One of the Professional Left outs himself. Please create the next hatefest here where I lnk his blog

[Stinky The Clown]

http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/gibbs-people-who-are-upset-with-obama.html

Not very much elicits a genuine "Wow" from me. This piece by John Aravosis did just that.

[saracat]

1. This is a tremedous article. Thank you for posting it K+R!

[Hissyspit]

46. G_j's original post of it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8924217

Credit where credit is due.

[Dinger]

83. Same Here. K & R! (nt)

[olegramps]

86. If you read Obama's two books you would not be surprised that he is for compromise.

In his book he was nostalgic for a return to bipartisanship politics of the 1950's and early 60's when policies were argued in a constructive gentlemanly manner. Unfortunately, the political game was transformed primarily by the Republicans that resorted to the dirty politics of likes of Atwater and Rove to destroy their opponents. Look at the House and Senate today and it is a rarity to find anyone that could be called a statesman.

Most are little more than corporate shills, with a good measure of Doomsday religious radicals whose base are little more than ignoramuses who are only concern is that they share the hatred of racists, despise homosexuals and abhor abortion. They are so clueless that they don't give a flying fuck about the issues that really affect their own wellbeing. They fail to comprehend that their leaders only concern is getting reelected and play to what ever is their base regardless of how insane they are. These people remind me of Pavlov's trained dogs and react on impulse to the key words, Same Sex Marriage, Abortion, Sex Education, Homosexuality, Home Schooling and Tax Cuts drooling at the mouth like pack of rabid dogs.

[PATRICK]

114. That is true of most

of the Dem leadership. If you were actually a bit older than Obama you would remember the wonderful fifties(when Eisenhower was waxing despairingly nostalgic about equally rosy "good old days") or the uppity sixties you would remember a lot of the same crap covered in better working illusions. The threat posed to these by Civil rights and the Vietnamese War and the fading of the fearsome Cold War to an exposed bogeyman caused the wonderful system to snarl- just like the WH spokeswheels or any other entrenched reactionary leadership.

So, because the Dems will not face critical problems, not the least of which is the absence of the rule of law for the top guys and even- incredibly- the electronic rigging of their own elecytions against their own party, we must wallow in the superfluous re-illusionment of a past that never existed for a future that is doom on arrival? A pre-union utopia of Gilded Age enlightenment, of capitalist prosperity, of a democratic pyramid scheme of fake power distribution.

Fear accompanies rage and while there is much to fear and impossible quandaries for genuises, secrecy and illusions are self-fulfilling tragedies that, no, you really don't have to do. But minus facing or doing anything about harshly lit injustices and sane policy needs, the first person that needs to be distracted is the frustrated elite, elated with having arrived with wide approbation and incredible power, hamstrung by the truth that Change is necessary to survive.

All you had to say, in defining the feared left whipping boy for leadership frustrations, was that progressives by nature can never be satisfied because much work and change will always have to be done. Some of those forward working idealists themselves have some illusions about an America that never existed, but it is cast forward not back into a cave.

While the buck disappears at the front desk we all know that it is a chunk of quizzically misguided privileged DLC-type leaders that are on a self-affirmation power through corporation binge who seek tpo identify themselves as THE party just as a Bush coup d'etat that we had for eight years of unacknowledged captivity is identified as America with a capital A. Tyhe whole election frame avoided truth for convenient aphorisms designed to avoid the truth but we suspect all those in Dem leadership simply do not know what they are doing and resent anyone who obviously does. Truth comes first to the viscera and the brain can respond with actual thought or counter emoting especially if thoughts must be scarily changed. So much for any leadership. The rarest quality in the human race is to find a thinking leader who is willing to change their mind once they are enthroned AS the better angels of our teeming masses. Never once in the past election cycle did the inevitable select candidates face anything in the real world other than what exists for their own entitled fringe.

And what they are entitled to apparently are their illusions- and their paralyzed irritation. They could do so much, not if they were to become more old fashioned liberal, but simply to wake up- even as to what the enemy really, in truth, is.

(Typed in my pajamas(I work nights) minue Cheetos which make my mouth sore.)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. Yup --

Quite a bit of a reveal on his part -- dirty work, indeed. :wow:

[DJ13]

3. Spot on

"Let me reiterate. The country was on the verge of economic collapse. We were on the verge of another Great Depression. And rather than fight for the correct amount of medicine that was needed to save our nation, this President decided to opt for less than what was needed to save our nation. And he didn't opt for less at the end of the negotiation, after pushing really hard for the full amount. He opted for less at the beginning, because he didn't want to fight for it. Which is his usual pattern. Cave first, negotiate later, then act surprised when people are upset when the final agreement is so weak, and accuse them of being politically naive and unrealistic."

