White House proves once more that it hates it base

[Vympel]

And deserves to lose the elections because they suck so fucking hard and do not understand how their base is sick of their bullshit

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."

The White House, constantly under fire from expected enemies on the right, has been frustrated by nightly attacks on cable news shows catering to the left, where Obama and top lieutenants like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have been excoriated for abandoning the public option in healthcare reform; for not moving faster to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay; and for failing, so far, to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military. . . .

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.

Link leads to Glenn Greenwald's pure acid commentary and numerous other links.

Short form: The Republicans fear their base, the Democrats hate theirs. (David Frum, of all people)

[Flagg]

Sorry, but I don't see how the WH being full of centrist twits means Democrats should lose congress.

[Vympel]

Sorry, but I don't see how the WH being full of centrist twits means Democrats should lose congress.

Because the President is the leader of the party and the White House has displayed absolutely no interest in actually catering to what its base wants, whatsoever. This kills enthusiasm for the party.

No progressives are turning out in droves to vote for a party whoose leadership mocks their principles at every turn.

Just read that Gibbs dumbfuck: "hur hur, they want to turn US healthcare Canadian!"

Like that would've been so terrible.

What are they in Congress for, exactly? Just to keep Republicans out? That's where the bar is being set? Because its pretty damn low. Frankly, when the Republicans ass-blast the Democrats off the face of the Earth in November I'm going to be laughing my ass off. Mostly because I don't live there and it doesn't affect me.

And I hope Obama's a one-term loser, as well. Centrist sissy pantywaist milquetoast (who also embraces and expans upon Bush's executive power wanking in every single way, the fuck) that he is.

[Zixinus]

And I hope Obama's a one-term loser, as well. Centrist sissy pantywaist milquetoast (who also embraces and expans upon Bush's executive power wanking in every single way, the fuck) that he is.

He's still better than another Republican George Bush-esque guy, no?

[Edi]

And I hope Obama's a one-term loser, as well. Centrist sissy pantywaist milquetoast (who also embraces and expans upon Bush's executive power wanking in every single way, the fuck) that he is.

He's still better than another Republican George Bush-esque guy, no?

Actually, the difference is pretty difficult to see. No difference in that respect, since nearly everything that Bush did wrong (illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, state secrets, unaccountability etc), Obama has embraced and expanded. He sold out all meaningful healthcare reform before negotiations even started in earnest and caved in to Wall Street just like any Republican would have. His other record isn't much better.

[Ryan Thunder]

So just one corporate shill for another, then. This is actually pretty scary. What could you guys actually do about it?

[Dominus Atheos]

And it's important to note that his two big "progressive" victories are really conservative wet-dreams come to life when you actually look closely at what they did and how they did it:

1. The Stimulus: It had $288 billion in tax cuts and $274b billion in infrastructure spending. It was literally more tax cuts then stimulus yet it was still called "The Stimulus" and not "The Tax-cut". The bill might have been a good centrist compromise if McCain had been elected and he was threatening to veto a more effective stimulus, but with Dems controlling both branches of government then there is no excuse.
2. Health-care Reform: People spent so much time looking at the negotiations that they forget to look at what we actually ended up with. In short, all people in the United States are forced to purchase a product from a private company at their own expense unless they qualify for subsidies which means the government pays the private company directly out of your tax money. As if that weren't enough, the money comes almost exclusively from taking money out of Medicare and an extra tax on union members. The proper conservative response to this bill should have been this:
   
   

[MKSheppard]

Ha, if you believe Obama's centrist NOW, then just wait until post-November.

[Temujin]

And I hope Obama's a one-term loser, as well. Centrist sissy pantywaist milquetoast (who also embraces and expans upon Bush's executive power wanking in every single way, the fuck) that he is.

While I feel the same way, unfortunately I still have to live here and put up with this shit, so unfortunately "hold the line" is the only real option us progressives have, unless we want things to get worse, again!

If I had the money I'd probably move the fuck out of America, but ironically being rich makes living here easy. It's fucking insane!

I really wish the fucking Reagan/Republican Revolution had never happened and the Republican Party instead imploded after Nixon/Ford; and the progressive movement had continued getting stronger. If we hadn't moved so far to the right and deregulated the shit out of everything and instead continued implementing Great Society style social (and other) reforms this country would be a lot better shape than it is now.

[Thanas]

And I hope Obama's a one-term loser, as well. Centrist sissy pantywaist milquetoast (who also embraces and expans upon Bush's executive power wanking in every single way, the fuck) that he is.

He's still better than another Republican George Bush-esque guy, no?

