White House Press Corps.org

Q Following up on Bill's question, the Post poll this morning has 49 percent of the country believes the President can and will make the right decision; that's down from 60 at the 100-day mark. Fifty-five percent in the poll -- I know it's just one poll -- pretty seriously believe the country is on the wrong track. And I'm just wondering if the White House --

MR. GIBBS: I think that's down significantly -- what was that number in November of last year?

Q I can't tell you. I don't know.

MR. GIBBS: I think it was in the 70s, but go ahead.

Q It's different than it was in January or February, in a negative sense. I'm just wondering if you have any -- or the White House has any anxiety that the broader health care debate is not just changing the numbers possibly temporarily on the health care question, but is having a material effect on the way the entire presidency is being viewed, and the way the public retains confidence in the presidency.

MR. GIBBS: Look, the short answer would be no based on the fact that one of the numbers you didn't discuss is the President, in that poll, his overall approval rating is at 57 percent -- a fairly healthy number for a President's approval rating. But --

Q -- gave you all the numbers you'd have nothing to say.

MR. GIBBS: I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to fill in what's left. Look, I think the President would be the first to tell you, as he said throughout this, that this is a complex issue and that health care reform has never been easy and that this process is one that is messy. I don't doubt that -- look, if you look and just -- if you ask people -- again, going back to some of these other polling -- if you're seeing information that as a result of this bill 55 percent of the American people believe illegal immigrants are going to get health care as a result of this bill, despite the fact that the bill prohibits that -- I don't doubt that that weighs down on people's perception of the bill if a majority of the people think something that we know is knowingly untrue and that if people continue to hear that, something that's knowingly untrue is repeated.

Q Well, I wasn't driving nearly so much as the poll numbers on health care itself, but on the overall view of the presidency and his ability to bring change or be effective or retain the confidence of the American people, because there is some indication that the numbers have dipped here, during the intensity of this health care debate. I'm just asking you, is there a broader effect here on the White House?

MR. GIBBS: Look, we'll continue to evaluate that, but I'll tell you, Major, whether it's looking at -- I think you can look at any poll before the President made a decision about extending money to the automobile companies so they didn't go out of business -- not necessarily the most popular thing. Increasing our troop strength in Afghanistan wasn't necessarily the most popular thing.

Those are decisions, though, that the President believes was in the best interest -- in the automobile decision, about the economy; in the Afghanistan decision, about our national security and ultimately in our national interest.

So we'll certainly continue to look at them, but the President will continue to make decisions on what he believes is important and the steps that have to be taken on the economy or on our national security or on health care based on what he thinks is in the country's best interest. Whether or not it starts out or at the midpoint is less popular, that's our job to fix.

Obama Administration | Polls | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: Obama Administration, Polls, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:17:00 PM

Gibbs Doublethink - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 8/18/09
— Wednesday, August 19, 2009 —

Q What's been the response so far to the suggestion that the health care reform might not include a public option? I mean, is it winning any converts? Is it angering supporters?

MR. GIBBS: First part of the question again?

Q What's been the response so far, what kind of feedback to the suggestion in recent days that a public option might not be part of the health care reform?

MR. GIBBS: Well, as I've said, now, yesterday and earlier today, the President -- his position, the administration's position is unchanged; that we have a goal of fostering choice and competition in a private health insurance market. The President prefers the public option as a way of doing that. If others have ideas, we're open to those ideas and willing to listen to those details. That's what the President has said for months. Coincidentally that's what the Secretary of Health and Human Services has said for months. It's what I've said for months. I think the suggestion somehow that anything that was said Saturday or Sunday as being new administration policy is just not something that I would agree with.

Q There seems to have been a lot of people -- a lot of people took it as kind of floating a trial balloon, maybe looking for --

MR. GIBBS: Meaning the media.

Q Well, no, your supporters -- some of your supporters in Congress actually do read it as a change. And in fact, Robert, if you look at what the President said to the AMA on June 15th, he said, "The public option is not your enemy. It is your friend." He's not saying that anymore.

MR. GIBBS: What do you mean?

Q He's no longer proactively -- forgetting about what he's leaving in or out. Let's just say he's proactively saying --

MR. GIBBS: Ed, you --

Q Can I finish my question?

MR. GIBBS: No, I'll finish my answer first.

Q Okay, go ahead.

