Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gibbs Need Not Apologize for Blasting the "Professional Left"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:17 AM
Original message
Gibbs Need Not Apologize for Blasting the "Professional Left"
Let me preface this by saying that I don't care for the author (his criticisms of Obama tend too be harsh), but here he has a point:

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Gibbs Need Not Apologize for Blasting the "Professional Left"

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs need not have apologized for blasting the "professional left." If anything he was much too nice when he branded the carpers at President Obama professional Obama baiters. They have relentlessly ripped Obama for being a spineless, deal making, soft on the right, beltway, corporate centrist, Democrat. Obama has had to hear this almost from the moment he opened his mouth in February 2007 and announced he was a presidential candidate.

<...>

The dictate of American presidential politics is that liberal and moderate Democrats in the early stages of the presidential political game run to the left and move quickly to the center as they sniff the possibility of victory. This hardly tags him as a play to the gate political backslider. It merely shows that pragmatism in presidential politics is the only real principle that counts when it comes to winning and governing.

That's precisely what irks Gibbs, and almost certainly Obama too, since the criticism is drenched with political denial. Obama scrapped talk of universal health care, and later dropped the public option from his plan. If he didn't he could have kissed any deal on health care good-bye. The millions of Americans that ultimately will benefit from many of the provisions of the reform would have been the loser. He backpedalled from his hard line demand that the US immediately pull out of Iraq, and instead talked about timetables, and assessing ground conditions. If he hadn't done that, the Pentagon and conservative Democratic war hawks would have ratcheted up their assault on him as a Neville Chamberlain reincarnate appeaser. As it now stands there will be an Iraq pull out before the end of his first term. Obama gets pounded for allegedly reneging on his promise to close Guantanamo, for wiping out the ban on gays in the military, and for not spending billions more on the economic stimulus, but a close look shows that Obama has not reversed gear on any of these pledges. It just hasn't happened as fast and in the way the left demands.

Obama takes great offense at any talk that he's back flipped on the issues. He pleads for progressives to appreciate the changes that have been made in the relative short time he's been in office, to consider the mess that he inherited, and the powerful forces arrayed against him that want nothing less than his political head on a platter. That's a reasonable plea to make. But it's a plea that will fall on deaf ears. There are just too many on the left whose heads are stuffed with too many delusions about what he can do and when and how he should do it.


I believe Barack Obama is a progressive. I believe that with a Democratic majority of 65 Senators he could have gotten legislation to mirror exactly his campaign agenda. Then there is reality: He has to govern. His job isn't to fight losing battles.

What I find interesting about the above commentary that it nails a disconnect: The critics who believe strongly that the President is a "centrist" and "corporatist," claiming they knew this all along, but are offended that he doesn't coddle the "professional left."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. The problem with what Gibbs did is that it was a big news story -
it was the lead story and on a day when the President signed an important piece of legislation that didn't get enough notice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyLib2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Aye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one_voice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Funny how that works...
tunnel vision can keep you from seeing so much.

I think it's good it passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. No, the aid package got
a lot of attention yesterday, just not here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
37. It got many times more coverage than this flap
Look at google's timeline - you can see that this was basically a one day story peaking at about 75 articles (I think in one hour)
http://news.google.com/news/more?q=Robert+Gibbs&rls=com... from an early google page there were 334 articles in total

Now look at the aid package getting signed - again a basically one day story peaking at about 750 articles. http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&cf=... Here there were 2201 articles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
36. Here - yes, Keith and Rachel, yes - elsewhere - not so much
Look at google's timeline - you can see that this was basically a one day story peaking at about 75 articles (I think in one hour)
http://news.google.com/news/more?q=Robert+Gibbs&rls=com... from an early google page there were 334 articles in total

Now look at the aid package getting signed - again a basically one day story peaking at about 750 articles. http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&cf=... Here there were 2201 articles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
5. The irony is that Obama is a progressive
who was a community organizer, not a corporatist, it's convenient for the bashers to reframe him as they please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. It is also ironic that the administration does not include progressives in the process
Need I remind you that advocates for single-payer and the public option where excluded from the initial HCR discussions

Volcker was added as an advisor for financial reform, but for the most part the individuals listened to by the administration were those that created the financial mess not Paul Volcker

It is also convenient, and foolish for the administration to reframe the progressives as they please. As Shirley Sherrod said it is about time that the administration start listening to the common folk instead of those advisors who are so out of touch with the regular person