Actually, the difference is pretty difficult to see. No difference in that respect, since nearly everything that Bush did wrong (illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, state secrets, unaccountability etc), Obama has embraced and expanded. He sold out all meaningful healthcare reform before negotiations even started in earnest and caved in to Wall Street just like any Republican would have. His other record isn't much better.

His record on civil liberties is just awful. Remember the current Guantanamo trial? Non-public proceeding, shady deals nobody can check, people being put into prison without having their case heard.... oh, and Guantanamo is still operating despite his promise to close it within a year.

[MKSheppard]

who also embraces and expans upon Bush's executive power wanking in every single way, the fuck) that he is

I'm sorry? You seriously believed that a politican from Chicago. FUCKING CHICAGO of all places, would be OPEN AND TRANSPARENT?

[Broomstick]

That's what I don't get - he's a Chicago politician and people think he's a saint. CHICAGO POLITICIAN!!! You know, the land of politicians going directly from office to jail? Where the state prison has what is called the "governor's wing" because more than one former governor has served time there?

Actually, he's about what I expected. But then, I live in Chicago so perhaps I know better.

[Aaron]

Some of us foreign folk aren't to well versed in what US cities are fucked and which aren't. That said, from the outside looking in, he's a massive disappointment. Never should have bought the hype I suppose but if he turns out to be a one term wonder, I'm not sure any Dem candidate is going to be much better.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

To be fair, he did throw some bones to the progressives. He's kinda, sorta positioning himself to maybe repeal DADT sometime before the Earth falls into the Sun. He's reduced the disparity between crack and cocaine possession to a mere 18:1 . . . from 100:1. He's also fully kept 120 out of his 505 campaign promises, compromised on 38 of them, and has only broken twenty of them. Of course the American press, being the right-wing echo chamber that it is, only wants to focus on the twenty promises broken, the eighty-one promises stalled, and the 243 still in-progress.

The Obama presidency isn't nearly the show of mustache-twirling paleoconservative villany that a John "Yells at Clouds" McCain / Caribou Barbie administration would've been.

[Zaune]

And it's important to note that his two big "progressive" victories are really conservative wet-dreams come to life when you actually look closely at what they did and how they did it:

1. The Stimulus: It had $288 billion in tax cuts and $274b billion in infrastructure spending. It was literally more tax cuts then stimulus yet it was still called "The Stimulus" and not "The Tax-cut". The bill might have been a good centrist compromise if McCain had been elected and he was threatening to veto a more effective stimulus, but with Dems controlling both branches of government then there is no excuse.
2. Health-care Reform: People spent so much time looking at the negotiations that they forget to look at what we actually ended up with. In short, all people in the United States are forced to purchase a product from a private company at their own expense unless they qualify for subsidies which means the government pays the private company directly out of your tax money. As if that weren't enough, the money comes almost exclusively from taking money out of Medicare and an extra tax on union members.

To paraphrase William Lovett, half a slice is better than no bread.
I don't know why anyone was actually surprised, to be honest. There are too many people with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, and/or equally ideologically pure reasons for thinking it should stay how it is, whose views the Obama administration can't just dismiss. There was always going to be horse-trading and unhappy compromises; that's the drawback to checks and balances, I suppose.

He's also fully kept 120 out of his 505 campaign promises, compromised on 38 of them, and has only broken twenty of them.

Dunno how he compares to his predecessors in the White House, but compared to the governments I've lived under that makes him a fucking saint.

[Broomstick]

People forget that the essence of politics is, in fact, compromise and deal-making.

But, of course, he does have two more years left in his term. Much can happen in two years. We'll just have to see.

[Akhlut]

People forget that the essence of politics is, in fact, compromise and deal-making.

Why should he compromise with people who never reciprocate it? Why does he? He has no reason to deal with the Republicans, who have proven that they hold ideological purity above anything else, refusing to even approve a bill to provide free medical care to 9/11 first responders. Obama has a majority in Congress and the opposition has never wanted to play nice before or currently, so why should he play nice in return? I see no reason for him to not ride roughshod over these assholes, especially as that's what's happened during the Bush administration.

[Mr Bean]

To be fair, he did throw some bones to the progressives. He's kinda, sorta positioning himself to maybe repeal DADT sometime before the Earth falls into the Sun. He's reduced the disparity between crack and cocaine possession to a mere 18:1 . . . from 100:1. He's also fully kept 120 out of his 505 campaign promises, compromised on 38 of them, and has only broken twenty of them. Of course the American press, being the right-wing echo chamber that it is, only wants to focus on the twenty promises broken, the eighty-one promises stalled, and the 243 still in-progress.

The Obama presidency isn't nearly the show of mustache-twirling paleoconservative villany that a John "Yells at Clouds" McCain / Caribou Barbie administration would've been.

Some of those 120 promises kept are wonky to say the least. Either in implementation or in level of important. Or the promises them are very un-inspiring. As in "Obama promised the sun would come up tomorrow Promise Kept!"

I'll highlight a few
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... mise-kept/

93. Reinstate executive order to hire an additional 100,000 federal employees with disabilities within five years.

President Obama promised to reinstate an executive order to hire an additional 100,000 federal employees with disabilities within five years. He also promised to designate a White House official to assure that all federal departments and agencies meet the mandate. He signed the executive order on July 26, 2010. And though the order does not mention appointing a White House official to ensure accountability, it places the responsibility to implement an accountability reporting system in the hands of the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and calls on all agencies to appoint their own senior-level accountability officer. We change the rating to Promise Kept.

This is one of those wonky promises. He has not set aside the funds to hire 100k new federal employees. He simply issued an order telling the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to make it so. I can without with great certainty say that five years from July 26 2010 there will not be 100,000 new Federal employees with disabilities. Considering the situation in Congress I suspect the only way we will get 100k new employees is if we fired 200,000 existing employees to free up the funds for the disabled.

132. No permanent bases in Iraq
In a speech at Camp Lejeune, N.C., on Feb. 27, 2009, President Barack Obama pledged to end the combat mission in Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010. And speaking more directly to the issue of permanent bases, he said, "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011."

The administration's position was reinforced by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a Sept. 4, 2009, interview when he was asked by an Al Jazeera reporter whether the Obama administration would stick to its pledge not to build any permanent military bases in Iraq.

"Absolutely," Gates said. "Unless there is some new agreement or some new negotiation, which would clearly be on Iraqi terms. But we will not have any permanent bases in Iraq. We have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq. And we are now planning on withdrawing all American military forces by the end of 2011."

Lastly, it was a position clearly written into the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on Oct. 28, 2009. Section 1221 states, "No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended ... to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq."

It's a provision that has been included in defense authorization legislation for several years in a row, dating back to the Bush administration.

Promises kept can always be broken in the future, and we'll revisit this one if things change -- particularly as we move closer toward the deadlines for troop removal -- but the Obama administration has not wavered from its pledge and the president signed a bill that specifically prohibits defense funds from being used to permanently station U.S. armed forces in Iraq.

We think that's enough to move this one to Promise Kept.

How can I say this best...
Bullshit!

People forget that the essence of politics is, in fact, compromise and deal-making.

But, of course, he does have two more years left in his term. Much can happen in two years. We'll just have to see.

Really Broomstick? Because it sure as hell did not work like that from 2001-2009. Bush put bills up to a vote and the only one he really lost on was the privatization of social security. Otherwise the Democrats hemed and hawed and "compromised" to do exactly what Bush wanted.

[Broomstick]

People forget that the essence of politics is, in fact, compromise and deal-making.

Why should he compromise with people who never reciprocate it? Why does he? He has no reason to deal with the Republicans, who have proven that they hold ideological purity above anything else, refusing to even approve a bill to provide free medical care to 9/11 first responders. Obama has a majority in Congress and the opposition has never wanted to play nice before or currently, so why should he play nice in return? I see no reason for him to not ride roughshod over these assholes, especially as that's what's happened during the Bush administration.

People forget that the essence of politics is, in fact, compromise and deal-making.

But, of course, he does have two more years left in his term. Much can happen in two years. We'll just have to see.

Really Broomstick? Because it sure as hell did not work like that from 2001-2009. Bush put bills up to a vote and the only one he really lost on was the privatization of social security. Otherwise the Democrats hemed and hawed and "compromised" to do exactly what Bush wanted.

Because if he didn't make some compromises than literally nothing at all would get done - as the Republicans found out more than once when the Dems let them shut down the Federal government when they dug their heels in (and yes, it did happen - most people didn't notice because most people aren't affected much day-to-day by Washington and the state and local governments continued to function.)

Remember that even among the Democrats Obama faces some opposition. They don't move in lockstep (neither do the Republicans, despite what the media would have you believe). He's the party leader, not the party dictator. Compromise has to occur even within the Democrats, many of whom would be regarded as conservatives themselves in Europe. Not all Democrats are pro-gay rights, pro-repeal of DADT, and so on. Some of the compromises he makes are not because of Republicans but because of his own party.

[Kanastrous]

The Blue Dogs seem to be a recurring wrench in the works.

[Darth Yan]

He is on the way to getting troops out, and his plan does technically take several years to implement. In addition, it is better then no reform at all. Besides, given the political nightmare that was going on, I can see why he passed the bill.

[Zaune]

Not much I can add to Broomstick's point, save to point out that however frustrating this situation is, you'd really regret it if the business of government degenerated to the pick-your-own-despot apology for democracy that ours has. (More detail here.)

[Mr Bean]

Vympel feel free to add "in accordance with prophecy" because Gibbs called it and yes, they don't fucking care.

Speaking publicly for the first time since he disparaged the "professional left," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he stands by his comments, has no plans to resign and that he fully expects progressive voters to go to the polls in 2010.

"I don't plan on leaving and there is no truth to the rumor that I've added an inflatable exit to my office," the press secretary said during Wednesday's briefing, referencing the recent incident in which a Jet Blue flight attendant bolted his plane in frustration.

Taking the podium after a day off to tend to a sore throat, Gibbs said he has not reached out to any Democrats to discuss his remarks, in which he chastised liberals for wanting to "eliminate the Pentagon" and pursue Canadian-style health care reform. Nor, he added, has he talked to the president about the matter.

Does he stand by the comments? "Yes," he replied.

It was suggested that the remarks may have been part of a cynical strategy to depict the White House as not beholden to the progressive base. But the press secretary insisted that there was nothing underhanded in his interview with The Hill. He had said what he said in a bout of frustration.

"There are many time when I read the transcripts... that I could have said things slightly differently. I watch lot of cable TV and you don't have to watch long to get frustrated by some of what's said."

As for remorse, however, little was offered. Gibbs noted that the president has achieved many of the objectives that he had pledged on the campaign trail, insinuating that he isn't getting enough credit for these accomplishments. The frustration came from there but the sentiments aren't wholly unique.
Story continues below

"I doubt I said anything you haven't already heard before," said Gibbs.

The press secretary did not name names when pressed as to whom he was targeting with his criticism. The professional left was defined by Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton as primarily cable news pundits. But no one on the TV circuit, let alone in public office, has called for the Pentagon to be eliminated. Gibbs hinted, briefly, that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) had done as much on the presidential campaign trail, only to have CBS's Chip Reid correct him. Kucinich had promoted a Department of Peace.

A day after the controversy over Gibbs' remarks was seemingly been put to rest by a quick walk-back from the press secretary, Wednesday's briefing seems likely to reignite the debate over the White House's relationship with liberals. But if there was nervousness over base voters not heading to the polls, Gibbs didn't show it:

"I don't think [liberal voters won't show up]," he said, "because I think what's at stake in November is too important to do that."

Fuck you progressives you'll vote for us because you know the Republicans are a 1000 times worse! -Robert Gibbs
Well not really, he said no such thing, but the spirit is sure as hell there.

[Thanas]

If a press secretary did this in a European nation....he would be gone. Just think about a Tory doing that, or a member of Sarkozy's cabinet. He would be out the door as soon as his boss would have heard about it.

[Thanas]

A few reactions by the "professional left".




Olbermann is as always right on the money - special comment.
His Obama vs the left is also good.


Young Turks:

This isn't about whether Obama is liberal enough. It's about whether he's actually going to challenge the system or just be a cog in it. The system is fundamentally corrupt. Our politicians and their staffs are bought by the highest bidder. They then use the government to funnel taxpayer money to the people who bought them. Conservatives are just as angry about that as liberals are.

So, that's why so many of us are mad that the president didn't fight for the public option. It wasn't that the public option is some sort of liberal magic cure-all. It's that it would have provided real competition to the private insurance companies. Instead Obama not only left the system exactly as it was, but instituted a mandate that would funnel even more people into the arms of those same companies.

The public option was a bellwether. It signaled which direction he was going in - and that turned out to be in a corporatist direction that leaves the system wholly unchanged.

We got more of the same when the drug companies got the same deal as they did under Bush - the government cannot negotiate prices with them and we cannot import drugs from other countries (i.e., another unnatural monopoly imposed by the government).

We got more of the same when the big banks got out of financial reform relatively unscathed. They're still too big to fail. They're still doing risky bets with taxpayer backed money. They're still in charge.

The large defense contractors are also just as large as they were before. Actually, they're bigger because Obama not only escalated the war in Afghanistan, but increased the already record breaking Bush budgets at the Pentagon. And the game remained the same.

Do you see a pattern here? Corporate and special interest money always wins out. That's what we're worried about! That is what we're challenging Obama on - because that is not the change we voted for.

I guess the president and his staff think they're clever because they played the same old Washington game a little better. I guess they think they couldn't have done any better. I guess they think that this is the best they could do given the state of Washington. But that's the whole point. We didn't elect them to accept the Washington status quo as reality. We elected them to challenge and ultimately change that reality. And it seems like, on that count, they didn't even try. That's what we're so disappointed by.

A rather optimistic piece on Obama and his achievements.