home

Was "Gibbs-Gate" About The President's Men?

Paul Krugman:

I think people are missing an important point: what’s good for Obama is not necessarily good for his aides.

Think about it: Complaints that the administration should have pursued a bigger stimulus, or fought harder for the public option, or taken a different position on Afghanistan aren’t going to matter in the midterms. But they might hurt White House aides who argued against a bigger stimulus (to the point of not even passing the option on to the president), or argued against a harder push on health reform (perhaps even calling for retreat after Scott Brown), or have argued that continuation of Bush foreign policy is a political winner. The point is that the president might actually take those criticisms to heart, and rethink who he listens to.

Things that make you go hmmmm . . . If only the Czar knew?!?

Speaking for me only

< Hillary In 2016 | Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Lol... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:48:34 PM EST
    "The point is that the president might actually take those criticisms to heart, and rethink who he listens to."  If I were Paul, I wouldn't hold my breath.

    Arguably, this is the President's way (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    of engaging in "periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come."

    #14 (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:56:08 PM EST
    in the things that challenge relativity list:

    14. The fact that half the people who use -gate as a scandal suffix weren't alive for the original.


    I used it here (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:57:19 PM EST
    for the President's Men reference.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:02:45 PM EST
    I couldnt resist

    Parent
    It's all good (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    I've just been stirring sh*t most of the day anyway.

    Parent
    I noticed (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:10:23 PM EST
    Also noticed and, in these dog days (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:23:03 PM EST
    of summer nooz and snooz, it's welcome.  

    Parent
    Love the idea (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by robotalk on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:27:54 PM EST
    that Obama is just some innocent being misdirected by his chosen aides.  Even if that were true, wouldn't that say so much more than any self-respecting president would want anyone to believe?

    If only he had thought of a bigger stimulus (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:35:54 PM EST
    maybe he would have done it! But the option was not passed on!

    This cracks me up:

    But they might hurt White House aides who argued against a bigger stimulus (to the point of not even passing the option on to the president),


    Parent
    If that's true (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:53:37 PM EST
    Then he needs to go NOW! Nobody elected those people, and if he's truly that naive and unaware - he should be out.

    Of course, I don't believe for a moment that he's that naive and unaware....

    Parent

    Not so sure (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:25:03 PM EST
    How pathetic it now seems how so many  true believers derisively  rejected  the experience counts argument.  Then, when you find yourself on the hot seat and faced with making truly important decisions, what do you do? You do like GWB did, Pick a Rumsfeld to take you to war.

    It's the "safe" thing to do.


    Parent

    Neither (none / 0) (#14)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:03:58 PM EST
    do I.  I think he chose them all for a reason- that they share his agenda and are doing exactly what he wants done.

    Parent
    With all due respect to Krugman, I don't (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:52:54 PM EST
    think Obama does criticism...which makes me wonder what he thought the presidency was going to be - just one continuous love-fest, with nothing but rainbows and unicorns?  Hey, that reminds me: where's my pony?

    Oh, he can "take responsibility," but underneath that is...very little.

    He plays at being president; all the optics in the world, all the flattering camera angles, all the cool-guy schtick - none of it says "leader," and it doesn't disguise what is and isn't being done.

    I think (none / 0) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:49:53 PM EST
    I kinda said that in my post above.

    Since "experience doesn't matter" you hire people who "seem to know" what they're doing. To wit: Summers, Axelrod, Rahm, Rubin, et al..

    Parent

    "hmmmm . . . If only the Czar knew." (none / 0) (#8)
    by ek hornbeck on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    Let them eat brioche.

    I remember the last time I encountered (none / 0) (#12)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:43:12 PM EST
    that "if only the [boss] knew".  It was in a history of National Socialist Germany, when people were being hired to build public works projects in the early days of the regime.  The projects were all messed up, organizationally and efficiency-wise becauswe they'd been thrown together on short notice.  When people at the bottom, believing the propaganda of the caring, fatherly Fuehrer, would write those "If only you knew ..." letters, remonstrating their desire to make things work better, the letters were referred to the Gestapo, who opened files on the authors.

    Just saying.