Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.
By Bill Sammon
FOXNews.com Wednesday, March 11, 2009
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.
The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"
The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.
That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.
"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."
Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.
"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.
"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"
Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.
"The television cameras just can't stay away from him," he said. "Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we're going to succeed."
Greenberg added: "He's driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want."
In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Understandably, the press had other things on their mind on 9/11/01, but what Carville said shows is that liberals are just as likely as conservatives to wish that their oppenents' policies would fail, not the country.
The real problem here is why does the liberal media fails to remember this comment and many others that wished Bush to fail not just in his overall policies but also in Iraq where American men and women were putting their lives endanger for this country. For example, Sen. Harry Reid declared the Iraq War lost before it was over. They didn't care if W's failure in Iraq meant many more deaths in the sands of the cradle of civilization. They just want Bush to fail in everything he did or wanted to do.
Showing posts with label Rush Limbaugh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rush Limbaugh. Show all posts
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Ari Fleischer Exposes Liberal Media Hypocrisy
Ari Fleischer Zings MSNBC: Should Dems Denounce Keith Olbermann?
By Scott Whitlock March 5, 2009 - 18:10 ET
Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer appeared on the Thursday edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and stopped the program cold when he challenged the hosts as to whether they were "going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?" Co-anchors Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, who had been discussing the battle between the White House and Rush Limbaugh, were silent for a moment before Brzezinski admitted, "That was a good one. We're all thinking."
Fleischer pressed, "That's my point. It's a one-sided debate because, largely, the press loves it because the press doesn't like Rush." The quip occurred after Brzezinski attempted to trap Fleischer into saying that he would be following the tactics of attacking the radio host, were he in the same situation as the Obama White House. After Fleischer's jibe, Scarborough started sipping from his coffee and attempted to toss the potential network hot potato over to the show's other guest, Mike Barnicle. Scarborough joked, "I'm going to have a – I can't talk right now because I'm drinking. Mike?" A few seconds later, however, the token MSNBC conservative did admit, "No, that was good."
A transcript of the March 5 segment, which aired at 8:04am, follows:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: All right, let's bring in right now former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Ari, thank you so much for being with us.
ARI FLEISCHER: Good morning.
SCARBOROUGH: A lot of people don't realize Ari not only was the spokesman for the Bush White House, he also is running PR for Michael Steele, at least over the past two weeks.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Good. He can explain what's going on there.
SCARBOROUGH: You're doing a helluva job, Ari. What's going on there?
FLEISCHER: Good morning. It's great to be on your show where you make things up.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, we find it easier than reading newspapers. No, let's talk seriously about Michael Steele. What would you instruct the leader of the RNC to do at this point?
FLEISCHER: Frankly, I think the RNC, Michael Steele, should not have taken the bait on this whole issue. They fell into a silly political trap. But what I find most distressing though, Joe, is didn't President Obama say he wanted to change the way politics was done in Washington, be post-partisan. He talked at the inaugural address about not engaging in childish things and his Chief of Staff engages in one of the biggest childish things imaginable. This whole food fight over Rush Limbaugh is a distraction from the economy from health care and the things he should be working on. It just makes me think Barack Obama is like every other politician who just seeks political advantage.
SCARBOROUGH: While he was making that statement, you did have Carville and their teams doing polls on trying to find the most unpopular person –
BRZEZINSKI: Well --
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. They found Rush Limbaugh. They said, you should target him. If that's not political gamesmanship, if that's not politics the way Washington's run for the past generation, I don't know what is.
FLEISCHER: Joe, listen to this. Here's what Barack Obama said in his inaugural address. We've come to proclaim the end of petty grievances, the recriminations that have strangled our politics. He cited scripture, and then he said, the time has come to set aside childish things and then his staff engages in those very things that his inaugural address talked about. You know, Barack Obama has huge popularity, but I think he is planting the seeds which could hurt him down the road if he really is no different from anybody else. And that's what I think this episode shows.
SCARBOROUGH: And, you know, Mike Barnicle, that makes me sad, I'm like the Indian that has the tear coming out the corner of his eye.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, god.
SCARBOROUGH: I believed he would be different.
BRZEZINSKI: It was Ari. It was Ari.
MIKE BARNICLE: Ari, you can't seriously believe – do you seriously believe that Obama and his staff, including Rahm Emanuel, what do you figure they're spending, two, three, four minutes a day on Rush Limbaugh? I mean, come on.
FLEISCHER: You know, Mike, how it works, you plant the bomb and you see where it goes off. But isn't that what he said he would stop in Washington? 2004 he said there's not a red America, there's not a blue America, there's a United States of America. My point is, what he is doing and what people on the cable shows have all picked up on, is exactly what people get weary of Washington for. And it's what every politician does. He wanted to be different, and I think he's squandering that chance to truly be different, especially to Republicans who question his policies, but really thought he might be a different type of leader. That's the big problem I have with all of this. This is – this reminds me a lot of the lipstick on a pig issue during the campaign raised against Barack Obama. It's foolish, who needs to get into that?
