NYT: Gruber's comments merely an "infelicitous" expression of frustration

If Gruber was merely infelicitous, then that suggests it was unusual for him to be so indelicate. But the evidence suggests otherwise. In fact, Gruber seems to have said this, or something like it, pretty often. Irwin claims Gruber is expressing frustration with the system as it exists, but is he? It sounds more like shameless pride at his own party’s cleverness to me, e.g. “It’s a very clever basic exploitation of the of the of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.” That sound like frustration to you?

Third, Gruber’s contemptuous treatment of the public is hardly isolated to himself. On the contrary, his comments are being taken by many as emblematic of the administration he has served and advised. Yesterday I listed about a dozen lies, big and small, that the Obama administration has told in the course of this process. Some are now well known, others less so (and my list was hardly complete). But contrary to what the NY Times is suggesting, Gruber is just the tip of this particular iceberg, the capstone on this particular pyramid of deception.

So while it’s true the attention to Gruber’s comments may appear disproportionate if considered in isolation, they really should not be considered in that way.