having this shit in place it is difficult for Obama, both practically and politically to dismantle it. The POTUS doesn’t get a magic wand.
Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be pissed. Be pissed. But be pissed that the entire party hasn’t acted or at least signaled they would have Obama’s back. Be pissed that more Americans aren’t as pissed as you are and demanding these changes. Sadly, too many Americans are just cool and happy with the idea of torturing and incarcerating suspected terrorist. And they are cool with the CIA reading their email (but maybe not their spouse or employer)
In England we used to refer to the “Loony Left” which seems to me as apt a description as any.
After a day sitting back and reflecting on the comments at various lib blogs I am beginning to think that Gibbs’ interview was a bit of a master chess move. I don’t think I’ve seen so many people (I mean ordinary commentators comme moi) express solidarity with Obama since early 2009. The people who take this most to heart are the ones who were never going to vote anyway, it seems.
I bet 99% of the ones who are pissed off about Gibbs will vote. Do you know what the problem is? It’s that D.C. Democrats show no respect to the Democratic base. That D.C. Democrats are in love with that “Sister Souljah” crap.
Just exactly what or who is the Democratic base? I hear various factions and ideologues claim that they are “the base.” They can’t all be right, can they?
African Americans, union households, women, Jews, and GLBT.
Any other discrete groups large enough to matter, and electorally off the table before the election even starts?
I can’t think of any.
Latinos — oops.
I’d be willing to bet that the sum total votes of all of those who are pissed off about Gibbs couldn’t swing a state senate seat…
You know what’s funny. At least according to what I read on Wikipedia, Marcus’ husband seems like the DFH of the family. Marcus is a Village gasbag, through and through. You expected she’d write anything else about Jane Hamsher? Gibbs is wrong. I could go over it all, but tons of people have been making good points all over the blogosphere. My question is why can’t Gibbs name names? Is he really pissed at something a Johnny Come Lately(Ratigan) said? Is it something else? But saying what he did is just stupid. When did Bush(or his PR flacks) ever diss the Republican base? Can you dig up even one example? Digby is right in what she wrote yesterday(which she has written about before). The D.C. Democrats hate their base. And until they stop, shit like Gibbs will continue to happen.
Gibbs gave half the blogosphere a gift by not naming names in that interview. By being vague he gave Digby and others the opening they needed to tell their readers that this is proof that the Democrats hate them. Not that they need persuasion, just daily affirmation that they are hated. “If David Frum says so it must be true!” The Democrats don’t hate their base but if they know you exist, they probably do hate you. They don’t and they don’t though. Sorry.
If Markos(and Chuck Todd) are right, then the people that set Gibbs off aren’t even part of the “Professional Left.” Has there been any movement on EFCA since Obama was elected? Kangaroo court at Gitmo? And you sure don’t read Digby that much if you think she said that to feel validated by David Frum. She’s been saying the same thing for a while.
I know she’s been saying the same thing for a while. It’s part of her blogger shtick. Why she felt the need to cite David Frum’s opinion is a mystery to me but she did. Maybe you can explain? My best guess, she’s tired of her own act and wanted see if anyone would say, wait, David Frum, WTF? I’d go into the comments and see for myself but there are about 10x more comments on that post than most other posts there so I’m not going to bother.
Did you even read why exactly she linked to Frum? Because he was stating the truth(which considering the one half needs validation from GOP’ers) that anyone with two brain cells could see. That truth is that the Democratic Establishment regards the base with disdain while the GOP fears its base(see the rising of the Rand Paul and Sharon Angle Teabaggers)
Right, a silly and unprovable theory about the Republicans’ and the Democrats’ feelings about their respective bases is plainly true but still needs support from David Frum in case anyone was in doubt. But if you want to believe that you = the base and that the base is hated so that you can whine about it, go ahead. It must feel great.
Explain to me how this discussion helps politically. Or helps policy.
If the fight is between Ruth Marcus and Jane Hamsher, then it is between two professional polemicists.
I don’t understand why so many of us amateur polemicists need to get in the act on this one. My guess it that it’s a totally within the Beltway fight.
Is Obama losing his base? I don’t see it here in NC. And I suspect that the screams and howls are coming from folks who won’t be voting in a district that has a Blue Dog or DLC candidate anyway.
There is a northern bicoastal ambience about the assertions that Obama is losing his base.
So will it hurt Barbara Boxer or Jerry Brown or Nancy Pelosi or Kirsten Gillibrand or Andrew Cuomo if some of the self-proclaimed base votes Green or some other third-party or sits it out?
Just because we were part of a diverse ideological coalition that elected Barack Obama does not mean that any one ideological position is his base.
And the more I watch what’s going on (and September is when you need to really start watching) the more I think that the GOP overplayed its hand again. And as local races start unfolding, a lot of the folks who think they’re being dissed will wind up voting for the Democrat who is running in their district.
