If the Administration didn't agree with Gibbs, they would have said so

[LostinVA]

He is the WH's mouthpiece. Even at a private dinner, he has to be guarded about what he says on certain subjects, because that's part of the price of the job. But, in an official capacity, such as talking to a DC political medium, he definitely speaks for his bosses. And, as we know from experience in the business or political world, if a "minion" causes embarrassment or oversteps, their boss publicly distances or castigates their employee.

I don't see that happening here.

I'm not trying to start a thread saying whether or not Gibbs was right or not, since we all know where each other stands on this. I'm just saying it is apparent Mr. Obama and the rest of the Administration not only support Gibbs, but they agree with him.

Gibbs wasn't asked to apologize and hasn't. He just basically said he should have sugarcoated his snark a bit more.

It is what it is.

[Steely_Dan]

1. One Would Think So...n/t

[Starry Messenger]

2. Oh definitely.

It was more like official confirmation, really.

[LostinVA]

6. That's how I saw it, too

Peeps might be annoyed Gibbs didn't wait until Mid-November to say it.... or maybe not?!

[Starry Messenger]

17. I think they are playing a dangerous game.

I think they are overplaying the passion of swing voters, and just hoping that their sustained prosperity as a group in the last year is going to hold the fort at the voting booth. It's a miscalculation, IMO.

[RKP5637]

20. The swing voters I know are not voting dem or for Obama again. They think it's

payback time. Call it right or wrong, that's just what I'm hearing.

[Lorien]

41. neither are the ones I know. They are either looking for a third party or will stay home

everyone seems to be disgusted with both parties right now.

[Starry Messenger]

46. It should be an interesting year, to say the least!

Evidently the wealthy Dems are still backing Obama--http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/08/10/why-are-wealthy-dems-still-backing-obama/ How wealthy are they going to stay if austerity cuts to the working classes keeps money out of circulation in the economy? I just wonder what the logic is here.

[RKP5637]

62. Somehow, some think an economy can be run without employment and

hence without product demand. And austerity is vogue, well, for the majority of the population. At some point we have to ask what is the purpose of the country. For many, it's just becoming a P&L statement and fine if they are on the profit side.

Many are forgetting we're less that 5% of the worlds' population and there's a whole world out there that's going to move forward with or without USA, Inc. What we are now building is not a recipe for success. Oligarchies generally fail soon or later.

We are a VERY young country and I fear we well might be living through the failure of democracy. Over the decades the worst of capitalism has become embraced as capitalism.

[LostinVA]

Oh, I agree

Especially with swing voters, youth voters, and us Hot Pocket Lefties.

[Starry Messenger]

32. Now I want a Hot Pocket

x( It's the cheese.

Seriously though, I wonder what numbers they are looking at. That 85% "liberal approval" that keeps getting waved around...I wonder what that really reflects?

[LostinVA]

37. I had a very cheesy homemade bean burrito last night for dinner

YUM!

[TBF]

89. I agree. Swing voters don't hear that sort of thing anyway &

they're not the ones sitting around watching FOX news. They are the people who hate politics but might show up at the polls. If they do they are going to think about one thing - how have I been doing personally the past year. If they are unemployed, nervous about their finances, wars are still going on, they get the general sense things haven't changed very much - they're going to vote out incumbents. That's what they do. Obama and his team are right to worry, but snarking at the left is not going to fix the problem.

[Starry Messenger]

92. DUer RainDog turned me on to a great documentary

"Century of the Self" about Edward Bernays and his effect on politics/capitalism. The fourth part deals with why Clinton's hold on the House and Senate got totally blown to the skies. It was really eye-opening. The modern part that deals with Clinton (and Tony Blair too) is in Part 4: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1122532358497501036#

[BzaDem]

3. Why WOULDN'T the administration agree with Gibbs? Does Obama think he is like Bush?

Gibbs was attacking a very small subset of the left. A subset that believes Obama is like Bush in many (if not most) ways. A subset that believes we should have decided not to pass HCR because single payer (and its approximately 10 supporters in the Senate) was right around the corner.