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
24. They know what their real chances are for the most part
Try to keep your blaming where it belongs. Against Breitbart, the cretin, the thugs on Wall Street, the republicans obviously, and big Pharm, etc. that would do in any HCR, as they did with Clinton. We're not in Kansas anymore unfortunately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
42. Sorry my friend, but the adminstration constantly holds an olive branch out to repukes, but
essentially takes the progressives for granted. Again, this isn't the first time that the administration lashed out at the "liberals"

You would NEVER see a repuke administration lash out in such a public way against one of their own

For one momement forget the blame game. The administration is playing bad politics, and if they continue to make snide remarks at the "looney left", they will hurt themsevles and the party

They should know better

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nancy Waterman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
7. I agree with this completely
K and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
8. They are not offended because he doesn't coddle the "professional left", they are offended because
this administration has left the "professional left" and progressive out of the process entirely

I would like to remind you that when healthcare reform was initially presented those advocates for single-payer and the public option were excluded from the initial discussions?

This is NOT the first time words have come out of the white house putting down the "left" or progressives. How stupid are they? In Mass we lost Kennedy's seat because they took it for granted.

Either they cannot control the messages coming out of the white house, or this is what they want, either way it does not present a very intelligent image of them

A few days ago Chris Dodd had a similar message as Gibbs. Bayh and others have expressed similar views. Funny that both Bayh and Dodd will not be around in Congress, but most likely working for lobbying efforts when they leave.

After 6 months of taking office it was more then clear the the repukes were NOT going to work with this administration, however, the administration still included them throughout the process, while for the most part the progressives were either taken for granted or ignored





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. I don't think that's the case.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 10:55 AM by ProSense
The President has engaged the Progressive Caucus. He has engaged the unions. The fact is that it seems that there are those who believe that he should never compromise. This reminds me of Simon Johnson being surprised by a provision in the financial reform bill. It's as if everyone is focused on the compromises designed to win passage of these bills and not the overall packages, which include significant reforms.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Compromise is necessary. But I'd like to see more compromises with progressives
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:08 AM by Armstead
As has been pointed out, "health care reform" was started wutgh bthe clear message that advocates of some form of public insurance system were not going to be listened to or even invited to the table -- while insurance companies, republicans and other enemies of real reform were taken seriously.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Compromises with progressives?
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:15 AM by ProSense
Stimulus: 58 Democratic Senators voted for it. What compromise with progressives would have won the other two votes needed from Republicans?

If no Republican votes were needed, then you could make that argument.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. By doing what Republicans do to Democrats
Push relentlessly for it in a no-compromise way that makes it an issue that transcends politics and convinces a majority of the public that voting against it is anti-American and opposed to the survival of the free-enterprise economy.

And put so much pressure on in Republican districts that at least some of the "GOP No crowd" would be afraid to vote against it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. Maine
"And put so much pressure on in Republican districts that at least some of the "GOP No crowd" would be afraid to vote against it."

There was a massive progressive campaign targeting Collins and Snowe on the public option, and they still voted against it.

Now, will the voters there vote them out? Snowe is up for re-election in 2012.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. I said "at least some"
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:46 AM by Armstead
I will admit that Collins and Snowe have been disappointing because they now seem to be more in lockstep with the "GOP NO herd" than one would have thought they would be. But i did say "some Republicans."

But my larger point is that the GOP/Corporate Right Machine knows how to get what it wants by relentlessly pushing a blitzkreig that scares too many Democrats into surrendering for fear of seeming too "unAmerican" or -- God forbid -- "too liberal." (See the Iraq Invasion as an example.)

As a result, they win, even when they've lost the Congress and the White House....Evenm when they compromise, they do so from a position of strength,

Our side needs to be equally forceful to advance a progressive populist agenda -- even when we compromise -- instead of always finding excuses to fail.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. But this is the entire point
"But my larger point is that the GOP/Corporate Right Machine knows how to get what it wants by relentlessly pushing a blitzkreig that scares too many Democrats into surrendering for fear of seeming too "unAmerican" or -- God forbid -- "too liberal." (See the Iraq Invasion as an example.)"

The reason that happens is because there are a number of Democrats who are not liberal. Ben Nelson is damn near a Republican.

When the Republicans have 55 Senate seats, it doesn't take any effort to attract five Democratic votes (Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson, and Pryor recently voted with Republicans on Murkowski's EPA resolution).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
43. Let's assume your assessment is correct, don't you think it would serve the administrations
purpose much better if they didn't air their differences within the party on such a public forum?

