Gibbs Disputes Matthews’ ‘Crazy, Unfounded Accusations’ Against PBO

[jaxx]

I saw this yesterday and Matthews was pissed when Gibbs said this. And Gibbs didn't back off. Can't find it on the Hardball site either. Tweety was in his republican mode yesterday, he waffles with the breeze.


Robert Gibbs Disputes Chris Matthews’ ‘Crazy, Unfounded Accusations’ Against President Obama

During a pre-debate appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews pressed former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to explain where the President really stands on issues like Medicare reform, and bluntly asked, “Is President Obama a liberal?”

Gibbs took offense to Matthews’ suggestion that the President’s stances are unclear, calling Matthews’ accusations “crazy and unfounded,” and Matthews took offense right back.

<..> Gibbs took exception, cutting off panelist David Corn to say, “Chris is making some crazy, unfounded accusations that somebody needs to answer.”

Matthews responded incredulously, “Crazy and unfounded accusations? Tell me what the President wants to do with Medicare.”

Video at link: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/robert-gibbs-...ent-obama/

[Fire1]

Yeah, I saw that and imo, Gibbs dropped the ball, as usual. Fumble.

[jaxx]

How did Gibbs drop the ball?

[RoyGBiv]

(09-08-2011 10:03 AM)jaxx Wrote:  How did Gibbs drop the ball?

Not to speak for Fire, but Gibbs has a basic lack of ability in dealing with situations where someone has made a statement or asked a set of questions based on a false premise. An aggressive response designed to put the one promoting the premise on the defensive is often the quickest way out of it, and this is what Gibbs tries to do, but he goes about it all wrong. You don't just accuse the guy of being "crazy." The ad hominem makes your antagonist sympathetic, like he's the one being attacked, which is what happened here. Counterintuitive though it may be, this kind of tactic also makes you look like you're hiding something by your clear avoidance of the premise.

The trick is to deny the premise by restating your case and taking the initiative. You can flatly say "I deny the premise," but if you do so, you then need to make clear what the actual discussion should be about or what the real details are.

Now all that may seem far too pedantic, but this is what spokespeople are paid to do, and they should know it well and have it so ingrained into the way they function that it is automatic. Gibbs has never internalized effective rhetorical tactics. He may be a fine strategist and communicator on flat issues, but he cannot handle himself well in confrontations. I hated his press conferences and blame him for at least half the problems Obama faced when he did have a congressional majority.

[Cha]

(09-08-2011 12:01 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(09-08-2011 10:03 AM)jaxx Wrote:  How did Gibbs drop the ball?

Not to speak for Fire, but Gibbs has a basic lack of ability in dealing with situations where someone has made a statement or asked a set of questions based on a false premise. An aggressive response designed to put the one promoting the premise on the defensive is often the quickest way out of it, and this is what Gibbs tries to do, but he goes about it all wrong. You don't just accuse the guy of being "crazy." The ad hominem makes your antagonist sympathetic, like he's the one being attacked, which is what happened here. Counterintuitive though it may be, this kind of tactic also makes you look like you're hiding something by your clear avoidance of the premise.

The trick is to deny the premise by restating your case and taking the initiative. You can flatly say "I deny the premise," but if you do so, you then need to make clear what the actual discussion should be about or what the real details are.

Now all that may seem far too pedantic, but this is what spokespeople are paid to do, and they should know it well and have it so ingrained into the way they function that it is automatic. Gibbs has never internalized effective rhetorical tactics. He may be a fine strategist and communicator on flat issues, but he cannot handle himself well in confrontations. I hated his press conferences and blame him for at least half the problems Obama faced when he did have a congressional majority.

I understand what you're saying..especially to someone like tweety! But, really it's totally the way to go about it.

I haven't seen Jay Carney in action but I hear he's good.

[Arkana]

(09-08-2011 12:01 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(09-08-2011 10:03 AM)jaxx Wrote:  How did Gibbs drop the ball?

