More on the Robert Gibbs–Sam Youngman rant

John has responded beautifully to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' painful — and to my ears, desperate — rant in The Hill. I'll just emphasize one point that John made: It's beyond dumb to insult your paying customers the day before you open your brand new store.

But I'd like to focus on the article itself, and its writer, Sam Youngman. If you knew nothing at all about Mr. Youngman other than his profession (DC-based political writer for insider publication), what could you deduce from these comments?

Don't focus on the Gibbs' quotations; focus on the writer. Just a few snippets from the article (my emphasis):

1. The White House is simmering with anger at criticism from liberals who say President Obama is more concerned with deal-making than ideological purity.
   
   
2. . . . the $787 billion economic stimulus package, which some liberals said should have been larger.
   
   
3. PCCC is now pressing Obama to nominate Elizabeth Warren, a hero to the left, as the first head of the new consumer protection office created by the Wall Street reform bill.
   
   
4. [Obama] also added diversity to the Supreme Court by nominating two female justices, including the court’s first Hispanic. Yet some liberal groups have criticized his nominees for not being liberal enough.
   
   
5. The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right . . . Gibbs said the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama.

I don't know what you get from this; I get that Sam Youngman is doing Gibbs and Obama a huge favor by adopting all of Gibbs' messaging in his own "reporting," as though Gibbs comments were prima facie correct. Which would be fine if Gibbs were right; but each of the statements above contains fallacies and errors:

1. Straw man argument; no "liberal" says that.
   
2. Misrepresents the economic objection — Stiglitz and Simon Johnson are hardly liberals. And they, along with Krugman, certainly carry a tad more gravitas than the label "some liberals" would connote.
   
3. Ignores the real reason for wanting her nominated.
   
4. Change "yet" to "and" — why wouldn't liberal groups want liberal judges? But it's not a complaint without "yet".
   
5. Adopts Gibbs attack phrase as his own.

And then there's this — you can almost hear them both spit when the word "liberal" comes out their mouths. And as for "professional left" — nicely crafted to inspire contempt. Almost as bad as "professional politician" or "professional PR writer" in its ladies-of-the-night implications.

Conclusion: This is not just Gibbs' rant — it's Youngman's rant too. Fair enough, but he needs to own it as his.

And we need to see the whole piece for what it is — either a gift or a trade. If it's a trade, pay attention; perhaps down the road you can spot what Youngman got.

GP