John Aravosis on Gibbs

[G_j]

http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/gibbs-people-who-are-upset-with-obama.html

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Gibbs: People who are upset with Obama don't live in real America, didn't help get Obama elected
by John Aravosis (DC) on 8/10/2010 09:37:00 AM

From the Hill:

Gibbs said the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama.

Progressives, Gibbs said, are the liberals outside of Washington “in America,” and they are grateful for what Obama has accomplished in a shattered economy with uniform Republican opposition and a short amount of time.

Let's put aside for a moment Gibb's adoption of a really nasty, and un-American, Sarah Palin talking point in order to smear the Democratic base (has it really come that?). (And heck, even Palin apologized for using that smear.) Let's look instead at the substance of the smear. Gibbs is now claiming, on behalf of the White House, that anyone who is upset with the way President Obama is handling his job clearly did not organize, campaign, or raise money for candidate Obama back in 2008.

Really? That's the latest White House response to Obama voters who are sincerely concerned about the direction this White House is taking on so many issues. To smear everyone and suggest that they didn't lift a finger to get the President elected? Seriously?

Joe and I are upset with Obama, and we, for example, raised nearly $43,000 for the man, According to the White House, our money now doesn't count. Great, would they like to give it back? I for one, would love the $1000 back that I personally donated to the Obama campaign. Joe gave even more. I suspect a lot of our readers wouldn't mind their contributions back too, since apparently they're not appreciated.

Then there's all that work we did for the campaign, all the dirty work they asked us to do - and we did it, gladly, and quietly - none of that counted either, apparently.

This interview with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs is really quite remarkable. Not in its substance - President Obama's staff smears the Democratic base, and our issues, on a regular basis. No, what's remarkable is that a senior White House official has finally gone on the record in order to smear the Democratic base. That's unprecedented. It also puts to the rest the White House's prior defense, whenever a senior unnamed official went after the base, of claiming it was a rogue employee who didn't represent the President. Gibbs clearly does.

..more..

[Poboy]

1. kr

[joeybee12]

2. Yup, it's a pattern, not a rogue employee, not a mistake...n/t

[LaurenG]

3. Telling don't ya think. I'm chopped liver I suppose.

People who are upset with Obama don't live in real America, didn't help get Obama elected
by John Aravosis (DC) on 8/10/2010 09:37:00 AM

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

4. K & R

[LostinVA]

5. Great minds think alike

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8923994

[QC]

6. John Aravosis never really loved him!

:cry:

[dkf]

7. If everyone who fell into the category of wanting Canarian healthcare asked for their money back

Obama would be in deep dodo.

Probably the only donors who wouldn't ask for their moolah is the Wall Street bankers and the Hedged fund managers.

[WinkyDink]

26. I've heard Canarian health-care is for the birds.

:-)

[depakid]

8. Oh, and it gets better...

It's not a transformative presidency when you flinch in the face of every challenge.

Gibbs talks about how difficult it is for the White House to get anything done in the face of a uniform Republican opposition. Except, of course, the GOP wasn't uniform at all in February of 2009, when the White House caved on the stimulus and showed its true colors to the Republican party. If anything, this White House helped unify the Republicans by constantly, and unnecessarily, pandering to them at every turn.

Let's talk about the stimulus. The reason we're suffering from 10% unemployment, with no improvement on the horizon, is because someone at the White House thought it was politically too difficult to ask for the "real" amount that was needed to stimulate the economy and save the country from another Great Depression. So rather than go to the country, and tell the American people what medicine was needed, the President flinched in order to avoid a fight. And then he flinched again, and gave 35% of the already-too-small stimulus away to the GOP in the form of near-useless tax cuts.

And what did the President's approach of negotiating with himself get us? 10% unemployment, approval ratings in the 40s, and the imminent loss of the House. And it's not like this wasn't predicted. Both Stiglitz and Krugman told everyone they could that the stimulus was far too small. But this White House doesn't do liberals. So Stiglitz and Krugman were shoved aside, and a true economic recovery went out the door with them. How smart a move was that?

Gibbs just made every Obama supporter look like a sap- whether they still back the administration's policies and procedures or not.

[mike r]

9. "It's not a transformative presidency when you flinch in the face of every challenge"

[depakid]

12. Often, it's come without even a flinch- the concessions have been preemptive

As with Drill baby spill.

[mike r]

14. Hey, they'd make great business negotiators

A: "How much is the car?"
B: "Our suggested retail price is $15,000 but we're willing to negotiate"
A: "Why, I'm thinking $25,000 would be a fair price"
B: "Sold. What a great customer! You didn't even ask for Vaseline."

