Gibbs Does Alot of Assuming About Obamacare

The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, made some very interesting assumptions about Obamacare:

“We're one vote away from getting health care reform,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. “We think it's good policy…The President has said we should be realistic about what our assumptions are, but also assume -- if we're going to propose something, I don't think it makes much sense to not assume that it should be in the budget.”

The first problem with that is the legislation has stalled especially in the Senate. Harry Reid says that there's "no rush" to pass the bill. Why is there no rush? Well, it's probably because Democrats that are up for re-election this year, like Blanche Lincoln (AR), Russ Feingold (WI),and Reid himself, are getting walloped by their constituents at home, especially in traditionally red states. Even those not up for re-election this year, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, are feeling the heat for their votes. Not to mention that people have lost faith in the bill.

Let's get to what he was main aspect of the budget that he was referring to in that statement:

President Obama’s budget projects $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade – some of which comes from health care reform legislation.

“We took a very simple approach,” said Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag. “Since both the House and Senate had passed legislation, we took the average of the two” using numbers from the Congressional Budget Office.

That means the administration is counting on $150 billion in deficit reduction from a health care reform bill that is -- for now -- stalled in Congress with no clear path forward.

Basically, Obama is taking credit for an alleged reduction in the deficit that most likely won't happen. This type of misinformation is what has become all too typical from this Administration. In reality, he is a spendthrift not a deficit hawk. He trying perform a magic trick that David Copperfield wouldn't dare to try: making the American people believe that he's worried about the deficit.

Proof-Positive That He Is An Idiot: Gibbs: What If They Would of Compared Bush to Hitler?

Was Robert Gibbs on Mars for the last 8 years? That is the only explanation that I can come up with that will explain how he can even say this:

Today, Robert Gibbs lamented some of the offensive signs at Bachmann's anti-health bill rally (of which there were some, but not enough to even fill out HuffPo's 12 Most Offensive slideshow):

"I will continue to say what I've said before. You hear in this debate, you hear analogies, you hear references to, you see pictures about and depictions of individuals that are truly stunning, and you hear it all the time. People -- imagine five years ago somebody comparing health care reform to 9/11. Imagine just a few years ago had somebody walked around with images of Hitler.

Hopefully we can get back to a discussion about the issues that are important in this country that we can do so without being personally disagreeable and set up comparisons to things that were so insidious in our history that anybody in any profession or walk of life would be well advised to compare nothing to those atrocities."

Right? Apparently, he hasn't seen these or these.

I, also, wonder where his outrage was when fellow Democrat Alan Grayson compared healthcare crisis to the Holocaust.

Mary Katherine Ham has many more examples on her post. He isn't entitled to his own set of facts from his own revisionist history.

Gibbs: Obama Not Really That Popular With Trial Lawyers (Just Don't Look Too Close at the Money Trail)

While being questioned about why the Democrats have not been challenging the lawyers, Gibbs not only dismissed the notion that Democrats are favoring their legal brethren but he denies that the trial lawyers has had a big place in their heart for the Jurist-in-Chief:

“Let me step in for one second,” Gibbs said.  “I think you can recall from the presidential campaign, I don't recall us being the preferred candidate of the trial lawyers that you mentioned.”

“Yes you were,” I said. “You got more money than any other candidate when it came to trial lawyers.”

Gibbs then qualified his remarks to only mean the primary.

However, he forgot about all of the love letters that Obama received from his various attorney-suitors that include a whole bunch of money:

In the “presidential campaign” to which Gibbs referred, President Obama received $43,071,129 from lawyers and law firms.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., received $9,930,296  from lawyers and law firms.

Granted, that wasn't a shocker, but here is the real proof about where the ambulance chasers' loyalties truly lie.:

Okay, but he quickly clarified that he’d meant the Democratic primary, when fellow trial lawyer and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, was in the race and was clearly the favorite of many top trial lawyers.

Edwards collected $7,588,701 from lawyers and law firms.

By January 30, the day Edwards dropped out of the race, “the Obama presidential campaign had raised $11,650,779 from lawyers and law firms,” Webber emails me.

Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, dropped out of the race on June 7, 2008. She raised $15,497,787 from lawyers and law firms for her campaign.

By June 7, the Obama campaign had raised $19,133,487 from lawyers and law firms.

Gibbs was 0-for-3.

Here's a added bonus clip of Charles Krauthammer explaining that lawyer do indeed have the Democrats wrapped around their fingers.

