Robert Gibbs Attacks The Fringe Losers Of The Left (Glenn Greenwald)

You may think that the reason you're dissatisfied with the Obama administration is because of substantive objections to their policies: that they've done so little about crisis-level unemployment, foreclosures and widespread economic misery. Or because of the White House's apparently endless devotion to Wall Street. Or because the President has escalated a miserable, pointless and unwinnable war that is entering its ninth year. Or because he has claimed the power to imprison people for life with no charges and to assassinate American citizens without due process, intensified the secrecy weapons and immunity instruments abused by his predecessor, and found all new ways of denying habeas corpus. Or because he granted full-scale legal immunity to those who committed serious crimes in the last administration. Or because he's failed to fulfill -- or affirmatively broken -- promises ranging from transprarency to gay rights.

* Continue reading

But Robert Gibbs -- in one of the most petulant, self-pitying outbursts seen from a top political official in recent memory, half derived from a paranoid Richard Nixon rant and the other half from a Sean Hannity/Sarah Palin caricature of The Far Left -- is here to tell you that the real reason you're dissatisfied with the President is because you're a fringe, ideological, Leftist extremist ingrate who needs drug counseling:

The White House is simmering with anger at criticism from liberals who say President Obama is more concerned with deal-making than ideological purity.

During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough.

"I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "I mean, it's crazy."

The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

and now the feeling is mutual from the liberals.

The Bush/Reagan stuff was getting played out.

Caught in the act.

I am stunned.

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.

Unless, of course, said progressives outside the Beltway are still facing high unemployment rates, still facing rising health insurance costs that are now locked in by "healthcare reform," discontent with Obama's plan to maintain a military presence in Iraq with "support troops" and private contractors/mercenaries, upset that Wall Street reform did not eliminate "too big to fail," etc.

Progressives embrace, well, progress. Incrementalists embrace change for the sake of change, no matter how minimal or if it causes long-term harm.

list does not always indicate success. Checking off
items that are decidedly moderate Republican can never
appeal to the Left. Kicking your base in teeth
is not exactly the most political thing to do. If
you think this will impress some Republicans, I have
lots of bridges for sale.

While absolutely predicatable, it's still been a thing of beauty - a sight to behold. :popcorn:

He derisively lampoons Gibbs' characterization of the "professional left" then moves right into character to prove the point, complete with Nixon/Hannity references.

I have to say the "In 20 short months, we've gone from "hold me accountable" to "get drug tested," you wretched ingrates" quip made me chuckle.

when the base doesnt come out to vote in November, or in 2012. Because that is what is going on and it pisses me off, it doesnt make me laugh at all.

They are fucking blowing it, and you laugh about it?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

look at Obama's poll numbers and how they are falling. Are you seriously trying to tell the majority of the country that we are too stupid to know how great things are right now?

That is your argument?

I wonder if you are going to face reality on election day when the Republicans take back seats when they have no business running this country.

And you are trying to tell us that we are too stupid to know how awesome things are right now?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The 85%+ of Liberal Democrats that approve of this administration are. I don't buy for one minute your claim to want Democrats in office, frankly, and I don't buy that there's anything that could've been done to change that.

If anything I can say the same about you, I personally think that you and the other BOGs actually hurt our President, I know that Barack Obama is a smart man, I even know he is a good politician, I worked for his US Senate campaign working to get him elected (I am not his base remember). When you constantly defend indefensible actions and poor decisions you allow that person to continue to make poor decisions. I want Obama to be the best President he can be, so I call him out when I think he is fucking up. You dont, you are happy with everything he does no matter how egregious. How does that make him a better President?

Why dont you stop hurting our country and make our President the best President he can be?

And that's where 85% of Liberal Democrats and you part company. You seem to think we're just "cheerleading" for its own sake, but we're not - shockingly enough to you, we actually like the things he's doing, and in the cases where we'd like to see more, we understand the political realities of the situation.

We like the fact that he's pulling out of Iraq. Maybe it's not on your timetable, but it's happening as fast as can reasonably be expected.

We like the fact that he's supporting ENDA, making progress towards ending DADT, and that he passed the Sheppard Act. Maybe you don't like the style points involved, but they're all happening.

We like the stimulus package he passed and think that it's done a tremendous amount of good for our nation. Maybe there could've been a larger stimulus or a second stimulus, but Republicans and conservadems won't allow that to happen. Take up your complaints with the people actually blocking progress.

We like the health care reform bill. We like the fact that millions of Americans who didn't have health insurance before will have it now. Maybe single payer would've been better, but we barely got this passed and there's a reason no other President has even gotten this far.

