jump to navigation

Flamingos are better looking than Gibbs… 11 February 2010

Posted by marisacat in 2010 Mid Terms, 2012 Re Election, DC Politics, Democrats, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter.
trackback

Landau, Germany: Flamingos brave the elements as snow falls on Landau Zoo [Ronald Wittek/EPA]

hmmm Tapper et al. v Gibbs:

TAPPER:  There are a couple of things in the — in the news that I just wonder if you could comment on. One, could you talk about why General Jones is in Pakistan?
  
GIBBS:  No.
  
TAPPER:  And the other one is there’s been some reporting about a Haiti recovery commission, with Bill Clinton supposedly being asked to head up that effort.  Is there…

GIBBS:  I will check on — I will check on that.  I don’t have an answer on that.

***
 
GARRETT:  In a rare alignment, MoveOn.org, Paul Krugman and Bill Kristol all agree the president was wrong when he said he does not begrudge the Wall Street bonuses.
  
GIBBS:  The president didn’t say that.
  
GARRETT:  I’m saying what they’re saying he said.
  
GIBBS:  Well…
  
GARRETT:  He said “success” — “I don’t begrudge success.  I don’t begrudge”…
  
GIBBS:  Let’s not play hypothetical…
  
(CROSSTALK)
  
GIBBS:  No, no, no, no.
  
(CROSSTALK)
  
GARRETT:  “I don’t begrudge their success.  I don’t begrudge their wealth.”
  
GIBBS:  “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people’s success or wealth.”
  
(CROSSTALK)
 
TAPPER:  You should read the question, too, because the question was…
  
(CROSSTALK)
 
TAPPER:  The question was about…
  
(CROSSTALK)
  
GIBBS:  I’ve read the question.  You and I talked about this, like, four times the other…

TAPPER:  I know, but the question’s about…
  
GIBBS:  I understand.  I understand the question was about bonuses. The question — and the president, on five different occasions, just as I e-mailed you yesterday, causing you to re-examine what you’d written based off of the interview, that the president was talking, in that sentence, as he’s done many times, about the — he does not believe the federal government should be setting salaries for business in America.  He still believes that.
  
GARRETT:  But does he — does he still remain comfortable with the analogy he made with Major League baseball players?  Many have pointed out, yes, Major League baseball players make a lot of money.  No, many of them don’t make the World Series, but none of them had anything to do with the financial crisis or…
  
GIBBS:  Well, I don’t think the president would argue that not many baseball players had anything to do with the financial crisis.  I don’t think that’s — the point he was trying to make was that there are obscene and shocking salaries and obscene and shocking compensation that don’t match what happens with your performance.
  
(CROSSTALK)
  
GIBBS:  Hold up.  Hold up.  Can I just — let me finish my answer. That — the president has said that there ought to be — these ought to be based on performance, not on risk-taking.

GARRETT  Some of these new ones are.
  
GIBBS:  No — right, in the sense that, yes, they’re in stock rather than in…
  
(CROSSTALK)
  
GIBBS:  There should be a say on pay.  Shareholders ought to be able to weigh in on this. And he said that salaries like you were talking about with baseball and these bonuses are extraordinary and shocking.

TAPPER:  Blankfein and Dimon, are they — are those “obscene” bonuses, Blankfein’s and Dimon’s?
  
GIBBS:  The president has spoken repeatedly on these bonuses and finds them, as he did in here, extraordinary and shocking.
  
(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER:  He had been asked specifically about Blankfein’s and…
  
(CROSSTALK)
  
GIBBS:  And he said “extraordinary and shocking,” specifically.

TAPPER:  But are they “obscene”? Are they an “offense”?  Are they a violation of our moral principles?*
  
GIBBS:  The president doesn’t have any different view on bonuses yesterday than he had 10 days ago or 10 months ago.
  
GARRETT: Are they more palatable because these are different in — in type from the ones that were not linked to long-term health stocks.
  