[bluethruandthru]

22. I'm glad how the article points out that Obama gives in when he doesn't have to.

That's been the most frustrating for me. If he had fought tooth and nail to get a truly good health care bill...but ended up having to settle for what we ended up with...then I would probably feel a bit differently. But I've never really felt like on the big issues - like Health Care - that he really pushes...and that means going to the Ben Nelsons and Kent Conrads of the Senate and going a little "LBJ" on them. Being the leader of the party, he should have used his clout (which he certainly had when he was first elected) to put the screws to them.
But, now I'm left wondering if he really cared at all about some of the things he campaigned for, of if he was just saying what he thought we wanted to hear to get elected.

[jaxx]

10. The "professional left" speaks out once again.

He says is palin like, and then he scoots away from that.
Then he finishes with the fact (no, not a real fact, but a contrived "professional left" fact)that "this certainly planned outburst from Gibbs is that it must reflect the President's own thinking". He just broke the news with made up stuff.

There is one reason for all the whoop-de-do about this, it hit home. Good.

[EFerrari]

20. Except the fact that it does reflect the admin's thinking

was already reported to the WaHo by another spokesman, Burton. That's not made up.

[gratuitous]

11. Oh John Aravosis, he wasn't talking about YOU

Jeez, what an ego. According to all the interpreters for Gibbs that I've read here at DU, Gibbs was apparently talking about three, maybe four people in the country. You know, "professional left" persons who want to "eliminate the Pentagon." Now, I'm not entirely sure why Mr. Gibbs is so frustrated with those three (or four) people, or why those three (or four) people wield so much power in the country that they can totally stymie the best efforts of the White House. But I have been assured by sensible people in their most earnest internet voice that Gibbs was talking about just those three (or four) people.

Get over yourself, John Aravosis.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

13. If you think Gibbs would take the time or effort

to call out 3 or 4 people in the country and risk the fallout that it was going to produce over a couple of people you are more misguided than I give the defenders credit for.

He was talking to John Aravosis and me and most of the people on DU as you can plainly see by the greatest page this morning.

So I guess you are saying that all of us are stupid and crazy for thinking Robert Gibbs was talking about us.

Like I said if you think Gibbs was talking about 3 or 4 people that just might be the stupidest thing I have seen written about this so far.

[G_j]

16. me thinks

the comment was :sarcasm:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

17. Yeah I reread it

It was sarcasm, you just cant tell these days.

[bvar22]

18. Yes. It was Sarcasm.

And well done too.
You could take that post elsewhere on DU, and it would be praised as TRUTH.

[gratuitous]

19. Sarcastic? Moi?

Jamais!

Euh, peut-être quelques fois.

[roguevalley]

27. edited to reflect the sarcasm thing. I guess.

[Individualist]

15. K&R

[eleny]

21. K&R

[spiritual_gunfighter]

23. Hmmm I am curious

Then there's all that work we did for the campaign, all the dirty work they asked us to do - and we did it, gladly, and quietly - none of that counted either, apparently.

I wonder what this "dirty work" is that he is speaking of?

[G_j]

24. I think he is referring to the 'hard' work

like phone banking, 'door to door' etc.
But yea, it could be read differently.

[flyarm]

34. no..better read it again...

the kicker is Gladly and QUIETLY!!

since when is phone work dirty and must be done quietly????????

[txlibdem]

25. Gibbs was just telling the truth

That the administration wants progressives to shut up and never complain about the broken promises and Obama's pre-emptive caving to the right wing psychos. It's frustrating when you want to cozy up to your rich new buddies but the unwashed masses keep butting in to the conversation. Poor Obama.

[closeupready]

28. Pony! Chess! Magic Wand! Fairy Dust!

n/t

[struggle4progress]

29. More wedge-driving from Aravosis, who has a long history of wedge-driving

[HCE SuiGeneris]

30. K & R

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. K & R

[KoKo]

32. K&R...

[flyarm]

33. all the dirty work they asked us to do - and we did it, gladly, and quietly

so much for transparency, huh??????????


"WHAT DIRTY WORK" ??? that you did "and we did it, gladly, and quietly"

that you did for the campaign??" Then there's all that work we did for the campaign,"

Who asked you to do dirty work gladly and quietly during the campaign?

Did they compensate you ?

What was offered for you to do Dirty Work GLADLY AND QUIETLY for the Obama campaign?

Why did you not report that to the Election Ethics people?

Are you aware of other blogs, message boards who were asked to do the same???????

Were Campaign or Election laws broken?

Was this widespread among Blog/ message board/internet journalists?? Was this extortion? or were internet blogs/message boards/ web sites owners collectively asked to do this ? Was it collusion? Was anyone threatened with punishment for not joining to conspire in message control?

Someone needs to Question John Aravosis some of these questions..were campaign Laws broken? And if so, seeing his web site is relatively small, what was done with the bigger web sites? Was there Collusion? A conspiracy to control messages or to slow the flow of information or disenfranchise certain people and opinions?


Pretty serious charges John has made!!

and serious questions should be asked about it!