[Nite Owl]

97. That's him alright

start at what should be the end result and move right, and then don't get the votes for it either. Says alot about him.-

[FiveGoodMen]

4. Highly recommended.

[RandomThoughts]

5. I am rare to use Wows also.

Although it is pretty hard to believe that something like age of rage. Would be in a Washington publishing, either before or after I posted a song with rage on it, and discounted the word by saying Our Age.

Since it is opposite of what I posted, but not an idea that seems to be easy to happen as coincidence.

Although correlation is not causation. And I would doubt a publication would use an idea from me, and spin it while ignoring my comment. That just wouldn't be very nice.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Thank you for the link!

They need to read lots and lots of Geroge Lakoff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
His arguments agree 100% with this article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8924978

[LaurenG]

7. That riled me up all over again

Gah. K & R

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. I think our schism is growing deeper.

This is quite an article. Call out the left and they just might respond.

They're get to call us drugged up ingrates and we're supposed to take it, right? Wrong.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. Wow, is HE ever saying it just like it is.

I wish I could recommend your post more than just once.

[BrklynLiberal]

10. Goes well with the Rude Pundit column!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8914027&mesg_id=8914027

[thereismore]

11. Another WOW. Does anybody at the WH read? nt

[havocmom]

23. I seriously doubt they read that particular blog

They don't wanna hear from the unequally treated community that Americablog gives some voice to.

[olegramps]

82. Isn't that the very crux of the problem.

They are quickly become surrounded by yes men and those whose main objective is their own advancement which usually means cultivation of their ties with the wealthy and powerful. Unfortunately it is this CEO's of corporations that get the ear of the president and his cadre of bootlickers to do their bidding. The common working folks, like the union members, are only courted with phony promises of Real Change and Transparency when they need our votes. Its a ruse that the working class have fallen for year after year. Bush's people referred to the Religious Right as "useful idiots" and the Obama administration thinks we are "morons" and ungrateful "whiners" who just can't grasp the complexity of the issues and are ungrateful for all that they have done for us. You know what is funny. In the case of the Republicans their base that consists of working folks just like the Democrats have been screwed year after year by policies that have ripped them off economically. The Democrats promise their base that they will be their champions and they will get fair treatment, yet every Democratic administration since Truman has undercut the working class as they became dominated by the DLC Republican light pro-business philosophy. I posted the Republican 1956 Party Platform here recently and it is absolutely more pro-working class than this administration would ever dare be for fear of alienating their corporate partners in crime.

[havocmom]

124. I recall you posting of the 1956 GOP Platform and how it is to the left of Obama

Would appreciate seeing that on a regular basis in many places. Do you post at Huff, TPM, or other places like that? It would be good for more to see that information.

[Ignis]

12. K&R. Some pretty shocking revelations contained therein!

:wow:

[me b zola]

K&R

[me b zola]

13. K&R

[alsame]

14. K&R

[golddigger]

15. K&R

[Greybnk48]

16. K&R

[Individualist]

17. K&R

[pscot]

18. K&R

Nice find.

[LWolf]

19. k&r

[bvar22]

20. Gibbs' smug performance today didn't help.

From the linked article:

"This interview with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs is really quite remarkable. Not in its substance - President Obama's staff smears the Democratic base, and our issues, on a regular basis. No, what's remarkable is that a senior White House official has finally gone on the record in order to smear the Democratic base. That's unprecedented. It also puts to the rest the White House's prior defense, whenever a senior unnamed official went after the base, of claiming it was a rogue employee who didn't represent the President. Gibbs clearly does."

http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/gibbs-people-who-are-upset-with-obama.html

So Gibbs confirms what people who want "Canadian Style Health Care" have always suspected.
The White House couldn't care less.
And is, in fact, offended by our presence in the Democratic Party.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."
---Paul Wellstone

[Autumn]

21. Wow is right. Is Aravosis on the approved reading

list for DU? Just curious. I have a feeling if he is he won't be for long.

[QC]

24. He fell from grace a long time ago, and is now considered one

who never really and truly supported the president anyway.