Tapper Exposes White House's "100 Days, 100 Projects" Fabrication, Severely Embellishes Accomplishments

Here is a patial transcript from the conversation between ABC's Jake Tapper and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. Tapper pointed out an embellishment in the booklet that the White House released to brag about the "successes" of the Recovery Act after 100 days:

Tapper: I looked at your "100 Days, 100 Projects" booklet yesterday, and the very first one says, quote, "Using $27 million of Recovery Act funding a public housing development in D.C., the Regency House, has undergone a green retrofit.  As part of this upgrade, the building installed solar panels, green roof, rainwater collection system, energy-efficient lighting, as well as water-conserving toilets, showerheads and faucets." But when I called the D.C. Housing Authority, they said only $59,000 was spent of stimulus money, not $27 million, and of these seven things mentioned, only two of the seven were actually done --

GIBBS:  I think the mistake -- mistake in that one, as you blogged about earlier, took a series of different projects in a cut- and-paste into one.

TAPPER:  OK.  So it wasn't as clear and -- it wasn't as accurate as it could have been?

GIBBS:  I -- I think that's accurate to say, yes.

"It wasn't as accurate as it could have been?" That is not just a slight understatement. It was an outright lie and total misrepresentation of the truth.

There is a huge difference between $27 M and $59 K. It's not just a slight miscalculation. Also, their claim of seven projects finished is a complete fabrication.

Obama's White House seems to be trying to rewrite history to make himself look good. Most of the press is so in love with him that they don't even think to thouroughly investigate his claims.

I understand why he feels like must do this. His stimulus package is a complete boondoggle, and everyone knows it. Now, he must do his best to portray it as beneficial to the economy when most of the evidence suggests otherwise.

After all, his porkulus package isn't even stimulus by definition. Stimulus is supposed to be that a massive amount of money is thrown into the economy in a short amount of time. The reality is that most of the money won't be spent for years.

Gibbs Gives Pathetic Excuse Regarding Sotomayor's "Racist" Statement

A couple days ago, Robert Gibbs tried to explain away the statement by Sotomayor that white men don't make as good of decision as latinas most of the time.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sparred with reporters during Wednesday's briefing about the context of Judge Sotomayor's remarks. "I feel confident that if you look at the context and then listen to the words, you, your listeners, and everyone that you talk to will have a greater and fuller appreciation for exactly what she said." But reporters pushed back demanding Gibbs explain what he thought Sotomayor meant in her remarks and "why there is no racial component" to them. Gibbs said the nominee had lived a different life than than others that would lead Sotomayor to different conclusions.

Judge Sotomayor didn't say they would be "different" conclusions. She said that they would be "better" conclusions. There is a huge difference.

It's amazing that this response was the best Gibbs could do to explain her "racist" statement. It shows that there isn't a good excuse that anyone can come up with to make Obama's Supreme Court nominee look good regarding this quote.

We should proceed with extreme caution. She has some very questionable stances in the past. We need to make sure that she was just misquoted or misunderstood. If she wasn't she is far outside the mainstream. We don't need to be giving a lifetime appointment to someone that far out.

Chyrsler Bondholders' Attorney: White House Threatened My Client

On Friday, bankruptcy attorney for some of the Chysler bondholders, Tom Lauria, went on Detroit’s Frank Beckman’s morning talk show (WJR) to make this eyepopping accusation about the White House's actions toward them. Somewhere, Nixon is smiling from the life beyond:

Lauria: Let me tell you it’s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That’s a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.

Let's roll the audio back on that:

One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.

Using Robert Gibbs and company to pound a private citizen who opposes the Bully-in-Chief into submission isn't something that the President of the United States would do. Is it?

Apparently, it is.

After all, he publically went after Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli whenever they expressed his desire for America to not turn into a socialst state and questioned his policies, and he gave Major Garrett and the rest of the Fox News reporters the equivilant of the silent treatment because Fox didn't air his 100th day sermon...I mean press conference.

However, there is not any evidence of this other than Lauria's testimony. So, nothing will probably come of this, but after what happened to Limbaugh, Santelli, and Garrett, we must start wondering if there is a pattern developing here with the Obama administration.

