PDA

View Full Version : I’m Starting to like Robert Gibbs



Ken Bora
08-12-2010, 10:58 AM
I’m Starting to like Robert Gibbs:D

He kind of seems like a nice feller. I thought it was amusing a little while back when he predicted loosing seats to republican candidates this coming mid-term. And his latest revelation concerning the “Professional Left”, what a great term. Is everything he says completely scripted? Is he just a mouthpiece? I think a person is squeaking out of the cracks of the official white house pres secretary housing.:cool:



.

JDogger
08-12-2010, 11:14 AM
Maybe at the next press briefing he'll start swearing, grap two beers, and exit through a trapdoor behind the podium.:D

ducknwork
08-12-2010, 11:24 AM
Maybe at the next press briefing he'll start swearing, grap two beers, and exit through a trapdoor behind the podium.:D

Ooo ooo, do you think while he's at it, maybe he can look for someone's ass to kick?:D

helencalif
08-12-2010, 11:31 AM
In about a month, look for him to announce he is leaving the White House to spend more time with his family.

Helen

YardleyLabs
08-12-2010, 11:35 AM
I think the right has been so busy calling Obama a socialist that they are unable to hear how much of the criticism against him comes from the left. The most liberal end of the party believes tha Obama has squandered the election by not pushing far enough on health care and the environment. They have also opposed his plans in Iraq and Afghanistan from the beginning since they believed there should be a full withdrawal. After resigning from a position in the Kerry campaign, Gibbs joined a 527 group where he helped launch attack ads against the campaign of Howard Dean. He was the target of attacks by the liberal left from the early stages of the Obama campaign because he was viewed, like Obama, as too conservative.

depittydawg
08-12-2010, 09:21 PM
I think the right has been so busy calling Obama a socialist that they are unable to hear how much of the criticism against him comes from the left. The most liberal end of the party believes tha Obama has squandered the election by not pushing far enough on health care and the environment. They have also opposed his plans in Iraq and Afghanistan from the beginning since they believed there should be a full withdrawal. After resigning from a position in the Kerry campaign, Gibbs joined a 527 group where he helped launch attack ads against the campaign of Howard Dean. He was the target of attacks by the liberal left from the early stages of the Obama campaign because he was viewed, like Obama, as too conservative.

I don't think its the "liberal" end of the party. More like mainstream Democrats who thought they were electing a Democrat and got another hapless Republican Lite.

M&K's Retrievers
08-12-2010, 10:22 PM
I don't think its the "liberal" end of the party. More like mainstream Democrats who thought they were electing a Democrat and got another hapless Republican Lite.

Your calling Obama "Republican Lite"? Give me a break.

depittydawg
08-12-2010, 10:55 PM
Your calling Obama "Republican Lite"? Give me a break.

If you put the rhetoric aside. I see little difference in what Obama has done, and what McCain would have done. Here are some examples.
McCain would have escalated Afganastan as did Obama. We are still in Iraq. We still have prisoners being held illegally all over the planet, including Gitmo.
McCain would have signed healthcare reform very similar to what Obama eventually settled for. There is no question McCain would have pushed for economic stimulus in the amounts Obama ended up with. There may have been subtle differences, but overall it would not have made any difference. Financial reform I think might have come out stronger under McCain than it did under Obama.

M&K's Retrievers
08-12-2010, 11:34 PM
If you put the rhetoric aside. I see little difference in what Obama has done, and what McCain would have done. Here are some examples.
McCain would have escalated Afganastan as did Obama. We are still in Iraq. We still have prisoners being held illegally all over the planet, including Gitmo.
McCain would have signed healthcare reform very similar to what Obama eventually settled for. There is no question McCain would have pushed for economic stimulus in the amounts Obama ended up with. There may have been subtle differences, but overall it would not have made any difference. Financial reform I think might have come out stronger under McCain than it did under Obama.

Obama was forced to escalate action in Afghanistan. Remember, he's the putz that stalled for months on increasing troop recommendations only to reduce the number requested.

I didn't realize we were through in Iraq.

We are holding prisoners illegally? Give me a break. Oh, and I thought Obama was closing Gitmo.

What make's you think the health care bill would have got out of Congress much less be signed by McCain?

What makes you an expert on what McCain would have done with stimulus?

How many Czars would McCain have appointed?

How many rounds of golf?

How many idiot cabinet appointments would McCain have made?

How many vacations would McCain and his family have taken?

How many times would McCain have bowed or apologized to a foreign country?

How many beer summits would McCain have held?

How do you think a war veteran would have handled the oil spill?

Would McCain have banned off shore drilling?

How do you think a war veteran would handle Iran?

Do you think McCain's office would have asked for the firing of the USAD employee?

Do you think McCain's DOJ would have dismissed the Black Panther case?

How would McCain be handling the border situation?

I could go on but I think you get my point. Hell, I don't even like McCain. I think even you could do a better job than Obama. I don't think you would purposely try to ruin the country. At least I don't think you would.

BonMallari
08-13-2010, 12:06 AM
How many rounds of golf? Zero he cant raise his arms over his head due to injuries sustained



How many vacations would McCain and his family have taken?

They have quite a few vacation homes


How many beer summits would McCain have held?

Wife owns one of the largest Budweiser distributors in the country



Would McCain have banned off shore drilling?

Palin would have pushed for Anwar which would put the tree huggers against the oil companies





How would McCain be handling the border situation?

Let's see he has served how many terms as a US Senator from ARIZONA and has done NOTHING, what makes you think he would have done anything as POTUS

I could go on but I think you get my point. Hell, I don't even like McCain. I think even you could do a better job than Obama. I don't think you would purposely try to ruin the country. At least I don't think you would.

You got one right :D

depittydawg
08-13-2010, 12:18 AM
Obama was forced to escalate action in Afghanistan. Remember, he's the putz that stalled for months on increasing troop recommendations only to reduce the number requested.

I didn't realize we were through in Iraq.

We are holding prisoners illegally? Give me a break. Oh, and I thought Obama was closing Gitmo.

What make's you think the health care bill would have got out of Congress much less be signed by McCain?

What makes you an expert on what McCain would have done with stimulus?

How many Czars would McCain have appointed?

How many rounds of golf?

How many idiot cabinet appointments would McCain have made?

How many vacations would McCain and his family have taken?

How many times would McCain have bowed or apologized to a foreign country?

How many beer summits would McCain have held?

How do you think a war veteran would have handled the oil spill?

Would McCain have banned off shore drilling?

How do you think a war veteran would handle Iran?

Do you think McCain's office would have asked for the firing of the USAD employee?

Do you think McCain's DOJ would have dismissed the Black Panther case?

How would McCain be handling the border situation?

I could go on but I think you get my point. Hell, I don't even like McCain. I think even you could do a better job than Obama. I don't think you would purposely try to ruin the country. At least I don't think you would.

Like I said, there would have been subtle differences. Nothing that really matters. Conservative democrats and moderate to conservative republicans make up all the controlling seats in the Federal Government. Not much would have changed. Whether Obama is a conservative democrat or simply an incompetent reformer doesn't matter. The results have been the same.
Clinton / Bush 1 - almost identical. Gore / Bush 2. Huge Difference. Obama / McaCain. Very little difference. Nothing makes me an expert. My opinion of course.

BonMallari
08-13-2010, 12:48 AM
Like I said, there would have been subtle differences. Nothing that really matters. Conservative democrats and moderate to conservative republicans make up all the controlling seats in the Federal Government. Not much would have changed. Whether Obama is a conservative democrat or simply an incompetent reformer doesn't matter. The results have been the same.
Clinton / Bush 1 - almost identical. Gore / Bush 2. Huge Difference. Obama / McaCain. Very little difference. Nothing makes me an expert. My opinion of course.

I will agree not much changed between the Bush 41 to Clinton to Bush 43 20 yr span...But there is no way you can characterize BHO as a conservative Democrat..I also think as incompetent as some may think this POTUS actually is, it is apparent that the power in the country is that of Congress, all 535 members...they appropriate,they legislate, they make the deals,and they call for the inquiries...and worst of all they gridlock the country to where nothing changes unless they want it to..

But as much as people want to demonize Bush 43 as a polarizing figure, its becoming apparent that his is nothing compared to that of Obama's polarization..

M&K's Retrievers
08-13-2010, 10:19 AM
Like I said, there would have been subtle differences. Nothing that really matters. Conservative democrats and moderate to conservative republicans make up all the controlling seats in the Federal Government. Not much would have changed. Whether Obama is a conservative democrat or simply an incompetent reformer doesn't matter. The results have been the same.
Clinton / Bush 1 - almost identical. Gore / Bush 2. Huge Difference. Obama / McaCain. Very little difference. Nothing makes me an expert. My opinion of course.

Don't Bogart that joint! Very little difference? How about night and day? My guess is, if McCain had won, he would have vetoed some if not all of the crap this Congress has rammed down America's throats. Billions would have saved and our health care system would not have been scrapped. Very little difference? Give me a break!

YardleyLabs
08-13-2010, 10:27 AM
The same people on the left who are attacking Obama now, declared that there was no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000. They were wrong and were probably responsible for putting Bush in office. There are too many what ifs to say what difference it would have made if they had not voted for Nader or stayed home. However, I believe that our country would be dramatically better off today had Bush never seen the inside of the White House. After watching how easily McCain reversed himself on all sorts of issues in his effort to gain support from the party's "base", I lost all respect for him. I am happy he lost. I sometimes wish someone other than a Democrat had won since Bush left behind a mess that was guaranteed to make his successor look bad no matter what was done.

M&K's Retrievers
08-13-2010, 10:33 AM
The same people on the left who are attacking Obama now, declared that there was no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000. They were wrong and were probably responsible for putting Bush in office. There are too many what ifs to say what difference it would have made if they had not voted for Nader or stayed home. However, I believe that our country would be dramatically better off today had Bush never seen the inside of the White House. After watching how easily McCain reversed himself on all sorts of issues in his effort to gain support from the party's "base", I lost all respect for him. I am happy he lost. I sometimes wish someone other than a Democrat had won since Bush left behind a mess that was guaranteed to make his successor look bad no matter what was done.

I'm afraid Obama would look bad even if his predecessor had been Carter. Don't get me wrong. He's not dumb. Inexperienced yes but not dumb. It's his ideas that the majority of the country view as bad and I think his methods.

YardleyLabs
08-13-2010, 11:09 AM
I'm afraid Obama would look bad even if his predecessor had been Carter. Don't get me wrong. He's not dumb. Inexperienced yes but not dumb. It's his ideas that the majority of the country view as bad and I think his methods.
What makes your statement interesting is that the ideas for which he is being attacked are the same ones that he espoused when running for election with the majority of people expressing support. Even today, the ideas that you find abhorrent enjoy widespread support, although the manner in which he has handled them is strongly opposed by many and even his friends wonder whether he has been strong enough in implementing the policies for which he was elected.

depittydawg
08-13-2010, 10:30 PM
I will agree not much changed between the Bush 41 to Clinton to Bush 43 20 yr span...But there is no way you can characterize BHO as a conservative Democrat..I also think as incompetent as some may think this POTUS actually is, it is apparent that the power in the country is that of Congress, all 535 members...they appropriate,they legislate, they make the deals,and they call for the inquiries...and worst of all they gridlock the country to where nothing changes unless they want it to..

But as much as people want to demonize Bush 43 as a polarizing figure, its becoming apparent that his is nothing compared to that of Obama's polarization..

Your right about the congress. They control the strings. Which is why I refer to Obama as incompetent. He has been unable to get anything close to his goals through congress.
One of the keys to successful leadership in the White House is being effective. The most effective president in my lifetime was George W Bush. He got congress and the courts to do almost everything he wanted. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it was all the wrong stuff. But as far as Presidential Leadership goes, he was a pro. Or at least his team was. Obama has been a complete failure at moving congress. From my vantage point, therefore he has been a failure.

depittydawg
08-13-2010, 10:33 PM
Don't Bogart that joint! Very little difference? How about night and day? My guess is, if McCain had won, he would have vetoed some if not all of the crap this Congress has rammed down America's throats. Billions would have saved and our health care system would not have been scrapped. Very little difference? Give me a break!

Than you haven't watched McCains career.

M&K's Retrievers
08-14-2010, 12:14 AM
Than you haven't watched McCains career.

Yes I have, hence my statement that I don't care for him but I care for obama less.

Gerry Clinchy
08-14-2010, 08:24 PM
What makes your statement interesting is that the ideas for which he is being attacked are the same ones that he espoused when running for election with the majority of people expressing support. Even today, the ideas that you find abhorrent enjoy widespread support, although the manner in which he has handled them is strongly opposed by many and even his friends wonder whether he has been strong enough in implementing the policies for which he was elected.

It's the transparency thing that I like the best ... having all the discussions on CSpan and the bills on the Internet 5 days before voting.

Without Obama and Emanuel in the WH, I think the Dems in Congress would still be trying to put together a health care bill. Even with the WH trying to glue them together they had significant trouble doing it.

YardleyLabs
08-15-2010, 05:26 AM
It's the transparency thing that I like the best ... having all the discussions on CSpan and the bills on the Internet 5 days before voting.

Without Obama and Emanuel in the WH, I think the Dems in Congress would still be trying to put together a health care bill. Even with the WH trying to glue them together they had significant trouble doing it.
And was the opportunity to watch CSPAN hearings the reason you voted for him???? Isn't it bad enough that we had to sit through the one meeting with Republican leaders?

That was a bonehead comment when it was made. The only reason for handling negotiations on anything on television is to make sure that nothing ever happens. Negotiating agreements on contentious issues is not a pretty process. The final agreements need to be aired well. The process for getting there doesn't. I like sausage, but I have no interest in watching all the body parts be ground. Probably 20% of all campaign promises, regardless of party, got started because they sounded good but no one ever thought about their implications. These deserve to come to rest on the cutting room floor.