GIBBS:  Ensuring that bonuses are paid in that way is a movement in the right direction, right?  Does that justify the level of these bonuses when, through only — only through the taxpayers’ assistance would these banks still even exist?  Of course not.

-jpt

*This is a reference to previous comments the president has made about Wall Street bonuses

And so on.  Take two aspirin – that was headache inducing… and of course no one can afford to call the doctor in the morning.  NOR does s/he want to hear from you, essentially.

************************************

Advertisements

Comments»

1. CSTAR - 11 February 2010

Yanqui go home.
Red Sox tambieén

2. Madman in the Marketplace - 11 February 2010
marisacat - 11 February 2010

I don’t care.. I want some of what Blankfein has. But no lunch with Ob like Jamie Dimon went for… Just the cash.

3. Madman in the Marketplace - 11 February 2010

We’ve tried nothing, and we’re all out of ideas

I sometimes imagine a dialog with a drowning liberal:

DROWNING LIBERAL: Help! Help!

ME: You seem to be drowning. Here, let me throw you this life preserver.

DL: No! How do I know that life preserver is viable? It might dissolve on contact with salt water! I won’t grab it unless I see twenty million other people use it first!

ME: Well, that’s up to you. But I have to say that no matter what, I think it’d be better than what you’re holding on to now.

DL: You mean this anchor?

ME: Yeah, that.

DL: Well, it’s very easy to say that, but how can I be sure? That life preserver may never have been tested in the water, whereas this anchor is obviously a viable seafaring device! Sure, in some ideal world the life preserver might be better, but this anchor is serving its intended purpose in the actual ocean right now! And furthermore .

CSTAR - 11 February 2010

DL: If I let go of the anchor it might get worse.

4. marisacat - 11 February 2010

Patrick Kennedy, no neck almost no chin wonder of RI, is taking a powder… Not running for re-election… “taking hsi life in a whole new direction”.

Get the feeling he stayed under pressure from Ted?

😆 … 🙄

Madman in the Marketplace - 11 February 2010

three Republicans in the House have retired in the last day or two also.

I wish they’d all do us a favor and leave.

marisacat - 11 February 2010

Here’s your hat… ass.. door. Hurry up.

marisacat - 12 February 2010

IF this is true, it would be proof that Reid is ga-ga. Hopefully he loses in November.

[S]enate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) worked for weeks with Reid’s blessing and frequent involvement to craft an $85 billion jobs bill, a measure that seemed destined to break the partisan logjam that has ground the Senate to a halt.

But as Baucus, Grassley and President Barack Obama were preparing to celebrate a rare moment of bipartisan Kumbaya on Thursday, Reid stunned a meeting of Senate Democrats by announcing he was scrapping Baucus-Grassley, replacing it with a much cheaper, more narrowly crafted, $15 billion version.

“Grassley and three to four Republicans would have voted for it, but all the other Republicans would have beaten the living s—t out of us [during the 2010 midterms], claiming the bill was too bloated,” said a Democrat who supported Reid’s decision, explaining the leader’s logic.

Few felt as good about the decision: Republicans say the about-face will only add to an already poisonous partisan atmosphere, liberal Democrats think the bill is too small to do much good and the powerful negotiators of the bipartisan package were left embarrassed, demoralized and befuddled.

Aides to Baucus and Grassley said their bosses didn’t know of Reid’s decision when they unveiled their bill early Thursday – and expected it to have the leader’s support. ….

Madman in the Marketplace - 12 February 2010

hahahahahahahahahaha

hike up those saggy pink Everlasts, Harry.

marisacat - 12 February 2010

It really is an astonishing read. AND the Unemployment ins extension is in there (I assume it still is) AND the COBRA extension… so while DC fiddles, people wait?

I guess so.

ts - 12 February 2010

$85 billion is “too bloated”? When did these idiots ever bat an eye at spending $85 billion? I’ve seen earmarks larger than $85 billion.

Lie down fall down stab yourself in the face…

marisacat - 12 February 2010

plus, if one believes the article, it would appear there was agreement between Baucus and Grassley and McConnell was not mounting opposition, by this point.