Of course, Aravosis ran one of the first of the bigger blogs to endorse Obama. Once he signed on, he mercilessly purged his readers who supported other candidates, kind of like what happened on pretty much every other liberal site. (I wonder if that was the "dirty work" to which he refers.)

But now Aravosis is said around here to be someone who never really, truly backed Obama to start with.

[Autumn]

25. I see .

Thank you.

[QC]

29. It's interesting how soon a loyal soldier's willingness to knife people in the back

is forgotten, isn't it?

Aravosis went so quickly from loyalty enforcer to John Who?

[Autumn]

31. Indeed. I know I have seen

some of our more prolific posters complaining about him. The list seems to be growing longer all the time. Matt Taibbi had an excellent article in Rolling Stone on Finance reform, but I understand he is a rat bastard too.

[QC]

35. Before long, only whitehouse.gov will be an acceptable source of information.

Anything else might expose one to false doctrine.

[Autumn]

36. I believe it already is

the only acceptable source of information.

[Stinky The Clown]

68. The only way to avoid being called a rat bastard here is to be a member. Then its against the rules.

Were it not for that rule, many who post right here in River City would be among the world's biggest rat bastards.

[Dr.Phool]

84. I heard that he was Jane Hamsher's illegitimate son!

[Autumn]

128. Then he truly is a rat bastard. I have one

of those LOL that is my pet name for my mustang. When I take him out an apple butter sandwich I love on him and tell him what a rat bastard he is and he nuzzles me back. he likes being a rat bastard. My Arabian mares have been here much longer than he has but he still knows more than than they do and he makes sure they do what he says. Must be because he was wild.

[LostinVA]

34. He wrote some pretty nasty Hillary stuff back then

So his now being UNDER TEH BUS© is even more ironic and :wtf:ish.

[Autumn]

37. Irony is so delicious

is it not. Thank Dog it is such a BIG bus.

[LostinVA]

42. It is a dish best served warm

[QC]

39. Yes, he was one of the ugliest back then, but now that he has dared to voice criticisms,

his loyal service is forgotten.

[Autumn]

44. I did not know that

thanks for the info.:rofl:

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. Oh, that's right.

He called ME a low-information voter.

Obama never promised to end DADT, he never promised universal health care, and it was apparent that he was the least likely of all the candidates to promptly get out of Iraqistan.

And he had the gall to tell me I wasn't paying attention.

Can you hear me now John? Maybe if the hope express backs up over you a couple more times you'll get it.

[snagglepuss]

118. From the looks of it, it sounds like he hears you. It's got to be a bitter pill

for him to swallow. At least he, unlike many diehard fans, has allowed hard cold facts to alter his beliefs.

[PA Democrat]

40. Thanks for the background QC..

[snagglepuss]

116. That is such an interesting fact. Thanks for posting.

[EFerrari]

27. Not only that, John used to post here and in the Election Reform forum. nt

[Melissa G]

96. Hi EFerrari

Check your inbox. :hi:

[tavalon]

123. Oh quit it

I know it was fun for a week or so to act like DU was going all authoritarian on our asses when they were just saying play nicer. This is a very liberal site and we are the exact people Gibbs was talking down to. Of course, many if not most of us were his boss's foot soldiers and contributed much and did much volunteerism to that goal.

[havocmom]

22. I loves Aravosis and I loves da clown for bringing this article to our attention.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/gibbs-people-who-are-upset-with-obama.html

...

Take health care reform. The President was AWOL for a good year while health care reform floundered in the Congress. Rather than get his hands dirty, and spend some political capital actually pushing for what he promised - a public option, which Barack Obama himself had repeatedly said was the best way to increase competition and lower prices - the President, other than a few speeches here and there, disappeared for a year. Finally, when it looked like everything was doomed, Obama got involved, at the very end, and we got a bill that did some nice things, but not nearly as much as he'd promised, and not nearly as much as would have been possible had Obama engaged a year earlier.

And that's the crux of the criticism. Obama supporters are not upset with President Obama because the supporters' own expectations are unrealistically high. We're upset with Obama because we believed his promises, and we thought he'd actually fight for them. Better to have loved and lost, as they say. But if you're not even willing to try, then what's the point?

It's not a transformative presidency when you flinch in the face of every challenge.

Gibbs talks about how difficult it is for the White House to get anything done in the face of a uniform Republican opposition. Except, of course, the GOP wasn't uniform at all in February of 2009, when the White House caved on the stimulus and showed its true colors to the Republican party. If anything, this White House helped unify the Republicans by constantly, and unnecessarily, pandering to them at every turn.