Gibbs Scoffs at Loven's Criticism, Obama's $100 Million Budget Cutback Is A Lot Where I Come From

The AP's Jennifer Loven, usually liberally biased, actually asked a tough question to Obama press secretary, Robert Gibbs. She asked why is the amount of cuts Obama is proposing, $100 million, so small in comparison to the $3.5 trillion federal budget. Gibbs couldn't hold his amusement in while giving a ludicrous response. Although, to give Gibbs a little understanding, what else could he say:

GIBBS:  (Smiling) Well, I think only in Washington, D.C. is a hundred million dollars...

LOVEN:  The deficit's very large.  It's not a joke.

GIBBS:  No, I'm...

LOVEN:  The deficit's giant.  $100 million really is only a step.

GIBBS:  But no joke.

LOVEN:  You sound like you're joking about it, but it's not funny.

GIBBS:  I'm not making jokes about it.  I'm being completely sincere that only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money.  It is where I'm from.  It is where I grew up.  And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.

It's quite a bit of money to me, too. However, we aren't talking about $100 million in Gibbs' hometown or mine. We are talking about Washington DC. They work on trillion dollar budgets. We work on thousand dollar budgets. There is a huge difference in between anytown, USA and DC. Can't Gibbs see that, or is he just trying to blow smoke?

Jack Tapper asked Gibbs a follow-up question. He basically asked how can $100 million be a lot and $8 billion small? What was Gibbs' response this time?

His answer was that it is a step in the right direction, and cutting $100 million here and $100 million there will add up to cancel out the $1.3 trillion deficit. By my calculations, it take about 1,300 of those small steps to cancel out the budget deficit.

The timetable that Obama gave the various departments to take this "step" was 90 days. If he continues on this timetable of cutting $100 million every 90 days, it would take Obama about 325 years to wipe out the deficit. Last time I checked, he only has 4 years, or 8 at most, to cut the budget deficit in half as he promised. At this pace, even cutting it in half will take well over 100 years. He doesn't have that long. He has to come up with a bigger number as Jennifer Loven suggested.

Democrats Sell-Out Poor Children in DC; Robert Gibbs Can't Defend Action As His Wheels Fly Off During Questioning

Obama Sells Out African-American Children
March 3, 2009
Posted by John at 6:33 PM

A little-noted provision of the Democrats' budget bill would kill a scholarship program in the District of Columbia that allows some children to escape from the District's awful public schools and attend private schools, like the Obama girls. In today's Wall Street Journal, William McGurn profiles Sarah and James Parker, who attend Sidwell Friends with Sasha and Malia Obama:

"Unlike the Obama girls, they could not afford the school without the $7,500 voucher they receive from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. Unfortunately, a spending bill the Senate takes up this week includes a poison pill that would kill this program -- and with it perhaps the Parker children's hopes for a Sidwell diploma. ...

"Deborah Parker says such a move would be devastating for her kids. ...

"That's the reality that the Parkers and 1,700 other low-income students face if Sen. Durbin and his allies get their way. And it points to perhaps the most odious of double standards in American life today: the way some of our loudest champions of public education vote to keep other people's children -- mostly inner-city blacks and Latinos -- trapped in schools where they'd never let their own kids set foot."

That is, indeed, one of the great scandals of American politics. But with the Democrats in the saddle in Washington, the teachers' unions expect the escape hatch of school choice to be slammed shut, so it will be.

In today's press briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about McGurn's article and Obama's opposition to school choice. He was not able to muster a coherent response:

QUESTION: On education, there's a provision in the omnibus spending bill that would sunset the D.C. voucher plan. And I'm wondering -- there's been a lot of publicity about this brother and sister pair at Sidwell who use their voucher money to -- to pay for tuition at the same school the president chose to send his children. I'm wondering if you could restate the president's opposition to the D.C. voucher plan and why he's...

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: Yes, I -- I would -- let me go -- I've not read the article today, if there was one. I think the...

QUESTION: Well, it's just about two kids who use their voucher money to go to Sidwell. I mean...

GIBBS: Right. I mean, I think -- right.

QUESTION: I mean -- I mean, and they would -- in other words, if they cut the voucher program, they couldn't go there.

GIBBS: Why are you even providing me the opportunity to be the middleman? I mean, again...

QUESTION: Well, could you just restate the president's position?

GIBBS: Well, I think the president has concerns about -- concerns about taking large amounts of funding out of the system to -- to address this, that the president obviously believes -- and I think you'll hear him talk about and has talked about -- the need for reform in our educational system, but -- but has not agreed with the program in the past. I'll see if there's anything to update on that.