He wasn't even attacking single payer as a policy matter. I would be somewhat surprised if he wasn't in favor of it himself.

Of course, if you blow up Gibbs comments to pretend he was attacking all left-leaning criticisms of Obama, so that you can become the victim, you might draw a different conclusion.

[LostinVA]

8. Damn, did that spinning make you dizzy?!

I bet it did, because it made me feel light-headed, and I'm just watched.

Impressive!

[BzaDem]

19. That says much more about you (and your inability to read his comments) than it does about him. n/t

[LostinVA]

24. I was talking about you, and the majority here seem to read the same way I do

Advil can help if your back is sore from the stretching. Take two every five hours or so. eat a little something first.

[BzaDem]

31. If that is true, that just indicates that the majority here are wrong (not that Gibbs was attacking

the entire left).

Reality doesn't change just because a subset of an Internet board has an interpretation that is divorced from reality. Gibbs was clearly attacking a small subset of the left that equates Obama and Bush. If a large number of people here believe otherwise, that just means a large number people are wrong. A large number of people believe in a lot of things. Heck, a large number of people supported the Iraq war. That doesn't make them right.

[LostinVA]

38. giggle

[frylock]

56. i have a friend like you, used to a be a total drunkard..

he used believed that everybody else was wrong about everything too.

[BzaDem]

58. Interesting argument. So the Iraq war was a good idea because of its popularity?

How about the patriot act?

In fact, that must mean creationism is the correct explanation for the origin of our species, since, well, a lot of people believe in that too.

:sarcasm:

[frylock]

75. talk to obama..

he hearts both. i was against both from jump. how 'bout you?

[blindpig]

64. More importantly, he was attacking Left ideas

Single Payer, out of Middle East, shrink military spending, these and many more are under the bus. It is not just the Administration, it is the party as an institution and it's leadership. Things are not as many believed, I just wish they could accept reality a stop the floundering, shut up and carry that water or do something completely different.

[BzaDem]

68. He was attacking people who thought single payer is currently politically feasible. Not the idea.

I would be surprised if Gibbs wasn't a single payer supporter. He just realizes that it wouldn't currently get 10 votes in the Senate, and that HCR was the best that could have passed the Senate.

[blindpig]

69. That's bullshit.

In poll after poll a majority favored single payer. Your speculation is bootless. If the Senate is more responsive to the wants of the money men than the citizenry then we have a systemic problem, which is the case.

[BzaDem]

70. If a majority really favored single payer, they would elect Senators who supported it.

Last time I checked, the people elect Senators. We don't live in some dictatorship.

Single payer was proposed by Truman. Since then, the people have had around 30 congressional elections, and each and every time they have elected a congress with negligible support for single payer outside of a set of core districts in the House that have a massive Democratic voter registration advantage.

As soon as the people REALLY want single payer (as opposed to 80% of the people being satisfied with their current insurance arrangements, as it is today), they will VOTE people in to ENACT single payer. The fact that they have not done so for such a long time is ipso facto proof that many people either do not support it or are not enthusiastic enough about it. That's how democracy works.

[blindpig]

73. That's hysterical

How might people vote for a Senate candidate who supports single payer when no such critter makes it to the 'finals'? Big Money from interested parties makes that a foregone conclusion. And if they do squeak in pressure from the Party assures they'll get in line when the crucial vote comes.

What we got is no more democracy than the Roman Republic, they voted too and it didn't mean a thing.