The objective political necessity for progressives is to break the back of the Republican Party in November–to hand them a historic defeat. It is going to take some hard work to do that. And the story won’t be telegraphed in the tracking polls. In one sense it has nothing to do with opinion, it’s who goes and votes and who they vote for, regardless of their opinion.
And that means that the ground organization who can turn out the most people to vote for their candidates wins. And Barack Obama is not on the ballot, so it cannot be a referendum on Barack Obama. But it can be a referendum on Republican policy initiatives (or the lack thereof). For the primaries that have passed, it is no longer a referendum on who the best Democratic candidate is.
And it is light years to November. I suspect that a large number of folks who have been answering polling questions have no idea who they are going to vote for yet.
Is Obama losing his base? I don’t see it here in NC.
I really doubt that either, when the chips are down. However, given the state of the economy, I don’t know what will happen in November. It all depends on the candidates, really.
Because the focus, vision, and above all discipline of a real Democratic party is the only thing that can save the country, we can’t let side issues like winning elections, having majorities, or above all governing, distract us.
Because, at the end of the day, isn’t that what’s it’s all about — us?
š
“Just because we were part of a diverse ideological coalition that elected Barack Obama does not mean that any one ideological position is his base.”
Absolutely true. And I wish more people would realize it.
That is the way it should be – a diverse ideological coalition working together for common goals – if we are ever to come together as a country and solve the myriad problems that are facing us. The constant carping and sniping across ideological divides doesn’t advance anything except carping and sniping.
Gibbs’ job is to tout administration achievements and try to build unity around a common narrative theme. Some professional commentators refuse to play ball and point out the shortcomings in Obama achievements. All are just doing their jobs/articulating their beliefs.
Gibbs vents some frustration – claiming it was occasioned by right-wing cable when in fact it was directed at left-wing critics. His claim is that they do not represent the broader base of the Dem party and the activist base which created the Obama majority. Gibbs is probably right there too.
But what’s the big deal? You’d want to be pretty thin skinned to let minor tiffs like this effect how you vote. This is about media self-obsession and not about the real feelings of real activists working in the real world of extreme economic difficulty and political class war.
The broader narrative is that the GOP has again over-played its hand, selected poor candidates and articulated some pretty crazy and dangerous positions which could lead the US to a place worse that even Bush ever did.
A mature electorate should give the Obama regime a warning shot across the bows for doing too little to boost the economy. It will not be endorsing any GOP agenda because there simply isn’t a rational one. GOP leaders will learn the hard way that building an alternative Government isn’t just about saying no and letting the crazies roam free.
The electorate could just say – thanks for providing some entertaining and distracting opposition – you get to keep the job – of being in opposition!
His claim is that they do not represent the broader base of the Dem party and the activist base which created the Obama majority. Gibbs is probably right there too.
He is? Which issue? Health care? Does the majority of the party want to dismantle Social Security?
Would Jane Hamsher be elected to national office if she stood for election? Would she even win a democratic primary for a major office?
By major office I presume you mean Representative or Senator? I don’t know. She hasn’t lived in one place long enough to build up the kind of relationships you’d need, and thought she might be wealthy by the standards of most here, I don’t know that she has the personal wealth that would make some local party establishment welcome her as a candidate. I guess moving to Connecticut and trying to defeat HolyJoe doesn’t mean anything to you.
I don’t know Jane Hamsher’s work well but have absolutely nothing against anyone who tries to defeat Holy Joe. I also have no issue with anyone agitating for progressive change – no matter how extreme left wing the change may be perceived – provided there is an objective and empirical case to be made for that change – e.g. climate change mitigation, Afghanistan withdrawal, or public option. However the issue under discussion (as I understand it) was whether she was more representative of the Dem Base than Obama and his team, and there I suspect Obama still wins.
What issues are important to her? And what issues to the base? I suspect there is a lot of overlap. Jobs. Health care.
Isn’t it possible Gibbs was signalling Obama’s wall street contributors that Obama is not a leftie socialist? Didn’t the dems. just cut the food stamp program to save the teacher’s jobs? They didn’t cut military expenses they cut food stamps. The food stamp cuts don’t kick in till 2014 but still they are cutting food stamps from the poor who I suspect they have decided don’t vote. Obama’s campaign was and still is very tightly managed from the top. I feel Gibb’s comments were no accident. These days I ask myself how would I respond if this was Bush. I would be very suspicious and I would suspect that if was deliberate ploy to signal his financial supporters.
Ruth Marcus deserves no hearing on anything. Here’s her wealthy wisdom on Rich Trumka’s suggestions for saving the American economy and people.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/pitfalls_of_soaking_the_rich_20100706/
My question is this. What to do about someone who repeatedly slaps you around and then admits that they take you for granted because where else would you go?
A question has anyone directly asked Obama about his view of Ayn Rand? Or, Milton Friedman? Essentially anyone of the Chicago School economic types.