Not to speak for Fire, but Gibbs has a basic lack of ability in dealing with situations where someone has made a statement or asked a set of questions based on a false premise. An aggressive response designed to put the one promoting the premise on the defensive is often the quickest way out of it, and this is what Gibbs tries to do, but he goes about it all wrong. You don't just accuse the guy of being "crazy." The ad hominem makes your antagonist sympathetic, like he's the one being attacked, which is what happened here. Counterintuitive though it may be, this kind of tactic also makes you look like you're hiding something by your clear avoidance of the premise.

The trick is to deny the premise by restating your case and taking the initiative. You can flatly say "I deny the premise," but if you do so, you then need to make clear what the actual discussion should be about or what the real details are.

Now all that may seem far too pedantic, but this is what spokespeople are paid to do, and they should know it well and have it so ingrained into the way they function that it is automatic. Gibbs has never internalized effective rhetorical tactics. He may be a fine strategist and communicator on flat issues, but he cannot handle himself well in confrontations. I hated his press conferences and blame him for at least half the problems Obama faced when he did have a congressional majority.

Yeah, I've always thought Gibbs was permanently stuck in attack mode. It works if you're a pitbull opposition researcher, but not so much as the WH Press Secretary and not so much as a prominent spokesman for the President.

[jaxx]

(09-08-2011 12:01 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(09-08-2011 10:03 AM)jaxx Wrote:  How did Gibbs drop the ball?

Not to speak for Fire, but Gibbs has a basic lack of ability in dealing with situations where someone has made a statement or asked a set of questions based on a false premise. An aggressive response designed to put the one promoting the premise on the defensive is often the quickest way out of it, and this is what Gibbs tries to do, but he goes about it all wrong. You don't just accuse the guy of being "crazy." The ad hominem makes your antagonist sympathetic, like he's the one being attacked, which is what happened here. Counterintuitive though it may be, this kind of tactic also makes you look like you're hiding something by your clear avoidance of the premise.

The trick is to deny the premise by restating your case and taking the initiative. You can flatly say "I deny the premise," but if you do so, you then need to make clear what the actual discussion should be about or what the real details are.

Now all that may seem far too pedantic, but this is what spokespeople are paid to do, and they should know it well and have it so ingrained into the way they function that it is automatic. Gibbs has never internalized effective rhetorical tactics. He may be a fine strategist and communicator on flat issues, but he cannot handle himself well in confrontations. I hated his press conferences and blame him for at least half the problems Obama faced when he did have a congressional majority.

I didn't see it that way. First Matthews asked if PBO was a liberal and Gibbs gave a decent answer, not categorizing PBO. It pissed Matthew off.

I saw Matthews being his usual self and attacking with multiple questions and making the statement that he didn't know what Obama was.

Then I saw Gibbs come back with the crazy word and go on to have his say.

This is how Matthews handles guests he doesn't get what he wants out of, he attacks and talks over them and asks question after question without giving the person the time to answer. This time he lost.

People want President Obama to stand up, and his campaign will be doing most of the back and forth because it would look stupid for PBO to be out there fighting with the PLs. Gibbs stood up. He called Matthews on his attack and gave it back. I thought it was just fine.

[Cha]

(09-08-2011 04:42 PM)jaxx Wrote:  I didn't see it that way. First Matthews asked if PBO was a liberal and Gibbs gave a decent answer, not categorizing PBO. It pissed Matthew off.

I saw Matthews being his usual self and attacking with multiple questions and making the statement that he didn't know what Obama was.

Then I saw Gibbs come back with the crazy word and go on to have his say.

This is how Matthews handles guests he doesn't get what he wants out of, he attacks and talks over them and asks question after question without giving the person the time to answer. This time he lost.

People want President Obama to stand up, and his campaign will be doing most of the back and forth because it would look stupid for PBO to be out there fighting with the PLs. Gibbs stood up. He called Matthews on his attack and gave it back. I thought it was just fine.

Good to know..thanks for the further explanation, jaxx.

[Willinois]

The pundits engage in so much speculation based on unnamed sources that they lose touch with the reality of where Obama stands.

[Hekate]

I was amused the other night when Chris Matthews announced that he is at last joining the world of tweeters by laughingly adding, "Tweety will be tweeting."

Eh, wonder how long it's been since his intern told him that's what they've been calling him on Dysfunctional You for years?