[bluethruandthru]

74. Not only did no such critter exist because they couldn't withstand

the avalanche of money from interested parties...BUT a large percentage of the population didn't even know what Single Payer was just a few years ago.
When "Sicko" came out was when the idea really caught fire in America...and many people STILL don't know what it entails...or they believe the lies they've been told by the righty talking heads. But for those who took the time to study the idea, the single payer system is overwhelmingly preferred.
It's unfortunate that our leaders didn't take advantage of the public's interest and excitement about single payer and use it as an opportunity to do a huge informational campaign about it. It would have been great to have a national discussion about it..without the lies and distortions of the right (and some dems too).
I think a brave, effective leader, who was really interested in the long term best interests of the people of this country (and the budget) would have been able to move the needle..hopefully all the way to a national consensus to adopt a single payer system. But, if not that..then at least to educate people truthfully about our broken health care system and the steps necessary to fix it.

[BzaDem]

81. And who chooses who makes it to the finals? n/t

[blindpig]

84. Those who have the money to float an election bid.

Business interests vet every serious candidate and put their money down accordingly.

[BzaDem]

85. Last time I checked, voters in primaries chose candidates. n/t

[disillusioned73]

105. I don't mean to jump into a conversation...

but, with the Citizens United case opening the floodgates - this comment is quite naive

[disillusioned73]

106. duplicate

[NorthCarolina]

91. The corporate media. They control the public debate. eom

[ProfessionalLeftist]

102. BINGO! n/t

[rhett o rick]

108. I disagree. If he supported single payer, there would be nothing wrong with saying so.

Then explaining that he didnt think it possible at this time. But he didnt do that. He chose to deride those of us that support single payer. He is obviously making points with the New-Democrats (code for disenfranchised Republicans).

I will not settle on my principles regardless of the make-up of the Senate.

[EFerrari]

15. Hogwash. Gibbs didn't do or say anything that this administration

hasn't done or said before. It's not even about him. He only did it bigger and louder this time.

[BzaDem]

23. Isn't that my point? Why is it surprising that Obama doesn't think he is like Bush, or that his

administration has said this before? How is criticizing people who think that Obama is like Bush a problem? Shouldn't it be done "bigger and louder?"

Or are you misinterpreting Gibbs' comments to include the entire left, so you can pout more?

[EFerrari]

27. Pathetic. n/t

[LostinVA]

30. Why do you think you have a right to talk to posters like this?

I seriously want to know. Especially someone like EF?

[BzaDem]

34. I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to run my posts by you.

My bad.

:sarcasm:

[LostinVA]

40. You have to run your posts by ALL of us, just like we have to do the same

I knew you wouldn't answer that, because there is no defense to it.

[BzaDem]

45. Not really. I don't pretend bad interpretations by prolific posters are good interpretations just

because the poster happens to be prolific.

Likewise, I K&R correct posts by non-prolific posters even though they are not prolific.

If an idea is silly, it should rise or fall on the merits of the idea. The idea that Gibbs was attacking the entire left was silly and ridiculous, and it deserves to be treated as such.

[EFerrari]

52. If ideas rise or fall on their own merits, then it's a waste of bandwidth

to attack other posters in a manner more appropriate to a seventh grade cafeteria than to adult political discourse.

[BzaDem]

53. I think its inappropriate to come up with an implausibly broad interpretation of someone's remarks

just so they can keep posting and posting and posting about how they were being directly insulted by said person.

If you think pointing out is "more appropriate to a seventh grade cafeteria," then so be it.

[lame54]

39. guess what - it doesn't matter...

he said something stupid - something he didn't need to say

many many people are pissed

try to put that back in the bag - good luck

[BzaDem]

43. I'm of the opinion that it should go OUT of the bag (not in the bag).

Frankly, I would have still been in agreement with Gibbs had he gone farther than he did.

But he didn't. He specifically attacked a small group of the left that equated Obama with Bush, and those people deserved criticism (shouted from the rooftops).

[lame54]

50. you are so wrong...