BRZEZINSKI: Ari, if you were standing at that podium, would you have not taken the opportunity to do what they are doing with Rush Limbaugh?
SCARBOROUGH: Let's say Michael Moore.
FLEISCHER: You have to be careful when you stand at that podium, you don't realize until you're in that unique job how much weight your words have. When you previously as a Senator's press secretary or a party secretary, press secretary, could dismiss or take a slap at a political opponent, when you do it from the White House, you're bringing the weight of the government onto that private person. So, you really have to be careful about it and do it with some grace. Going after Rush Limbaugh, it's just -- to me it's the usual nonsense.
BRZEZINSKI: They're not going after him, they were just labeling him as the leader of the Republican Party and saying --
SCARBOROUGH: They targeted him, Mika.
FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship.
BRZEZINSKI: I'm saying you wouldn't have pointed that out?
FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship, what difference does it make? Are you going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?
BRZEZINSKI: That was a good one. We're all thinking.
FLEISCHER: That's my point. That's my point. It's a one-sided debate because largely the press loves it because the press doesn't like Rush.
SCARBOROUGH: I'm going to have a – I can't talk right now because I'm drinking. Mike?
BRZEZINSKI: Mike Barnicle?
BARNICLE: I have to ask you, Ari, because you were really good when you were standing at the podium.
SCARBOROUGH: No, that was good.
BARNICLE: But did you have to soak your face in cement this morning to come out and say all of this with a straight face. I mean, come on!
FLEISCHER: You are so part of how Washington's always worked and this is why people give up.
BARNICLE: [Laughing] Me? What?
BRZEZINSKI: Barnicle?
FLEISCHER: You guys love this story. You love what Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel are doing because it gives the left an excuse – not you, Joe – to go after people like Rush and conservatives and like they did to Newt. But don't you realize, this is why so many people in America tune out Washington? Especially at a time when we got so many bigger issues. Yeah, Mike, it's two or three minutes a day, that's all it took for them to plant the seeds of destruction they wanted to plant.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/03/05/ari-fleischer-zings-msnbc-should-dems-denounce-keith-olbermann
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Ha! I love to see liberals squirm when their caught in their own hypocrisy.
If Republicans have to denounce Limbaugh as a far right extremist, then I fully expect the Democrats to do the same for not just Olbermann but also Michael Moore, Bill Maher, DL Hughley, or anyone in the MSM that wanted America to fail in the Iraq War.
I'll be here holding my breath. Someone call 911, if I start looking like a Smurf..
Their attack on Limbaugh is a thinly veiled diversionary tactic to distract people from the Democratic spending orgy, free fall in the market, and the administration's tax and cabinet scandals. So they bring up the Limbaugh boogieman that they used in the 90's.
It's the height of hypocrisy for the Democrats to chastise the Republicans to hold Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc against Obama as guilt by association. Then, they turn around and do the same to Republicans. They want to convict the GOP in court of public opinion of their guilt by association with Rush.
By Scott Whitlock March 5, 2009 - 18:10 ET
Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer appeared on the Thursday edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and stopped the program cold when he challenged the hosts as to whether they were "going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?" Co-anchors Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, who had been discussing the battle between the White House and Rush Limbaugh, were silent for a moment before Brzezinski admitted, "That was a good one. We're all thinking."
Fleischer pressed, "That's my point. It's a one-sided debate because, largely, the press loves it because the press doesn't like Rush." The quip occurred after Brzezinski attempted to trap Fleischer into saying that he would be following the tactics of attacking the radio host, were he in the same situation as the Obama White House. After Fleischer's jibe, Scarborough started sipping from his coffee and attempted to toss the potential network hot potato over to the show's other guest, Mike Barnicle. Scarborough joked, "I'm going to have a – I can't talk right now because I'm drinking. Mike?" A few seconds later, however, the token MSNBC conservative did admit, "No, that was good."
A transcript of the March 5 segment, which aired at 8:04am, follows:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: All right, let's bring in right now former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Ari, thank you so much for being with us.
ARI FLEISCHER: Good morning.
SCARBOROUGH: A lot of people don't realize Ari not only was the spokesman for the Bush White House, he also is running PR for Michael Steele, at least over the past two weeks.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Good. He can explain what's going on there.
SCARBOROUGH: You're doing a helluva job, Ari. What's going on there?
FLEISCHER: Good morning. It's great to be on your show where you make things up.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, we find it easier than reading newspapers. No, let's talk seriously about Michael Steele. What would you instruct the leader of the RNC to do at this point?
FLEISCHER: Frankly, I think the RNC, Michael Steele, should not have taken the bait on this whole issue. They fell into a silly political trap. But what I find most distressing though, Joe, is didn't President Obama say he wanted to change the way politics was done in Washington, be post-partisan. He talked at the inaugural address about not engaging in childish things and his Chief of Staff engages in one of the biggest childish things imaginable. This whole food fight over Rush Limbaugh is a distraction from the economy from health care and the things he should be working on. It just makes me think Barack Obama is like every other politician who just seeks political advantage.
