White House unloads anger over criticism by ‘professional left’

:popcorn:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left

White House unloads anger over criticism by ‘professional left’
By Sam Youngman - 08/10/10 06:00 AM ET


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.”

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: “They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.”

snip//

Gibbs’s tough comments reflect frustration and some bafflement from the White House, which believes it has done a lot for the left.

In just over 18 months in office, Obama has passed healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform and fair-pay legislation for women, among other bills near and dear to liberals.

Obama is also overseeing the end of the Iraq war, with the U.S. on schedule to end its combat operations by the end of this month.

He’s also added diversity to the Supreme Court by nominating two female justices, including the court’s first Hispanic. Yet some liberal groups have criticized his nominees for not being liberal enough.

snip//


Larry Berman, an expert on the presidency and a political science professor at the University of California-Davis, said he has been surprised that liberals aren’t more cognizant of the pragmatism Obama has had to employ to pass landmark reforms.

“The irony, of course, is that Gibbs’s frustration reflects the fact that the conservative opposition has been so effective at undermining the president’s popular approval,” Berman said.

“And from Gibbs’s perspective, and the White House perspective, they ought to be able to catch a break from people who, in their view, should be grateful and appreciative.”

Obama has earned the derision of the far left. Well earned.

What an ass.

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

How could anyone doubt Gibbs characterization of the delusions of the "professional left"?

between the "professional left" and the "amateur left." That was an example of the latter.

Right.

Silly me.

ridiculous but they get themselves all freaked out like he personally insulted them horribly. :eyes:

and since it was a full out assault on a REAL Democrat, so should you.

Interesting.

yeah, gonna take that DU post seriously.

and damn the DLC!

This is just the kind of co-incident whining I'd expect.

At least they've toned down somewhat from "fucking retarded" - that's a good start, although they're still demonizing Canadian health care and trying to marginalize us.

with death by gang rape is being tried for murder by a kangaroo kourt in gitmo seven years later, and his 'confession' is not considered tainted because 'interrogator1', who was later convicted of acts including threatening death by gang rape, was not the interrogator who took the confession, it was instead his buddy 'interrogator2'.

But that is just me, and I am just an amateur.

While I (might) agree with the sentiment, it's probably best just to let the truth speak for itself rather than highlight it with flashing lights.

to and told to fuck off, it is not up to us to make the first move.

Lost opportunities and long term/permanent damage to progress will be the legacy of this "historic" presidency.

American politics and make major progress on a multitude of issues. That obviously did not happen.

What I am now hoping for is that the Dems hold onto majorities so that they can prevent the worse damage that would result from a puke takeover. I have no illusions that this (or another) Obama administration will do much to fix things.

I will give him credit for not vetoing Lily Ledbetter. But the other "victories" that Gibbs cites (health insurance and financial regulation) are dismal failures by any minimal standard one sets for real progress.

But, hey. It's only been (insert appropriate time frame here) and he could... Nah. Ain't gonna happen. The writing is on the wall. We were fooled, again.

As for me "sincerely hoping for" this failure that we are witnessing - that is bullshit. Those of us who have dared to question the administration want progress. I would say that we want it more than those who dare not criticize Obama and the Dems in DC. We are not willing to settle for virtually meaningless crumbs that are swept onto the floor from the feast of corporatist gluttony that continues under this "radical leftist."

you are not going to get Pure leftist legislation out of the makeup of this Congress. There are not enough Pure Leftists in Congress. There is a difference between progress and purity.

"this failure that we are witnessing" Only when set to purity standards.

"We were fooled, again" Only if you bypass Congress who actually make the laws.

I don't have a problem with criticism of Dems or Obama. It is the blanket generalizations about the Democratic party and Obama, that I take issue with.

