I saw this yesterday and was astounded by the question finally being asked in the White House press room.
Knoller: When he (Obama) says he wants to work on the people’s business, which people is he talking about -- the people that elected Rand Paul and Marco Rubio or the people that reelected Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
MR. GIBBS: Well, what they have in common is they’re Americans.
Knoller: That’s about it. (Laughter.) Well, I mean, they have irreconcilable differences, don’t they?
MR. GIBBS: You know, the President spent a lot of time traveling around the country, and I think he always said that there were -- we tend to put people in boxes and all that sort of stuff on television and everybody disagrees on this and everybody disagrees on that.
I think that -- I haven’t been in a room with those leaders, per se, but I bet if people listen long enough they’d find things that they agree on. They’d find things that they could work on.
Is everybody’s -- is the solution that everybody brings to the beginning of that meeting going to be what we all walk out with? Probably not. It’s going to take some give-and-take on each side. That’s the way we’re likely to make progress.
I don’t -- again, I don’t think there’s anything in this country that would have you believe that the message that people took away from this campaign was gridlock, more arguing, more bickering, more partisan, more not working together -- I don’t -- people ran against the way this town works. And to go back to the way it’s always operated would be the wrong message.
Knoller: On the Republican side, it seems they ran against give-and-take, compromise. They don’t want gridlock, either. They want you to surrender.
MR. GIBBS: And wasn’t that largely the message -- wasn’t that what they said drove them to run for office because somehow that happened on the other side? Again, I think that’s an incongruence that is maybe a subtlety that’s lost during the back-and-forth of a political campaign. But you don’t make progress -- and you’re certainly not going to make progress in a divided government saying, my way or the highway. You’re going to end up with a lot more of what drove people away from having faith in both parties and in their government.
And I don’t think that’s what the American people want to see. I don’t think they want to see an endless recitation of last week’s battles, because we have problems that we haven’t faced and that we haven’t dealt with and that we know if we don’t are going to put us at a competitive economic advantage [sic] as it relates to the rest of the world. And I know that’s not what -- the President doesn’t want to see that, and I think you have a good number of Republicans that believe that, too, Mark.
Uh, huh. Forget Gibbs' talking around the subject, Knoller has put his finger on the $64 million question. Are we one country or two?
I think we'll find out shortly.
Mike
III
24 comments:
We are two countries BUT there are no clean boundaries. You can sort of divide the country into red counties and blue counties but even in those, a substantial minority (30% to 40%) of the other side exists in each county.
We have the countryside, large parts of the suburbs, and the vast majority of the productive agricultural, commodity, and manufacturing on our side. We have most of the South (Virginia and states to the south), the mountain states, and the farm/plains states on our side. We also have central Pennsylvannia (all of the state except Philadelphia and Pittsburg and their suburbs) and parts of upstate New York (but not NYC, Long Island, Albany, Westchester county, or Buffalo).
They have the cities / urban areas, the unproductive masses, the media industry, the entertainment industry, and much of the banking and finance industry on their side. Worse, they have multiple clusters that are surrounded by red areas - including the Northeast from Maryland through Maine, Chicago, the Denver metro area, a cluster in Raleigh/Durham NC, and the Pacific Northwest.
Any civil war scenario could get very ugly very quickly because there are no clear boundaries and you literally have brother against brother / neighbor against neighbor conflict.
Richard
Personally I'm stunned at how obtuse they all seem to be. Dear Reader talking about how he just didn't explain his plans well enough? No, jackass - we got it, and WE REJECTED IT!
Likewise the whole"gridlock vs. compromise" bit. I'll take gridlock for six TRILLION, Alex...
NO MORE COMPROMISES!
We think a.gov shutdown would be a VERY GOOD thing!
Personally I'd be happiest if they spend the next two years repeatedly voting to repeal obamacare. Let him veto, then bring it back again and again.
The Enemy made the rules: "we won the election, now we do what we want and f**k you if you don't like it. It's long past time we start following the rules THEY made.
This time**WE** won. Time to start acting like it....
We're approximately four countries.
We know we Southrons are held to the Union at gunpoint.
Yankees in the South are like Russians in Ukraine, and about as welcome.
Simple answer.
There's the 70% law abiding, fair minded, Freedom, Constitution and bill of rights loving Americans, who just want to be left alone, and then there's the 20% Marxist and Marxism enabling class, who have varying degrees of mental disabilities, megalomania, world domination issues and fetishes, who know the truth and conceal it because it threatens to destroy them, and their ambitions, if it becomes generally known.
Then there's the 10% who don't have a clue, don't want to know, or who's brain it hurts to consider matters more pressing than star bucks and social gossip if they can pry themselves away from the comedy channel long enough to consider anything other than themselves and their own little world.
Oh yeah I forgot. In that Marxist class, there is about 0.5% who are truly evil, and do have the most evil intentions towards those who simply want to live, and be left alone. Then there is the 0.0025% opportunistic politician class who are easily dealt with but for the aforementioned lack of truthful information, which always somehow ends up benefiting the evil segment.
I can pretty much read this map.
This guy Gibbs should be on "dancin' with stars"
Aha.(Some in) Big Media realizing that opposition to the most "dih-VISS-ive" president ever's unconstitutional, anti-American big-government socialist policies is NOT racism? Only took a year and a half.
One country or two?
Not that simple - it's more like one or many. There are political, economic, racial, and religious divisions that cannot simply be papered over. The Goreacle may yet get his "E unum, pluribus"
Talk about inflation !