This hasn't been the first time when named and unnamed spokespeople from the administration have done this

Disagree fine, but doing it through a medium that loves to sensationalize everything is plain stupid


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. No, it shouldn't be a secret.
The fact is Gibbs took aim at a specific group, not the party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #46
52. Sorry, the Democratic party includes a lot of "specific" groups. They will pay the consequences at
the polls if they continue this circus

A press secretary is supposed to protect the president from this, not make it worse

and Gibbs has made it worse

All the dumb shit had to say during the interview was that the Democratic party is a party of inclusion with many factions, unlike the repugs which exclude people who don't walk in line

Instead he choose to inflame and make it worse

If this continues it will be interesting to see if it affects turnout at the polls


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Bingo
Exactly correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
41. Have you forgotten that one of the three cornerstones of the Obama healthcare plan
throughout the primariesand general election was that people who wanted to keep their current healthcare plan would be able to do so. In other words single payer was ruled out in January 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. The so-called HCR was actually Healthcare Insurance reform. Maybe it will evolve into something
more later, but at this time it doesn't look like it


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. Single payer was ruled out long before 2008
No one in the election, including the President, ever proposed single payer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
12. He doesn't
I don't think he should apologize. I think he should stop. I think Rahm should stop too. I think Obama should get a clue. There is valid criticism coming from his left, criticism that can actually be addressed, unlike the tea party nuts. Don't complain about it, listen to it and address it.

Obama's idea of addressing it is to come out and say that he never campaigned on the Public Option.

He drops the public option, but adds cadillac taxes and mandates, he ought to come out and address the fact that he is reversing his own campaign. But he doesn't. He blames the GOP when it's the conservative Dems who forced these things, dems that he then turns around and campaigns FOR in the primaries.

I don't want apologies, I want to see some acknowledgement that he is breaking promises.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Interesting:
"He blames the GOP when it's the conservative Dems who forced these things, dems that he then turns around and campaigns FOR in the primaries."

So it's your belief that the President should launch a public campaign against Ben Nelson instead of the Republicans, who collectively vote against the majority of these bills?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. I think he should allow the people to know who is blocking what
Protecting them, much less campaigning for them, only allows them to continue to leverage the GOP opposition. It isn't clear that some of the conservatives were more conservative than Snowe. Lieberman was the bigger obstacle to progress than almost anyone. But he wasn't even at the Blair House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. Americans need to know Republicans are blocking the bills.
The President's message cannot and should not be focused on one or two Democrats who vote against a bill. The goal is to point to the obstructionist majority, not confuse people with a message that one or two Dems did it too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. Even in their own districts?
It's more than one or two, and it's not just voting against it. It is leveraging the GOP opposition, during the process, to get even more conservative features than the most liberal GOP senator would ask for. He goes and campaigns for these people in the primaries for good gods sake. That just ain't right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
16. It is for the reasons listed in the OP that the "professional left" are "professional losers."
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:19 AM by wyldwolf
And yes, I'll stand by that statement. The left of the Democratic party - and the leftists outside the Democratic party - have never won a meaningful public office on a national level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paulie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Cough Cough Sanders Wellstone Cough Cough
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. I stand corrected. They have 2 under their belts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
21. k/r
I noticed that disconnect yesterday too: We've heard all the labels the author listed applied to the President here on DU, but they're acting like the betrayed faithful. Where's the incentive to fight through Washington bullshit to try to get things done for people who continue to think you don't do a damned thing for them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
23. Negative recced into oblivion
What is really funny/sad is that isn't telling you anything. Go check the greatest page, it is all about how fucked Robert Gibbs is. You are a small minority on DU, but you talk plenty loud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #23
38. LOL
The rec system is gamed beyond recognition. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #23
54. If it went into oblivion, how did you find the thread to post on it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kdillard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
25. Nope he should not apologize and the reaction by some proves his point nicely.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:43 AM by Kdillard
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moksha Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
27. What you believe is meaningless.
Actions speak louder than your beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Not meaningless to me.
My opinions inform how I vote. Meaningless to you maybe, but I was simply sharing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
30. Gibbs should resign
He has become a liability for Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
31. Not just 65 Senators--you need 65 Bernie Sanderses or 65 Ted Kennedys.
Can you imagine the health care bill we'd have gotten if that were the case? Holy shi'ites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
32. Perhaps we should be grateful to Gibbs for letting us know how
the Administration feels about the liberal wing of the Party. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Sparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
39. I agree. I am sick of some the the presenters / hosts i like, who seem to always take swipes at the
administration. Sometimes for the smallest of things.

Today for example Thom Hartman blamed the president for some wacko judges decision today for allowing a confession gained under torture to stand. The President didn't appoint this guy. The other branches of government including the judiciary are full of republicans, how can it be the presidents fault?