...

It is truth and we know all know it. Then we get treated to Gibbs' tantrum attacking us.

Wow indeed.

[Catherina]

53. Aravosis nailed it. Nailed it flush to the wall.

Let me reiterate. The country was on the verge of economic collapse. We were on the verge of another Great Depression. And rather than fight for the correct amount of medicine that was needed to save our nation, this President decided to opt for less than what was needed to save our nation. And he didn't opt for less at the end of the negotiation, after pushing really hard for the full amount. He opted for less at the beginning, because he didn't want to fight for it. Which is his usual pattern. Cave first, negotiate later, then act surprised when people are upset when the final agreement is so weak, and accuse them of being politically naive and unrealistic.

...

It's always better to compromise than to fight. It's always better to win on paper than to win in practice.

That's why people are ticked at the President. Not because they're naive. But rather, because they actually believed he would at least try to do what he promised.

...

The saddest part of this certainly planned outburst from Gibbs is that it must reflect the President's own thinking. He actually believes that he's doing a swell job. He actually believes that his all-nighter, last-minute approach to policy-making has led to stunning successes. And he's so proud of his own success, that he feels comfortable telling other Democrats that they're not real Americans, and that their contributions to his campaign were meaningless.

Heck of away to energize the party three months before a pivotal election.

[xxqqqzme]

100. That is what is the most disappointing for me.

Not enthusiastic about Obama, I did think he would actually be a leader. He can't be a very good poker player. The rethugs knew his 'tell' before the cards were even shuffled.

[Laelth]

26. k&r for the truth, however depressing. n/t

-Laelth

[L0oniX]

28. K & R

[JoePhilly]

30. The article starts with a lie, and then builds on it ...

The title is false ... Gibbs said no such thing.

And Gibbs is right about Obama's "base". And here is how you know ...

Your BASE sticks with you. Sure, they might complain some, and they should. But they do not trash you. Your base focuses the majority of its energy on the real enemy, the GOP. And, your base definitely gives you more than 18 months to slow down, stop, and ultimately fix DECADES of GOP destruction.

The minority on the left who now claim Obama is "like Bush" are not Obama's base.

As he fights the GOP taking 2 steps forward and one step back, all they seem to want to discuss is the one step back. And nevr any credit for the overall movement forward.

[EFerrari]

32. He said both. Your reading skills need a brush up.

And claiming John is not Obama's base, you just make his point. Good job.

[JoePhilly]

38. Ok ... so show me where Gibbs said this ... from the title.

"Gibbs: People who are upset with Obama don't live in real America, didn't help get Obama elected".

Did Gibbs actually say that??? Not that I can find.

But let's say he did.

Most of those who oppose Obama are the far right wingers. Did they help get Obama elected? No.

The article claims that Obama caved in Feb 2009 ... wow, he passed a HUGE stimulus, but still he caved. The GOP total opposition was already in place, even then.

The article then goes into what Obama needed to do to get the public option, which was DOA in August 2009.

The article then claims we have 10% unemployment ... LIE. It is at 9.5% DOWN from a high of 10.1% ... does Obama get any credit for reversing the trend ... absolutely not.

The article then dismisses the appointments of Sotomayer and Kagen ... simply dismisses them. Hack journalism at its finest.

And then last, the author claims that Gibb;s outburst was planned. And that "he's so proud of his own success, that he feels comfortable telling other Democrats that they're not real Americans, and that their contributions to his campaign were meaningless."

Notice how the author GRABS all DEMOCRATS to falsely claim that Gibbs and Obama attacked ALL DEMOCRATS.

Total Bullshit.

[Sparkly]

47. From the source

Gibbs said the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama.

Progressives, Gibbs said, are the liberals outside of Washington “in America,” and they are grateful for what Obama has accomplished in a shattered economy with uniform Republican opposition and a short amount of time.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left

[Sparkly]

49. And..

Should you want to parse who they're calling the "professional left":

The White House is simmering with anger at criticism from liberals who say President Obama is more concerned with deal-making than ideological purity.

(snip)

“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”

The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: “They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left

[Skittles]

99. don't confuse him with the facts

he seriously needs an intervention

[Luminous Animal]

41. It would be a lie if it were a quote but it isn't. It is a headline of an opinion piece.

Incredibly weak try...

And I disagree, your base does not stick with you if you insult them and betray them. Obama is not our boyfriend. Hell, he's not even a friend. He is an elected representative of the people.

Without a doubt, Obama has not only continued some of Bush's undemocratic policies, but has expanded them to a horrifying extent. I.e., assassination of U.S. citizens without due process. Utterly, despicably, horrifying. For that alone, history books should footnote his designation of "Constitutional scholar."

[JoePhilly]

43. What does the titile say .... ????

It says this ....

"Gibbs: People who are upset with Obama don't live in real America, didn't help get Obama elected".

Now ... if you read that ... do you not take away that Gibbs said those exact words??

And then ... let me be clear ... you are not Obama's base. If you were his "base" you would be supporting him more. That is what "your base" does. They might "want more", but "your base" does not trash you.

Especially after just 18 months. Your "base" has a strategic outlook. They cheer small gains. And then call for more gains.

But you are not doing that. You won't cheer small gains. Won't consolidate ground won. Instead, you lament the ground yet to be traversed.

And by doing so, you substitute ideological defeat over pragmatic gains. Helping to ensure no gains at all.

[Luminous Animal]

45. You do understand the headlines of opinion pieces, unless they contain quotation marks,

are not direct quotes, don't you? But rather, they are a synthesis of the thesis of the piece. Does anybody teach reading comprehension these days?

[saracat]

48. Apparently not. They also have no "listening comphrension."

They hear what they want.

[roguevalley]

57. its a rather weak thing when the title argument is all they got.

[TheKentuckian]

70. The base does not equal thralls.

[snagglepuss]

119. BINGO

[northernlights]

71. I don't see any ground won

I see lost ground solidified. Rendition continues. Spying on citizens continues.

And he's upped the ante to include assassinating citizens on suspician and without due process. You call this a small gain?!? :wow:

Just because a bill has the title of "financial reform" doesn't mean it actually includes financial reform.
Just because a bill has the title of "health care reform" doesn't mean it actually includes health care reform.
Just because a bill has the title of "stimulus" doesn't mean it actually contains stimulus (hint: tax cuts do not stimulate job creation and only job creation could have given us any chance of climbing out of this morass)

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see small gains. I see 8 years of losses, added to, encoded and made permanent.

And, for the record, I'm not an extreme lefty. In fact, from 1971 until 2003 I was a registered independent who voted democrat as lesser of 2 evils. I was that awful middle so many of you love to hate. I switched to registered democrat in 2003 in hopes of getting rid of Bush. I'm one of those "middle" people this administration thinks they are courting.

I will be taking a new strategy from here on out. I will vote at the local levels only for green candidates, socialists or extreme left democrats. At the national levels I may or may not vote 'lesser of 2 evils' depending on who's running.

As with climate change, we've passed a tipping point. I thank Gibbs for his honesty. I only wish he had been so forthcoming 3 years ago -- I wouldn't have wasted my time, money and effort on "hope."

[Beam Me Up]

80. We need a catchy, succinct word or phrase that identifies

policies and programs that say they're meant to accomplish one thing but in point of fact accomplish something quite different. "Help America Vote Act," "No Child Left Behind," "War on Terror," "War on Drugs," are just a few examples that pop readily to mind.

As to the rest of what you're saying: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

edit html

[dgibby]

93. I agree.

How about pseudo-reform?

[Melissa G]

101. It's called Doublespeak, doubletalk, doublethink.. 1984 George Orwell.

from wiki...
Doublespeak
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) is any language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words, resulting in a so-called communication bypass, a term which is itself an example of doublespeak. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs), intentional ambiguity, or the reversal of meaning (for example, calling war "peace", or maintaining the status quo "change").
snip

The term doublespeak was coined in the 1950s.<1> It is often attributed to George Orwell and his 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, although the term doublespeak is not actually used in the novel. Instead, the term "doublethink" was the key term used from which "doublespeak" was derived. This is borne out by the Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper, as cited in dictionary.com: doublespeak is "coined on the model of 'doublethink' in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four." As such, the passage from "1984" elaborating the concept of "doublethink" is of the utmost relevancy to the original meaning of "doublespeak":

Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them… - (Orwell, New American Library, 1981, p35)

Hence, as defined originally by Orwell, the "double" in "doublespeak" refers to the "two" contradictory concepts juxtaposed against each other to create deep confusion in the hearer for the purpose of producing inaction and apathy. From this analysis, it can be apprehended that, originally, "doublespeak" was meant to be one form of euphemism, rather than (as this article begins) the other way around. Wikipedia defines "euphemism" as "a substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the receiver, or to make it less troublesome for the speaker." Doublespeak qualifies as a euphemism in that it makes the truth less offensive or unpleasant. But it accomplishes this, more particularly, by utilizing two contradictory terms in juxtaposition. This is in accord with the above examples cited: "calling war 'peace', or maintaining the status quo 'change'". However, in accord with Orwell's original conception, the above example of "downsizing" (while clearly a euphemism) is not an example of "doublespeak", given that two contradictory terms are not utilized in the terminology.
more...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

[Dr.Phool]

87. If what you say is true, then that means....

The "Clear Skies Initiative" And "Healthy Forests" weren't what they were called!

:crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly:

Next you're going to try to tell us that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" wasn't about freedom!

[Jax]

108. What a great post northernlights

you summed it up perfectly.

:thumbsup:

[flyarm]

107. You have the nerve to tell any of us what and who the base is?

perhaps you need a history book!
and perhaps you need to go read the constitution and an understanding of ..who the government is..it is we the people! Not any politician!

Here is John Kerry, speaking yesterday at Grinnell College in Iowa:


Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America's leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate. As Thomas Jefferson said, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism."


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt


Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

- Harry S Truman

[RaleighNCDUer]

117. So wanting more is just fine so long as we don't tell anyone about it?

What you call 'trashing' we call criticism - and there is a lot to criticize.

Just as very well spelled out in the OP.

[roguevalley]

56. your base sticks with you. the minority aren't obama's base.

you must have us mixed up with the republicans.

[JoePhilly]

62. Not at all.

The vast majority of Democrats support Obama. Those people are his base. I know lots of democrats and liberals in real life and I don't know a single one who thinks he's "like Bush". All of them still support Obama 100%.

I'd contrast that with what I see on DU. I'd say it runs about 50-50.

To be "the base" means that you are pretty much always there. If not, you are riding the band wagon, jumping off when things are tough. Like now.

There is a reason the GOP isn't touching the Gibbs story. Its because its an argument between Gibbs and what he called "the professional left", which shows people in the middle that Obama is not the socialist Fox news portrays him to be. So in reality, this little tiff helps Obama counter Fox and GOP attacks on him.

And from my perspective, the GOP and Fox are the enemy.

[rhett o rick]

76. What is Gibb's motivation of attacking the minority on the left? Those that

want single payer now, or at least a public option. On HCR I would give the President two steps forward and one and a half steps backward.
But again, why does Gibbs and the Admin spend so much energy on attacking the left when you have a complete Republican Party dedicated to destroying America. What is the crime of the left? Wanting to much? Wanting the children of this country in homes and being fed? Be patient my ass.

Tell me about the two steps forward re. DADT? To me the Pres attitude is two steps back. Same for the Patriot Act and domestic spying.

Trying for bipartisanship with Republicans is killing us. I say go for it. Those out of work, homeless, on food stamps cant wait for compromise.

[jeff47]

95. Not so much.

"Your BASE sticks with you"

No, you're confusing "your base" with "your sycophants".

Your base is allied with you, in that you share mutual goals. However, if you don't feed your base, it withered away. And since each base voter is worth about 2-3 'independent' voters, (due to their donations, volunteering and GOTV efforts) a withered base is a very bad thing.

Why do you think R's are always catering to their base despite the unpopularity of their base's positions? They're feeding the base.

"As he fights the GOP taking 2 steps forward and one step back, all they seem to want to discuss is the one step back."

Because that's not how he's moving. He takes 2 steps back, and then shuffles forward slightly.

Obama has pre-compromised on every significant issue, resulting in a much weaker result than was necessary. In addition, this weakness ties his hands later on. For example, if he had asked for the proper amount of stimulus funds, it would be easy to blame the current economic state on the Republicans for cutting it down to $700B. Since he only asked for $700B to start with, he's taking the blame for the 'failure' of his stimulus bill.

[snagglepuss]

120. "feed the base since it's worth 2-3 ind votes" Bang on.

[laughingliberal]

33. K & R nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

50. This sums up my concerns with most of the supposed left of center pols out there

"Cave first, negotiate later, then act surprised when people are upset when the final agreement is so weak, and accuse them of being politically naive and unrealistic."

I would love to see that bipartisan middle ground carved out, not caved into when it is still far right of where it might have been. I'm not asking for a pony. I'm asking for people to try their hardest on America's behalf.

