White House Hits Back At Liberal Critics of Bill Daley

[Bluebear]

Wouldn't it just be delightful to read about the White House "hitting back" at Republican critics for a change?

====

It's not hard to understand why liberals are confused and angry over the choice of Bill Daley to be White House Chief of Staff. The President Obama they know and love spent the last two years bashing Wall Street executives, calling them "fat cats" and lecturing them for their "greedy" ways.

Now, in a turn of events that has the left wing aghast, one of those fat cats will soon be setting policy at the White House. Daley, after all, spent 7 years at JP Morgan where he's believed to have earned at least $5 million a year, possibly much more. He's one of them, liberals cry, not one of us.

And it's not just Daley. Gene Sperling gets the nod today to replace Larry Summers as the top economic brain in the West Wing. For economic progressives it's like pouring salt in the wounds they're still nursing from the president's lame duck tax deal, in which the moderate deal-making Sperling played a key role.

A White House/Wall Street "Unholy Alliance?"

But in an interview in his large corner office in the West Wing, outgoing press secretary Robert Gibbs pushed back against the conventional wisdom that the president is suddenly moving to the political center, setting himself up for a re-election campaign that's focused on moderate voters, leaving liberals out in the cold.

The president, Gibbs said, "knows what his values are."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027758-503544.html?tag=stack

[Darth_Kitten]

1. I don't think moderates would be too thrilled either....

I don't think Barack Obama really "gets" people. :(

[ixion]

8. He appeared to 'get' them during the election

but afterward, seems only to 'get' the Wall St. folks and International corporate powers.

[Kahuna]

18. While trying to fix the economy and stimulate job growth, his time is better spent

engaging those in the positions to help with the economy and jobs than listenting to tom hartmann and ed shultz who are not in a position and do not have the expertise to do anything about the crisis. The only thing they have expertise in is jumping to conclusions, forming opinions based on conjecture instead of facts, and stirring up gullible listeners who don't seem to recognize that none of them (the listeners) included have a clue about what they're talking about.

[ixion]

19. Wall St. does NOT create jobs. Main St. creates jobs

Wall St. does, in fact, abhor a good job market.

[neverforget]

24. And Wall Street has the money/power/lobbyists/chief of staff/treasury secretary/etc

[Kahuna]

27. When will you get it? Wall St. and Main St. are one. One does not

exist without the other.

[ixion]

29. That is not true. Wall St. cannot exist without Main St, because

Wall St. produces nothing. It simply plays numbers games with Other People's Money. Main St. on the other hand, will continue to produce goods with or without the parasitic money boys.

[bbgrunt]

23. wow. in other words, tom and ed just aren't "pragmatic" enough for you.

[Kahuna]

28. Basically, they're just not realistic enough...Hmmm, maybe pragmatic

is a better word though. :thumbsup: Pragmatists get things done.

[boston bean]

2. Should read WH hits back at American critics

I will never for the life of me begin to understand how both parties can get away with maligning a significant segment of the population.

About 20% describe themselves as liberal, correct??

I guess that we are the real enemy of them, that is the only explanation I can think of. And if they treat us like the enemy, we should give them the same turn....

[DainBramaged]

3. Hit back at us, kiss Boehner's ass.....

:eyes:

[RandomThoughts]

4. values, what an interesting topic.

I think some people think that is about siding with who you think the winners will be.


I think that is much of what people do is. If you don't win how can you have a good effect is the thought. So they find a way to side with the winners. Makes sense in a pragmatic world. Get the best you can, least of bad choices, what can a person do.

:shrug: Maybe it is what is right, maybe not, they got beer and travel money.

It just seems wrong to not swing away.

[treestar]

5. The WH does

It hits back at all of its critics.

Why does the left feel it is entitled to rattle on without opposition of any kind?

No one else expects that.

[eomer]

21. Hey, fire away.

I'm not sure how many hundreds of hours I spent in 2008 as a local team captain for Obama.

I do know exactly how many hours I will spend for him in 2012. I bet you can even guess it, it's a very round number.

[HereSince1628]

6. THIS is what is wrong with the governing of the US

It's become an assinine team sport. It's not about governing but about dividing to world into our team and our opponents. Meanwhile the owners of the game are bilking the spectators at $60 a seat for crumby games that really don't matter.

Obama's administration has repeatedly demonstrated that they are deep into this charade. They knew the way they were going to define their DCL-based game plan was going to piss off the left, so they've decided to always define us as opponents.

[demwing]

7. "The president...knows what his values are."

:rofl:

It's the people that voted for him, audaciously hoping for progressive change, that are sadly confused.

What brilliant bullshit.

[Me.]

15. Confused?

After 2 years of obfuscation I an clueless as to what his values are

[WinkyDink]

9. .....calling them "fat cats" = Superb example of "Talk is cheap." (Even so, the term doesn't

mean perforce that he disapproves.)

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. I wonder if his family has a cat

And knows what a FAT CAT means even in that status?

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. The Daley wing of the DEM Party has come a long way.

From a pariah-like, mini-minority status post '68 to what we see today.

The whole world really was NOT watching, I guess.

5m x 7 = 35 m ... right there.

Whoa, Nelly!

[Brickbat]

12. "As for Daley's background on Wall Street, Gibbs said that Daley's big role in the White House will

not significantly change the president's position on business issues."

Well, now that's reassuring. :eyes:

And as for the "modest" salary he's been getting -- it's easy to swallow a "modest" salary of $150K when you've got this coming down the pipe...

He plans to leave in about a month, making his living on the "mashed potato circuit" as President Reagan called it - where well-known people like Gibbs can earn stunning fees for giving speeches. For someone who's been on a campaign or government salary for so many years, it's going to be a bit like winning the lottery. There are reports that Gibbs will command something in the range of $20,000 to $30,000 a speech, maybe more.

[olegramps]

14. Why would anyone attend some speech by this numb ass?

What could he have to say of any interest? He did a lousy job. I guess maybe Republicans may adore him for delivering their agenda and bashing the party base. Good riddance. He should take his boss with him.

[tomp]

13. it couldn't be more obvious. there is no place for progressives in the dem. party. nt

[lonestarnot]

16. Done.

[defendandprotect]

17. IMO, we've let Obama get away with this Wall St White House for far too long ... from day one!!

And we're still .... just complaining????

[Starry Messenger]

20. Glad he has his priorities straight.

:sarcasm:

[old mark]

22. K&R-No surprise, is it?...nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Obama "..knows what his values are". So do the "critics on the Left".

Which is why he's getting criticized by the Left.

[mzmolly]

26. You think the media might be up to something?

:freak:

[Bluebear]

30. What?

[mzmolly]

31. You think the narrative that liberals are at war with the President, might

be played up in the media?