We'd like to see Gitmo closed for good, but Bush egregiously fucked up the evidence there to convict suspected terrorists and members of Congress refuse to have those inmates moved to normal prisons. It's a total lose-lose situation, and at the end of the day, if Obama simply did what many here expect - outright release of everyone in Gitmo - and then one of them commits an act of terrorism, it's the end of the road for the entire agenda.

We like that there's a serious push for alternative energies. Maybe oil drilling is bad, but until the research comes up with feasible renewable sources, we must have power from somewhere and it's better here than in Saudi Arabia in the meantime. Unless you're willing to completely power down in the meantime (and judging from the fact that you're using electricity to be on the Internet, I'm guessing you're not), the energy must come from somewhere.

Pretty much the only thing I can come up with to reasonable criticize Obama on is his actions around the Patriot Act. I'd like to see him curb those powers a bit, but frankly, the last time a head of state gave up any sort of power in this country we were still called "the colonies". I also can't say I'm thrilled about Afghanistan - it's the right war, but in my opinion, that ship was allowed to sail too long ago.

I still don't find it productive to hammer him on those issues. There are plenty of people already doing it - they're called "Republicans". You don't raise a child by telling him every day where he fucked up. You don't train a dog by shoving his nose in whatever accident he made in the house. And you don't support a President by allowing the only voices he ever hears from his people to be negative ones. You think you're doing some grand service by bitching and moaning about every last thing you find to be insufficient, but you're not. You're only depicting yourself to be utterly incapable of being pleased, and at the end of the day, if he finds he please more moderates with his policies than liberals, guess which way he's going to go?

The people you think of as cheerleaders aren't cheerleaders at all. If you actually took some time to read the comments during the health care debate, for example, you'd have seen a lot of, "I wish we had the public option, but I'm glad we're doing whatever it takes to make this country better." Fully acknowledge the good while pointing towards the ideal - THAT is what we're doing. There is nothing unprincipled or expedient about taking any shred of progress one can get while continuing to fight for the ideal. I can't even fathom how people jump to that conclusion. Even the person many point to as being an unwavering liberal - Ted Kennedy - regretted that he didn't take progress on health care several decades ago because he didn't think the legislation was good enough. Compromise is NOT a four letter word - it's what this entire country was founded upon.

So sorry if you think being a negative fucking asshole at every turn is "helping the country", but you are sorely, sorely mistaken.

I would only add, that isn't it the role of the president to find a balance between what his/her party/supporters want and that wants of the opposition? Isn't that what governing a nation is all about?

But more importantly, aren't we calling for President Obama to behave just like the past administration? Sure, we did not like Bush's policies, but weren't we most angry with the way the past administration ignored our interests?

I think Gibbs is correct ... many on the left will only be satisfied when we get everything we've dreamed of, exactly how we've dreamed it and all of it, right now. That in my opinion ignores political realities and is offensive to the philosophy of governing in a democracy.

But I will tell you it's tough being positive when you have been laid off from work for the past 6 months and have absolutely no prospects to find work.

I will say this again because I think it bears repeating, I think for a lot of you on DU this is some game, the BOGs vs. The Obama Haters/Racists etc. This is about point keeping with you, I have learned through observing the BOG mentality these past few months that it wouldnt matter what Obama did or said, it would be a okay with you.

When people unfairly malign our President I call them out on it, when the President does great things I say so. But when the President fucks up I hear nothing from the BOGs, just a lot of defensive chatter and misdirection. "I guess you would be happier if McCain were President, right?" What you people fail to understand is that many of us had some pretty high hopes for President Obama and now many of us are disappointed at what we got. We got a lot of political games and big policy decisions that were watered down just enough to try and please Republicans and still let the Dems celebrate all of these huge accomplishments.

What I have been trying to do and say here at DU in the past year is that I want my President to be the best President he can be, the President I know he can be. The BOGs want to ignore the obvious and go along to get along. Dont upset the apple cart because if you do that you must really want a President Palin.

Well I for one and sick of it, I think when we dont hold our President and leaders accountable then we make them worse leaders, plain and simple.

So my question for the BOG is this:

Why dont you want our President to succeed?

I find your comments about "wanting Obama to be the best that he can be" hollow, frankly. Plenty of people are holding him accountable. Further, as I've indicated plenty of times, it's impossible to hold him accountable for things that are entirely outside the realm of his control. If you can't accept that, then I don't know what to tell you except you're not doing anything to "make him a better president". Not one bit.

as I have established in my previous posts. I personally dont care if seems "hollow" to me. You dont even know me, what seems very apparent to me though is you dont have any intention of trying to make our President a better President, which to me is pretty counterproductive.

