What is the consequence of that? How does it "promote" anything? And how is it a negative? Will it cause more Republicans, Democrats or Independents to vote Republican? I can't see how. Will it cause more to vote Democrat? Almost certainly not, not with one small quote, but as part of a larger strategy to remind people that Republicans could be in power and that that would be a bad thing, maybe it would. As far as I can tell, and I'm really trying to understand your point of view, there is zero chance of his comment turning a single vote Republican and a slim chance of it causing some to vote Democrat. I honestly have no idea. Maybe it hurt her feelings, but her reaction was outsized and ridiculous.
It is another negative in a season where there is a host of negatives facing the party. We have the disaster in the Gulf. We've got an economy that continues to struggle. We still have high unemployment, record deficits, we have a serious trade deficit that's at its highest level in 18 months. One could go on. I think the comment by the administration's spokesperson that Democrats could lose control of Congress in November adds to the negatives, could hurt fund raising and could dampen the enthusiasm of "fence sitters," who were swayed towards the President and Democrats in the last election, and could be swayed into staying at home this Fall. It was a stupid comment by the spokesperson of the administration. You think it was deliberate and part of our election strategy. If that was the case, it was a mistake. Certainly, the Democratic Congress believes it was, but what do they know?
And what you forget (or don't seem to know) is that elections are referendums on one party or the other. The goal is (always) to make it a referendum on your opponent. Reminding Democrats that there could be a terrible consequence to staying home in not just a reasonable way to do that, it's just about the best way. You're right that Democrats have a lot of going against them, most of which they inherited, but the one major thing that they have going FOR them is that Republicans are even less popular. In the face of that, what better way of turning the tide than to remind voters that the party they really hate might be in charge instead of the one they're not very excited about? I think you might have had too much coffee. You're pretty wound up over this and it's pretty much nothing to get wound up about. I'm gonna go ahead and leave you to it now.
The Obama administration has always had an uneasy relationship with congressional Dems. The fact they have everything to lose in November (while he doesn't) just makes tensions worse. It would probably help Obama in 2012 if the GOP took the House. Gibbs' words just stoked the idea among Dem members of the House that Obama doesn't care as much about mid-term elections as they do. I don't believe it's a matter of Gibbs' words affecting votes as it indicates what Obama's priorities are. This explains the anger.
OK - here are some actual specific consequences of the comment. You could very well be right, but I would suggest the exact opposite would happen. You see the GOP do this all the time - they generate fear of a boogeyman, and that's what drives votes. People vote against things a lot more than they vote for things, especially during times of unhappiness. And that's doubly true when they aren't thrilled with what they would be voting for. It's extraordinarily effective. So the White House is turning this election into a fear of GOP control. The whole idea is to get people to vote against the GOP rather than for the Dems. It's much easier to sell "do you want the GOP in charge" when the GOP is really unpopular than "vote for us" when the Dems are unpopular. As far as fundraising goes, all serious donors already know that losing the House is a possibility. Making them even more aware of the fact is unlikely to make any difference. For those that weren't scared of it, it is only likely to increase fundraising rather than lowering it. Pretending the situation is better than it is doesn't help fundraising or enthusiasm.
I'm wound up? This is my original response to glynch, who brought it up: I can't believe a guy as smart as Gibbs made a blunder of that magnitude. It's simply not something you say, even if you think it's true. Why give the RNC, their media, their talking heads, and all the rest ammunition? I haven't listened to Limbaugh recently, but I can imagine the talk now is about how the Democrats are running scared, as evidenced by the comment of Gibbs. That's an unfair comment and not true, in my opinion, but perception can be everything in politics. Gibbs helped give the perception that the Democrats believe they will lose in November. His words will be parsed with a microscope to attempt to find some "wiggle room" in his comment, and it will be said that he "was misunderstood," but the damage is done. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Pelosi and company didn't demand his head on a platter. If Gibbs keeps his job, it won't be because the Democratic Congress wants him there, not after this. That's a shame, because I like the guy and think he was doing a good job... until now. Since that post I've been responding to you and Major, who apparently can't imagine why I would have said that. Yet I have heard this comment talked about a lot in the media. I didn't just pull my opinion out of thin air. We can disagree about why Gibbs made the comment and its effect, but to say it is rediculous to call it a mistake is, in my opinion, rediculous. It is a reasonable opinion that simply disagrees with yours.
Given the fact that he enjoys a clear majority in both the House and Senate, it makes you wonder why he cannot get stronger legislation passed. Hmmm... I believe that there are good things in each of these bills. I am very wary of significantly stronger legislation. I do not want the government taking over health care (too big a portion of GDP). I would have preferred there be some premium containment provision to avoid insurers from jacking up premiums due to the elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, but we will see what happens. I am also wary of significantly stronger financial reforms. You can govern your way into a chilling effect on business (which in this fragile economy could be a disaster). Overall, I am pleased with what has been passed.
Come on, you know the answer to that. Because it doesn't require a clear majority in the Senate; it requires a filibuster proof super majority of 60. And he has 59 - three of whom are Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman who often vote with the opposition. So really he only has 55 or 56 reliable votes and the current oppose-everything-in-lockstep strategy of the GOP means he needs every one of those fence-sitters (the Nelsons and all) PLUS a Republican. If Scott Brown wasn't already worried about how he'd look to MA voters in his next election, and trying to placate both sides without consequence, Obama couldn't pass anything at all. Even Snowe and Collins have barely crossed the line during this administration. There has never been a need for 60 on every single thing before, but thanks to the unprecedented GOP scorched earth strategy, there is that need now. And he doesn't have 60. He doesn't even have 59.
I'll jump in and just note that there does seem to be a bit of complacency on the part of Dems these days. It's a combo of exhaustion and disbelief that the Republican Party could be so nuts and be such a threat. I think it's incumbent upon the Dems to get them aware of the possibilities and get them fired up... I do think a fair amount of them will come around by election day. Furthermore, looking at the special elections and primaries lately, there doesn't seem to be a huge increase in Republican votes even though they have an "enthusiasm" lead. In fact, more votes were cast for the Dem loser in the KY Senate primary than were cast for the Repub winner and Dems outvoted Repubs in the same contest by about 200,000, which is huge in a state like KY.
If you are dumb enough to believe that this president has the best interests of the United States in mind when he passes policy, you are a freaking idiot. There is no other way to describe the dummie who still believes that president is about hope and change. You have been duped. You are an idiot who does not understand the basic fundamentals of economics, rather, you are a supporter of community organizing and a communist state. Tell me one thing that this god awful president has done right......
Does anybody here realize that tens of thousands of americans who sacrificed their lives to to defend the most free democracy man kind has ever known. Where a citizen of the state (hippie) has the right to critcize and condemn their own (Vietnam Soldiers). I don't think people quite understand the magnitude of that right. It is a dynamic right that free people enjoy. We, Americans, are those free people. When you allow a tryannical president who raises taxes, inhibits free markets, promotes socialism, and the advancement of a politically correct islamic state, you have the end of the world as we know it.
Let me tell you something Batman, I don't know what in the hell you are talking about. Frankly, I really don't care. All I ask is this....are you an obamaniac?
I really, really dislike you mc mark. You are the s*** that voted for this marxist president and you are drinking all of his kool-aid. Can you please wake up and realize that this man is a communist, that he hates traditional american values, that he has gone an apology tour in the middle east. That he has bowed to the mullahs of the middle east. THAT AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT HAS BOWED TO A KING!!!!! What the f*** is that all about man......do you even care?
Well I understand that if one has an unbelievable contentment with the status quo one would like the present system. The problem is that there are challenges that require actual action. Global warming and climate change is the type of challenge that will not respond to no or very small changes. This is especially true when you have a system that so easily allows well funded micro-minorities represenitng a very small portion of the population such as corporation in a particular industry to fuel unlimited cash and corporate lobbyists to resist change. I suppose you would be agains changing any but the tiniest aspects of the status quo wrt to money buying elections and then fnding lobbyists to control the politicians once elected also. Your near unexamined truisms such as "running roughshod" over minoritiy rights sound good in a vacuum. However we have many other examples of in the world of other democracies that do not allow minorities to continually block change or allow small states with a bit over 1% of the population of other states to block change for the much larger majority.
First thanks for the research on the changes to social security-- very useful to know. At times I remain hopeful that Obama's health care bill can be amended to what we need. Perhaps more often I am not sure that it has the good bones to do so, however. Keeping expensive insurance company middle men in control with the profit incentive to keep costs to the consumer high I think will doom perhaps the whole scheme as costs continue to outpace inflation in this good that folks have to pay whatever they got when a major health problem occurs. Nonetheless, such items as preventing insurance companies from excluding perrsons with pre-existing conditions or dropping folks when they get sick are very important. Also don't forget about the roughly 15 million still uninsured the law will allow.
I don't think he's just a troll - I just think he's been surrounded by people who believe the same way he does for his entire life, and he's not aware that what he believes just isn't good old-fashioned U.S.A. god bless the troops common sense. He's either 13 or 50 as well.
