Gibbs tells the truth, most complaining aren't willing to help get congressional resources WH needs

[uponit7771]

It's easier to scream and holler in a dark room than to turn on a light and that's what I MOSTLY hear the near and far left do in regards to a progressive agenda which now needs a 60 vote super majority (not a simple one) for ANYTHING.

FDR 83% dem congress
LBJ 69% dem congress
BHO 58% dem congress

You can have your pick of president in the WH but without congress you'll be back in the same place or close to it...

Your take?

TIA

[derby378]

1. Okay, here's my take

The ad slowly moved in on a Time Magazine cover featuring bin Laden, zooming in on a close-up of Osama's eyes, while saying that Howard Dean was an unqualified Democratic candidate because of his lack of military or foreign experience.

Tricia Enright, who was the spokeswoman for Howard Dean at the time, summed the ad up best, saying: "Whoever is behind this should crawl out from underneath their rock and have the courage to say who they are." But Robert Gibbs, who was the spokesman for the group, embraced the slime ad against Dean, and refused to say who had funded the ad. Now sure, you can say that Gibbs was just doing his job. But Gibbs wasn't just aligned with the group, he was in the leadership. The group took seed money from crooked former Senator Robert Torricelli to get off the ground, and then went out and raised over a million to run the ad. Gibbs was one of three people that made that ad happen.

http://mydd.com/2007/2/22/robert-gibbs-the-drag-on-obama

Gibbs was willing to take down Howard Dean in 2004 because Dean committed the unpardonable sin of wanting to turn on that light.

Hails and props to madfloridian for unearthing this inconvenient truth.

[uponit7771]

3. The WH isn't perfect just not deserving of the vile from the far left IMHO, vile...Bush like vile

...IMHO

[mod mom]

12. Thank you. Right on!

and of course hat tip to Madfloridian!

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Trying to do the right thing and failing is one thing

But not trying, or moving in the wrong direction, are others things entirely.

[uponit7771]

7. You believe the far left wouldn't complain if Obama had just "tried"!? TIA

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Cut the "far left" stuff - we just want traditional Democratic values

and a return to the rule of law. That ain't far left.

Yes, if Obama had tried, I think people would be a lot less angry.

[uponit7771]

66. We can do that with the congress we have now?! TIA

[MannyGoldstein]

71. A fellow who could persuade America to elect our first black president

Can persuade many people of many things.

If he tries.

[villager]

13. +1

n/t

[EFerrari]

4. Right. All of us who worked to get Obama elected are suddenly on drugs.

Robert is right. What are we thinking.

[LoZoccolo]

6. No, just those who think Obama is just like Bush*. n/t

[uponit7771]

8. No just the ones who want a person with no arms to hold on tight

[NC_Nurse]

5. He's only going to succeed in alienating those of us who would care

enough to get out and vote this fall. What a dolt. If the Repubs win a bunch of seats, he can thank himself for helping them.

[uponit7771]

9. THat's not the far left, the far left is in "...teach them a lesson..." mode like they were with Ca

Carter

[Bluenorthwest]

27. You know who went after Carter? Teddy Kennedy

Was he the 'far, far left' and if so, why did Obama slather over his 'passing of the torch'? Kennedy primaried Carter, you know.

[uponit7771]

29. There werent any far left running against Carter after his 1st term?!?!?!

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Teddy Kennedy ran against Carter when Cater was a sitting

President. The labels you are tossing around are your trip, don't know who you are talking about, because Ted Kennedy went all the way to the convention floor against President Jimmy Carter. He was brutal.

[RedCloud]

10. They wanted that unelectable Lincoln to prevail, Spector too.

They should STFU since they do not have a gauge on the political pulse.

They should go eat some more contaminated Gulf "food" where there is not a drop of oil to worry about.

[Luminous Animal]

21. Yep.

[pscot]

11. Put a sock in it

n/t

[gratuitous]

14. Well, providing leadership is clearly out of the question

After all, public statements and giving a boost to popular notions (I'm thinking here of single payer health care and getting out of two foreign quagmires, but I could equally well be talking about following the Constitution and treaty law, and prosecuting torturers and their ideological enablers) just does nothing, does it? No, far more effective to take things off the table before negotiations even begin, only to have people inside the caucus and out hold up vital legislation for their own pet projects. And then, when the watered-down result finally staggers through the legislative process, to have those same folks the administration bent over backwards to appease gripe about getting their way. Again, and again, and again.

Hardly even worth trying, isn't it? Might as well let President Snowe or President Collins run things because that's who America voted for. Gotta keep hoarding that political capital because there might be a fight worth having somewhere down the line.

[asdjrocky]

15. It's our fault. It's always our fault.

Isn't 1984 on somewhere?

[uponit7771]

26. ...no it just not 1934 where FDR had an 83% dem congress. FDR's base didnt just sit a bitch either..

...they voted left

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. it's not the ratio of democrats as it appears that is only a label these days

that may or may not mean "Not a republican as there was already one on the ballot"

The Tea Party is trying to drag the GOP even further right but we don't have an equal organization.

