Don't let Gibbs distract from the danger on the right, please

[BurtWorm]

Pay attention to the ascendancy of Paul Ryan to the upper ranks of "seriousness" as Atrios puts it.

The main stupidity of Gibbs' inartfulness is, as Krugman said, the division it caused at almost the worst possible electoral moment. Gibbs should shut the fuck up and stop playing to the Washington cheering squad, who will dump him in a minute if Ryan's star gets much higher.

[dkf]

1. Gibbs aims at us instead of repubs.

He needs to go.

[BurtWorm]

4. He should go, I agree. But if he doesn't, and if Obama doesn't stick up for his left wing

which he should, and probably won't, the left really should not permit them to dictate our enthusiasm for electing right-minded Democrats. I think there's a danger of wasting too much time on Gibbs' stupidity. The longer it takes Obama to acknowledge righteous anger on the left over this, the more likely he never will so time spent on it is purely wasteful. In my opinion. Much more important to get good people elected than one jerk fired.

[sui generis]

2. but burt we can multitask SO

Don't let other issues distract us from going after our non-supportive party electorate and their party-inappropriate appointees.

No need to trade issues either way.

[BurtWorm]

9. It seems to me that if it becomes much clearer that we won't get satisfaction from this insult

any more time spent on it is a waste. I have no audacity to hope for satisfaction from Obama on this conflict between the powers and the people. So fuck 'em. They don't know how to lead a movement? Fuck 'em. Make our own movement. And make sure the right stays the fuck out of power.

[sui generis]

12. :grin: but the best way to make sure the left doesn't become the right

is to threaten our vote. Obama is who we elected to represent us, and he's appointed a secretary who admonishes, belittles and marginalizes us, his base.

I'm not voting for that again unless Obama wakes up and does something to address this buffoon's "voice" of the administration. And quite frankly if Obama doesn't, I'm serious about not giving him my vote - My name is sui generis, and I do NOT approve that message.

[BurtWorm]

15. 'That again' is not on the ballot in 2010.

Know what I mean? I'm serious about ignoring Obama if need be--if he isn't capable of leading his base without insulting it, which maybe he isn't. Gotta focus on the prize.

[KoKo]

3. I'm more worried about the danger from our OWN...than the true crazies on the Right...

[EstimatedProphet]

8. Then IMO you're misguided

There is a group of people on the right that hunger for the chance to kill liberals. They are just waiting for the right people to tell them to do it.

[Individualist]

11. +1

[EFerrari]

5. They're not really two different issues. n/t

[BurtWorm]

18. They are. Gibbs is just an inartful word man. Ryan could wield power.

Gibbs hurts feelings (and should shut the fuck up already!), but Ryan can wreak havoc on powerless people. We really need to see clearly here. I'd like to see Gibbs fired, but I don't think he is as large a problem as the danger of right-wing Randians getting back into political power.

[EFerrari]

25. Gibbs is just the mouthpiece or else he would be gone.

Either that or the administration has an overplus of inartful word men. :)

Is there a link to what Atrios said? :hi:

[BurtWorm]

28. By now it's clear the admin has no problem with what Gibbs said.

Either we can stay fruitlessly pissed about that or wise up and apply our energies where they will be useful. (Obama is never going to be the leader the left needs. We need to lead ourselves.)

Here's the Atrios quote:

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/Yxsa6ngFSgY/compeltely-sensible-policies-which.html

Completely Sensible Policies Which Aren't On The Table

I'm repeating myself, but in a sane world we wouldn't be worried about the catfood commission, instead Democrats would be at least temporarily lowering the full Social Security eligibility age to 62 and lowering the reduced benefit eligibility age to 60. This economy is horrible. It isn't getting better. People who lose their jobs at that age aren't going to get new ones which come even close to replacing the wages they've lost, if they get new ones at all.

I know we don't live in a sane world, we live in a world where Paul Ryan is Very Serious because he usually manages to tie his shoes, but someone has to say it.

[EFerrari]

31. You're right. Thanks for the link! n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Gibbs is the danger on the right

So are the people he works for.

Should we only be concerned about the righties who label themselves as such?

[BurtWorm]

29. That seems like a confused policy to me.

Confused and a bit paranoid. You only have so much ammunition. Who are you going to spend it on? You have to know or else you're just firing into the void.

[FiveGoodMen]

30. If you can't tell when you're being played, then you're the one who's confused.

[BurtWorm]

32. Played by whom? The Matrix?

:shrug:

[Laelth]

7. Gibbs should be fired. That would help mend this fence.

Obama's failure to fire Gibbs continues to harm the Party and prevent the achievement of progressive goals.

-Laelth

[BurtWorm]

10. I'm not seeing any sign he will be.

So then what are we going to do?

[Laelth]

21. If he's not fired, then my worst fears about this administration will be confirmed.

And I will be saddened by that.

But liberals will continue to do what they have always done, as I said here, nearly a year ago: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/40

-Laelth

[BurtWorm]

23. I think he will not be fired and it will be a sign that the Obama admin

either doesn't know how to deal with the left wing of its base or doesn't care about the left wing of its base. And that this cluelessness or apathy goes right to the top.

But as you said last year, that shouldn't stop the left from pushing for what it believes in.

May the left just know which battles are most important to join and win.

[GreenArrow]

22. I don't agree.

Gibbs doesn't make policy. Gibbs is the spokesman for his boss. To fire him now would just create one more area in which Obama comes off as vacillating and cynically manipulative. He's simply mouthing the administration's collective opinion, and that with greater moderation than would likely be expressed behind the closed doors of the oval office. I'm convinced that Gibbs' statements are pretty much reflective of what the administration thinks of the left. They don't want to be saddled with the left, other than through its volunteerism, money and votes. But they don't see it as a tit for tat, other than throwing up the occasional bit of window dressing. And where else is the left going to go, anyway?

In terms of mending fences, much better would be an actual turn to the left in terms of policy making. I'm not holding my breath on that.

[Laelth]

27. I would certainly prefer a strong policy shift to the left.

But I am not holding my breath on that, either.

I don't think that firing Gibbs would hurt the President's image, however. Even if it did, I think firing Gibbs would do more good than harm.

-Laelth

[Individualist]

13. DLC has been more of a danger and created far more damage to the party than the republicans.

[BurtWorm]

19. Talking about damage to the country, now.

I don't want Paul Ryan writing Social Security legislation. Do you?

[LWolf]

14. I think you mean "the far right."

Because Gibbs and the rest of the Obama administration are already "right" from where I'm standing.

[EFerrari]

17. When people attack the left in public, that's a clue.

:)

[BurtWorm]

20. Point taken.

;-)

[frylock]

35. this^

:applause:

[laughingliberal]

16. Paul Ryan is a most definite threat.

He sits on the Cat Food Commission and I was most unhappy to hear the President, when he met with the House Republicans, indicate he thought Ryan had some helpful ideas. Ryan's 'ideas' center, for the most part on privatization of SS and giving vouchers for Medicare.

[KansasVoter]

24. Maybe tell Gibbs to insult the RIGHT an not us!

[BurtWorm]

26. He's not going to listen to me. Maybe DU will, though.

;-)

[damntexdem]

33. Tell Gibbs to stop distracting from the danger on the right.

For that matter, I'm not sure that Gibbs isn't PART of the danger on the right.

[BurtWorm]

34. Gibbs won't listen to me. I'm just a drug-addled professional leftist as far as he's concerned.

And I don't care if he listens to me or not. He's not all that important in the long-run. Spokespeople usually aren't.