I’ve said for a long tme, back under Bush when the little Dems would pop with joy when Reid would pop off with some line, that Reid is just a sick old man. He gets angry, and ntohing else. Angry the way people get when they no longer connect.

5. marisacat - 12 February 2010

Rolling Stone has an article on the pretzel “muzzling” (their word) OfA.

Well 😆 …they sure did not use it as a resource…

marisacat - 12 February 2010

I am on page 2… the article does have one thing very wrong… it states he was swept into offce by a grassroots revolution.

[A]s a candidate swept into office by a grass-roots revolution of his own creation, Obama was poised to reinvent Washington politics, just as he had reinvented the modern political campaign. Obama and his team hadn’t simply collected millions of e-mail addresses, they had networked activists, online and off — often down to the street level. By the end of the campaign, Obama’s top foot soldiers were more than volunteers. They were seasoned organizers, habituated to the hard work of reaching out to neighbors and communicating Obama’s vision for change.

As president, Obama promised to use technology to open up the halls of power and keep the American people involved. “If you want to know how I’ll govern,” he said, “just look at our campaign.” His activists wouldn’t just be cheerleaders; they would be partners in delivering on his mandate, serving as the most fearsome whip Washington had ever seen. “At the end of the campaign, we entered into an implied contract with Obama,” says Marta Evry, who served as a regional field organizer in California for the campaign. “He was going to fight for change, and we were going to fight with him.”

Spare me. He was swept in by the huge ‘big money’ support, more money from Wall St, cronies in Chicago (for whom he made the dying swan, melting wings of Icarus Olympic bid, geesh) … the “revolution” was window dressing.

His big name supports in the media did use the story line, fed to them, that HE was responsible for the campaign, and thus had really really truly run something. Instead of what he was, a rather passive minor fixer from a big city… adept at the game of funneling federal money, a history in non-profits, part time associate iwth a fixer law firm, Judson Miner… and related institutional political games.

People bought it.

Madman in the Marketplace - 12 February 2010

what “grassroots” there might have been, they were co-opted in exactly the same way the Republicans are co-opting the teabaggers.

It’s an old game …

marisacat - 12 February 2010

yeah I agree… hell Move-On never a radical organisation was fully co-opted and used.

The article purposefully muffs a lot. Lays blame on Plouffe being worn out from the campaign for moving OfA to the DNC and so on. It was a classic move. Plus they were used during the election. Reading deep into some nonsensical puff piece at the NYT one day I landed on a quote from one of the main people, forget who, in the Obama camp … soemthing about keeping the facade of involvment going, to keep the little people contributing.

Etc.

It was an AD CAMPAIGN. They sold the product, “forgot” after sale servicing. Plus, this really was the selling of New Coke.

ts - 12 February 2010

I liked New Coke better. And New Coke tasted terrible.

6. Madman in the Marketplace - 12 February 2010
catnip - 12 February 2010

rofl – ‘You’re a punk!’

This is why you’re not allowed to bring props into the legislature in Canada. 😉

Madman in the Marketplace - 12 February 2010

you must be so proud!

7. Madman in the Marketplace - 12 February 2010

Obama’s ‘Victory’ Over Senate Confirmations Not All That Clear

The confirmation of 27 presidential nominees late Thursday is being hailed as a major victory for the Obama White House after a political showdown with Senate Republicans over their foot-dragging.

But the sentiment is not shared by all. In the halls of the Senate, Republicans insist that the nominations were non-controversial and part of regular parliamentary order.

“Anyone who’s been in this town more than a few days knows we clear a bloc of nominees before recess,” said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky). “This should not have been a surprise to anyone.”

The president still came up short in getting some of the bigger names confirmed — most notably National Labor Relations Board appointee Craig Becker.

Democrats, likewise, aren’t universally thrilled with the deal stuck on Thursday night. A party leadership aide called the pool of confirmations a “step in the right direction” but not one that makes up “for the months we’ve wasted on the floor. There are still so many more to get through.”