SCARBOROUGH: While he was making that statement, you did have Carville and their teams doing polls on trying to find the most unpopular person –
BRZEZINSKI: Well --
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. They found Rush Limbaugh. They said, you should target him. If that's not political gamesmanship, if that's not politics the way Washington's run for the past generation, I don't know what is.
FLEISCHER: Joe, listen to this. Here's what Barack Obama said in his inaugural address. We've come to proclaim the end of petty grievances, the recriminations that have strangled our politics. He cited scripture, and then he said, the time has come to set aside childish things and then his staff engages in those very things that his inaugural address talked about. You know, Barack Obama has huge popularity, but I think he is planting the seeds which could hurt him down the road if he really is no different from anybody else. And that's what I think this episode shows.
SCARBOROUGH: And, you know, Mike Barnicle, that makes me sad, I'm like the Indian that has the tear coming out the corner of his eye.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, god.
SCARBOROUGH: I believed he would be different.
BRZEZINSKI: It was Ari. It was Ari.
MIKE BARNICLE: Ari, you can't seriously believe – do you seriously believe that Obama and his staff, including Rahm Emanuel, what do you figure they're spending, two, three, four minutes a day on Rush Limbaugh? I mean, come on.
FLEISCHER: You know, Mike, how it works, you plant the bomb and you see where it goes off. But isn't that what he said he would stop in Washington? 2004 he said there's not a red America, there's not a blue America, there's a United States of America. My point is, what he is doing and what people on the cable shows have all picked up on, is exactly what people get weary of Washington for. And it's what every politician does. He wanted to be different, and I think he's squandering that chance to truly be different, especially to Republicans who question his policies, but really thought he might be a different type of leader. That's the big problem I have with all of this. This is – this reminds me a lot of the lipstick on a pig issue during the campaign raised against Barack Obama. It's foolish, who needs to get into that?
BRZEZINSKI: Ari, if you were standing at that podium, would you have not taken the opportunity to do what they are doing with Rush Limbaugh?
SCARBOROUGH: Let's say Michael Moore.
FLEISCHER: You have to be careful when you stand at that podium, you don't realize until you're in that unique job how much weight your words have. When you previously as a Senator's press secretary or a party secretary, press secretary, could dismiss or take a slap at a political opponent, when you do it from the White House, you're bringing the weight of the government onto that private person. So, you really have to be careful about it and do it with some grace. Going after Rush Limbaugh, it's just -- to me it's the usual nonsense.
BRZEZINSKI: They're not going after him, they were just labeling him as the leader of the Republican Party and saying --
SCARBOROUGH: They targeted him, Mika.
FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship.
BRZEZINSKI: I'm saying you wouldn't have pointed that out?
FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship, what difference does it make? Are you going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?
BRZEZINSKI: That was a good one. We're all thinking.
FLEISCHER: That's my point. That's my point. It's a one-sided debate because largely the press loves it because the press doesn't like Rush.
SCARBOROUGH: I'm going to have a – I can't talk right now because I'm drinking. Mike?
BRZEZINSKI: Mike Barnicle?
BARNICLE: I have to ask you, Ari, because you were really good when you were standing at the podium.
SCARBOROUGH: No, that was good.
BARNICLE: But did you have to soak your face in cement this morning to come out and say all of this with a straight face. I mean, come on!
FLEISCHER: You are so part of how Washington's always worked and this is why people give up.
BARNICLE: [Laughing] Me? What?
BRZEZINSKI: Barnicle?
FLEISCHER: You guys love this story. You love what Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel are doing because it gives the left an excuse – not you, Joe – to go after people like Rush and conservatives and like they did to Newt. But don't you realize, this is why so many people in America tune out Washington? Especially at a time when we got so many bigger issues. Yeah, Mike, it's two or three minutes a day, that's all it took for them to plant the seeds of destruction they wanted to plant.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/03/05/ari-fleischer-zings-msnbc-should-dems-denounce-keith-olbermann
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Ha! I love to see liberals squirm when their caught in their own hypocrisy.
If Republicans have to denounce Limbaugh as a far right extremist, then I fully expect the Democrats to do the same for not just Olbermann but also Michael Moore, Bill Maher, DL Hughley, or anyone in the MSM that wanted America to fail in the Iraq War.
I'll be here holding my breath. Someone call 911, if I start looking like a Smurf..
Their attack on Limbaugh is a thinly veiled diversionary tactic to distract people from the Democratic spending orgy, free fall in the market, and the administration's tax and cabinet scandals. So they bring up the Limbaugh boogieman that they used in the 90's.
It's the height of hypocrisy for the Democrats to chastise the Republicans to hold Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc against Obama as guilt by association. Then, they turn around and do the same to Republicans. They want to convict the GOP in court of public opinion of their guilt by association with Rush.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)