MR. GIBBS: The President was clear in two questions that he received at the town hall meeting on Saturday about the public option. The second question, which was a man in a red shirt over on the right-hand side, asked about the public option, and then the second-to-last question, the guy -- about the debate -- in the second or third row right off the podium, had the same question.

Let me read this to you, Ed. This is -- you'll notice -- let me just read -- Secretary Sebelius, July 12th, 2009: "I think you're going to hear from senators in a little while about a variety of strategies to get to a public option. This isn't one size fits all. I think the President has said we could have competition -- the issues of competition and choice and how to bring that into the private marketplace. There are probably a variety of strategies, all of which are on the table."

Any guess on what network that was on?

Q I'm assuming it was on CNN, but on Sunday she was also on CNN --

MR. GIBBS: A very correct assumption.

Q Okay. So on Sunday she was also on CNN and said that the public option is not the essential part of health reform. She didn't say that on July 12th or whenever you picked that out. And in -- on June 15th to the AMA, repeatedly the President proactively said, you know, the public option was the way to go, and said the public --

MR. GIBBS: I just said it was the preferred option. I just said it was the preferred option. But what I think --

Q But then why did he on Saturday say, if there is a public option or there's not, and then the Secretary on Sunday says it's not the essential part --

MR. GIBBS: No, no, the President said that on Saturday.

Q Right, I said on Saturday, he said if there is one or not one -- he hasn't said that before. Well, answer that one part before you get -- he had not said if there is one or there is not one. He's not said that --

MR. GIBBS: The President said -- the President has said repeatedly that he's open to different ideas and discussions; that his preferred option was the public plan. He said that on Saturday. He said that on -- he said that on Saturday. I said that on Sunday. Secretary Sebelius on your network said that on Sunday. This notion that somehow something is markedly changed -- let's understand, first of all -- I want to step back just for one second and discuss -- because we threw around the notions of choice and competition. Let's discuss why you need choice and competition.

In an insurance market where 30 million or 40 million or 46 million new participants or consumers could come into the marketplace, in a marketplace that's potentially dominated by, in some regions or areas of the country, one insurer dominating the market -- my home state of Alabama, BlueCross/BlueShield has roughly 89 percent of the private health insurance market, okay? We all understand that in a monopoly, where one side dominates the entire market, it's going to be hard to keep down costs, right? If you had one place to eat lunch before you came to the briefing, do you think it would be cheap?

Q Probably not.

MR. GIBBS: Probably not. If you had two places to eat, my sense is competing dishes might not be as expensive as if there were only one.

The notion of adding that consumer choice through greater competition is the goal that the President has always said has to be paramount. When he talks about the essentialness of health care reform, okay, let's understand the principles that he's put up there, right? We have to cut costs for families and small businesses. That's essential. It has to be deficit-neutral. That's essential. What's essential is ensuring that we provide accessibility in health care reform to millions of those who don't currently have it.

Q So when you say a public option is now the President's preferred choice, has been and is his preferred choice, is it --

MR. GIBBS: I'm not just saying that now, I'm saying --

Q Okay.

MR. GIBBS: -- I said that repeatedly; the President has said that repeatedly.

Q Okay, so is the public option an essential part of health reform?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President answered that on Saturday.

Q So it's yes. So why did --

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no.

Q Why did the Health Secretary say no on Sunday?

MR. GIBBS: What did the President say on Saturday?

Q So it is essential.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no. What did the President --

Q It is essential. The Secretary said Sunday it's not.

MR. GIBBS: Ed, Ed, what did the President say on Sunday? Or Saturday?

Q Saturday he spoke positively about a public option but also said we could have or -- we may have it, we may not have it.

MR. GIBBS: I think he used the word "essential."

Q I'll have to go back and see if he used the word "essential."

MR. GIBBS: You go back and look at the transcript --

Q So let's say, let's say -- I don't have the transcript, but if he did use the word "essential" on Saturday, why did his Health Secretary not use the word "essential" on Sunday?

MR. GIBBS: They said the same thing on Saturday as they did on Sunday. Go back and look at the transcript, Ed. I think you'll find --

Q If it's essential, why did she say it's not? You can't answer that.

MR. GIBBS: Go find the transcript, and I promise you you'll answer your question and wonder why you were phrasing it the way you did because, no offense, Ed, you seem to have heard what the Secretary said on Sunday but not what the President said on Saturday.

Q I heard what he said.

MR. GIBBS: Well, go back and take a gander at the transcript.

Labels: Health Care, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:28:00 AM

A Boring Consistency To Our Rhetoric - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 8/17/09
— Tuesday, August 18, 2009 —

Q Public option -- is it dead or not?

MR. GIBBS: I got to tell you, this is one of the more curious things I've ever seen in my life. I was on a Sunday show, I said the same thing about a public option that I've said for I don't know how many weeks. The Secretary reiterated what the President said the day before, and you'd think there was some new policy.

Q The language appeared to be --

MR. GIBBS: The language "appeared" to be?

Q Well, the language on Saturday -- the President made -- saying that the public option was only a sliver, and whether it's in it or it isn't in it seems to move the ball a little bit from where you guys were. No?

MR. GIBBS: No. I think you can go back and find the President saying -- look, the President has said that's his preference, but the President has also said I don't know how many times if the goals are choice and competition, right, the reason you have a public option is because you have an insurance market that doesn't have choice or competition. If somebody is trying to seek private insurance on -- private health insurance on a private market and only has -- because this happens in some areas or in some states where there's one insurance company that does business in that region, that that is -- that doesn't ensure the type of affordability and quality that you'd want to see in a health insurance system.

So you have some competition that provides some choice, so that if a family of four might have different insurance needs than a single person or a couple that's married with no children or what have you. The goals are choice and competition. His preference is a public option. If there are other ideas, he's happy to look at them. Because I think his -- I think this is true not only for the issue of health care, but for virtually every other issue that he'll ever deal with in public life is he has goals about what he wants to accomplish and he's not necessarily wedded to one -- only one way of getting there. I think he's said that a hundred times.

Q Just to be completely clear, has anything changed on the public option?

MR. GIBBS: No. I challenge you guys all to go back and see what we've said about this over the course of many, many, many, many months, and you'll find a boring consistency to our rhetoric.

Q The rhetoric, as you say, might be consistent, but the movement on the ground, so to speak, toward legislation hasn't been. Is there any recognition now that a public option is looking less likely to be part of a final deal?

MR. GIBBS: Let me make sure I understand your question, because I want to know if it's -- is this predicated on legislative developments since Congress has been out of session, or are we trying to match the stampede of a series of stories to if not the consistent language that we've all been saying to some now legislative vote?

Q It's just looking more and more likely that a public option is not going to be part of the final bill. I'm wondering if the White House is --

MR. GIBBS: I do think -- can I just -- I want to point out the -- how do I phrase this -- massive irony that I don't know that I saw any of your stories denote the fact that this might be -- that you're surmising now this was a political reality rather than --

Q That's what we're asking.

MR. GIBBS: I understand, but did you think from the phrasing of Julianna's question that we might be coming to justify a series of stampeding stories in one direction based on something different than what we've always said?

Q But you guys have -- you haven't exactly come out publicly since Sebelius' statement yesterday, come in front of the cameras to speak to us, to downplay --

MR. GIBBS: Because nothing has changed.

Q But you haven't downplayed the remarks and the coverage either.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, I think many people talked to you all yesterday. I think people sent e-mails. David Axelrod called people.

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. GIBBS: I didn't get an e-mail from you. Nothing has changed. I mean, we can go out and say nothing has changed, but that seems sort of silly since nothing has changed.

Look, in terms of the political realities, obviously there's a public plan -- or public option in the House bill. There is a public option in the HELP bill. I don't know what the Senate Finance Committee will come out with.

Labels: Air Force One, Health Care, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:20:00 AM

Bounce Backs - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 8/13/09
— Thursday, August 13, 2009 —

Q Robert, a couple things on public option. It wasn't listed in the e-mail that David Axelrod sent out today where he was defining principal goals for health care reform. By my reading of it, I didn't see any mention of a public option as a mechanism of achieving what you just outlined. Was that an oversight or is this -- are there other --

MR. GIBBS: I'd have to go back and reread the e-mail.

Q Are there other priorities that take a higher precedent --

MR. GIBBS: Well, again --

Q -- for the President than a public option?

MR. GIBBS: Let me be clear -- I thought I was a minute ago, but I'll take another whack at it -- this is an option that provides choice and competition in an otherwise narrow or closed insurance market. That's the President's goal, is to ensure that if you didn't get your health insurance through your employer, you didn't have those type of options, that you would have something that might compete with the only game in town. That's -- I think that's in David's e-mail, choice and competition.