The general complaint is that Obama should have been more aggressive and sooner. After all, a united effort by the administration and allied groups and activists to take political advantage of the obstruction of Senate Republicans clearly worked for the White House. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) dropped his blanket hold on all Obama appointees just days after the president began whacking away at the national security and governance implications of such an act. McConnell, likewise, moved forward on a pool of confirmations shortly after being chewed out by Obama at a White House meeting. The idea that the administration would only muck things up by meddling in Congress’s business — as trumpeted ad nauseam during the health care debate — was effectively disproved.

But by the time the president and his team jumped into action, the definition of what constituted a victory had been largely skewed. Despite winning his “showdown” with Senate GOP leadership, more than half of Obama’s appointments remain unconfirmed — which places the president well behind his predecessor. As Obama’s own press secretary, Robert Gibbs, noted at Thursday’s briefing, there were 63 nominees who have been waiting for a vote for more than a month, “when in a comparable period of time in the Bush administration that number was six.”

8. Madman in the Marketplace - 12 February 2010

Something to consider as Lent approaches.

Just sayin’

catnip - 12 February 2010

lol…that’s blasphemous…or something!

9. Madman in the Marketplace - 12 February 2010

Harold Ford’s Tennessee Tax Dodge

Ford claims to have moved to New York three years ago, and says paying “New York taxes” makes him a New Yorker. But his spokeswoman confirms to Gawker that he’s never filed a New York tax return — meaning that he’s never paid New York’s income tax, despite keeping an office and a residence in New York City as a vice chairman of Merrill Lynch since 2007: “He pays New York taxes and will file a New York tax return in April for the first time,” Ford’s spokeswoman Tammy Sun told Gawker. “He will file all necessary personal disclosure and tax forms that candidates are required to file if he chooses to run.” (According to Sun, Ford admitted to the tax dodge yesterday at a press availability in Albany, but we can’t find any news accounts mentioning the remarks.)

Ford presumably decided that his real home was Tennessee, which conveniently has no income tax. Which means that, despite the fact that New York law requires part-time and nonresidents to pay income tax on money they earn in the state, Ford has shielded his entire Merrill Lynch salary from New York’s tax collectors for the past three years. In fact, it seems like Tennessee’s lack of an income tax may be the best explanation for Ford’s rather complicated two-state life since 2007 — he clearly wanted to live in New York, and married a woman in 2008 who did live in New York. But he made sure to keep a foot in a state whose tax code is friendly to rich guys like himself.

marisacat - 12 February 2010

(According to Sun, Ford admitted to the tax dodge yesterday at a press availability in Albany, but we can’t find any news accounts mentioning the remarks.)

oh the R will make mincemeat of this. ANOTHER Dem tax dodger (they will say). AND covered for by the media (they will say).

Turn out the lights.

10. catnip - 12 February 2010
marisacat - 12 February 2010

In other news… Ok.. a shooting at a school at Huntsville AL, possibly we glaze over… but then it turns out to be a biology professor who was denied tenure. Apparently hving gone to a conf or meeting packing.

Yikes.

catnip - 12 February 2010

The alleged shooter was female. That’s unusual.

marisacat - 12 February 2010

yes a professor… AND in non classic fashion apparently had no desire to take herslef out.

11. catnip - 12 February 2010

Joe Biden is at the opening ceremonies. And I thought I saw Bill Maher (?)

marisacat - 12 February 2010

I am catching some of it now on NBC… which for whatever reason flipped out on me… Finally decided to fiddle iwth the aerial after I watched something else..

12. catnip - 12 February 2010

This looks like a job for BHHM: Help wanted: Obama’s Twitterer

marisacat - 12 February 2010

I read somewhere today that OfA now thinks it should be involved in social networking.

I say do the fucking job, first. Then play.

Talk about a mess.

13. marisacat - 12 February 2010

hmm

nuu

LINK

…………….. 🙄 …………


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: