Online Left

Gaggle by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Air Force One en route South Bend, Indiana, 8/5/09

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                     August 5, 2009

PRESS GAGGLE
BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

Aboard Air Force One
En route South Bend, Indiana

10:48 A.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS:  How are you guys this morning?  How was the breakfast?

Q    Heavy.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  It looked a little heavy.

Q    Its apple pie.

MR. GIBBS:  Whats wrong with that?  Apple pie for breakfast sounds interesting.

Q    Did you have anything?

MR. GIBBS:  I had just a bagel.  It was more than I needed.

Fire away.

Q    President Obama said before he left that he had a conversation directly with President Clinton -- we hadnt heard that before.  Can you give us a bit of a readout about that?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, they talked for a few minutes right before President Obama went out to speak with you all about his reaction to the journalists being released.  The President thanked him for a great job and knew how much the families appreciated the Presidents trip and continued service to the country.  And I assume theyll -- I know they hope to get together sometime soon.

Q    The two Presidents?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Do you envision President Obama calling into service President Clinton in other ways?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, you know, this was a private mission that President Clinton did, and I know the President is enormously thankful for his service.  And look, I think if the President is ever looking for people to help, former Presidents are always a pretty good group to try.

Q    Robert, did the events of the past 24 hours change in any way the U.S. relationship with North Korea?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Mark, I think first and foremost, as Ive said and I think we talked about last night, this is -- we view these as different events.  And I would say secondly -- the best way to change our relationship with North Korea would be for the North Koreans to decide that its time to live up to the responsibilities and the agreements that they themselves entered into.  Our goal is a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.  And the North Koreans can and should live up to those agreements.

Q    Switching topics slightly and then we might go back to North Korea.  Do you have any reaction to the swearing-in of President Ahmadinejad in Iran today?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, let me correct a little bit of what I said yesterday.  I denoted that Mr. Ahmadinejad was the elected leader of Iran.  I would say its not for me to pass judgment on.  Hes been inaugurated, thats a fact.  Whether any election was fair, obviously the Iranian people still have questions about that and well let them decide that.  But I would simply say hes been inaugurated and we know that is simply a fact.

Q    Do you recognize him as the leader, elected fairly or not?

MR. GIBBS:  Its not for -- its not for me or for us to denote his legitimacy, except to acknowledge the fact.

Q    Does the White House believe the election was fair?

MR. GIBBS:  Thats not for us to pass judgment on.  I think thats for the Iranian people to decide, and obviously there are many that still have a lot of questions.

Q    A couple logistical questions.  Back on Korea, was the plane on the ground when the President spoke to Clinton, do you know?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.  This was -- President Obama called him from right outside the Oval Office after the two journalists and former Vice President Gore had spoken and before -- but before he went out and spoke.  So there were just a few minutes between there that they connected.

Q    Who paid for the plane for this private mission, and what kind of a plane was that?

MR. GIBBS:  Id direct that to the Clintons -- to Clintons group.  It was not a government aircraft and not paid for by the government.

Q    Not paid for --

MR. GIBBS:  Private mission.

Q    On today, Robert, why is today not a town hall meeting?

MR. GIBBS:  I dont know what the -- why the logistical set-up is what it is, except I know the President wants to go and make an announcement about some very important -- the largest investment in electric battery technology, and have a chance to -- ow, sorry, I twisted my ankle last week and just tweaked it again -- the President wants to share that news with a county in Indiana thats been hit tremendously hard.

Q    Just a quick follow -- no concern from you all that you are going to get a lot of questions about:  you were here in February, things have gotten worse, whats happening, why arent you doing more?

MR. GIBBS:  No, I mean, look, as I said earlier today, look, weve spent a lot of -- weve spent a lot of time in places that are bad off economically, and thats largely because most of the country is bad off economically.  I think if you look at some of the reports today, you know, there are elected officials in the county that are pleased with the impact of the recovery plan that its been able to have.  You know, youve got -- were going to announce a grant for this electric battery technology thats going to employ folks in a factory that once housed an RV manufacturer, which --

Q    How many?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me get it.  Its in the remarks.  And I know there are some, you know, there was I think a recent announcement that one of the RV companies is going to expand and bring some more people back.  So, look, the President will tell this community, as hes told many others, and what he told them in February, which is:  It took us a while to get here.  You know, a year ago, the unemployment rate was 10 points lower in this area of Indiana.  So this has built up over a year, and its going to take some time to dig our way out.

I think the President believes that the announcement today, though, represents the type of innovation and investment in a new economic foundation that can lay the groundwork for some long-term employment prospects for this area through clean-energy jobs.

Q    Can I follow on that, please, just to make sure I understand?

MR. GIBBS:  Sure.

Q    Im trying to figure out -- for the employees of this company, whats in this announcement for them?  Are they -- is this company getting any help, or this area specifically?

MR. GIBBS:  Well announce a specific -- a specific awarding grant as part of about I think $2.4 billion in battery -- electric battery grants throughout the country.  I forget how many individual ones, but this is one of them.