What Gibbs did was equate those who oppose Obama continuing policies that Bush implemented to "Obama = Bush"

I do not think Obama = Bush

But I am not happy with the Bush policies he continues

[BzaDem]

51. He was clearly criticizing people that think Obama is like Bush.

Using normal definitions in the English language, that means people who thin Obama is generally like Bush. In other words, on most or all policies. Not people who think Obama shares one or two policies with Bush. Someone who only thinks that Obama and Bush share a few common policies does not think that Obama is "like Bush" in general


If you don't think Obama is in general like Bush, then he wasn't criticizing you! Why do people have to come up with an implausibly broad interpretation of his comments? So that they can say they were maligned? What is it?

[lame54]

54. not clear at all - the evidence is the many many pissed off people

[BzaDem]

57. Just because people are pissed off doesn't mean they interpreted his comments plausibly.

Evidence usually has to do with the object of analysis, not the popularity of the analysis. (For example, a lot of people supported the Iraq war, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.)

If Gibbs wanted to insult the entire left in general, he would have done so. He didn't. He was specifically frusturated by people who equated Obama to Bush. He specifically said that. He used those words. What he said is as clear as day to anyone who uses normal definitions in the English language.

[ljm2002]

63. Please identify the "small group of the left"...

..."that equated Obama with Bush."

Until you do that, it's just another case of "some people say...", on Gibbs' part and yours.

To be clear: Gibbs misstated the argument of the group he wants to criticize as "Obama == Bush". He did this in order to deflect discussion of the real issues of the targeted group, which could be more honestly characterized as "some of Obama's policies that he is continuing with == some of Bush's most hated policies".

[BzaDem]

65. You really don't think such a group exists? Plenty exist HERE who think that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8914424

26 people said Obama was as bad as bush just in that poll alone.

And there are MANY MORE people that think that on other sites such as FDL.

Group identified.

Gibbs wasn't attacking people that think SOME of Obama's policies that he is continuing are like SOME of Bush's policies. His words CLEARLY say that he was attacking people tho think Obama is like Bush. That implies that he is directing his criticism towards people who think MOST or ALL of Obama's policies are like Bush's policies.

Just because you think "no one could think that" DOES NOT mean no one could think that. The number is certainly small, but it exists and that was who he was attacking.

How is it even a valid argument to take what he clearly meant, and spin it into something he clearly did not mean, just because it fits your narrative better if he said what he clearly did not say?

[ljm2002]

78. Okay, got it...

...so you're saying Gibbs was addressing some of the posters to discussion boards like DU and FDL.

If that is the case then I wonder why he bothered. After all, DU and FDL are hardly driving the debate in this country.

Or maybe we have become more influential than we imagine?

And by the way, MOST posters here (I don't know about FDL as I rarely go there) do not EQUATE Obama with Bush, although many of us are indeed quite outspoken about some of the bad Bush policies that have continued under Obama.

[BzaDem]

88. The problem isn't necessarily the posters. He was attacking the "professional left"

that said that. The problem is that the media will often take a small number of voices and amplify them if they show conflict among Democrats (while ignoring more common sense criticism). So while normally these people are few enough to not matter, the media amplifies them.

[ljm2002]

90. Then we're back to the original question...

...can you identify a few of the "professional left" who EQUATE Obama with Bush? Because I have yet to hear any actual names of these people who Gibbs decided to take a jab at.

[BzaDem]

93. Thom Hartmann is one example.

Gibbs didn't name any names. That would have produced even more of a controversy.

[ljm2002]

94. Quote, please. n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. Yup --

If Gibbs had gone off the reservation the WH would have been out there mending fences, kissings some ass, and distancing itself from his words.

Last time I checked that is not happening.

That says everything I need to know.

[EFerrari]

5. Looks like it. And then the problem is, what do you do with knowing that. n/t

[LostinVA]

12. Excellent question -- what do we do, knowing that?

[myrna minx]

35. That makes me mournfully sad.

:-(

[EFerrari]

48. I know.

:(

[glitch]

98. You concentrate on giving the WH a Congress they truly can complain about.

From the Left of course. :)

[xchrom]

7. Recommend

[Autumn]

9. Of course they agree with him

no way to deny that.