"Liberal" is a dirty word in the MSM and "progressive" will soon be as well if Beck et al continue beating their drums.

We've had to compromise and water down our hopes and best intentions for this country just to get a piece-of-crap health care system.

Sure, FDR had an 83% dem congress but come next January we'll be lucky if we have a 50-50 congress.

What ELSE are we supposed to give when we're being actively cheated and insulted to our faces?

[uponit7771]

22. GOtV?...That's what I'm going to do....get them more dems in congress ASAP

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. We should start claiming GOTV is racist

because unless you do they aren't breaking through the MSM noise machine.

Let's face it, as near and dear to us as GOTV may be, it doesn't have the media pull of the TP.

*sigh*

[uponit7771]

30. +1...lofl!!!

[Ignis]

17. Now in Stereo!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x404479

[uponit7771]

19. Yeap, worth repeating IMHO

[Individualist]

23. rofl

It's pretty clear that the word has gone out to catapult the propaganda.

[uponit7771]

25. ...the "propoganda" right now is Obama's base leaving him regardless of poll after poll showing he's

...loved by 85-90% of the left

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. Was that before or after Gibbs' comment?

just sayin'

[uponit7771]

36. It was after the far left stopped bitching then got off their ass's and got Obama the resources to..

...pass a more progressive agenda.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. "..a more progressive agenda." Like sending more troops to a lost war?

Bailing out the banks?

Cutting a deal with the pharmaceutical industry?

Adding to the "defense" budget?

Deporting more immigrants than Bush?

Or, sending a mouthpiece to blame the left?

[uponit7771]

67. Obama bailed out the banks? Again, more right wing drivel

[Raineyb]

46. Oh boy! Spam you can believe in.

They must really enjoy their exercises in masturbatory postings.

[Ignis]

55. Man, I wish I had press releases from which to work.

Original thought is hard work. :(

[NJmaverick]

18. You're right,

[sendero]

20. If you can't do it..

... with the senate and the house and the presidency, you can't do it.

The fact that Obama didn't even TRY to do it makes me really doubt that having a rubber stamp would have helped.

[uponit7771]

24. That's technically false, the opposition can force supper majority votes. Simple majorities aren't..

...enough to get anything passed any longer.

We need more dems in congress

[sendero]

37. You are technically..

... full of crap, lots of presidents passed lots more controversial legislation with much fewer guaranteed votes. It's CALLED LEADERSHIP and I'm sorry if maybe you are too young to have ever seen it.

[uponit7771]

39. WOW, so facts are wrong?...lets talk facts not YOUR experience k?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. 60 senate votes = supermajority

just sayin'

[uponit7771]

40. Yeap, and right now dems only have 57 or 58 votes due to some dem senators hatred

[Raineyb]

47. Dems only have 57 or 58 votes because they proved that even with a super majority they were

feckless. And people aren't interested in voting for people who don't have a bloody spine.

[hiphopnation]

32. I stopped reading after, "Gibbs tells the truth...." n/t

[uponit7771]

34. ...most who are against Obama rarely listen to him either

[hiphopnation]

74. I know!

Those far left, lunatic fringe "progressives" are ruining our country and slandering our great president! They should all be drug tested!1!! Hell, I wouldn't mind seeing them all sent to Guantanamo, at least that might shut them up and teach them the value of their freedom. People who are against Obama are morons.

[LWolf]

33. Unadulterated Bullshit.

I gave him 2 Democratic Senators.

I always vote for whatever Democrat is willing to run against my Republican congressman, and support that D in every way I can. Someday a D will win.

Why does he need more Democrats in Congress to conduct the war on terror, his war on public education, to pander to health insurance companies?

If 100% of the Senate and the House were Democrats, he'd still be going down the wrong path. It's nice to think that they wouldn't allow it, but they also trend to the right these days.

[uponit7771]

35. ...so you're saying 58 senators is all they need now? Have you been paying attention at all?!?!?!

[LWolf]

45. I'm saying that the statement he made about how

we "aren't willing to help get the Congressional help that the WH needs" is BULLSHIT.

[JonLP24]

41. God

I haven't seen "far left" thrown around so much since I last watched O'Reilly back in 03-04.

I didn't know opposing things like Bagram made me "far left".

[Ruby the Liberal]

44. You look exhausted. Let me move out of the wheel well to give you

a better spot under the bus.

[Ruby the Liberal]

42. 1. We elected him to LEAD

2. He told us to make sure he is on the right path.

3. We were ignored.

Ever since the election (which started with 60 in the Senate), all we got was capitulation. The all important "Olympia Snowe/Bipartisan" vote took precedence.

One thing I will give President Cheney credit for - he knew how to get his agenda through a party-controlled Congress.

The Dems, not so much.