Q    But presumably the employees of this RV company are going to have an opportunity for new employment?  Im trying to make that connection.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, yes, I think whether its directed -- let me look through the remarks one more time, so I dont confuse the two.

Q    Robert, does the President have a feeling on why North Korea decided to let the two Americans go?

MR. GIBBS:  No.  I dont know that the President does and I havent heard anything -- anybody but staff.  I know, again, the call that we walked you guys through last night simply was that journalists had mentioned that the North Koreans had said to them this would be an avenue for release.

Q    Just one last question on that.  Did President Clinton brief President Obama today during their conversation about his talks with Kim Jong-il?

MR. GIBBS:  No, I mean, it wasnt long enough to do that.  At some point, I think very soon, members of the team of the NSC will sit down with President Clinton and get a debrief on the events, just as the NSC guys sat down with President Clinton before he left over the weekend.

Q    Did you say earlier that you think President Obama will meet with President Clinton?

MR. GIBBS:  Sometime soon.  Sometime soon.  I dont want to leave the impression that thats in the next few days.  Nothing is scheduled, but I know they both talked about hoping to get together soon.

Q    Did President Clinton have -- and you may have discussed this on the call last night -- any authorization to make any kind of offers or suggestions for rewards for releasing these journalists?

MR. GIBBS:  There were no messages that were passed.

All right?  Thanks, guys.

END
10:58 A.M. EDT
 

"

(Via White House News.)

Specter's Switch: From the Jaws of Victory

Tuesday's announcement that Senator Arlen Specter was switching parties should not necessarily be considered great news for Democrats. Other than the fact that there's one more "D" in the official Senate Directory, and that Specter successfully avoided a drubbing in the Pennsylvania Republican primary at the hands of the Club for Growth's candidate, President Obama risks losing a friendly vote in the Senate.

In the 2008 presidential election, Obama received 55% of the General Election vote. The only Republican with any chance of winning the general election in 2010 was Specter, and he couldn't get out of his own primary. Specter isn't switching to the Democratic party because the party has gone too far to the right. Specter is switching because, at 79 years old, he knows it's the only way to continue his political career. Unfortunately, Democrats fell for the head fake and welcomed Specter with open arms.

Specter's move was pure political genius.

If Specter remained a Republican, he loses the Republican primary to Pat Toomey. If recent polling is any indication, the race wouldn't even be close. Some have had the margin as high as 20 percent!

Toomey is simply too conservative for Pennsylvania. Toomey is Santorum-light, and we all know what happened to Santorum. The same would have happened to Toomey. Obama would have pulled out all the stops to win the seat, which the Dems would have easily done. What does Obama get? A loyal Democrat who votes with the President whenever he asks.

Instead, Obama and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, rush to welcome Specter to the party. Specter reported Obama and Reid's commitment of support for his 2010 election, while Specter was pledging his continued independence from either party. If Specter appreciates the president's support for furthering his political career, he has a funny way of showing it.

Specter may very well get a sixth term, but the president could surely have gotten a better deal. Rather than Specter telling Democrats not to expect an automatic vote for Obama's agenda, Pennsylvanians could give him a vote he could count on. He won't get that from Specter.

A popular president in a blue state could have done better than Arlen Specter under these conditions. There's always the threat that the fence-sitting, two-time party switcher, might attempt the hat trick.

Update: Read "The Runaway" in The New Republic.

Nebraska's Nelson Still On The Wrong Side

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Diploma Belt

Since the 1980s, Democrats have dramatically gained strength among the nation's best-educated large counties. Barack Obama carried 78 of the top 100.

National Journal, 2/21/09

Speed of Stimulus Most Important Factor

While economists remain divided on the role of government generally, an overwhelming number from both parties are saying that a government stimulus package -- even a flawed one -- is urgently needed to help prevent a steeper slide in the economy.

Many economists say the precise size and shape of the package developing in Congress matter less than the timing, and that any delay is damaging.
Economists Agree: Speed Matters More Than Size or Shape, Washinton Post, 02/08/08

On Face The Nation Sunday morning, Senator John McCain seemed to object to passage of the stimulus passage because its not bipartisan.

What rationale is that for rallying opposition to economic recovery? Republicans refuse to vote for the bill, and then object that it's a partisan solution? If Republicans supported economic recovery -- something they failed to do during the Bush years, it seems the least they could do at this point is to try to work with the new Administration to turn the economic disaster around.

I have been in bipartisan agreements, many. This [bill] is three Republican senators. Every Republican congressman voted against it in the House, plus eleven Democrats, and all but three Republicans stayed together [in opposition] on this. That's not bipartisanship; that’s just picking off a couple of Senators."

Republicans trotted out the one or two Democrats who supported their plans in recent years and loudly trumpeted the claim that the deal was bipartisan. Now that Democrats are doing the same with the three Republican Senators who have joined Democrats in supporting the stimulus package, McCain has a different definition for bipartisan.

McCain has done nothing but remind us how right the people were to elect President Obama.

He was a poor campaigner, and he now shows us how poorly he will lead the Republicans in the Senate.

If Republicans refuse to cooperate with President Obama and Democrats in the Senate and the House, there will never be bipartisan cooperation. If Republicans think that somehow enhances their standing in the eyes of the voters, I think they've made a terrible mistake.

Republicans should rethink their position. Action is needed now. To do anything other would be a terrible mistake, and one that Republicans will live to regret.

Coleman Dealt Blow in Court

The Minnesota Supreme Court today dealt a setback to GOP Sen. Norm Coleman, rejecting his campaign's motion to count 650 rejected absentee ballots and clearing the way today for the state Canvassing Board to declare Democrat Al Franken the winner of the November election.

The board's decision is certain to lead to another court challenge by the Coleman camp, which will extend the contest for at least several more weeks. "Given our campaign's unwavering commitment to ensuring that the vote of no Minnesotan is disenfranchised, today's ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court is both disappointing and disheartening," Coleman attorney Fritz Knaak said in a statement.

"The fact that the Franken campaign now rejects the notion of every valid vote being counted so they can attempt to declare victory on the basis of a broken process, and an artificial lead built on double counting of votes should concern all Minnesotans." For his part, Franken attorney Marc Elias said the ruling "once again affirmed the validity of the rules under which this recount was conducted. Minnesotans have waited a long time for a winner to be declared in this race, and today, with the last attempt to halt the counting process now having failed, Al Franken will be declared the winner." Senate Majority Leader Reid called on Coleman to give up. "I would hope now that it is clear he lost, that Sen. Coleman follow his own advice and not subject the people of Minnesota to a costly legal battle."

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

A constitutional question that maybe someone can answer.

Does the phrase, "the legislature of any State may empower the executive, also mean that the legislature may refuse to empower the executive? Or, does the election of the governor automatically empower him or her to make the "temporary appointment?

Bye Norm

Minnesota's highest court on Wednesday ruled against Republican Sen. Norm Coleman's attempt to keep dozens of possible double votes from Democratic-heavy precincts out of the long-running U.S. Senate recount, but left the door open for a lawsuit.

The state Supreme Court unanimously denied Coleman's request for a temporary restraining order to block the votes, which the Coleman campaign contended were duplicates that mostly favored Democratic rival Al Franken. The court upheld the state Canvassing Board's ruling on the matter.

Lieberman Likely to Avoid Dem Retribution

Several news outlets are reporting that Senator Joe Lieberman will avoid loss of his committee tomorrow, when Senate Democrats meet in caucus.

Lieberman, who faced expulsion from the Democratic caucus, or stripping him of his committee chairmanship, may, instead lose the chairmanship of a subcommittee. Lieberman has apparently agreed to the loss of the subcommittee chairmanship.

Once again, weak-kneed Democrats have caved to Republicans, and Independent-Democrats (also known as Republicans) like Lieberman. No act could be more threatening to a political party than to have its leading members declare his, or her colleagues unqualified, unpatriotic, and untrusthy while that person is permitted to lend aid and comfort to the [political] enemy.

If Lieberman escapes tomorrow with the minor kick in the pants as reported, Democrats should prepare a guidance memo for future occurrences. It's very likely to happen again, and most likely involving Senator Lieberman.

Maybe if they showed spine, they might be able to work together to forge the 60-seat, filibuster-proof, majority. Instead, they'll be stepping lightly, hoping to not take a knife in the back from the Independent-Democrat (Republican) from Connecticut.

Education Spending & Obama Votes

On October 26, I wrote a post, Dumb People Vote Republican, making the suggestion that the less educated among the electorate votes Republican, while those with more education vote for the Democratic candidate.

To validate the hypothesis, I reviewed the per-pupil spending in the 50 states, based on census data from a report prepared in 2006 (latest year data was available).

Not surprisingly, among the top 20 states in per-student spending, only two, Wyoming(#8) and Alaska(#13) voted Republican in the 2008 election. Is that proof that the less educated vote Republican, while the most educated vote for the Democrat? What it does prove is that, at least in 2008, those states in which funding for students is highest, the electorate supported Senator Obama, the Democrat, for president.

The following table summarizes the census data, giving rank, state, per-pupil spending, and the winner of that state's electoral votes.

Rank	Location	Spending	Voted
1	DC	18,332	Obama
2	NY	16,800	Obama
3	NJ	16,743	Obama
4	CT	14,893	Obama
5	HI	14,799	Obama
6	MA	14,782	Obama
7	VT	14,329	Obama
8	WY	13,329	McCain
9	RI	13,279	Obama
10	DE	13,143	Obama
11	PA	12,942	Obama
12	MD	12,430	Obama
13	AK	12,299	McCain
14	NH	11,753	Obama
15	ME	11,709	Obama
16	OH	11,606	Obama
17	WI	11,160	Obama
18	IN	11,028	Obama
19	MN	11,010	Obama
20	MI	10,900	Obama

I'm sure there are differing arguments for what this data shows.

Yet, at the same time, I think it's hard to argue with the fact that the bottom five include Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Idaho. If that doesn't support my point, I'd certainly like to know why not.

Do dumb people vote Republican? Maybe not. One thing we know is that where education spending is less, Republicans have a better chance of winning.

Would Republican politicians intentionally depress education spending in hopes of maintaining their advantages in states they control?