So this impasse is going to have to stand. You don't know shit about me either, by the way. I'm not sure how that's relevant, but you seem to keep saying it.

n.t.

Vapid, empty, "positive thinking" is bullshit when it is not getting the job done. When a normal person is at work and fucking up, the boss doesn't come by and say "nice job!"

How else is one to improve if you can't even tell you're doing it wrong, or just not doing enough?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm supporting a liberal president and now I'm Sean Hannity?

Do tell, what does that make you for opposing him? Ghengis Khan's reincarnation?

Liberal, in what way? Universal Romneycare is liberal? Ramping up one war and hardly putting the other to bed is liberal? The stimulus putting an injection of fed money into the economy is liberal? Bailing out Wall Street is liberal? Arne Duncan is Liberal? Rahm Emanuel is liberal? Renewing the Patriot Act is liberal? Forgetting about campaign promises to get rid of DADT is liberal? Neccessary financial regulations are especially liberal?

Some are neccessities: moderate if you squint really hard. Responsibly conservative solutions to real problems at best definition. Liberal? No.

If you want to be happy that Obama's actions fine. Just don't call the greater majority of the big ones "Liberal". They aren't.

Not by anyone's yardstick save Fox News...and the Republican party does not define 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Political Science 101 does. The political compass does not move. Not for me. Not for you. Not for Ronald Reagan.

Sorry to break this to you but Glenn Greenwald does not comprise the party's base.

Anyway, I'm not necessarily defending Gibbs going public...though I pretty much agree with his sentiment. And he was not talking about the base.

I am talking about myself and lots of people like me, but if you are saying that I am not part of the Democratic Party base now then you dont know how fucked we really are.

Even though I have done this a few times on here now I will reiterate my history with our President. I reside in Chicago and supported his candidacy for state senate then US senate, I have been a BO fan since before most people even knew who he was. But of course I am constantly suspected of "never really liking him in the first place".

I say this because I AM HIS BASE!!! As are you, and most of us on DU. What I am saying is why insult and demean your own base, the voters you need to win elections? He cant do it without us, as much as that pains the BO fans, you need us and the White House is blowing it. It pisses me off.

...and a lot of DUers know that I am critical of Obama but loyal to the Democratic Party...

...if you're not satisfied with the job Democrats are doing on the Hill, replace them with better Democrats. That's why primaries are sometimes more important than the general election itself. Primaries give Democratic voters a chance to ditch the dead weight and nominate someone who they think will do a better job meeting their needs.

Why do you think Arlen Specter was given the heave-ho in Pennsylvania in favor of Joe Sestak? Why do you think Connecticut Democrats in 2006 chose to replace Joe Lieberman with Ned Lamont on the ticket? Lieberman didn't defeat Lamont with the help of CT Democrats, y'know - Karl Rove and CT Republicans threw their own Senate candidate under the bus to keep "their man" from being replaced by Lamont in the Senate.

ignorance is bliss

I think you think this is some fucking game, the BOGs vs. the Obama haters. This is real life, this is about the future of our country, not some petty internet war.

Some of us are unemployed and have no idea how we are going to pay the rent next month, and have no idea how we are going to keep our lights turned on. Some of us want the President to be better, to be the President we know he can be and some people want to take sides in some bullshit internet battle and score points all day. Fucking pathetic if you ask me.

If the Obama administration think it is a good idea to attack it's own base, then I dont know what the fuck to tell them other than good luck with the election.

Of course, it's not a game. So let's stick to reality then. Let's promote and celebrate policies that actually reflect genuine achievable progress ...for the American people.

Yet you post Greenwald's predictably hyper-snarky rant about Gibbs comments and then try to lecture us about how this isn't about "some bullshit internet battle and score points all day." Classic.

Please show us exactly where/how the Obama administration attacked it's own base.

along with more moderate Dems, that is what I am saying. You seem to disagree with who his base is.

on edit: I posted the link because I think it is important to know what the White House thinks of us, not what the BOGs think. This is a news item, not some internal DU battle.

WH's continuing attacks on good Democrats. In fact they are fearful that they, House Dems up for re-election will suffer the fall-out from these constant WH attacks on its own Party and have twice gone to the WH to demand that they stop. Nancy Pelosi is far from amused.

Do you WANT a Republican majority in November? Because if you don't see the harm this is doing to those Dems up for reelection, (check MA) then you are being willfully blind.

I hope Nancy pays the WH yet another visit after this and this time lets them know that it is becoming apparent that House Dems will have to distance themselves from this WH in order to hold on to their majority in Nov.

This has to be a first, in fact it is, when House Dems have had to question whose side a president from their own party is actually on.