[Winterblues]

43. So you are saying the Office of the President is impotent

It can do nothing at all... No recess appointments or Executive orders or anything...Without a super majority nothing at all can be done..:shrug: Poor Democrats...They have no "Decider"

[Odin2005]

48. LBJ's and FDR's Dems included the RW Southern Racists.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. And both Reagan and Bush got their agendas passed while having Dem

majorities in at least one House of Congress for part of their terms.

So what does that tell you?

It tells me that Obama doesn't really want to enact a Democratic agenda and is using his majority of ONLY 58% :sarcasm: as an excuse.

It also tells me that the Democratic Party contains too many "elephants in donkey jackets."

[scheming daemons]

58. Obama *HAS* gotten a big chunk of his agenda passed... you just have blinders on

...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. Yeah, too bad his health plan is the one the Republicans have been pushing

since the 1980s.

I used to laugh at the Republicans when they said that they could solve the health care crisis by requiring everyone to buy private insurance. "Yeah," I'd say,"and solve homelessness by requiring everyone to buy a house."

So yes, Obama has gotten his agenda passed by distorting it (or crafting it) to appease the Republicans and the DLC (elephants in donkey jackets). I have not seen him even TRY to pass real health care reform, get out of the senseless, immoral wars in the Middle East, rein in the security state, etc.

[ibegurpard]

63. absolutely...i don't like his agenda.

[scheming daemons]

64. It was largely authored by Ted Kennedy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. With or without a public option?

And as I recall, by the time the final monstrosity took shape, with all its sops to the insurance companies and its "bronze" plans that provide almost no coverage for high monthly premiums and whatever other deals Obama worked out in his closed-door sessions with the insurance companies ("OK, guys, what laws are you willing to obey?"--an approach that the British comedy series "Yes, Prime Minister" satirized in the 1980s), Ted Kennedy had not been full time in the Senate for months, and he died before the final vote.

Besides, "Ted Kennedy wrote it" is not necessarily an endorsement, since he also cosponsored NCLB. He was good on many issues, but his wealth insulated him from others. He was not the equal of his brother Robert in this respect.

[jobendorfer]

53. my take

Obama does not need the approval of Congress to close Guantanamo Bay or stop extraordinary renditions.

Obama does not need the approval of Congress to eschew the abusive powers granted to the presidency by the so-called "Patriot" Act. He can establish, publicize, and promote policies that are consistent with the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th amendment.

Obama does not need the approval of Congress to end extraordinary renditions and close Guantanamo Bay ( and the other prisons scattered around the world ).

Obama does not need the approval of Congress to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Obama does not need the approval of Congress to prosecute the living Hell out of every Bush administration official and/or lackey that broke the law.

Obama is the Commander in Chief. He does not need the approval of Congress to pull the Army out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think it IS clear that Obama does need the cooperation of Congress to get the following things done:

- Reregulate the financial industry per 1990s law, particularly the Glass-Steagall act
- Get real health insurance reform done, particularly a public option or single-payer system
- Start getting real about getting America off its oil addiction
- Enact some progressive taxation to relieve budget pressures.
- Make some significant stimulating investments to get people working again. ( significant to me implies at least 3% of DoD budget )
- Get rid of the Patriot Act ( we survived two hundred years, a civil war, and two world wars without it, but to fight 1000 guys in Al Qaeda we have to eviscerate the Bill of Rights? )

And he should be browbeating the Congress and exhorting the public at every turn on these points.

The fact that he is halfway through his term, and NOT doing any of these things, speaks volumes to me.

Now, y'all might disagree with about whether or not the things I've listed make sense as policy. But I think I'm spot-on about what Obama can or can't do without the Congress. There's a lot he can do with the stroke of a pen, whether Congress likes it or not.

J.

[JonLP24]

56. +1000

Bravo! :thumbsup:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. YEAH, a LEADER would do what he is able to do and persuade others to

follow his agenda, not accommodate himself to others' agendas.

Reagan (and his advisors) knew how to get their evil agenda passed with Dem majorities.

[jgraz]

54. Yes, nothing will get done until we have 137 Dem Senators!!!

And 845 Democratic Representatives.

The man is not a miracle worker, people!!

[Individualist]

57. No! We gotta have 2000 to get anything done!

[scheming daemons]

59. This OP is bs. Obama has accomplished a large percentage of his agenda through this congress

Too many people like you are just not appreciative of what's been accomplished.

[jgraz]

61. Yeah, all those ingrates who want real healthcare reform and a stable financial system.

There's just no pleasing some people. :eyes:

[uponit7771]

65. A +1 controlling majority would do..

[jgraz]

72. I'm sorry, but you do understand the meaning of the word "majority", don't you?

Cuz most people think Obama's had one since he took office.

[havocmom]

60. Let's see, liberals tried to get a good DEM in AK and WH went for the DINO

I am friggin tired of being blamed for what the WH does to themselves.

[treestar]

70. Exactly

They want to complain and be victims anyway. If Congress passed single payer and a POTUS signed it, the same people would be complaining about something else.

[jgraz]

73. Right... so he might as well not do anything!

There's your talking point for the week. No need to think, now. Whew!