Official Opinion Received in DC, Direct from WaPo: Gibbs is a 'truth-teller'

[BurtWorm]

How quickly consent is manufactured.


http://feeds.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=3fe5c33ed17c2e2b97c38b90e6233e56

Robert Gibbs keeps jabbing the left
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 12, 2010

...

Actually, his voice sounded fine. And the voice, anyway, isn't the problem. It's the words. Gibbs has, in the space of just a few weeks, twice committed the unforgivable sin for a White House press secretary: He has carelessly spoken the truth.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081101212_2.html?wprss=rss_politics

West Wing Briefing
Robert Gibbs, putting things a little too plainly

By Michael D. Shear
Wednesday, August 11, 2010; 8:48 AM
...

For Gibbs (who skipped his daily briefing, reporters were told, because of a sore throat), the incident was the latest evidence that he is becoming the teller-of-all-truths in the White House.

Obama promised on the campaign trail to run the most transparent White House in history. It appears that Gibbs has begun to take him literally.

On "Meet the Press" last month, Gibbs said what everyone in Washington was thinking -- that enough House seats were in play to give Republicans a serious chance to take control of the chamber. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies lashed out, though Pelosi later said she paid little attention to what Obama's staff said.

...

Now, Gibbs is caught being transparent again, this time about White House frustrations with the left wing of the Democratic Party....



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/is-it-time-for-gibbs-to-move-o.html?hpid=topnews


Is it time for Gibbs to move on?

By Scott Wilson

The truth hurts.

This may be something for the White House to consider as midterm fatigue sets in and personnel starts to churn. Are White House press secretary Robert Gibbs' recent bouts of truth-telling a sign he should move on?

For months, speculation has abounded that Gibbs will eventually move from his current post to become a less-visible senior adviser to President Obama.

He already essentially plays that role, sitting in on virtually every major meeting regardless of subject matter and receiving rare bureaucratic carte blanche within a disciplined West Wing to jump from policy lane to lane. After seven years with Obama, Gibbs is also one of the president's longest-serving advisers.

So is it time to make the move official? The trouble he keeps getting into for his increasing candor may suggest that it is....

[Enrique]

1. Gibbs reminds me of Milbank

that's why I think it's pointless to ask Gibbs to resign. Obama would just put Milbank in his place.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Gee, I wondered how long it would take the merchants of hate and lies on the right`

to take Gibbs statements and run with them. Make no mistake! The Obama people have attacked ALL liberals in the Democratic Party with the EXACT same BS lies that Limbaugh, Rove and the rest have been pounding on for a decade.

[dkf]

3. The problem isn't Gibbs. Its Obama.

Obama just wants us to do grunt work, give money, and then go away.

[Vincardog]

6. The problem isn't Gibbs. Its Obama. He is the teller-of-all-truths AS OBAMA SEES IT

[OHdem10]

4. What do you expect? WAPO supports GOP and Conservadems

Indirectly they are helping Republicans.

[BurtWorm]

5. The only suprising thing, if it is surprising, is how brazen they are about it.

Three pieces in two days using virtually the same words. This is on the order of propaganda at its least subtle.

[deutsey]

7. I like David Sirota's take on this

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you, David Sirota, about the comments of Robert Gibbs, talking about—well, attacking progressives. In an interview with the newspaper The Hill, Gibbs said critics who liken some of Obama’s policies to those of former President George W. Bush should, quote, "be drug tested." Gibbs went on to blast what he called "the professional left," saying, quote, "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and when we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality." What’s your response, David Sirota?


DAVID SIROTA: Well, my response is that the Obama administration is obviously frustrated with its—where it is in the polls, and it doesn’t really understand what a progressive movement is, as separate from a presidential administration. I actually think that Barack Obama himself probably does understand that there is an importance of having a movement pushing an administration for particular policies. This is the lesson of every successful social movement in history. And I think Obama himself understands that. Unfortunately, President Obama, upon becoming president, put a lot of Washington insiders into the government. Those are people who are really not interested, and have never worked with, don’t really understand the value of, social movements that are independent of an administration.


Look, I’ve known Robert Gibbs for years. Robert Gibbs has worked as the spokesperson for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Party, in general. This is not a person who is comfortable with the idea of a progressive movement—any movement—really pushing an administration. This administration, the staffers in this administration, truly believe that they should be able to give orders to progressive organizations, progressive voters, and that those orders should be followed without question. And I think this tension between the progressive movement and the Obama administration is only going to continue, especially if President Obama does not advocate many of the progressive policies, does not fight for many of the progressive policies, that he campaigned on.


http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/11/david_sirota_corporate_interests_help_defeat

[BurtWorm]

8. Now *that* is truth-telling!

:applause:

[gkhouston]

9. Wow. Talk about not having clue one about the progressive movement.

:rofl:

[Individualist]

12. Fail

Anyone who knows anything about DLC/NDC knows that they're anti-progressive.

[gkhouston]

13. I think you read my post the wrong way. I meant that the administration is

clueless about the progressive movement, not Sirota. I was howling with laughter at the notion that progressives would simply take their marching orders without question.

[Individualist]

14. Sorry. I did think you were talking about Sirota.

[gkhouston]

15. I hadn't realized I was ambiguous until I saw your response. My bad. n/t

[Ignis]

11. Oh my! Thanks for that link.

I had hoped we'd removed the "you're either with us or against us" bullshit and the "watch what you say" authoritarianism from the White House in the 2008 election, but Mr. Gibbs is doing his best to disillusion us of that notion.

[laughingliberal]

19. There it is! Sirota speaks the truth. nt

[rucky]

10. Anybody else starting to feel like a "useful idiot"?

I'm walking away from this.

[EFerrari]

17. If we were useful idiots there would be no problem. n/t

[rucky]

22. They picked a fight because they wanted one.

And we're giving 'em one. Now in everyone's eyes, the White House just jumped three spaces to the right. We're serving their political purposes by defending ourselves - and again, we don't really have much choice about it. Like not voting - it's not really an option. We're just a political prop to win them votes.

I'd almost be willing to go along with it, if it were a proven way to win elections, but it's not. It's based on a false assumption that independents are in the center of the spectrum. They're not. They sway to the candidates that have a strong, clear message. "We're not as liberal as you think we are" is not a strong message. If anything, it undermines their achievements that are worth bragging about - and there are quite a few.

[EFerrari]

23. Agreed. n/t

[NJmaverick]

16. well the professional left was demanding more transparency

[ibegurpard]

18. lol Dana Milbank

[laughingliberal]

20. Obviously, the administration feels they have something to gain from going to war with the left...

right here at election time. Good luck with that.

Then again, I'm not sure losing the House is seen as a problem for them. Gibbs already tried to concede the House once. And it is where the largest group of Progressives in our current government are found.

[ibegurpard]

21. this is starting to seem like the only logical conclusion