And it's pretty fucking realistic as continuing the status quo leads straight into the fucking crapper.

rather than 130. Reduce our military footprint! Not only is it wasteful it is probably counterproductive.

:sarcasm:

foreign policy. It is fairy land. Maybe we need a third party.

n.t.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Rule No. 2 of Press Secretaries ... Stay positive, no matter what you're talking about. Find the positive side and hammer it home.

So, basically, Gibbs, in your job, you have FAILED.

There are many people in p.r. who could do your job better.

making huge mistakes. Or, from their perspective, do they consider progressives and others to the left of Obama, immaterial? Bad calculation, if true.

Why else would there be this calculated campaign against us, that is essentially what it is. It is the stupidest political move I have seen in some time. How is he going to get reelected?

Gibbs is just setting up the left to be blamed if the Dems lose the House in Nov. Somebody's got to take the fall. I expect to see this theme ratched up in the coming weeks and months.

But how does that help them in 2012, are you going to dump the left and expect to be reelected? Are these people for real?

out the blame machine. Okay... that seems plausible, and stoopid.

Straight back to who needs the left, without skipping a beat.

If the Republicans are the big winners, the left will get the blame. And that will give the Dems more cover to move to the right because hey, they're just up against too damn many Republicans. All because of the left.

If the Dems come out on top in the elections, they will see it as a reason to completely dismiss the left (as if they didn't do so long ago). And with the left conveninetly out of they way, they can continue to move further to the right because, after all, that's what the country wants, right?

What this country really needs is a second party. The facade has long since worn away on the bogus "two party" dog-and-pony-show.

And a whole bunch of real parties and real coalitions.

And that doesn't mean candidates would get astronomical amounts. No, they would get the minimal amount needed to cover the bare costs of their campaign (with ZERO outisde contributions of any kind allowed.)

Let them campaign on a limited budget and let's see how they do. After all, most of us deal with living on a budget. It's only fair to ask that our elected "representatives" do the same.

The centrist dems are taking the left for granted, the economy sucks, the job situation sucks, two wars suck and nothing substantive is being done about it. The rich are still getting richer, the poor are worse off and no relief is in sight.

As one tea bag protester said: Everything sucks.

So let the pugs win! How much worse can it get? Maybe this nation deserves it, I'm almost 60, have worked my whole life even before there was 401Ks and minimum wages. Paid into SS all my life, now when I'm close to retirement age, I don't get any?!

If Obama and friends think the left isn't important maybe they shouldn't count on our support.
If the Repugs win in November, and they blame the left, that sort of refutes that same argument, eh?

It isn't the centrists that knock on doors during campaigns, it's the activists and they are most likely to be left.

I mean, if everything sucks, how much worse can it get? Why not go all the way and just let the country implode.
Then, finally, there might be something done. Can the typical American see past his own nose? I see people on this board bashing boomers because they're not all leftists or progressives. Here's a hint: they never WERE all leftists or progressives.

All boomers were not 'hippies' or druggies either. The left today would not even be considered left back in 1970. They would be moderates. So, to Gibbs, a big FU, and I hope you find a job better suited for your particular strengths. It's not the job you have now.

That's not even a start, here's a start: a fully integrated green economy, a return of Habeas Corpus, the US Constitution and the rule of law, pulling private for profit businesses out of government.

But you won't approach any of that appeasing "corporatists".

I swear, Obama is surrounding himself with antagonistic advisors.

Did he fail at community organizing? What happened to all that good experience?

TPM, ACLU, Fire Dog Lake, Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, and countless others that have been thrown under the bus are all fake Dems, didnt you know that.

Only those who fall in line and dont rock the boat are true Dems, what do you want Sarah Palin to be president?

You have a stronger stomach than I do for arguing with the I've got a crush on Obama and he can do no wrong crowd....Normally, I would have objected to anyone calling another poster an asshole, but in this case, after his personal attack on you, it was called for and is unfortunately accurate. Thanks for sticking to your guns when some like me, who should have joined the fray, instead sat it out in disgusted resignation and let braver souls like you carry the fight. Good on ya, spiritual_gunfighter. At least in some of the other threads on the same subject, many other intelligent and perceptive progressives who post on DU saw the same thing we do; an administration that is becoming more obvious every day in just who they serve, and it ain't us.

And it's causing me to reconsider my donations to them.

:eyes:

Damn, that should be unconstitutional.

It's friggin' un-American if you ask me.

Well, at least it is if you're criticizing the President. Unless it's a Republican President because hey, everyone knows they deserve it. But criticizing a Dem President, well hell, everyone knows that's just plain wrong.

Now that you know they've just been faking it for the last 70 years.

I just think they're letting their passion get in the way of their better judgment. Kind of like most DUers.