Of course, it's hard to answer a question when you can't tell the truth. Gibbs couldn't very well say that President Obama and the Democratic Party are in the bag for the teachers' unions and don't much care what happens to inner-city kids. Could he?


-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/022968.php

-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Could some one help Gibbs find his wheels? They had completely flown off during this exchange.

As much as the Democrats love to "champion" the poor and minorities, it amazing how quickly they will throw the poor, mostly minority children under the school bus in favor of the teacher's union.

Maybe why Gibbs can't come up with a good excuse as to why they would to this to DC poor children is because there isn't one.

Thou Shall Not Mock the Chosen One

Gibbs Takes Off Gloves to Challenge Reporters, Hosts Who Cross Obama
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has singled out media personalities Jim Cramer, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli in the course of less than two weeks. 

FOXNews.com Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Jim Cramer. Rush Limbaugh. Rick Santelli. 

What do they all have in common? Most likely, none of them is getting invited to the White House Christmas party. 

All three media personalities have been singled out by President Obama's press shop in the course of less than two weeks. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in doing so, has shown an unusual willingness to spar with cable and radio hosts who take shots at his boss. 

The rebuttals have ranged from playful ribbing to disdainful scolding. 

Talk show host Limbaugh has drawn the most ire from the White House. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called him out on Sunday for saying he wants Obama to fail, after Obama told Republican lawmakers not to listen to people like Limbaugh several weeks ago. 

Gibbs followed up Monday, calling on conservative pundits to challenge Limbaugh on air. 

"Do they want to see the president's economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on television throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether -- whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend," Gibbs said. But then he took a shot at those who applauded Limbaugh during his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington over the weekend. 

"You know, I'd like to think, and I think most people would like to think, that we can put aside our differences and get things done for the American people. We'll say, in watching a few cable clips of Mr. Limbaugh's speech, his notion of presidential failures seemed to be quite popular in the room in which he spoke," he said. 

Gibbs repeated his call for Republicans to speak up on whether they agree with Limbaugh Tuesday. Limbaugh has said that while he wants Obama to fail, he doesn't want the economy to fail. 

Donald Rieck, executive director at the Center for Media and Public Affairs, said the Obama team, which studies have shown received far more favorable press treatment during the campaign than its rivals, is apparently having trouble acclimating to a more critical press post-Inauguration Day. 

"If they're going to do this, to jump like that every time someone says something provocative about them, it's going to be an awfully long tenure for Gibbs, because there's a way to let this roll off your shoulders," he said. 

Gibbs didn't stop at Limbaugh, who Democrats eagerly claim speaks for the Republican Party in the absence of a clear leader. (House Republican Leader John Boehner asserted Wednesday that the White House was intentionally elevating Limbaugh to distract from their budget.)

On Tuesday, Gibbs also responded to a question about CNBC host Jim Cramer's claim that Obama's economic policies represent the "greatest wealth destruction" by a president. 

"If you turn on a certain program, it's geared to a very small audience, no offense to my good friends or friend at CNBC," Gibbs said. 

Gibbs tried to hedge at first, saying, "this is where I have to probably be careful," and "I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to," and "I'm going to get in a lot of trouble." 

That was almost certainly a reference to the last time he went after a CNBC reporter -- Rick Santelli. 

In late February, Gibbs responded at length to Santelli's on-air rant at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, in which he stirred up traders by shouting that the government was promoting "bad behavior" with its mortgage rescue plan. "This is America," he said. "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" 

Asked about the segment, Gibbs said: "I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives. But the America people are struggling every day to meet their mortgage." 

He said Santelli argued "quite wrongly" that the plan was ineffective and concluded by inviting him to the White House for a cup of "decaf" coffee.

"I would encourage him to read the president's plan and understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom he knows. I would be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee -- decaf." 

The press in the room laughed at the quip, but Santelli later said he felt personally threatened by the White House. 

Still, Gibbs said Tuesday he did not actually get in a "lot of trouble" for singling out Santelli. 

"There are very few days that I've had more fun," Gibbs said.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/04/gibbs-takes-gloves-challenge-reporters-hosts-cross-obama/

-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts
How dare any go against "the chosen one". Limbaugh isn't the leader of the GOP. He isn't in government anywhere. He has not run at any time for office. He's just an easy target for the left. Rush is their own personal boogeyman.