Gibbs on NY-23: “Anger Can Get You 45% of the Vote”
By Don | November 4, 2009
White House press secretary gives the White House line on yesterday's election results.
From ABC News' Jake Tapper
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today said that Republican gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey do not portend anything for President Obama, but the dynamics and the Democratic candidate's success in the special election in Upstate New York has ramifications for the GOP.
"I think the data from the gubernatorial races demonstrates that voters went to the polls in those two contests to talk about and work though very local issues that didn't involve the president," Gibbs said, invoking exit polls indicating that most voters in those two states said that President Obama was not a factor in their votes.
In the New York race, Gibbs said, "we watched a party pick a candidate and then purge that candidate. And I think the result was an election (in which) that district sent its first non-Republican to Congress since before the Civil War."
Referring to tea party activists and other conservatives supporting Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, Gibbs said the result of the race "proves that anger can get you 45% of the vote."
Gibbs said that President Obama did not watch election returns. He called Democratic losing candidates Creigh Deeds in Virginia and Gov. Jon Corzine in New Jersey, but has yet to call the victors in those two races, Governor-elect Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Governor-elect Chris Christie of New Jersey.
"He wanted them to enjoy their night with their families and supporters but will talk to them today," Gibbs said.
The White House spokesman also took an opportunity to take a shot at the wording of an exit poll question that resulted in almost 90% of respondents in Virginia and New Jersey saying they're "concerned" about the economy.
"There was a question on the exit poll – I think it was worded, ‘are you worried or not worried about the economy,'" Gibbs said. "Ten percent said they weren't worried – I've not the slightest idea who those people are. If the President has been asked by an exit poller yesterday ‘Are you concerned about the economy' he would have said, ‘Yes.'"
Yes the Democrats captured a Republican seat but it that was due more to the failings of the GOP leadership in NY who picked a liberal candidate to run rather than holding a primary to see who the voters preferred. For a guy who had no party support until Scozzafava dropped out Hoffman's showing may be indicative that the Republicans will be able to retake that seat next year.
As for the exit poll question I'm glad to know that the president is concerned about the economy, it's just too bad for the country that he doesn't have a clue on how to fix it.
Post #2441
7 Comments | Post a Comment
a guy that less than a month ago, no one gave a snow ball’s chance in hell just got 45% of the vote and lost by 4%.
And probably would have won if not for the turncoat.
Liberals heard it loud and clear. They are just in denial.
Computer Guy,
That is exactly why he wanted ACORN to do the U.S. Census, was to redraw districts around the country.
The only difference between Obama and Nero, is the date in which it happened, and where.
danhat, I could not agree more…Hammer-Nail-Head.
He obviously does not want a free market, freedom of speech…If you want to really know what the man is all about, Google: “Cloward & Pivens”, you will see the similarities.
Guys, I grew up in District #23 and can tell you that the people up there are traditionally VERY conservative!
Well, here’s the thing. As danhat said: “a guy that less than a month ago, no one gave a snow ball’s chance in hell just got 45% of the vote and lost by 4%.” At this point in time, our country is in such turmoil that even someone who was virtually unknown by many of us (outside of Illinois) before campaigning for President was ALSO elected to the highest office in our country! I think there is something in our society that has become SYSTEMICALLY ill, and that illness is not going to be easily cured by one district’s election over another’s.
Hey Jeffie,
The Republicans did not turn their backs on Scozzafava, hell she should have never been allowed to run for the Republicans (who did not support Hoffman until that “Female Dog” b*t*h) showed she was more liberal than Pelosi or Boxer.
If fact, she souled run only to lose weight, never for Office again…not when you try to deceive the other party by running as a Republican…It just does not get lower than her deceit. Well, unless you are a Liberal, they seem to love cheating, such as those ballots all of a sudden showed up to tip the race against Colman. That was just a litter too obvious, about the ONLY thing which has been Transparent in this Government.
Jeffie
America is 60% conservative. I do not know all the details on Hoffman. A run off instead of an appointment of Scozzafava might have been nice.
I guess my point is that, regardless of the process on how she was selected, she was not conservative; and most likely, not even republican, given her support of the Dem.
Yes, we need a bigger tent but conservatives do not need people like Scozzafava in their party. She was called out for what she is and she deserved to go down in flames.
danhat, that is what the media didn’t want you to know about, was Hoffman, who was eventually supported by the GOP, but by then it was too late.
Hoffman did with him as most Republican / Conservitivs do, we look as deeply into their backgound as much as possible before throwing our support behinde someone, unlike the Demcats who just accept who is running regardless if his or her views.
I said what I did about her weight not to be hatful, buy as a comparison as to what Corzine and the Media said about Chris Christie’s weight.
Now you actually have democrats berating the Repblicans for tossing her (Scuzzyfava - not a misspelling) aside. Whereas the democrats are always eating their own, and throwing them under the bus. Hell, she is left of Chavez.
Good ole Joe Lieberman, and a few Fiscally Blue Dog Demorats may aLso be agains both Bills, and could cause a fillibuster. I cannot help but worder what these Blue Dogs, are being told and or being promised to changing thier Values.
I do not think Obama Care will pass the Senate.
Can not help but wonder what ever happened to Treason…Never thought I would see the day when we would allow groups such as the CP-USA active in the USA, or Adminstration Officials giving speeches praising Chairman Mao. Celebrities going to Cuba and Venezuela and paling arourd with dictators while an embargo has been put on the country, should face the punishment for breaking travle restrictions.
Sean Peen is one of the worst violators, the others are Alec Baldwin, Danny Glover. Sean Peen may have won and Oscar from the pitiful film “Milk”, but is was not about box office receipts, the movie lost hunrdeds of million dollars. The Movie Channle Showtime refused to show it when it came to premium cable, But I will be dropping HBO, hell…I just may cancel all the Premium Channles.
If you take the Constitution’s Art. II Sec. 4, “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. and Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8 on Impeachment of the President, Obama already qualifies…
————————————-
Presidential Impeachment
Impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.
When a person takes an oath (or affirmation) before giving testimony, he is assuming the role of an official, that of “witness under oath”, for the duration of his testimony. That official position entails a special obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and in that capacity, one is punishable in a way he would not be as an ordinary person not under oath. Therefore, perjury is a high crime.
An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.
However “high crimes and misdemeanors” also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is “preponderance of evidence”. Holding a particular office of trust is not a right, but a privilege, and removal from such office.
An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able, to “lay them at the feet” of the president. It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs. The president’s subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by “plausible deniability”. He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.
Therefore, the appropriate subject matter for an impeachment and removal proceeding is the full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied. The massacre at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and many, many other illegal or excessive assaults by federal agents, and the failure of the president to take action against the offenders, is more than enough to justify impeachment and removal from office on grounds of dereliction of duty. To these we could add the many suspicious incidents that indicate covered up crimes by federal agents, including the suspicious deaths of persons suspected of being knowledgeable of wrongdoing by the president or others in the executive branch, or its contractors.
The impeachment and removal process should be a debate on the entire field of proven and suspected misconduct by federal officials and agents under this president, and if judged to have been excessive by reasonable standards, to be grounds for removal, even if direct complicity cannot be shown.
I think he is already committed enough to warrant Impeachment, and Eric Holder is doing all he can to un-associate Obama from ACORN and it’s other 361 entities thus proving he and many of his Cabinet Members are involved in Corruption, Fraud, and lying to the People of this Country.
One such offense is the hiring of Czars for long-term employment, and not having them vetted properly by the FBI, possibly even knowing of their crimes. Not to mention that he has lied about not working with the Domestic Terror group, The Weather Underground. Not only William Ayers, but also the co-founder of the terror organization, Jim Jones…White House national security adviser, not to mention him and Van Jones has past criminal records…
It is illegal to take away or freedom of choice, by trying to force us to pay thousands of dollars in fines and possibly jail time as well if someone does not choose to purchase Health Care. Not to mention the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Obama, his Cabinet, Czars, and Liberals in both Houses are already attempting to limit Free Speech.
November 5 at 2:25 am | #1 | Link
Gibbs is bringing up a district in upper NY state. But did anybody notice the boundaries of that upper NY district? I can’t imagine they looked like the gerrymandered boundaries going back to the civil war days. Part of the disconnect is that these districts have been drawn so as to marginalize constituent voices.
But seriously, The President didn’t do the family thing, and he didn’t watch the elections. O.K. there had to be pressing official business… no, he was watching the HBO special about himself. Doesn’t that just about say it all? At least Nero was fiddling while Rome burned. He wasn’t looking into a reflection pool at himself.