Even before legislation is passed, "Obama is not using the bully pulpit", and when he does, you hear "He sure gives a purty speech, I want actions, talk is cheap"

When legislation passes, and it doesn't go far enough, or doesn't pass the purity test, you hear "It's Obama's fault"

When legislation stalls in Congress, "It's Obama's fault"

When legislation is passed and is good, "Obama didn't have anything to do with it"

100% opposition from the right, and a house and senate with their own issues is a huge challenge. I didn't expect miracles overnight. I'm glad they are realizing that the loudest voices do not speak for the entire base.

the reality is, it ain't happenin. At least, not in my life time.

Nothing will ever be good enough and undermining the President is the name of the game.

Big K&R for the article and the many, many good things accomplished by this President in a mere 20 months.

Obama is going to pick Elizabeth Warren and there is STILL constant complaining. Proved that some people are perpetually dissatisfied and will bitch about anything. It's ridiculous.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8906624>

:rofl:

It's funny cuz it's true.

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

Dennis Kucinich wouldn't be able to maneuver this Congress anymore than President Obama. With the makeup of the current Congress, it's just not possible to go that far to the left.

You cannot go to war with Republicans and Democrats at the same time which is what many here want the president to do.

There's a fairly large conservative Democrat faction in the party that could easily bolt to the Republicans at the drop of a hat.

“They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

We could at least be taking a step or two towards making this a reality.

I asked for just a bucket of water. Bush gave me a full, over-flowing bucket of bullshit. Obama gives me a half bucket of bullshit. This is my reality.

:shrug:

will be done in increments...since single payer was not able to garner enough support.

We could at least be taking a step or two towards making this a reality.

It's actually been repeated a few times....are you simply chosing to ignore this so you can post manufactured poutage?

was only interested in an insurance scam that won't go fully effect until 2014.

and also showing yet again that he can't handle the job.

Looked at objectively, Ari Flesher did a far better job as press secretary- and that's a scary thought. Yet true.

Fact is that the man's is and always has been barely competent- glub, glu glub -which is why he got fired from the Kerry campaign.

But it seems the subject has stepped on some toes.

Too cowardly and conflict averse to take it to Republicans- or the corporate right who've caused the problems- but always happy to gratuitously insult and attack their own allies and constituencies.

How pathetic.

I mean really- how utterly pathetic.

This administration is an insult to liberalism.

About fucking time.

...the White House even changed the labelling THEMSELVES.

1. Health INSURANCE is not Health CARE.

2. Until and unless THE PROBLEM in health care is eliminated (ie: the insurance companies and the corprat gangster for-profit nature of HEALTH CARE) then it is NOT reform! YES - SINGLE PAYER is the ONLY way it can be called REFORM. Sorry Obama White House! MEDICARE FOR ALL!

Financial reform:

1. WALL STREET (the gangsters who got us into this goddamned mess) WROTE IT. 'Nuff said. It wasn't acceptable for 'energy policy' to be written by Exxon-Mobil and other oil, gas and coal companies and it is NOT acceptable for Wall Street to write "financial reform" such that is so watered down and milquetoasted that it's entirely ineffective - especially "financial reform" that doesn't even kick in for 5-10 years.

Pfft.

No complaints on the justices - good job!

I don't want 'PRAGMATISM' - I want a progressive President who DOES what he SAID he'd do and who is too smart to be railroaded by Republicans or corprat gangster criminals and their lobbyists.

Hello? Nobody home....Jeebus Keerist on a damn pogo stick.

be happy if Kucinich was President, you whiney tub of lard.

Take ham handed swipes at the base on the eve of the fall election campaign.

:wtf:

as in a sewer grate.

For-profit INSURANCE should have no role. But it does, and drives the cost WAY up. THAT is the problem.

Of course 'no one up there' cares what I/we consider it. Gotcha.

But if you're stating that YOU don't care what I consider it and that no one else here on DU cares what I consider it (ie: "no one" includes YOU, them and everyone else) - I have the same thing to say to you that I have to say to Gibbs. Suck elephant balls, Mister! :hi:

I have the same right to type out my opinions here on this political/economic issue as you and anyone else here. Ya verbal bitchslapping won't stop me, or probably anyone else whose opinion you might devalue or disagree with. Get used to it.

I'd love to have a single payer system in this country. Regardless, utilizing one funding mechanism over another does not lessen the fact that its all about increasing access to a mechanism allows people to pay for treatment, also known as healthcare. If you are reforming the funding mechanisms, then you are reforming healthcare. Thats what the whole fight has always been about.

If you want to play the word game and separate insurance for healthcare from actual healthcare itself, then I say to you that our healthCARE system in this country is pretty damn good in that we have great doctors, great hospitals and other great people with great training serving as caretakers. The problem is giving people a way to pay for those great services so that they have access to them.

because it doesn't equate with the outrage they are trying to hard to pursue and pass along.

Health Care in the country is not broken....we have great facilities, equipment and doctors! The funding, payment, premium costs, incentives for shareholder savings, mechanism was broken. So all the poutage about insurance and trying to say the healthcare is where the change really needed to occur is misleading in the least....up there with 'death panels'.

A single payer system just happens to be the more superior, more efficient alternative, mainly because private industry tends to taint things more than government does (both can taint things quite a bit in either event). If someone wants to argue that they are unhappy with the approach this particular healthcare bill took in order to reach the goal, I'm perfectly fine with that. In my view, its the only approach that was passable right now, so thats the one we took. But its fine to not like that approach. My problem is when people start distorting the goal with vague netroots buzzwords and catchphrases as a means to attack the bill. And thats exactly what these people that are doing the whole "its health insurance reform, not healthcare reform" are accomplishing.

There is a dupe above and this needs to stay on top

:sarcasm:

I think he was just saying some people are full of shit.

professional left, Matt Taibbi, from his article linked to here and an excerpt here.


"Wall Street's Big Win: Finance reform won't stop the high-risk gambling that wrecked the economy - and Republicans aren't the only ones to blame"

"It's not that there's nothing good in the bill. In fact, there are many good things in it, even some historic things."


"All of this is great, but taken together, these reforms fail to address even a tenth of the real problem. Worse: They fail to even define what the real problem is.


"Without the Volcker rule and the ­Lincoln rule, the final version of finance reform is like treating the opportunistic symptoms of AIDS without taking on the virus itself."

"It's a hack job, a C-minus effort. See you at the next financial crisis."

_______________________________________________

Yeah, it has some good, historic things, but Wall Street wins big and it's like "treating the opportunistic symptoms of AIDS without taking on the virus itself."

It's "historic" and a "hack job."

Where the hell did constructive criticism go to? Where are the articles pointing out where improvements can be made without trying to portray the President as the worst sellout in history? All that Taibbi and others are doing is spending all their energy trying to mischaracterize everything the President has done. They throw in a few backhanded compliments to come to the conclusion that the policies suck.

Why are they working so fucking hard to alienate the left? I just don't get how that's good politics, or good, period. I'm a lefty, and my votes need to be earned. That is all.

That threat is a perfect example. People have been announcing they're not going to vote, advocating primary challenges for almost a year now, and the administration just crossed the 18-month mark.

it's what you say I'm trying to do. Please stop that. Thank you.

It's one thing to feel compelled to criticize the President, and another thing entirely to continue attacking people for not doing so. It's become sport to ridicule people when they dare to highlight the positive things that are being done because it interrupts the ridiculous meme that Obama = Bush.

just who do you think he's pissing off?

Those people want personal stroking and coddling in order to give a vote....think they are going to give it anyway?

The alienation has been coming from a faction of the left, all by itself. The negative feeding frenzy simply has something new to add to the buffet of gripes.

I'm sick of this shit. Go make a third party. You obviously refuse to compromise or work with anyone else. Fine. We will quit trying.

There is no pleasing you and you expect to be obeyed. We don't agree with you. We refuse to do your bidding and even can't.

So now what threat do they have?

Teabaggers from the Left are as bad as those from the Right.

If the Whitehouse ever showed half as much willingness to take on their ACTUAL enemies, a lot of us "fucking retards" would probably be willing to cut them a little more slack. I know I would.

Good post.

rather that taking it out of context and manufacturing some personal impotent rage.

in comparison with commentators paid to be right-wingers?

I would guess right-wing think tank employees outnumber left-wing think tank employees by 5 to 1.

Dumb, Gibbs. A chilling look into how people really feel in the White House.

–adjective
1.
following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain.

To your average person, "profession" means a paid job.

The definition you quote seems to back this up... unless you mean "professional leftists" are out for "gain" -- and by "gain" you mean things like health care or jobs.

I won't argue any more on this semantic issue -- I'm a recovering English major. But I will ask you, Wyldwolf, do you really intend to be defending Gibbs' pre-election slap to Obama's progressive constituents?

To your average person, "profession" means a paid job.

But that isn't the definition of it.

Profession:

–noun
1.
a vocation requiring knowledge of some department of learning or science: the profession of teaching. Compare learned profession.
2.
any vocation or business.

Vocation:

–noun
1.
a particular occupation, business, or profession; calling.

—Synonyms
1. employment or pursuit.

Gain:

–verb (used with object)
1.
to get (something desired), esp. as a result of one's efforts.

I'm a recovering Journalism major...

And I've long been a critic of the methods employed by the left. Gibbs was spot on.

thanks. More motivation. Good thing I like my local candidates.

I don't know any liberal who's calling for the elimination of the Pentagon.

The administration would catch a break from the left if they acted like Democrats. They continue to try to alienate the left, as Gibbs does here, and they're only shooting themselves in the foot.

-Laelth

"Chris Hedges: Obama’s Health Care Bill Is Enough to Make You Sick"

Also, you've never heard anyone advocate getting rid of the military? Really?

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

:hi:

Embarassing the shit out of the rest of us that just wanna get shit done.

maybe it's just me.

:shrug:

They bash them 24/7 which shows how they are the "true" Democrats. :)

Healthcare on the other hand ..... needs to discussed.

...The Pentagon didn't exist until 1943. World War II was 3/4 of the way done by then, and there have no legitimate wars since 1945. So clearly, the Pentagon was not required for defending the United States of America, was it?

Of course a true discussion of the corruption of the "defense" industry involves a lot more than one huge ugly assed Satanically shaped building.

and our interpretation of the military needs to be redefined, I agree. This Gibbs fellow is simple minded, evidently.

Gibbs knows the criticism is valid, and he knows that it's a lie to say the critics are saying Obama is the same as Bush. He is saying these things for some kind of political purpose, some kind of triangulating strategy. It's the famous n-dimensional chess.

It's a lie? Really?

Many offered by those on the left are not. And some on the left have absolutely compared Obama to Bush with regards to certain policy positions (war, privacy, "corporatism", social security reform, education, etc).

That's not to say Gibbs' comments were not trotted out to satisfy a political purpose... At the very least, he had to know they would create the dust-up we're witnessing right now. If not, then he is indeed ... a fool.

Obama would do better if he was President of Sweden, we know. The USA is a rabid, right leaning, people-unfriendly country controlled by corporations. I think people do have to be realistic with what we have here. I think Gibbs is reminding us that this is America.

However, revolutions do happen in countries from time to time.....

Yes, this will be a football analogy. If you don't like it, move on.

Al Davis' offensive philosophy is to always throw the ball deep. Just heave it down the field on every play. No matter what. No matter that a receiver in the flat could be open. No matter that short passing games move the ball down the field much more effectively. No, just throw the bomb on every play. Doing this, makes your offense predictable, and your team will lose.

Professional Lefties want Obama to go for it all on every play. Nationalize the banks. Get rid of for profit health care. Take on big pharma. Put BP execs in jail and nationalize BP. Nationalize the auto industry and guarantee union paying jobs. Just throw the ball deep on every play. And, if he did, he'd get the same results as Al Davis' Oaklan Raiders.

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

speaks volumes.

Liberals don't want to abolish the Pentagon! What nonsense, bullshit!!

And that's the crux of the problem. Given how our government operates, conservative Dems do indeed have more power than progressive Dems because they can join the filibusters and destroy your agenda.

You cannot go to war with the Republicans and with the conservative Dems and with the media and the corporations and expect anything to be accomplished.

Liberals have been the most loyal in the party. We are the ones constantly being told to sit down and shut up. And yet, the polls suggest that we STILL come back for more.

Look, I totally understand that the Left cannot get everything it wants, and that the political climate is hostile in every way. But, does that mean that we deserve the constant bashing and belittling?

I don't think so...

them in the guloog (sp?)? What are you talking about? :shrug:

and corporatists in the party to compromise. The liberals are *always* expected to do so. I knew that Obama wasn't a liberal and that didn't bother me because I could not support Hillary. But I thought that he would at least have the "cajones" to stand up and fight against the Republicans and conservative Democrats. All he does is cave to them. It's disgusting.

... just to show the term is not unique to Robert Gibbs:

"It’s very hard for someone on the professional left to put anything ahead of the politics, and that’s why they lose out."

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/5264699/ns/entertainment-movies/38366438

Other quotes by Moore with a similar tone:

"To effect change we have to get off our high horse and start living in the real world."

Then there was that speech Moore gave endorsing Wes Clark and scolding the left for turning their noses up at him, declaring the left was to far up on their high horse.

but one day our time will come...

Just kidding.. ;)

The far left will never be happy with Obama or with most any democrat. They would find fault with anyone--even one of their heroes when the hero can't get what they want thru congress.

This is the same attempt at conflation we've seen here on the site. Characterize legitimate, intelligent, well-intentioned criticism as being nothing but mindless extremism, and then condemn it.

Doesn't fly here, and it doesn't ring true for Gibbs either. If you want to single out a specific criticism that's overreaching, that's fine, but there's a lot more criticism out there, that deserves a lot more consideration from the administration, than a few supposed extremists holding out for "Canadian healthcare." Which, by the way, is hardly a radical idea, given that so-called socialized medicine is the norm in industrialized Western democracies.

The way to address criticism is to address it, and no one's buying the story that it's a few lefty cranks ruining it for everyone. If that were true, we wouldn't be seeing this level of fear (and therefore rage) from the White House, or here on DU.

and the few lines they actually quote lack context.

let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begi-- er... continue!

after he rightly pointed out that Clinton had not succeeded in changing the political rhetoric or political trajectory in the US from the entrenched Reagan ideology.

I did expect to see much more progress from Obama on this very important front.

What have we seen instead? On most issues, essentially the same failed approaches that Clinton used - groveling before the Reaganistas for crumbs of little consequence that will not succeed in reversing the ever rightward moving ideological course we seem to be locked into.

Indeed, the predominant political rhetoric and trajectory seems to have moved much further to the right, and at mind boggling speed, since Jan 20, 2009, than at any time during my life.

Obama may be changing a few things here and there behind the scenes, bureaucratically. The problem is, that just as with Clinton's surpluses and success in starting to pay down the national debt, which he failed to have codified, small liberalizing adjustments in federal agency rules and operations can, in one fell swoop, be easily undone by the next asshole right winger who manages to get himself into the White House.

Reaganism changed the country from being liberal and became entrenched because he and his cohorts extolled the "virtues of conservatism." Even though there aren't any. They accomplished this in a country that had outright scorned and rejected conservatism for decades, exemplified by the landslide of LBJ over Goldwater just 16 years previously. Goldwater was rejected because people feared he was too conservative - today he would be called a leftist by the predominant political community of pols and pundits.

Obama and cohorts bash liberalism. How are we going to change things if our "leaders" bash us and what we stand for?

Since Obama had articulated the Clinton failure, I did not expect to see him do the same thing! I did expect to see him make more progress and put much more effort into changing the ideological trajectory away from the right wing cliff.

Of late it does "feel" like that there are a lot of petulant, spoiled, children demanding personal issue items be resolved their way, on their time table and nothing else is acceptable. So many of those fail to recognize anything at all that has been done to move the Country forward.

If he actually said that, Gibby must have been having a bad day. Either way, the administration needs to get a handle on its response to criticism. Calling people retards and druggies instead of responding intelligently makes them look small. Ironically, awkward, off-the-cuff attempts at sarcasm were the way Bush tried to deal with critical press. And he was laughed at.

The WH should simply focus on the facts, make their case for what they've done right, and calmly and firmly correct the record when someone's making false accusations. If someone somewhere claimed President Obama was "just like Bush," Gibby could point out that specific instance and either correct it or laugh at it. Or ignore it, because there's just not that much of that going on, and what the "professional left" is writing about has a lot more meat on the bone then calling Obama a Bush clone would.

The smart thing to do would be to acknowledge and show some concern for the frustration coming from the left. These people aren't the enemy, and firing broadsides at "the professional left" sounds like Fox News.

I assume this was just another undisciplined moment like Rahm's. If not, and there is a strategy here to disparage the left and the right equally, it's a bad one. Getting snippy just makes the administration look defensive and panicky, and gives weight to the notion that left is in disarray and that Obama has a growing approval problem.

You can do better, Gibby. You have to.

Cue the angries. Again.

:popcorn:

people who don't show their ass on DU...

Liberals Still Overwhelmingly Back Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x403694

... given that the overall approval is at its lowest point yet. So, it's liberals and pretty much only liberals, upon which the administration depends. So in calling them crazed druggies for daring to criticize, Mr. Gibbs is busily sawing off the bottom of the wobbly ladder the administration is standing on. You'd think an 80% rating with liberals vs. a 41% rating generally would make the administration more open to hearing the concerns of liberals, not contemptuous of it.

Not smart.

first problem.

Not smart.

of "drug testing?" You can approve or not approve, but I don't think anyone can reasonably can say it wasn't an attack.

problems? As for the drug testing, he's mocking people who compare idiot son to Obama. I'm glad he did; they deserve to be mocked.

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

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.”

Trying to say Gibbs was only attacking a tiny portion of the "extreme" left is disingenuous. His comment mischaracterizes the nature of the "professional left"'s criticism of the administration, which has a lot more substance than simple name-calling. We've seen the same conflation fallacy employed here on the site, where thoughtful, substantive criticism, as well as minor, faintly Obama-related, or humorous points, like cartoons, or the situation in the Gulf, is pounced upon with this same strawman argument.

Are Mr. Obama's critics on "the professional left" actually insisting on the elimination of the Pentagon? This is a strawman argument, just like conflating all criticism with simply "calling" Mr. Obama "the same" as Bush. It paints a false picture of what the criticism is, and then attempts to dismiss it on that basis. It's the definition of a bad-faith argument.

"The professional left" is not merely composed of people mindlessly equating President Obama with Bush. At the same time, there are very legitimate comparisons to be made on policy issues such as GITMO, DADT, targeted assassination, wire tapping, State Secrets, etc., which are neither thoughtless nor unfair, and do not come from "crazy" people who are on "drugs."

If that were the case, it would not be an issue, because such minor and extreme points of view are of no consequence. The fact is that a substantial segment of intelligent, well-intentioned liberals have substantial, meaningful criticisms which should be addressed honestly, rather than painted as the childish rantings of drug-crazed hippies and dismissed with contempt.

Again, not smart. As your polling information suggests, it is really only liberals who support the administration at this point. Insulting and dismissing their concerns is neither good policy nor good politics.