Obama's comments on CSPAN hearings and waiting several days before signing a bill fall into this category. Another 20% may (or may not) be great ideas, but they will simply never pass. Obama's proposals for cap and trade and Bush's proposals for social security, and both President's proposals for comprehensive immigration reform fall into these categories.

All in all, Obama has been pretty good about attempting to win adoption of his most important campaign priorities -- health care, the slow withdrawal from Iraq (which was attacked by both Liberals and McCain during the campaign), the expanded war in Afghanistan (attacked by Liberals during the campaign), etc. He has tried and failed so far on closing Guantanamo, although some progress has been made.

BTW, how many times did Bush tell us that he would halt the American practice of becoming involved in "nation building"?

Gerry Clinchy
08-15-2010, 08:12 AM
That was a bonehead comment when it was made. The only reason for handling negotiations on anything on television is to make sure that nothing ever happens. Negotiating agreements on contentious issues is not a pretty process. The final agreements need to be aired well. The process for getting there doesn't. I like sausage, but I have no interest in watching all the body parts be ground. Probably 20% of all campaign promises, regardless of party, got started because they sounded good but no one ever thought about their implications. These deserve to come to rest on the cutting room floor.

Would you think this means that those who give voice to such ideas are either inexperienced in the lawmaking process; or realize that such ideas are pure puffery when they are voiced?

It would then follow that we, as the voters, should be discerning which promises are inoperable (even though most voters probably are less familiar with the lawmaking process than those who have been involved in it), and those promises which are just plain "ad copy" (for which pyschic ability would be helpful).

Truthfully, I might agree with the bone-headed nature of the CSpan stuff. Not many voters could spend their entire day (when they need to be working) monitoring every word of the Congress' workday.

However, it would be beneficial if negotiations on such important matters were recorded on CSpan for a record, and open to the press (rather than behind closed doors), so that the actual negotiations could be reported to the voters. Of course, there will be those reporters who put one slant or another to what has transpired, but at least there would be a record somewhere of what transpired. It has been a perennial problem that what seem reasonable proposals end up turning into snarls that result in a gross mutations of the original proposals. It might behoove the voters to be aware of the way these mutations evolve ... and hold their representatives accountable.


BTW, how many times did Bush tell us that he would halt the American practice of becoming involved in "nation building"?

So we should expect no better than broken promises from our candidates?

Should we also expect that if the Dems have so much difficulty agreeing within their own party, they would be better at bi-partisan negotiation which was also promised?

YardleyLabs
08-15-2010, 08:50 AM
A broken promise is very different from a campaign platform not delivered. The nature of our political system is that each person elected is only one of the players. The relevant question is whether or not a legitimate effort was made to deliver on what was committed, not whether or not that effort was successful.

That is not to say that success does not matter, but success needs to be considered in the context of the political environment. Did Bush "lie" when he "promised" privatization of social security? No, he "promised: something that he could not deliver. Did he "lie" when he said no more "nation building?" No, he promised something that turned out to seem a lot less attractive once he was in office.

Voters share a lot of the responsibility since most are unwilling (or incapable) of listening to answers that are at all nuanced, so they only vote for people who make firm commitments about things they cannot control. Those who try to explain the complexity are accused of being wishy washy or of flip flops. They lose, and the next guy comes along and oversimplifies to get elected. Nixon promised to get us out of Vietnam. He never mentioned it would take seven more years. Bush said combat operations were concluded....six years (or more) too soon. Those who claimed that the war would cost a trillion dollars and become a quagmire were attacked viciously. Those who argued that there was insufficient evidence of WMD's were accused of everything from being naive to being traitors.

Where is the line between lies and errors? Where are the lines between understandable errors and stupidity? If you are trying to attack a political enemy, the answer is simple: anything not done is a lie, and anything that fails is stupidity.

The only things that earn a more vicious attack than "broken promises" are the areas where you actually succeed at dong exactly what you promise -- like securing passage of a health bill despite overwhelming opposition from those that lost the election. Among the biggest complaints about the Obama administration is not the number of things that it promised, yet failed to deliver, but the number of things it promised and succeeded at delivering: health care reform, the stimulus program, financial services reform, an end to US sponsored torture, a reversal of Presidential bans on foreign aid support for programs that provide family planning services other than abstention, a concentrated effort to reach out to countries around the world that the prior administratio chose to vilify or ignore, maintaining a draw down of forces in Iraq that was launched by the Bush administration only after it was proposed by the Obama campaign, and that was opposed by McCain throughout the campaign, expanding the war in Afghanistan, etc. These were all promises made by Obama before he took office. What has he failed on: bipartisanship, transparency (more transparent than Bush/Cheney, but not as much as promised), cap and trade and other environmental initiatives, elimination of don't ask, don't tell. Those too were campaign promises and they have not been delivered. Efforts were made, but not successful. What a liar.....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: