Why didn't Gibbs correct the statement "will the President get the 60 votes he needs"

[rufus dog]

The direct response should have been, HE NEEDS 50 VOTES, NEXT QUESTION.

[vi5]

1. This entire dialogue is infuriating....

What happened to "a simple up or down vote"? Where is the reprehensible buch of scumbags "the gang of 14"?

And above and beyond all else: where the fuck are the democrats shouting about this from the rooftops left, right, up, down, and all the fucking live long day?

[BlueCaliDem]

2. He can't say that when you have Dick Durbin out telling the press Dems need 60

and they don't have it.

Although you're right, that we merely need a majority to pass any bills, perhaps there are threats made in secret to the Dems by repubs that they will filibuster if Dems want to force the bill through. With the BushDogDems siding with repubs almost exclusively, I think Gibbs is careful not to contradict Sen. Durbin.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Cloture = 60 votes.

And there is a threat already on the table from Shelby and others. So it is correct to say they need 60.

[rufus dog]

4. then you shout from the rooftop that Repubs are being obstructionists

Name me one time in 2001 to 2007 that a Bush spokesperson said then needed 60 votes for a bill.

You can't bitch that it is the fault of the media if you don't create the proper expectations and take the fight to the repubs.

[uponit7771]

5. If Harry Reid shouted no one would hear and if someoen did hear they'd laugh

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. That's fair enough.

I hope they eventually do whip out the obstructionist label. I think doing so immediately would have a negative effect, long term.

[sohndrsmith]

7. Wow - good catch. Do we have 50 votes? I'm guessing yes... but I don't

know. I'm guessing he just said 60 because that's the number that we keep hearing ad nauseum regarding the Senate...

Maybe his error is subliminally useful. Maybe a couple of Republicans will feel jaunty enough to vote with their brains rather than their party while still thinking they're covered because they don't think it would make a difference and such a vote wouldn't put it over the top.

But those Senators would know that it's 50 more than most, so that's a pretty silly argument I just made... : ).

Gibbs is don't the hardest job in Washington, I think... I give him an enormous amount of credit and a lot of patient leeway for him to get his sea legs. There has been one person who was nearly (if not fully) flawless as Press Secretary, and that was Tony Snow.

I remember the first time I saw him right after he was appointed, and my face must have blanched because he was.....SO....good. I didn't want anyone that good, in that position, representing or validating Bush in any way, shape or form. That was probably the best, if not smarted appointment Bush ever made. Snow owned the room and those in it - he was always in charge and as much as the content in his message made me cringe, I really enjoyed watching him and appreciating his skill.

Gibbs still has his training wheels on, but don't let his soft-spoken, and sometimes clumsy presentation fool you. He's good - he's just dealing with navigating the newness of the role. He'll be different than Snow, but I have a lot of faith in his ability do be just as good eventually - but in his own way.

I think only air-traffic controllers have a more stressful job than Press Secretary, and I'm not even sure of that! : )

I think it was just a simple blip... to me, pretty insignificant as such.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. The 60 vote requirement in the senate is a check on one party rule

Whether or not it's a good check is another story. However the fact is that it does exist and we do need 60 votes.