[Poboy]

10. Gibbs wasn't asked to pull over on the side of the road to resign, thats for sure. -nt

[LostinVA]

13. Oh, snap

I didn't even think of that. Excellent point. :thumbsup:

[Starry Messenger]

25. Whoa, well put.

Cuts to the quick, that does.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. HA! Perfect!

:applause:

[LoZoccolo]

11. THE HORROR! n/t

[myrna minx]

14. I think General McChrystal's comments to Rolling Stone

and the reaction to it proves your point. Gibbs is the spokesperson for the President, so Gibbs' comments are obviously the President's point of view.

[LostinVA]

18. That's actually another excellent point I didn't think of

Pat Tillman's mom was on TV the other night, and basically said, 'See?! We told y'all so years ago."

[RKP5637]

16. Having spent decades in the corp. world if I had ever done anything like that I would

have been on the red carpet for reprimand instantaneously and probably would have lost my position. In the corporate world IMO Gibb's remarks are close to telling your customer to go fuck themselves. I consider the WH silence to be agreement with Gibbs, or in fact Gibbs was following a directive/position of sorts.

[EFerrari]

22. 'Zactly. n/t

[LostinVA]

33. Yup, exactly

[Lorien]

44. +1. nt

[killbotfactory]

21. Of course they disagree

The Obama white house obviously thinks it has failed all progressives everywhere, that the relentless criticism coming from certain factions on the left are all fair and reasonable, that single payer was doable but they didn't pursue that option out of spite of everything the left stands for, are no better than Bush administration, and that if Kucinich was president everybody on the left would be happy and full of joy and wonderment by all the success that would bring. In fact, the only reason Obama ran in the primaries was to thwart the Kucinich progressive political juggernaut before it got off the ground, for the sole intention of thwarting all progressive reforms.

[LostinVA]

36. You can have a cool Halloween party with all those strawmen

You can build a corn maze (I love those!), and place the strawmen all around, and have apple bobbing and doughnut eating contests, too. I love the Fall.

[killbotfactory]

82. Strawmen?

Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

The only thing accomplished by this ridiculous bullshit is driving people away from politics altogether.

[LaurenG]

26. Yep - K&R nt

[mmonk]

28. Depressing.

Picking between those that do not want us and reject us and those we oppose all the time.

[VMI Dem]

42. Yup. Rec.

[mike r]

47. There is tacit approval

and there is a clear pattern.

[Barack2theFuture]

49. how 'inartful' of them...

[Bluebear]

55. Absolutely. k/r

[mike r]

59. WH says "the feelings Gibbs described were shared by the president":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081101212.html?hpid=news-col-blog

[Poboy]

60. Well, there you go!

Unbelievable -yet totally believable.

[Starry Messenger]

61. Well, there it is. nt

[LostinVA]

77. This statement almost shocks me

This, along with the anti-marriage equality statement last week are, I bet, the last straw for a bunch of folks.

[closeupready]

79. They are the most powerful people in the world, so I have no sympathy for their complaints.

They were hired to DO, not hired to ASK.

[Touchdown]

66. I think he was directed to say it. Remember the gay activist heckling Obama?

This was a couple of months ago on his foot dragging on DADT. Paraphrasing The Prez: Why are you attacking me? I'm on your side. Why aren't you attacking the Republicans who are fighting against you?...

The simple disconnect is that We know the Repubs cannot be reasoned with, so who bother. WE thought Obama was reasonable, and could be influenced... at least I did until this flap. He either doesn't get it (DADT) or he paying us for fools.

[LostinVA]

76. Hmmmm.... all very interesting.....

[LWolf]

67. The administratiion DOES agree with Gibbs. Bill Burton said so:

Deputy press secretary Bill Burton later said that the feelings Gibbs described were shared by everyone in the White House, including the president.