[disillusioned73]

63. I wish that fit on a bumper sticker

:bounce:

[GreenPartyVoter]

89. We could order up pieces of it on a whole series of them, but it might

take up the entire car bumper by the time it was all on there. LOL

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Well that about says it

Wow.

[hootinholler]

52. John has summed it up very well.

Thanks for that link Stanky!

-Hoot

[progressoid]

54. "Heck of away to energize the party three months before a pivotal election"

Yup.

[boppers]

59. Professional Left = Not the party.

It's the Democratic Party, not the "OMG I AM UPSET" party. I tend to think that the "OMG I AM AN UPSET" party is on the other side of the isle, waving their badly spelled and written signs.

:shrug:

[hfojvt]

55. not seeing the wow

it starts with a strawman and then kinda flops around from there with the standard "Obama didn't even try" nonsense, like he never flew to Montana or Nebraska or gave a special speech in Congress, etc. Maybe it gets better, but the first part didn't motivate me to finish it.

[live love laugh]

61. Me either. It's the same criticisms I've seen here rehashed. I especially disagree with

"this White House helped unify the Republicans by constantly, and unnecessarily, pandering to them..."

BULLSHIT.

[disillusioned73]

64. Your entitled to your opinion..

but that's exactly what they did. And we were yelling, scratching & clawing for them to take the mandate that was given to them and run with it - but alas, it wasn't meant to be...

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigmonkey]

112. Yet the cheerleaders for this kind of stuff always say it's new.

The repetition of "Obama is a failure, I renounce him" is always fresh and groundbreaking, no matter how many times it's been said before.

[boppers]

58. Meh.

Complaints that Obama didn't win all of his fights, therefore, Obama wasn't fighting?

Yeah, this isn't professional wrestling, or an american movie script. Life doesn't work that way, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

[canetoad]

60. Bullshit Stinky

And you're old enough, cynical enough not to be led by the nose by bloggers - or are you. Unrec for attempt to provoke uninformed visceral reaction.

[rhett o rick]

72. If you disagree with the article, please give us your side. Make it a discussion instead of attack

ing Stinky.

I would love to hear Gibbs side.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

85. sad to say, we have.

one word says it all: Smug.

[mod mom]

74. Your signature line says "question authority" which is exactly

the rational argument that John Aravosis makes in the blog. why do you assume Stinky is being led by the nose? sounds like projection to me.

[Stinky The Clown]

88. Canetoad, I answer very few people in my threads anymore, but I will answer you.

I have decided to put up threads that speak for themselves. People can then comment as they see fit and show how smart they are, or how they tie themselves in knots to stake out one position or another, but in the end, show themselves to be who they are.

You chose to call bullshit on me, which demonstrates your agenda. The OP says nothing apart from "here is the blog" and "wow".

I'll allow that you accept the factual, non controversial fact that "here is the blog" is factual.

The only other thing upon which you can call bullshit, then, is the "wow" comment. It could have been "wow, he's full of shit". It could have been "wow, he's a freakin' genius". It could have been "wow, I agree with him". It could have been "wow, he has a nice website."

You clearly only considered what you **assume** to be my position. Which shows *your* bias, not mine and demonstrates your total lack of credibility and sole intent to be the flinging of .... well ...... bullshit.

If that's your intent, I hope it works for you. But anyone who reads this thread will now see your bias clearly. And deal with you accordingly.

Personally, I really couldn't care less what your bias or your opinion is. You won't sway mine and you'll be less likely to sway others now that your bias is clear. As to swaying your opinion, why would I bother?

Reply away if you care to, canetoad, but I'm done with you. Not on ignore, just done with you is all.

[mopinko]

65. the professional left has a pretty big bus, itself.

i think aravosis might be driving it.

[valerief]

66. kick

:kick:

[Lucky 13]

67. Bingo

K&R

[cate94]

69. K & R

[rhett o rick]

73. IMHO the Admin has decided to dump the left to get the center-right.

They want to make it crystal clear that they (the Admin) do not support the radical leftist ideals (like single payer or public option).

IMO they hope the left comes up with another Ralph Nader. That would really cement the center-right (ex-republicans) to Obama. Looks like the Admin is pushing Kucinich as the new Nader.

[NorthCarolina]

75. K&R

[Beam Me Up]

77. Cave first, negotiate later, then act surprised when people are upset when the final agreement is so

weak, and accuse them of being politically naive and unrealistic.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

K&R

[MissDeeds]

78. Excellent read

K&R

[proReality]

81. K&R n/t

[Dr.Phool]

90. Kick and Rec.

All the people who are bitching about this article, either didn't read it, couldn't understand it, or wouldn't recognize the truth if it ran you over.

