Grayson on Gibbs: He Shouldn't Resign. He Should be Fired.

[laughingliberal]

on MSNBC:

"I'd like to see him express frustration over 15 million unemployed Americans"

"I'd like to see him express frustration over 40 million Americans who can't see a doctor when they need to."

On Canadian Health Care: "Canadians live 3 years longer than us...If I wanted Fox News talking points, I'd change the channel to Fox."

Grayson nails it, again! Grayson 2012!

[truebrit71]

1. Aaaaaaaaand Grayson hits it out of the park...

...Very nice!

[Dinger]

53. Yes, K & R!!!

[Donnachaidh]

2. kick and Rec! n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Grayson under the bus in 3...2...1...

[NYC Liberal]

4. He's "expressed frustration" over both of those.

So... :shrugs:

[Touchdown]

121. Singular shrug.

Then it'll work.

[BootinUp]

5. oh brother

Grayson, why aren't you attacking the policy makers, preferably the repukes, you big bozo. Geebus.

[Bluebear]

8. HELLO? Why isn't GIBBS attacking the "repukes" instead of us?

[tsuki]

11. HELLO. Why isn't Gibbs attacking the Republicons rather than Kucinish?

[moksha]

18. You must not be very familiar with Grayson.

He is one of the most vocal attackers of repukes. Gibbs asked for it.

[breadandwine]

124. Grayson needs to shut up. Everybody knows there's no such thing as a Democrat with guts....

That's like a pancake without a syrup. UNPOSSIBLE.


HERE'S THE PROOF. GEORGE BUSH SAYS SO:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCOYJ7weFEw&feature=play...



So let's all go back to sleep and let the White House blow another election.

[Ignis]

37. Grayson does exactly that ALL THE TIME.

A cursory perusal of DU would demonstrate that, I can only attribute your inability to see it to willful ignorance.

[laughingliberal]

42. He does, indeed. I have yet to see anyone in the administration do half the job of it he does.

Graysn quotes:

On Republican Health Care Plan: "Don't get sick. If you do get sick, die quickly."

Asked to apologize for the remark, he said (paraphrasing), 'I would like to apologize. I'd like to apologize to the dead, the 44,000 Americans who have died every year while they failed to do anything about our health care system.'

On Republicans obstructing the extension of the UI benefits: "You are taking food out of children's mouths. May God have mercy on your souls."

[Ignis]

43. Precisely. This isn't a drum he only beats when he's seeking donations.

It's simply who the man is.

[Spheric]

46. Don't want to be attacked like a Repuke by Grayson? Quit acting like one.

'Nuff said.

[Enthusiast]

71. 'Nuff said! nt

[snagglepuss]

84. B-I-N-G-O.

[LaydeeBug]

133. EFFING- AY!!!! nt

[piratefish08]

50. you seriously don't see the irony in your own Grayson comment??

[BootinUp]

52. I think attacking the Press Secretary of your party is ridiculous.

but it might just be playing into the WH strategy anyways, don't know why I care much now that I think about it, lol.

[DireStrike]

63. I think the press secretary attacking his own party is ridiculous.

[Enthusiast]

72. Me too. nt

[MissDeeds]

74. Me too n/t

[YOY]

147. and there it is!

n/t

[burnsei sensei]

111. We do not follow parties or leaders uncritically.

We are not dogs, we are humans.
Loyalty has its limits.

[BootinUp]

113. Are you talking to me?

Because if so, you just went way off topic.

[burnsei sensei]

141. No. I mean people here more generally.

We are not uncritical of what the government, our leaders, their leaders, say or do.
They have no right to expect unrestrained loyalty because they are not arbitrary in their power.
This would be true even if they pretended to arbitrary power-- which they keep getting closer to doing.

[Bluesbreaker]

116. My party, right or wrong?

I think we're way past that. Johnson was attacked by liberals for the Vietnam War and rightly so. Carter was criticized for coddling the Shah of Iran. Clinton was criticized for his handling of Rwanda. When a politician is wrong he should held accountable, regardless of which party he belongs to. Robert Gibbs may call himself a Democrat, but he's gone beyond the pale on this one and deserves the spanking he is getting.

