Remember when Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was slammed for supposedly urging Americans to watch what they say? (He didn’t of course – but that’s taken a long time to be recognized.)
Now here’s Robert Gibbs delivering the warning for real.
“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.”
Question: why? Why be more careful with this nomination than with those of Miguel Estrada or Robert Bork – never mind Clarence Thomas? On what basis does Gibbs single out this nomination as more sensitive than others, this debate as demanding more care than other debates?
12 responses so far
1 JJWFromME // May 27, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Nah. This is advice, not a warning. All the right wing pundits have their firearms furiously pointed at their feet. They are threatening themselves.
Conversely, back in the day, liberal pundits were walking on eggshells (except for the occasional comedian–who in this case was fired. Even the court jesters couldn’t get a break under Bush).
And that Op-ed says “it’s not obvious that the “watch what they say, watch what they do” comment is a veiled threat intended to restrict speech and expression rather than a plea for sensible conduct.”
No, it’s probably not obvious. Except, over and over again, the Bush White House showed itself as prone to autocratic and brass-knuckled conduct, encouraging this interpretation. Has the Obama White House shown itself to be similarly autocratic?
I defer to John Stewart:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Stewart_Fox_GOP_confuse_tyranny_with_0408.html
2 balconesfault // May 27, 2009 at 3:18 pm
It’s not “this nomination” unto itself – it’s the Gingrich charge of Sotomayor being racist. Calling a member of the Federal Judiciary a racist is a serious charge, whether it’s being made by a left wing hack or a right wing hack.
3 ottovbvs // May 27, 2009 at 3:29 pm
David, I wonder whether you read your own links. The transcript of the Fleischer presser says that he did indeed say it. He’s burbling about context but he definitely said it as your link confirms.
4 ottovbvs // May 27, 2009 at 3:31 pm
David seem to have decided to sign on for a suicide mission attacking the Sotomayor nomination. This is so contrary to the spirit of what he’s trying to achieve at NM you have to wonder what are his motivations.
5 sinz54 // May 27, 2009 at 4:34 pm
ottovbvs: If I’m right, Frum’s motivations are similar to my own:
We’re not part of the Religious Right. Abortion and gay marriage don’t animate us.
What animates us is internal security, and maintenance of civil order.
Under prodding from the ACLU (which eventually spawned Ginsburg), the Earl Warren Court constantly sided with the criminal against the public safety. That was bad enough back then.
But now, after 9-11, we’re at war against terrorism.
And we don’t need a Justice whose “empathy” for the Gitmo detainees is going to get them sprung, to walk free–and kill more Americans.
Nor do we need a Justice who is going to decide that “empathy” for the Gitmo detainees requires that John Yoo and other Bush Administration lawyers be punished, merely for advocating legal opinions that the ACLU doesn’t agree with–if said opinions resulted in mussing the hair of one or two of the Gitmo detainees.
6 John // May 27, 2009 at 5:50 pm
The simple fact is that the White House podium is — or is supposed to be — a special place. If anyone in American politics has reason to “watch what” he or she says, it is the White House Press Secretary. Because words from that podium matter. A group that sharply criticized those who said Obama’s speeches were “mere words” during the primaries should understand that words matter. And it’s always useful to point out the double standard. So I’d add to David’s question “On what basis does Gibbs claim the authority to tell opponents of the President when and what they may speak?”
7 krove // May 27, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Looks like Steele gets it even if others don’t. First time I have ever agreed with him, or understood what he said for that matter.
quote.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told CNN Radio Tuesday the party that he hopes will include more Hispanics must be cautious in how it scrutinizes a groundbreaking Latina judge.
You want to be careful, he said when asked about juggling Hispanic outreach with potential opposition to Sotomayor, You dont want to be perceived as a bully.
But overall, the new Republican leader is calling for the GOP to avoid the explosive rhetoric attached to many Supreme Court fights.
I think our party right now will avoid the partisan knee-jerk judgements that typically come with these things, Steele said.
8 ottovbvs // May 28, 2009 at 6:51 am
sinz54
4:34 PM
“And we don’t need a Justice whose “empathy” for the Gitmo detainees is going to get them sprung, to walk free–and kill more Americans.”
…….You’d better worry about Clarence Thomas then since GHWB made much of his “empathy.” The fact you talk in such hysterical terms about Sotomayor’s decisions and likely impact on rulings about detainees says more about you than her.
9 sinz54 // May 28, 2009 at 6:57 am
balconesfault: That doesn’t matter.
Gingrich has every right to call Sotomayor a racist or any other label he wants. It’s HIS responsibility to decide what comes out of his mouth, not the White House’s.
There’s this pesky thing called the First Amendment, you know. We all have the freedom to say hateful things, as long as we’re not specifically inciting to violence.
10 balconesfault // May 28, 2009 at 10:00 am
“Gingrich has every right to call Sotomayor a racist or any other label he wants. It’s HIS responsibility to decide what comes out of his mouth, not the White House’s.”
You’re right – but I just don’t see any implied threat in Gibbs statement. I think one has to be particularly paranoid to read a statement as circuitous as Gibbs “warning” and consider it anything but the only way to respond to a question about Gingrich’s comments without endorsing them.
I guess he could have said “The First Amendment grants Gingrich the right to voice whatever opinion he has, no matter how ignorant or stupid” … but perhaps he had already used up his quota for snark for the month.
11 ktward // May 28, 2009 at 2:20 pm
sinz54, 4:34 pm:
“And we don’t need a Justice whose ‘empathy’ for the Gitmo detainees is going to get them sprung, to walk free–and kill more Americans.”
1) Your equating of ‘empathy’ as a perfectly legit quality of a SCOTUS nominee to the release/relocation of Gitmo detainees is misplaced paranoia.
Interestingly, only in the Sotomayor nomination has the quality of human empathy in terms of a SCOTUS (or judicial) nominee become a partisan arrow.
Samuel Alito:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6zdX_HCOGw
(forgive the partisan clip, truly, but it’s the only one I could quickly find that includes Coburn’s legit query)
Clarence Thomas:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905260034
2) Our current SCOTUS has already laid the groundwork necessitating Obama’s responsibility to resolve the inarguably complex Gitmo detainees issue:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-gives-detainees-habeas-rights/
“…kill more Americans.” And how, precisely, might the current Gitmo detainees do that? For those that might transfer to US Supermax prisons, we’ve no need to worry:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN28287891
From MY State:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22900.html
sinz, unsubstantiated fear-mongering does not a legitimate argument make.
“Nor do we need a Justice who is going to decide that ‘empathy’ for the Gitmo detainees requires that John Yoo and other Bush Administration lawyers be punished, merely for advocating legal opinions that the ACLU doesn’t agree with–if said opinions resulted in mussing the hair of one or two of the Gitmo detainees.”
In this regard, SCOTUS is the least of your worries. If you really want to burst a blood vessel on this, worry about Congress, DOJ and OPR; that’s where this particular party will happen, my friend.
12 ktward // May 29, 2009 at 11:25 am
Uhm, David, you assert that “…Gibbs single[d] out this nomination as more sensitive than others, this debate as demanding more care than other debates..”
I read the Politico link you provided, and no where is there even a hint that Gibbs has suggested that the Sotomayor nom should be handled ‘more sensitively’ than these others. Gibbs wasn’t WH Press Sec back then for those SCOTUS noms, he is today, and today he’s making suggestions on the rhetoric surrounding Sotomayor’s nom.
Where on earth did you come up with this?
You must log in to post a comment.