"The Base". The people who actually invested their time and money in the campaign. Not the keyboard warriors, is pretty pissed off, and Gibbs just rubbed salt in the wound.

[DeSwiss]

91. K&R

One's enough.

[Spheric]

92. K&R /nt

[Horse with no Name]

94. Best line:

But we didn't vote for Barack Obama to be simply "better than the worst Republicans." That's a rather sorry goal for any president, let alone one who promised he was different. One who promised real "change."

[Cleita]

98. This phrase from the article sums up the whole Gibbs drama.

But we didn't vote for Barack Obama to be simply "better than the worst Republicans." That's a rather sorry goal for any president, let alone one who promised he was different. One who promised real "change."

That's it in a nutshell. That's why we do want Canadian health care and reining back the Pentagon. They figured this much out but didn't figure out that it's also a majority sentiment, not just a fringe argument from small group in the professional left.

[ProudDad]

102. K&R (n/t)

[earth mom]

104. Everyone should be happy Aravosis did this. But really didn't everyone

know this all along?

Listen to the SILENCE about the Wars that Obama took over from *.

It should have been obvious since day one or at least since Obama won the War is Peace Prize.

If anyone is having a hatefest about this they should instead be hating the political bullshit and constant disinformation that has screwed this country up so damn much!

[defendandprotect]

105. Nice review of Obama's pre-set guidelines for failure on any project .... aim low and compromise!

and make back room deals -- !!

[OwnedByFerrets]

106. What a wonderful piece of writing. TY for posting.

[emsimon33]

109. Wow! The best assessment of our frustration with Obama yet

[snagglepuss]

121. +1

[Kweli4Real]

110. You know ...

I get tired of so many clearly bright and intelligent posters trashing the president about what he hasn't done. People seem to ignore that IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT TO PROPOSE OR INTRODUCE LEGISLATION {I would bold-face this if I could figure out how} and it never has been ... that function falls exclusively in the hands of congress. You know, that separations of powers thing in the US Constitution.

The president CAN cheerlead, cajol, encourage, play tit for tat, attempt to pursuade, even threaten or exhort, the representatives, indicidually or collectively; but in the end, it is up to congress to introduce and vote on what the law is, and will be ... the president can only sign it or not sign it.

Note: I intentionally excluded the president's use of the Executive Order because is that really what we want? Because eventually there will be a republican in the whitehouse and you can rest assured that whatever the president enacts via EO, will be reversed through EO, and much more.that will

[snagglepuss]

122. May I suggest you re-read the article because it is Obama's complete

disinterest in cheerleading, cajolling, encouraging, playing tit for tat, attempt to pursuade, even threaten or exhort that John is criticizing. Obama has simply rolled over rather than fight for real substantive reform.

[Kweli4Real]

125. I guess my point is ...

place the blame where it belongs ... at the feet of our elected democrat representatives. I've used this analogy before, and think it bears being repeated one more time ... not that anyone will listen:

Blaming President Obama for the lack of progressive legislation is a lot like blaming Friend A because Friend B won't lend you her car. Friend A can cheerlead, cajol, encourage, play tit for tat, attempt to pursuade, even threaten or exhort Friend B, but at the end of the day, it is Friend B who makes the decision. So any ire for your having to walk should be directed primarily at the owner of the car; not someone how knows the person with the car.

[Vinca]

111. This piece nailed it - especially the part about caving before negotiations start.

[JerseygirlCT]

113. Oh boy

that sort of caught it all, didn't it?

[Jakes Progress]

115. $43K. Paltry chump change compared

to the checks coming from BOA and Goldman. Why should he care about you?

And yes, george thought he was doing a great job too, that he was appointed by God and that those who attacked him were going to hell.

The part that Chuckles always ignores is that is often what is meant when the pres is compared to the pretender in chief. The insular decision making by advisors who have little expertise or experience, the reliance on a tiny group of gate-keepers, and a petulant anger that anyone suggest that there are screw-ups taking place, suggests that the pres isn't the greatest of all time and space.

Stop telling us to hold you to your actions if you don't mean it. Tell us to drop dead to our faces. I'm sure bill-O will invite you on faux to do so.

[pleah]

126. K&R

[jillan]

127. Wow!!!!!! I hope Mr. Gibbs reads it - as well as his boss.