[sabrina 1]

51. Lol, Grayson destroys Republicans all the time so much so

he's been getting death threats over it. You need to watch some of his take downs of Repubs on the floor of the House. They are pure gold.

And guess what, even Republicans like him because he's a fighter. People like to see some spine every once in a while.

[frylock]

60. jesus fuckin christ

really?!

[Parker CA]

68. Seriously.

[L0oniX]

76. Clue? Get one!

[BootinUp]

80. How many more times does Gibbs have to laugh this off

before you get one?

[L0oniX]

83. Enjoy your illusion that we have enough votes that we can afford to insult the left.

[BootinUp]

86. I consider myself left / liberal AND well informed, and I was not insulted

Can you deal with that?

Of course you can't. Because you can't even deal with how legislation is passed in our government.

I like Grayson and I think we need more Congress people like him, and like I said in my 2nd post here, now that I think about it, it doesn't bother me that he called for Gibbs being fired.

Finally, no I don't believe that Obama will suffer much from the fringe left outrage (whether they vote for him and the Dems or not). When the fringe left can actually prove their supposed voting power maybe we will have more Graysons and this will all be a moot discussion. Until then, I can totally understand the Dems campaign strategy. Cya

[L0oniX]

87. Oh I see ...you are the only representative type of the left / liberal.

No matter that we lost an election over a handful of votes in Florida. We can afford to dis a few far lefties.

[BootinUp]

88. I'm sure the memory of 2000

will haunt many of the former idiot Naderites at the polls. Maybe that will work in the Dems favor, do you think so?

A wise old saying to end this wonderful conversation:

"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time"

[L0oniX]

89. As a far lefty myself I can say that I for one will vote Dem until a lefty party that...

has a chance of winning comes along. Gibbs saying something stupid is not going to change my vote ...that would indeed be unintelligent.

[frylock]

103. you consider yourself informed yet you want to beat that nader horse?!

what have the dems done, in the time that they've held control of congress and the white house, to insure that we don't experience election fraud similar to what we saw in 2000? you know what they've done? jack fucking shit. you aren't nearly as informed as you like to pretend you are.

[BootinUp]

104. Who brought it up first?

Did you even bother to read the subthread?

[frylock]

144. aside from my post, your's is the only on that referenced nader..

over TWO-HUNDRED THOUSAND registered dems in florida voted for bush in 2000. that's a handful of votes to be sure.

[BootinUp]

145. You seem to be armed up to argue about it

Guess what, you can talk to the hand.

[frylock]

146. ohhhhh SNAP!

[quakerboy]

101. Till after the next couple elections

Lets laugh it off then. In the mean time, lets work just a tiny little bit on party unity rather than purposelessly pissing off even 12% of your own party. Seeing as it generally takes something akin to 50% to win, and 12% of approximately 42% of the electorate is about 5% of the total, and considering that Obama won with about 52%, that strikes me as just enough to leave a mark.

That's not counting what many of us believe, that its actually more than 12% and that particular poll is misleading. Or that the people who are a bit miffed right now tend to be some of the most active, and therefore their absence would hurt the parties electoral efforts disproportionately. Or that we democrats are not really gaining any support in any other group that would offset sending these people home.

But lets laugh it off. Lets let one man be more important than 8 and a half million registered voters.

[BootinUp]

102. The only part missing from your analysis

is the part where a bunch of so called liberals keep blaming the administration for not legislating bills, thats the laughable part. When Obama starts vetoing legislation for being too liberal get back to me with your fucking sob story.

[quakerboy]

107. Thats irrelevant to my "analysis"

You asked about when Gibbs could laugh it off. I answered your question. Whether our President can or cannot have an effect on legislation is irrelevant to that question.

