Mr. Gibbs, You Would Not Have Your Job IF Progressives Had Not Voted For Pres Obama...

[Blackhatjack]

Sooner or later Democrats are going to learn that they will never be in the majority again if Progressives are alienated from the Democratic Party and do not vote for Democratic Candidates.

Progressives being taken for granted will end one day, and then there will be a different political landscape for Mr. Gibbs to pontificate upon...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. My preliminary take:

[scheming daemons]

2. And who would be most hurt by that "different political landscape"... Mr. Gibbs... or you?

Think about your answer.

[Blackhatjack]

4. That "different political landscape" is going to happen, whether Mr. Gibbs wants it to or not

WHen people point out what is happening someone always pops up to make it sound like the poster is a traitor or non-supporter of the Obama Administration.

Maybe YOU should think about that for a change.

[CakeGrrl]

6. No, the point is not to label traitors or non-supporters

It's to look at the reality of WHOM the political upheaval actually affects.

It might give some people some measure of satisfaction to cast their vote to deny Obama the WH, but if he's not there, then who is? Because there WILL be an occupant of the WH.

During all this upheaval, consider the state of the economy. Our geopolitical situations. They won't just stand idle. What or who is going to be at the helm to make sure we don't lapse into total economic collapse or nuclear Armageddon? And what if the Next Best Progressive Hope turns out to be even less successful?

This isn't a Good Guys vs. Bad Guys showdown that's resolved at the end of the movie. As the President said (and as he knows better than your or I), it's going to get worse before it gets better.

But for whom? The President is well-set financially. People like the Clintons and Edwards are even more well-off. High-level politicians are usually pretty financially sound.

So when all this change occurs, just be mindful of who's going to bear the brunt of the negative effects.

[tridim]

3. He wasn't talking to progressives.

He was talking to people who think Obama is worse than Bush.

[Bluebear]

7. lol

[Bitwit1234]

5. So Progressives took a relatively unknown candidate

and almost got him elected in the primary against a COMPANY woman Blanch Lincoln. And if she hadn't had a lot of corporate cash THEY WOULD HAVE BEATEN HER. It just goes to show, the Democratic party needs Progressives and they better wake up to that fact. And they better start paying attention to them.

[BzaDem]

8. Wouldn't that be MUCH more of a problem for these non-voting "progressives" than for Gibbs?

I mean, Gibbs will never have to worry about being employed. Gibbs won't have to worry about money. A Republican majority or President would barely affect his quality of life at all.

On the other hand, the "progressives" who don't vote Democratic usually have a LOT to lose under a Republican government. They may not believe that now, but their lack of imagination doesn't make that any less true.

So I don't see where you get the idea that Democrats in the minority would somehow hurt these elected Democrats at all (let alone more than it would hurt the non-voting or third-party voting "progressives"). However politically incorrect it may be to say this, these "progressives" need Democrats a lot more than Democrats need these "progressives."