Okay, Gibbs was referring to people like Limbaugh being on thin ice in terms of logic and accuracy. It was not a threat in any way that recriminations are coming. But the second I heard this statement I could hear it:
“Obama hates Freedom of speech! He doesn’t want us to question him and has threatened us for not buying what he has to sell hook line and sinker!”
But here’s the pool: who’s going to say these words (or words to the same general effect- that the “thin ice” was a threat against his critics) first?
Reminds me of Ari Fleischer’s famous quote about how “Americans need to watch what they say, watch what they do.” Here’s Krugman arguing that it was an ominous warning against dissent. Here’s Hitchens contending that Fleischer was actually chastising a racist Republican congressman.
I suspect it’s hard to view a major political actor’s words without being influenced in some way by one’s own politics.
Stupid, stupid, stupid thing to say. I know there is a constant battle for media coverage out there, and I get the strategy, but it’s ridiculous that the Obama administration to keep engaging these people. They can’t win because Rush cannot be voted out of office. Statements like “Obama is a Nazi” or “Obama’s health care reform plan is like Nazism” are self-marginalizing, and it’s petty for the government to get involved in this kind of stuff.
I’ll say Michelle Malkin or Michelle Bachmann calls this a threat first. Which is isn’t. The comparison to the Fleischer remark, which meant something different and was creepier, is unavoidable. Which is ANOTHER reason not to say it. Gibbs just about begged for it with such an ill-advised remark. Say “no comment.” It’s not that hard. In fact it’s easier than answering the question, which is why it’s an old standby.