Ya'll defending Gibbs are the ones that gave me the numbers I used(talking point 1, its only 12% of the liberals who are not happy). Wheres the "sob story" you so angrily invoke? Obviously there are some people who want something that they are not getting. And they are becoming annoyed. Whether they are directing that irritation as you would, is again irrelevant to the reality of what is. They are what they are. What reason is there to go and actively antagonize them for no gain? And what reason is there to protect a supposed flunky(talking point 2, why not direct the anger at the policy makers not a mere spokesman) who does such a thing?

[BootinUp]

112. No its not.

He is laughing, because he made a valid point about the unrealistic expectations of a small group.

I believe the administration perceives that their agenda gets sidetracked by all the noise, that too much of it is not constructive criticism but more destructive in effect.

Stop sobbing about Gibbs. Work on electing more liberals to the legislature.

If there was a political calculation in his comment, beyond quieting the destructive noise I have not really decided. Perhaps there was no way to say it that wouldn't have some negative effect.

[quakerboy]

114. It really is.

You answered a question that was never asked. Is my iritation with this President and the people surrounding him Justified? You say no, I think yes. But that has nothing to do with whether Gibbs can laugh this one off. That has to do with numbers and election results, which we can only guess at until they happen.

Now, when I take numbers ya'll have provided, and apply some common sense, I think the answer is it was a stupid choice. Because the numbers, even at their minimum, are not insignificant. And I can assure you of this: Pissing on me will not persuade me I am wrong. It may do nothing, or it may entrench my irritation into active anger. But it will never convince me to reconsider my position. Talking with me might do that. Appealing to my concerns might. Throwing me a bone might. But pissing on me never will.

Let me ask you, what has this quieted? Who has this mollified? Who is happier with this said, and who will get more donations, volunteers or votes with this floating in the ether?

How is making irritated people actively angry going to help stop noise, stop side tracking things? I'm louder now. You may have noticed others here are a bit louder now. A bit more alienated.

I'm sorry, the only winner here is the right. Ya'll centrists are angrier at the left. The left is angrier at you. How does this help any of our causes in any way?

[BootinUp]

131. The fallacy you hold to like a man dangling from a cliff

is that the anger wasn't there before Gibbs said anything.

[quakerboy]

143. Not particularly, if you read what I wrote.

I actually referred to that several times in my posts. My point is, if you know someone who should be your ally is irritated with you, why would you kick sand in their face?

This is about as smart as that whole foods CEO who started mouthing off and got his store boycotted. There was plenty of irritation with whole foods before that, over practices towards competitors, etc. But mouthing off about health care was the straw that broke the camels back.

Did that tank the store? No. But was it a useless move that cost them some customers in a hard economic time? Yup Same with what Gibbs just did. Will this tank Obama or the Democratic majorities? I hope like hell not. But was it a useless move that will probably cost them a few votes in an election that is predicted to be a hard one for them anyway? I would guess so.

[Bluesbreaker]

120. Do you even know who Gibbs is?

His career highlights include serving as a flak for Blue Dog Democrats from the South, quitting the Kerry campaign and being the spokesperson for a 527 political group that ran attack ads against Howard Dean when he was making his run for president.

From a revealing article:

"Robert Gibbs has a history of not only dissing progressives but of using inflammatory/Karl Rove-type tactics against progressives, liberals and the left. In 2003, according to the New York Times, Gibbs was spokesperson for a group that smeared candidate Howard Dean using Osama Bin Laden pictures and languages like Dean is too weak and "dangerous" while saying that "Dean cannot compete with Bush on foreign policy". In fact, the title of the article in the New York Times pretty much tells everything: "THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: ADVERTISING; New Democratic Group Finances a Republican-like Attack on Dean". For the full story, go to this link:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/8/11/81132/5825

You see a trend here? He detests liberals. He's always been at home in the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, just like his boss.

[BootinUp]

135. The trend I see, is you moving to discredit the person

and not the words.

[lark]

149. Obama vetoed single payer

and took it off the table. Want more evidence, there's lots more?

[BootinUp]

158. No, Obama hasn't vetoed a single bill to date. nt

[laughingliberal]

156. The President promised a veto if Congress used any of Arne's Race to Privatize money for jobs. nt

This entire interview with Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), the head of the House Appropriations Committee and a powerful veteran member of Congress, who is retiring this year, is worth a read. But one passage is particularly striking. Obey is discussing his proposal to divert funds from the Obama administration’s Race to the Top education program to save teachers’ jobs. Due to the states’ fiscal crises, as many as 200,000 local government employees, many of them teachers, might lose their jobs in the coming year.

The proposal made it in to the House war-funding bill, which needs a Senate vote. The White House has threatened to veto the war-funding bill if it contains Obey’s change. Here is the quote, from an interview with The Fiscal Times:

The secretary of education is whining about the fact he only got 85 percent of the money he wanted .… hen we needed money, we committed the cardinal sin of treating him like any other mere mortal. We were giving them over $10 billion in money to help keep teachers on the job, plus another $5 billion for Pell, so he was getting $15 billion for the programs he says he cares about, and it was costing him $500 million . Now that’s a pretty damn good deal. So as far as I’m concerned, the secretary of education should have been happy as hell. He should have taken that deal and smiled like a Cheshire cat. He’s got more walking around money than every other cabinet secretary put together.

It blows my mind that the White House would even notice the fight . I would have expected the president to say to the secretary, “Look, you’re getting a good deal, for God’s sake, what this really does is guarantee that the rest of the money isn’t going to be touched.” We gave $4.3 billion in the stimulus package, no questions asked. He could spend it any way he wants. … I trusted the secretary, so I gave him a hell of a lot more money than I should have.

http://washingtonindependent.com/91851/obey-white-house...

[BootinUp]

159. Yes I heard about that

as I undersand it, the threat of a veto had more to do with the fact is was attached to a war funding bill than anything else. It still was not a veto anyways.

[laughingliberal]

160. Your understanding is wrong

The White House has threatened to veto the $75 billion supplemental spending bill if it includes an offset in the package that would cut funding from the Department of Education's Race to the Top program, part of the package of cuts Obey identified to pay for his amendment. "If the final bill presented to the President includes cuts to education reforms, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto," reads the message from the White House.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/01/huffpost-hill-...

Of course it wasn't a veto. The House changed the bill to avoid it. They took the money, at the Obama administration's suggestion, from food stamps.

Feel free to continue to split hairs, though. I think you have a real talent for it.

[BootinUp]

161. So?

What's the big deal that you decided to bring this up? Got anything else you wanna bitch about that more than policy wonks give a shit about?

[laughingliberal]

162. Try to follow along. I initially responded to this from you:

BootinUp (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-11-10 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #101

102. The only part missing from your analysis

is the part where a bunch of so called liberals keep blaming the administration for not legislating bills, thats the laughable part. When Obama starts vetoing legislation for being too liberal get back to me with your fucking sob story.

I responded that he threatened a veto of a over the jobs' bill (a liberal bill) if they cut any of Arne's money to pay for it:

This was your reply:

BootinUp (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-12-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #156

159. Yes I heard about that

as I undersand it, the threat of a veto had more to do with the fact is was attached to a war funding bill than anything else. It still was not a veto anyways.

And I responded with the following showing your understanding was erroneous:

laughingliberal (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-12-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #159

160. Your understanding is wrong

The White House has threatened to veto the $75 billion supplemental spending bill if it includes an offset in the package that would cut funding from the Department of Education's Race to the Top program, part of the package of cuts Obey identified to pay for his amendment. "If the final bill presented to the President includes cuts to education reforms, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto," reads the message from the White House.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/01/huffpost-hill -...

Of course it wasn't a veto. The House changed the bill to avoid it. They took the money, at the Obama administration's suggestion, from food stamps.

Feel free to continue to split hairs, though. I think you have a real talent for it.

Anyone following along can see you were the one who brought up that President Obama has not vetoed any legislation for being too liberal and I responded that he made a veto threat of a liberal bill if it took any money from Arne's program which forced the House (at his suggestion) to take the money from Food Stamps to avoid a veto.