"Is there ever some frustration, from anyone who works in this building, about the way being covered? Sure," he said at Tuesday's press briefing. Later, he added: "Yes, every single person in this building, including the one who lives here, at times can be frustrated with the way some of the things are covered here."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081101212.html?hpid=news-col-blog

[w4rma]

101. Rahm, as Chief-of-Staff, picked most of them. Of course they agree. (nt)

[Marr]

71. Gibbs' statement *was* a political pitch.

From Day One, the Obama Administration has regularly pointed out that they do not care about the concerns of the left. They brag about it-- and the media loves it.

Gibbs' recent statement fits right in with that. Their insults are a sales pitch to their preferred demographic; corporate donors and moderate Republicans. It almost makes me laugh to see liberals try to shrug it off as something he could not have meant, or something that doesn't reflect the opinion of the Administration in general. They mean it. And they're not only unconcerned about your anger, they're positively pleased to see it.

[Whisp]

72. Obama has been openly critical of the 'cable news and pundits'

I think this is an extension to that so doubt very much an apology is in the works.

At least I hope not, Gibbs was right on target. The handful of 'professional lefts' he is talking aobut is no friend to anyone but their own egos.

[Barack2theFuture]

80. 'The country's problem is not the economy or jobs or perpetual wars

or poverty or wealth disparity or corruption or predatory corporations or homelessness or disappeared civil liberties,

it is those goddamned professional lefties.

It's pretty loud and clear at this point.

[LostinVA]

86. dirty hippies need to take a fucking bath

DAMN THOSE THOSE LONG-HAIRED HOPHEADS AT THE NATION!

[Danger Mouse]

83. If President Obama had said something, anything, criticizing the remarks...

...it would've made a lot of people feel better. At least showing that those remarks don't represents his views, that he values his allies on the left.

And yet...silence.

And further disappointment.

[LostinVA]

87. The WH has affirmed that he agrees with Gibbs

There's a link a bit upthread someone posted.

[Danger Mouse]

99. I'm beyond feeling disappointed at this point.

:banghead:

[Canuckistanian]

95. By what channel would the Administration signal it's true intentions?

Rahm's tweets? Or maybe another vague screed from James Carville?

Oh, I know - a WH intern maybe. or even an "undisclosed White House source".

Because we ain't gonna hear it from the big man himself.

[RainDog]

96. I think it's a sista souljah moment

if you see the most recent nbc poll, however, you see that people hate both parties.

now, whose responsibility is that?

the left that wanted to have a sufficient stimulus, a health care bill that didn't line the pockets of the insurance and pharma industries (and their Congressional whores) OR

the blue dogs and republicans who have attempted to stop the will of the people who voted for a majority democratic congress (2x) and a democratic executive branch?

...not to mention John Avarosis' excellent points about Obama himself.

[L0oniX]

97. They are too busy trying to quash the Wikileaks thingy?

[w4rma]

100. They obviously welcome our anger at them. So give them what they want.

Guess what all you Obama sycophants and apologists: You are doing what this administration doesn't want done. They want the left to attack them. They want us pissed off at them. So, don't defend this DLC administration.

[rhett o rick]

103. rec 92. As I mentioned before, I believe it is a tactic to gain support from the center-right. nm

[LostinVA]

107. I agreed with your post in your thread

I think it's an accurate assessment.

[rhett o rick]

109. Yes I saw. I am reiterating the point in various similar threads. nm

[LostinVA]

110. Good, because it's a good point

[laughingliberal]

104. Well into the 3rd news cycle and no word that anyone in the WH considered this even a poor...

choice of words does leave one with the impression the White House approves of the statements.

This is not the first time the WH has appeared to be telling the left to 'go away,' and quit fighting for our principles.

It's weird coming on the heels of Obama's talk to the netroots where he urged them to keep pushing him.