I remember when it was the $64,000 question. Not the $64 Million Dollar question !
Dan
III
Oh, we're now back to one big, happy family again in this new spirit of compromise and bipartisanship.
One or Two Countries? I think it's more like Two or Three if not even Four different countries. Just look around our society is divided into camps multiple ideologies. Ihave traveled around a bit and too many times I have wondered Just Where The Heck Am I.
Dennis
III
Texas
I absolutely feel that we are 2 countries. I look at liberals with such disdain and disgust I wouldn't piss on one of them if they were on fire.
10 Bucks says 2 countries. One BIG one and one teeny tiny (but immensely important in it's own mind) one. We're in the big one. Obama and the hard-core left are in the tiny one.
We'll see whether we have to communicate our will by force of arms.
Bad Cyborg X
I am voting at least two!
Sorry but I had to leave CA for a reason...
s4r
III
Nine, Mike. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America
Pat H., how many enemies do you need? I kinda figured if we all believe in the Constition we were on the same side.
The more you identify yourself with a nation the more you are denying your nature as an individual. Those who harbor fears of inadequacy seek identity in institutional groups - in other words an expansion of their ego boundary to dilute their sense of powerlessness.
Recommended reading: Butler Shaffer's Calculated Chaos and then Boundaries of Order.
Unbelievable! Some of you thunk that when TSHTF in this country, there are going to be 2 ... maybe 3 sides.
Of course, when you have been indoctrinated by the "2 party system" ... there can only be ... 2 sides!
You guys are a riot!
Good luck on the ... Maginot Line. ;)
two and they can have the northeast We will take the rest. West coast can go their way too. Fabin buttheads, the turtle and the wolf in sheeps clothes. They will never stop.
If 3pers are everywhere, there must be an underclass that is not welcome in the South (according to PAT H). If you can't get over the Civil War, or whatever you prefer to call it, how can you expect blacks clamoring for reparations to get over slavery?
APK38
Anonymous at 9:39 AM, I think you got the percentages and motivations wrong. Here's my take:
There's the 1% artists, dropouts, and libertarian anarchists, who just want to be left alone; and then there's the 99% Marxist and Marxism enabling class, who call themselves Democrats and Republicans, who have varying degrees of fear of the dark, world domination issues and fetishes, who know that taxes are stealing but conceal it because it threatens to destroy their personalities from a crisis of faith in government, if it becomes generally known.
Perhaps 1 in 1,000 are personally willing to be hands-on violent predators. In a free country these goblins would quickly be shot in the act by their victims.
"Divide and conquer."
Get it?
If we allow The Enemy(ies) to continue to balkanize us by ever more subtle degrees of difference (whether racial, economic, political/philosophic, religious) Then...
We. Will. Lose.
...any chance to restore Liberty or transmit it's blessings and principles to posterity.
If we do it to ourselves with vain argument over the details, especially those of political philosophy, then, to quote Pogo:
"We have met the Enemy, and he is us."
The enemy class in this country is very small, numerically. We out number them by a wide margin, and not just in the hinterlands. They control the Big Megaphone and the dependent voter blocks. That's all they have.
If votes don't count, if the govteat dries up, if the incessant Big Lie is silenced, we take the country back.
What does it take to accomplish those three things?
The elimination of their enablers. And remember, the votes don't 'count', er, matter.
1 in 1000, seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
How's about when SHTF and this goes away:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program
The number of Americans receiving food stamps reached 39.68 million in February 2010, the highest number since the SNAP program began in 1939.[4] As of June 2009, the average monthly benefit was $133.12 per person.[5] As of late November 2009, one in eight Americans and one in four children[6] are using food stamps and the program rate is growing at 20,000 people a day.[7] Recipients must have at least near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits.[8]
If we allow The Enemy(ies) to continue to balkanize us by ever more subtle degrees of difference (whether racial, economic, political/philosophic, religious)
The trick here is to identify which differences are artificial and which are fundamental. If you believe that all men are the same, you're the one who's been indoctrinated.
The enemy class in this country is very small, numerically.
The state is powerful, but it is but one faction in the coming war. But even if you're correct, they seem to have a large section of the population fooled enough to relish the thought of our demise. If you have some way of convincing them of the truth, be my guest, but until then they are de facto also the enemy.
"1 in 1000, seriously?"
I don't think food stamp recipients are personally willing to be hands-on violent predators. Not too many years back, Wisconsin I think it was shut down their state food welfare program entirely, with a year's notice. Nearly everyone found they could actually work to support themselves if they had to. There weren't riots, crime waves, or other violent behavior.
As for the current prison population rate, first subtract all the drug related non-crimes. Shrink it to the lowest rate of any first world country. Then imagine there are no longer any tax-funded prisons, as the purpose of prison is to be makework for the government. Anyone who makes a death threat in the course of a crime gets shot by the victim. If the victim or their rescuers is able to capture them, the criminal is faced with execution unless they choose to pay for imprisonment at their own expense. Non-violent thieves get the alternatives of execution, or being fitted with a tracking bracelet while they work to repay what they stole. How much will all of this dissuade criminality?
If the current system has a sudden breakdown, there may be a short-term burst of self-defense necessary to correct the mistakes of the previous justice system. I'm not counting that in my 1 in 1000. But don't underestimate laziness. People are not going to get off their couches and go on a rampage when they could instead merely work an honest job, in a vastly lower-tax and lower-regulation environment where they can actually support themselves by working an unskilled job.
Post a Comment