Did you forget you were the one who brought up the subject of vetoes?

As for the anyone other than policy wonks caring about this, I think people depending on Food Stamps to eat might care about it.

[BootinUp]

163. Oh, I got all that. Clearly there IS a difference between a veto

threat and an actual veto. As for the food stamps issue, I could have sworn I saw a thread about how that will not result in less food stamp money any time in the near future. IOW, its a non issue.

[laughingliberal]

164. Yes, there's a difference but I note he never threatened a veto before and, when he did, it

was a liberal bill. That was my point.

[BootinUp]

165. You know, I have problems/disagreements with things they do too

none of it seems to justify the kind of "criticism" I read here though. I am a So Cal raised liberal whose grandfather was an assembly line man for Ford and whose Pop voted Dem his whole life. I am much more energized about politics since 2000 than I was before but I was always a liberal. It concerns me a bit, that I can get turned off by so many discussions at this website. To me, that means others like me are also turned off. That DU is not attracting too many other real democrats.

Thats all I have to say now.

[laughingliberal]

166. I'm a Memphis, TN raised Democrat, the daughter of civil rights' activists who were on Nixon's...

enemies list. I have always been involved and my introduction into politics was in a time and place where lives were on the line every day for standing up for what we believed. I saw much violence towards those fighting for civil rights for minorities and women and my family survived several attempts on our lives. I have, without a doubt, always been a liberal and always will be. I have been very discouraged to watch gains we fought so hard for and risked so much for bartered away for so little.

No gains for progressive policies have ever been made without a lot of push from liberals. Most of the elected leaders who enacted progressive reforms did so after much pushing and fighting from our side. The gains of labor and civil rights activists in our history involved much work and many paid with their lives. To see the party that once stood for workers and minorities reduced to what I see now is disheartening.

Many people blithely accept the selling out of the rights of workers and minorities with no concept of the horrors people faced before these rights were won and, therefore, no idea what our world will look like again once we have conceded all those rights. Rights, once conceded, are not easily, if ever, regained. I grow weary of watching the march to the right and hearing the attempts to silence those who dare to mention it.

Being energized for politics is good. I am with the President on his statements to the netroots: “Keep making your voices heard, keep holding me accountable, keep up the fight. Change is hard. But if we’ve learned anything these past eighteen months, change is possible.”

[BootinUp]

167. I appreciate you sharing that

and understand your pov. I think the thing that is least understood about politics is the history component and how events catalyze political shifts. There is no doubt the last 30 years have been very painful for the working class/middle class/poor and others that look to the Dem party for support. The question I often consider is whose fault was it? Was it really one mans fault or even a few hundreds peoples fault or was it a result of certain events happening around the same time that caused a shift in political affiliations, beliefs on a national level. I usually go with choice b.

There are always people who want to rise to power and claim to know how to make things better, but there are only certain times when enough people are listening and agreeing with them to make changes happen.

In any event none of that analysis means not to fight for what you believe in.

[laughingliberal]

168. Thanks. I think we all know the destruction of the last 30 years started with the Reagan Revolution

The right has waged a very effective propaganda campaign all these years aided and abetted by a media that was taken over by corporate interests and uses its power to tell the people what they want them to know and not what they need to know. Only a sizable disaster would be able to wake the people to the failures of right wing policy.

I believe the election of 2008 was a signal the people were ready to consider a drastic change in direction. The moment may have passed as people grew frustrated with dallying in Washington. There is ample blame to go around, there.

I am sad we failed to seize the moment. There was a window when I believe the President could have had anything he asked for. I am sad to say I believe he squandered it by playing it safe and, futilely, insisting on 'bipartisanship.' Whether this was due to a miscalculation or because he truly does not favor bold action in the interest of workers and the downtrodden, or because his knowledge of economic thought is skewed, I can't begin to know.

I watch the moment pass, with sadness, and know we will not, likely, see another with so much promise in the years I have left. But, there still need to be some voices out here saying the economic policies of Reagan have enslaved us all to corporations whose power rivals that of the world governments. It may be one lone voice crying out but if we keep the flame, no matter how weak, of liberal thought alive and we pass it on to those who come after us there will be someone there to fan the flame when the moment comes again. And, perhaps, it will not be squandered next time. I have no other answers.

Thank you for a thoughtful discussion.

[Touchdown]

119. HELLO! Why isn't Gibbs..

I'm just joining in!

[BootinUp]

130. lol

[lark]

148. apologist

[vanbean]

150. Grayson attacks those that need attacked. It's called integrity.

[Bluebear]

6. Obama won't fire him, he represents the White House perfectly. nt

[chimpymustgo]

23. Exactly. This is their MANTRA. Repeated with infuriating regularity.

And some of us just say, "It must be our fault that you keep hitting us."

[Spheric]

48. So, I hit you and broke your jaw. Where you gonna go? /nt

[slay]

97. That seems to be their attitude

you've got 2 choices - shit and shitty-er. Now choose one!

[Individualist]

28. Correct.

[MissDeeds]

75. Exactly right

Gibbs and Rahm aren't spewing something that Obama disagrees with or they wouldn't be there. The very fact that he keeps them on speaks volumes about Obama.

[Barack2theFuture]

7. He gratuitously insulted a respected Democratic member of Congress as well.

And yes, his priorities for directing his anger are frankly insane.

[jgraz]

22. his priorities for directing his anger are frankly

set by his boss.

[fogonthelake]

66. Yes, Gibbs did insult DK.

[bullwinkle428]

9. "Congressman Grayson...meet underside of bus!"

Proud K&R!

[glitch]

10. K & R not all Democrats are sucking up to the right. Go Grayson!

Congress is what's being put at risk by these "inartful" comments. They need to keep on swinging, at all conservatives and their failures.
Mr. Grayson,

[amborin]

12. knr

[Kingofalldems]

13. K and R

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. Drug-test Grayson!

[old mark]

15. Gibbs is evidently following his master's lead - he will probably get a raise

out of this...


Well, we know where we stand now, anyway.

Fired Up!!!!11!
mark

[Peregrine Took]

16. Gibbs was the spokesman for the group that brought down Howard Dean

in the Iowa Primary.

Gephardt and Kerry and probably Kennedy were behind it.

"Americans for Jobs and Health Care." They put a million dollars into bringing him down as he didn't play the corporate game like the current one in the WH. See link below - about the group.

http://progressivevalues.com/default.asp?ID=2

[snagglepuss]

85. Thanks for that interesting tidbit.

I wonder what Grayson thinks of Dean.

[laureloak]

17. This is bullshit.

[moksha]

19. What is?

[AngryOldDem]

49. And....?

[jgraz]

20. Grayson/Ellison 2012

Now THAT's a ticket!

[saracat]

30. Or Grayson/ Grijalva!

[saracat]

31. K+R!

[jgraz]

33. I think a Jewish/Muslim ticket has a certain poetry to it

Don't you think?

[laughingliberal]

40. +1000 nt

[ecstatic]

56. Emotions affecting judgment. You know probably next to nothing

about either candidate but now you're throwing their names together as the preferred ticket.

[saracat]

105. Raelly? And people didn't vote on "emotion" in 08? The poster

likely knows more about Grayson than we knew about Obama because Grayson is very outspoken and Keith Ellison is also well known. You assumption doesn't fly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Maybe they could get Vilsack to send him an email.

[Ignis]

34. No kidding.

If anyone deserves to be badgered into pulling the car over to resign by BlackBerry, it's Gibbs.

[cate94]

24. K & R

[NorthCarolina]

25. Nailed it!

Grayson

[spoony]

26. Knock knock. Mr. Gibbs? It's Mr. Grayson. He's delivering you your ass. nt

[Ignis]

38. !

"Candygram for Mongo!"

[laughingliberal]

45. Yep! nt

[mcollins]

27. Gee, Grayson would be called out on DU

for that kind of talk.

[DeSwiss]

29. K&R

Grayson 2012!!!

[olegramps]

35. Now that is a change that I could believe in.

[TheKentuckian]

32. Big K&R vicious haymakers from the lefty from the red district

[Odin2005]

36. EPIC WIN!

[Inuca]

39. Grayson's heart is probably in the right place. He

is also a first class demagogue.

[whathehell]

115. His head is in the right place....More than I can say for the Professional Milquetoasts.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. And that is a tower of truth right there

The pile of trouble the nation is in and the needy Gibbs is concerned with not getting enough credit for what has been done? I want Gibbs to know that there is no time for singing songs of praise, we are under the gun. Gibbs seems to be on the party time circuit while the rest of us are running for cover.

[Spheric]

44. K&R Gotta love how he cuts to the chase. /nt

[AngryOldDem]

47. Once again, he calls 'em as he sees 'em.

Please, Rep. Grayson, consider a run in 2012.

[TBF]

54. K&R nt

[ecstatic]

55. How many here will donate to Grayson's campaign after this?

A smart politician latches on to anything that they think will rake in the bucks. Ellison and Grayson have simply learned how to raise more $$$$.

[spoony]

61. Yeah, by standing up for the left instead of insulting them.

I guess that makes Obama a dumb politician doesn't it?

[Bozita]

57. Here's the video ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[AlbertCat]

92. Here's the video ...

Ahhhhhh....

The actual interview frames things a little different than what we get here.

Why Gibbs should be fired, according to Grayson, is not the last gaffe (that's just a particularly acute example) it's that Gibbs does not communicate Dem policy and plans well. And Grayson is correct. There needs to be someone that can compete with Fox Noise and the RW propaganda machine. This is a bigger job than usual. They need a virtuoso in there. I find Gibbs' press conferences vague and devoid of details or enthusiasm. He's like a male Dana Perino that isn't completely insane (like Dana). There's no real info there.

[inna]

58. kr

[uponit7771]

59. ...ouch

[LatteLibertine]

62. Van Jones for White House Press Secretary :)

Please let this happen so I can see him deal with Pox News in their new front center seating at briefings.

[xiamiam]

64. GO Grayson...gotta love this guy..i'd vote for him in a heartbeat..nt

[Individualist]

65. K&R

[bergie321]

67. We should

Find a video that we can edit to make it sound like he hates white people and send it to Faux News. Then he would be fired for sure.

[felix_numinous]

69. After such knee jerk reactions to Fox, Beck and Limbaugh

firing Sheryl Sherrod, and the whole Acorn debacle--based on the rabid insane rants of the right? These are the same teabaggers that threaten to organize militias against the government, and....are actually dangerous.

Then dismissing the 'stoned' left for noticing that, in fact, our civil rights are being whittled away--and we've been so good to President Obama. I have the highest respect for the man. But this Gibbs spokesperson is doing some real harm here. The Left have been so respectful.

These are more reasons why there is such a strong reaction today. Then there are those here that don't get it.

[Enthusiast]

70. And what Grayson says is usually

popular with most Democrats. So this is an indication as to where the Administration is. Gibbs should apologize or be fired.

[MissDeeds]

73. "Grayson 2012"

K&R!!!

[cordelia]

77. K&R

[Hamlette]

78. yes, because the left can give up but they can't take it

sheesh

[Laelth]

79. k&r for right action. Gibbs should be fired. n/t

-Laelth

[Mithreal]

81. Fired? That's all? We should be talking sauces.

Vinegar or tomato based? It's time for a pickin.

[snagglepuss]

82. "If I wanted Fox News talking points, I'd change the channel to Fox.""

Total brilliance.

[eridani]

90. Just reminded me that I need to make a donation n/t

[mzmolly]

91. "I'd like to see him express frustration over 15 million unemployed Americans"

I'll give Grayson that.

[obxhead]

93. Close. Gibbs should be fired followed by the announcement that

Obama will not seek reelection in order for a proper Dem to have a chance in 2012.