That happens a lot among the media i like and it pisses me off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. Well then the administration should be aware of that, especially in this stage of the game
and watch what they say in a public forum know that the medium is out for sensationalism, and not information

"Did you hear Lindsey Loan(sic) was released"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fruittree Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #39
51. Thom Hartman is one I can't even listen to anymore..
It's too bad because I agree with him on principle but the constant attacks on Obama and the not letting anything go without putting a negative spin on it is just irritating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Sparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. I wouldnt go that far. I still like Thom and the rest of the hosts.
but they need to tone down their attacks and the frequency of them. There are perfectly good things to call the administration on, but their is not enough to do it day in and day out at which them seem to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
40. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fruittree Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
48. Thank you for posting this..
I have not read the entire statement but from what I have read I agree with Gibbs. It is so demoralizing to see Obama trashed at every turn by people who should be supporting him because he's not able to deliver exactly what they want, exactly when they want it. What world were these people living in? I personally have never existed in a world custom made to my expectations. I get some of what I want and I learn to deal with the rest. Obama came into an awful situation and he's working hard to fix it as best he can but he needs help not endless criticism and I don't blame Gibbs for expressing frustration - I would too. We elected Obama as president to govern the country within the constitution and within the boundaries of the monetary system we have and within the limits placed by our position in the world. Anyone who thought he was going to single-handedly reconfigure everything in less than 2 years was living in a fantasy land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
49. Of course he doesn't. That would anger the professional right
you know, the group the administration really worries about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ncteechur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
50. He may have been "inartful" but that doesn't mean he was incorrect. He was right on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. He was spot on,
and the critics are proving him right with their twisted logic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
56. So essentially what you're doing is blaming the voters, and saying that we sit down and shut up
Now the bar has been set at sixty five Senators, and since we the people failed to achieve that, despite giving the Dems the largest majority in decades, it is our fault and we shouldn't complain.

Yeah, right, whatever.

Get back to me when the Senate Dems actually fight for something, you know, have a talk all night, pee in a cup filibuster. So far all that they've shown is some great lessons in folding.

People are fighting to survive out here, and it would be nice if our so called leaders started fighting for us, you know, the ones that pay for their salaries, nice retirement packages, a sweet medical plan and great vacations. You know, put in that few extra hours, work a double shift, put in an all nighter. Hell, at least when they do it they're not on their feet and have a comfy office environment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. I'm doing no such thing.
"Get back to me when the Senate Dems actually fight for something"

Well, they saved the EPA, but what does the Senate have to do with Gibbs' comment?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. "Saved the EPA" Really? What are you talking about, that Murkowski bill?
If so, then you are damning with faint praise, because if the Dems couldn't defeat that, then they would have truly proven how worthless and compromised they are.

So, when are they going to actually force the filibuster on something, you know, stand up and fight, expend some political capital rather than trying to be bipartisan by watering everything down to a thin gruel? Get back to me when that happens. Then I'll give credit where credit is due. But that Murkowski thing :rofl: Ooo, all hail the Democrats who can still do the job the Republicans did forty years ago :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
59. The hilarious part:
The "outraged" reactions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
60. That's right- keep driving wedges through your base in a midterm election!
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 09:48 PM by depakid
:rofl:

Just can't help yourselves, can you? So wedded to Obama that you can no longer see the forest from the trees.

See you on November 3rd. No glum faces, now. You and the administration asked for and maybe even wanted it.

btw: If Republican take back the house, the investiations begin in February.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Maybe people can focus on
real criticism without trying to spin the facts. The President has a lot more to accomplish, and a lot of things that will be tough challenges. Certainly, people can find something to criticize the President about without trying to portray him as the weakest leader ever, a corporatist who cares nothing for people and only looks out for Wall Street. Where does that criticism lead? What the hell is that suppose to inspire or change?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. "without trying to spin the facts?"
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 10:18 PM by depakid
The record is what it is- and the administration's efforts during the financial reform process (as well as public statements about not begrudging bankster bonuses 'cause they didn't make the world series) are plain for the "professional left" and investigative reporters to see.

Those things sour people on any administration or candidate- and unfortunately come back to haunt those like Barbara Boxer or Jeff Merkely who ARE interested in seeing bona fide and effective structural changes that solve the problems the nation faces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. "The record is what it is"
and it isn't remotely close the distortions being pushed by some.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Taibbi's recent piece was spot on
as Glen Greenwald's well documented pieces have been on the civil liberties front.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Which part:
the part where he claimed there were some good, historic things in the bill or the part where he claimed it was a hack job?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HooptieWagon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
63. No apology, then no more support for Obama.
Why should "the left" continue to support a politician who repeatedly insults us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
66. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC