•••• White House & Congressional Dems feud over predictions of loss of House ••••

[breadandwine]

Politico.com report with video of Gibbs:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39703.html


Another report:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5585266/speaker_pelosi_slams_white_houses_gibbs.html?singlepage=true&cat=9



I'm not sure what to say about all this except that it sure sounds like the White House STILL refuses to fight the Republicans, first by caving to them on every issue, and now by accepting as a fait accompli that Democrats may lose the House. The whole Administration approach seems to be one big "Eh!" about everything important. They are throwing in the towel at the start of the process as ever, just like before they even begin negotiating on legislation. Now at the start of the Fall elections they are throwing in the towel on winning, and are RESIGNED to losing. If that is how Obama feels, why doesn't he resign HIMSELF and let a DEMOCRAT take over his job? It could be done. Obama and Biden quit, then Pelosi becomes president. She's next in line of succession. Weak, weak, wimpy, wimpy, wimpy White House.

All this squabbling would never have come to this if only the White House had merely decided instead to advocate an expansion of Medicare, which has always been a popular program. And if they had fought for the common man instead of always bringing a knife to a gunfight.

If anyone thinks the party is not in trouble this Fall, how do we say otherwise when even the White House Press Secretary Gibbs sounds like he is ALREADY throwing in the towel, even though in the above video he tries to backtrack, not surprising.

Is anybody in the White House or DLC going to EVER realize that midterm elections are poorly attended since there is no presidential race to attract attention, and that therefore the most committed, the fanatics, are the ones who show up to vote, and that presently, with the limp wrists in the White House, that is the GOP and not us???? Cenk Uygur the other day correctly pointed out that although slightly more voters favor the Democrats, when you factor in LIKELY voters (i.e., the committed, the passionate) the Republicans are way ahead of us. When are they going to energize the base? Never!!!!!! When are they EVER going to show some fire and brimstone, get ANGRY and rail against the other side the way they rail against us, with passion and spicy language? Apparently not in this century......

There was a time when Democrats knew how to fight. Hubert Humphrey, saddled with baggage by being the veep of the unpopular Johnson, nevertheless nearly pulled off a victory against Nixon in 1968 by constantly calling Nixon with a holler, "Richard the chicken-hearted." Oooooh! Obama can't do things like THAT! THAT were be fisticuffs! That. Were. Be. Fisticuffs. FISTICUFFS I say!

I am reminded of an old joke about Prozac. In it someone tells a Prozac user that he has heard that Prozac users are not motivated to accomplish anything. The Prozac user pleasantly replies, "Whatever...."

When is this party going to get off its ass, get over the "No Drama Obama" shtick, get ANGRY at the evils of the other side, galvanize public anger to OUR side and actually start FIGHTING???? Apparently never. Instead, they are trying to spin it that they EXPECT to lose. How clever!!! We weren't even TRYING to win! We didn't have a dog in THAT fight!!! And I saw the latest Obama weekly address and while he blamed the GOP he did it with so little passion that I sat there wondering if he was sleep walking. When will they start fighting? Apparently never as long as the DLC crowd runs the White House with limp wrists like Gibbs. They are just throwing in the towel. The proof? Gibbs says we might lose the House, ho hum!!!!!!

We might lose the House? Eh. Whatever......

[breadandwine]

1. Thanks for the two recs, folks...

.....

[Bobbieo]

2. What happens if we lose both the House and Senate? And it is a strong possibility!

[DCBob]

3. What a bunch of bunk.. Gibbs is not "throwing in the towel".. he said its mathematically possible..

which it is. There is no feud. That is the GOP/media spin. Surprised you fell for it.

[sabrina 1]

4. He sounds like a defeatist. Sometimes I think the WH

wants to lose their majority. It will make it easier to blame Republicans because they sure haven't been able to do that now, after the Health Care debacle.

Memebers of Congress have twice met with the WH to complain about their tactics and their constant attacks on Democrats, by including them in claims that DC is 'broken' because of 'partisanship'. Finally, Democrats in Congress are getting fed up with WH attempt to be 'above it all'. Congressional Dems are now wondering if they made a mistake in going along with unpopular bills, angering their own base, risking losing in November for a WH that is doing nothing to help their party maintain a majority in Congress.

Can't say I feel sorry for them. They should have seen the writing on the wall and voted for what was right, not out of party loyalty against what the people wanted.

Twice now that we know of, Nancy Pelosi has demanded a change of attitude towards Democrats in public speeches from the WH and she knows how Congress has alienated Independents and significant portion of the base, iow, the people who gave them a majority, by ignoring them and supporting the WH. Hopefully she learned who to listen to from now on.

[DCBob]

6. I seriously doubt we will lose either chamber.. prospects are improving daily..

There are several reasons but I think primarily its because the teabagger movement has peaked and in some cases they are actually helping Democrats. Another factor is that the GOP is now being effectively exposed as obstructionists with little thought or care for the negative effects on the country. Also, the angry left is becoming more and more marginalized and irrelevant. I think November will be just fine for Democrats.

[noise]

17. The angry left?

The establishment seeks to marginalize the left because they know full well the policy agenda caters to special interests at the expense of the public.

[DCBob]

22. as opposed to the non-angry left.. which is by far the majority..

but you would hardly know it from reading posts on this site.

[sabrina 1]

26. The GOP has always been seen as obstructionists. That

was one of their strenghts. It is how they get things done THEIR way. I'd like to see Democrats, especially now that they are in the majority, play that roll once in a while. It would be nice to see Republican ideas defeated. To the public, obstructionists who win, look like winners. Don't fool yourself.

As for the 'angry left', no doubt Gibbs, who went out of his way to paint Dean as the 'angry left, would agree with you.

In reality, it is not 'the angry left' Democrats need to be concerned about, it is 'angry Americans'. Since many Independents have joined the 'angry left' whoever they are, your over-confident 'marginalization' of those voters is wishful thinking. Which is why Pelosi and many House Dems are worried.

[DCBob]

28. Huh?? How do Democrats "play the role" of "obstructionists" when they are the majority??

The GOPers are simply attempting to block legislation, any legistlation, to make President Obama and the Dems look bad.. regardless of how it negatively affects the country. I dont think that is anything to admire.

BTW, there are more votes to be gained by trying to awake the complacent Democrats than trying to appease the angry left... imo.

[sabrina 1]

29. Well, consider me a complacent Democrat and I don't like

name-calling political operatives no matter which party they belong to. Although I'm not sure what you mean by 'complacent' entirely, I imagine you think that there are actually Democrats out there who are NOT posting online, who are not angry. If that is the case, you better think again. The American PEOPLE are angry. In fact I meet more angry offline Democrats than I do online.

Obstructionists. To be one, you do not have to be in the minority or the majority. You just have to be determined to get what you want and be unwilling to compromise.

[breadandwine]

7. One of the tip-offs in the video is that Gibbs dredges up enough comity to say WH relations

with Pelosi are "cordial." That's political lingo for Pelosi is a POS in our opinion and we are obsessed with looking "moderate" at the expense of her and Democrats on Capitol Hill. The White House is all Johnny-one-note ----we're to the right of every other Democrat no matter what and Pelosi can beat it. The "cordial' line means one thing: We've sold out the party and it's every man for himself. This after losing one race after another in the last few months. They "knew better" and got rid of the 50 state strategy and they got rid of Howard Dean and look where they are now ---- oh by the way, we might lose the House, um, uh, come to think of it. Gibbs is clearly throwing Pelosi under the bus. For two years the White House has been trying to get brownie points AT THE EXPENSE OF DEMOCRATS with the same "triangulation" crap Clinton used. The White House has become little more than the GOP's mistress. When in Rome do as the Romans do.

[eilen]

8. Well, I'd like to think of the response by Grayson

if he was given that question and would like Gibbs to repeat it word for word, like he means it-- every time he is asked about Democratic chances in November.

He is after all a PRESS SECRETARY. Not a statistician.

[DCBob]

9. I think there may be more to it than meets the eye.. I think WH may want this to get some..

national media attention to wake up the millions of complacent Dems so they vote in Nov. If they show we will be fine, if they dont it could get ugly.

[noise]

18. If the Democrats wanted to win

they should have passed more public friendly legislation. Obama should have stayed true to his campaign promises.

Instead the "complacent Dems" are supposed to circle the wagons for a party that treats them with contempt. Why not put the blame on the Democrats who have the White House and both chambers of Congress?

[DCBob]

21. I dont think the "complacent" Democrats are complacent because they are upset about legislation..

They are just busy and not paying much attention. Most Americans seldom watch the news or read newspapers. But if they thought there was any chance the "Evil Empire" (aka GOP) might take over again, then I think many would take the time to vote this November.

[breadandwine]

10. Speaking of Grayson, here's an ad by Grayson that shows the kind of wit and spunk sorely lacking in

the White House ----


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCOYJ7weFEw&feature=player_embedded



The White House is simply too wimpy and always bringing a knife to a gunfight.

[cornermouse]

5. Don'cha know you're not being pragmatic?

Obama's playing world-class 247th level chess and you need to calm down because he's in charge. :eyes: I almost forgot the cool factor. :fistbump:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. While what Gibbs said is *theoretically* possible

I think that his statements were more geared towards trying to (over-)inflate the Republicans' egos and make them think that they're on a cakewalk to taking over Congress this year and when they don't succeed in taking either the House or the Senate (which they probably won't) they will be even more humiliated than they were (or should've been) when THEY met their "waterloo" against Obama on HCR. However, it has sure gotten Boehner and Cantor talking loudly like the idiots they are. Sometimes this administration (like all of them) stumbles but, at least in this case, I think that they knew exactly what they were doing. Despite all of the gloom and doom and hysteria being promulgated by the corporate media whores- one the single biggest group of Republican boosters- I don't think that 2010 is shaping up to be another 1994 and the polls for us are improving bit by bit.

[breadandwine]

12. This is the same kind of rosy denial we heard from some Democrats right before Gingrich took over.

Fact:

Among LIKELY voters, the Republicans are well-ahead.


They're energized. We're not.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. Fine. I may be in a state of rosy denial.

You've apparently already thrown in the towel- as well as a lot of other people on our side (no WONDER we're not very energized). However, as you should know, the ONLY poll that matters is the one taken on election day, so any proclamations of defeat are VERY premature IMHO and for all of the similarities to 1994, there are also a LOT of differences as well that few people (and certainly the corporate media whores) wish to acknowledge. I guess that after the election, we can debate and discuss the outcome and who was right and who was simply delusional.

With all that being said, I guess there's absolutely nothing else for us to do other than simply sit around and wait for the inevitable electoral sweep of Congress in November, right? :shrug: :eyes:

Or........................................

[breadandwine]

19. You're saying that if I REPORT that the WH has thrown in the towel, that means I have?

And if you are in denial, that means you DIDN'T throw in the towel?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. I don't think the WH has "thrown in the towel"

What Gibbs said was theoretically correct and I think he was just making a statement to that effect (when asked, I believe). I don't believe that he stated that it was likely or probable (which it isn't IMHO). OTOH I do think that everybody who takes what he said seriously and honestly believes we're doomed in November no matter what has. That may or may not describe you personally and if it doesn't, I humbly apologize for the assertion to the contrary. Bottom line is that I think that Gibbs intended his comments to help over-inflate the egos of the Republicans and loosen their tongues a little bit (which it apparently has). I don't believe that President Obama or even most Democrats have "thrown in the towel" by any means (and I certainly haven't). I believe that it was you that stated I was living in a state of rosy denial similar to what the Democrats were doing in 1994 but, as I said in my previous post, we'll have to see what actually happens on Election Day 2010 to determine who was correct and who was delusional.

[MoonRiver]

13. I'm still trying to decide whose side Obama is on.

After all, Reagan is his hero. Just sayin'.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. When did Obama say that Reagan was his hero???

I think that I remember him saying something or other nice about him during the campaign but Obama saying something nice about the guy and/or not trashing him doesn't mean that Obama considers him his personal hero. I guess Obama didn't like him enough to follow in his footsteps and become a Republican, right?

[SidDithers]

20. Prove Reagan is Obama's hero....

but I won't hold my fucking breath waiting for your reply.

Interesting you quote Jefferson about truth in your sig. :rofl:

Sid

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Memo to Gibbs and Pelosi: "Not as bad" is a piss poor campaign slogan.

Particularly when the record shows constant cave-ins to "the bad".

[w4rma]

23. It's 1994 and the DLC is putting the Republicans right back into power with their BS. (nt)

[breadandwine]

24. Wow. 10 recs. Thanks for the recs, folks...

....

[flvegan]

27. Fight? Fight? This group? Don't make me laugh.

While we certainly do have a number of decent folks in leadership, one would have to be out of his/her collective mind to ever expect a fight from the many spineless hacks we have in office.

Damn, but that powder is dry though. No wait...we're playing chess now, right? Sorry, I can't keep my bullshit excuses in order.

We need to work harder to elect politicians who will stick to ideals. Real dems.