No, I don't want Palin in 2012. With that said, she might be be the only one that can bring me out to vote for Obama in '12.

[Sparkly]

94. Question is, Was he or was he not doing his job??

Is it about Gibbs suddenly blurting out his own opinions in an inexplicable lapse of professional judgment and ability, or is it about Gibbs doing his job as directed?

[donheld]

95. I love it

[slay]

96. I agree - and for all the reasons Grayson listed on Countdown tonight,

not just this latest slam against liberals. He's 100% right - Gibbs and Rahm at the least both need to go. Their pro-corporate-above-all-else stance is killing not just Dem activism, but threatening to destroy the party. The Dems used to be the party of the people - now the best they can say is - at least we aren't full on Republicans. Sad.

[mike r]

98. His anti-progressive credentials will serve him well as Corporate Sr. Vice-President and

Chief Information Officer of MegaBozo Inc., A FauxNews Subsidiary.

[Doc Martin]

99. Dangerous to take the liberal left vote as a given

[midnight]

100. Mr. Grayson gets it.

[Mithreal]

108. +1

[JJ]

106. Dean / Grayson ticket in 2012

Grayson as the Whitehouse attack dog. He attacks Republicans, and calls them on their lies, and obstruction.
Unlike Rahm and co. who'd rather attack Democratic <b>VOTERS</b>, and fellate Fox News whores and Repuke Congress-members.

I've become quite disillusioned, and am starting to think Nader had it right, it'll have to get alot worse before people will wake up and do what needs done.

[mckara]

109. Grayson 2012 is a GREAT IDEA!!!!!!!!!

[saltpoint]

110. Grayson's a good man but he doesn't hire and fire

at the White House.

[Gamey]

117. Ari Gibbs...fire without further adue

[saracat]

122. actually, Ari was a much better Press Sec. then Gibbs. He actually knew how to spin

and how to get out the message!

[leftstreet]

118. K&R

[yurbud]

123. PIC: Fox News is Gibbs next job:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[jtuck004]

125. Keep Gibbs,. Get rid of Geithner and Bernanke. All Gibbs does is talk. The other

two give our money away to the wealthy and undeserving criminals of Wall Street.

[stuart68]

126. That's why you keep Gibbs

keeps the focus off the real problems.

[LaydeeBug]

134. Ok, that's some change I can believe in... I'm in! nt

[ProfessionalLeftist]

127. THANK YOU Mr. Grayson

I wish he'd run for President. He'd have my vote!

[fogonthelake]

128. Mine also.

[fogonthelake]

129. just noticed

your username. Cool.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

137. Somebody had to do it.

Thanks!

[fogonthelake]

140. :-)

[LaydeeBug]

132. Grayson is spot on...

it's time for Gibbs to GO.

[disillusioned73]

136. I loves this guy!!!

I wish he was my congressmen

[Javaman]

138. While I completely agree with Grayson, did you ever think...

that sometimes he is used by the admin to express the outrage of the citizenry as a vent?

So nothing comes of what ever controversy du jour?

It's really a sad sad day, that thoughts like this invade my, otherwise normal, thinking process.

[newtothegame]

139. Firing a press secretary for accurately portarying the President's views? Really? nt

[Barack_America]

155. Good point.

[hwmnbn]

142. K&R for Allan!!

[orbitalman]

151. Fire Rahm 1st...

that'll put Gibby on notice to straighten up!

[Tutankhamun]

152. The left's problem isn't that Obama hasn't enacted major reforms overnight.

The left's problem is that he hasn't fought for the things he said he would during his campaign. He has given in to the right again and again. Grayson did a wonderful job of pointing this out.

[katty]

153. bingo!! Gibbs can always find another job-they always do

[Kurovski]

154. "Health, peace and balancing the budget"

What kind of lunatics want that shit?

"drug-addled professional liberals, it would seem.

Gibbs ain't going anywhere yet. Although people usually do burn out fast as WHPS.

[emsimon33]

157. Grayson 2012

I like the sound of that!!!!!!!!!