Q Speaking of the e-mail, how was the list for who would receive it determined?

MR. GIBBS: I believe it's for people that have signed up to receive e-mail updates from the White House.

Q The reason I ask is I have received e-mails from people who did not, in any way, shape, or form, seek any communication from the White House, who have never registered on OFA, who have never registered on a campaign Web site --

MR. GIBBS: Well, hold on, let's --

Q Let me finish my question, let me finish my question.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, but let's be clear, because --

Q Let me finish my question.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, but let's be clear before you -- I'm going to give you a chance to finish your question. You've done this a couple of times, Major, and I just want to be very clear, okay. OFA -- no, no, no, no, don't look funny. OFA, whether Obama for America or Organizing for America has nothing to do with, never has had anything to do with what -- if you sign up for, through whitehouse.gov, to receive e-mails, so let's just -- the reason I interrupted you is because I want you to rephrase your question that doesn't continue to assume that --

Q Well, all I'm trying to get at is --

MR. GIBBS: -- somebody is violating the law and mixing up political --

Q -- I receive e-mails from people who have never, ever signed up for anything related to this White House, Senator Obama as a candidate, Senator Obama as anything, and have received e-mails from David Axelrod. How could that be?

MR. GIBBS: I'd have to look at who you said got the e-mail.

Q I mean, do you seek other pieces of information identifying who might be curious about health care outside of people who have asked for e-mails?

MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry, say that again.

Q Do you in any way seek databases or information about people who might be interested in health care?

MR. GIBBS: I will certainly check. I will certainly check. I am not under that impression. But again --

Q I mean, folks have emailed me -- I just want to know -- would like to know how they get an e-mail from the White House when they have never asked for one.

MR. GIBBS: I'd be interested to see who you got that e-mail from and whether or not they're on the list. I don't --

Q May I follow up politely on one of Major Garrett's --

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- let me finish needling Major.

Q -- this row, please.

MR. GIBBS: Again, I just want to be -- but I just want to be very --

Q So what you're telling me is I need to give you these people's e-mails so you can check them on a list? I'm just asking.

MR. GIBBS: Well, you're asking me if they're on a list.

Q No, they're telling me --

MR. GIBBS: If you can figure out a different way of checking without asking me to double-check the name, I'm happy to --

Q Perhaps I'm not phrasing this correctly. They're telling me they're not -- they can't be on a list because they never asked for an e-mail from the White House.

MR. GIBBS: Right, but what I'm saying is I don't -- I'd have to look and see --

Q So there's no -- you don't have an explanation for how someone who never signed up and never asked for anything from the White House would get an e-mail from David Axelrod?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I hesitate to give you an answer, because you might impugn the motives of the answer.

Q Why would you say that?

MR. GIBBS: Because of the way you phrased your follow-up. I'd have to look at what you got, Major. I don't -- I appreciate the fact that I have omnipotent clarity as to what you've received in your e-mail box today.

Q You don't have to have omnipotent clarity. You don't have to impugn anything. I'm telling you what I got -- e-mails from people who said they never asked anything from the White House --

MR. GIBBS: And I'm simply saying --

Q -- and yet they received something.

MR. GIBBS: We can -- let me go to someplace else that might be constructive.

Labels: David Axelrod, Health Care, Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:44:00 PM

Just Look For The Union Label - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 8/7/09
— Friday, August 07, 2009 —

Q And I also wanted to ask you quickly about the disruptions at some of the town halls on health care. Does the President believe that the Republican Party is behind those? And does he believe that in any way they reflect a genuine concern on behalf of people about the direction of the legislation?

MR. GIBBS: As I've talked about before, I don't in any way doubt that there are people that have honest policy disagreements with the White House, or with -- of Democrats, whether Republicans or vice versa. I think you've seen specific groups brag about being able to coalesce and manufacture the anger. We talked about one of the guys in here who happens to hold the title of running a health care company and having it be fined the greatest amount -- $1.7 billion -- ever that the federal government has levied against a health care company. I'm not entirely sure what part of his role he wanted to brag about.

I will tell you this: The President believes, and has always believed, that town hall meetings are a very useful place for the discussion of issues to talk about the decisions that are facing him and the American people. They ought to be able to be conducted without shouting and shoving and pushing and people getting hurt. I think we can have honest policy disagreements without being either disagreeable, or certainly without being violent.

And I think anybody that has a strong opinion should come to a town hall meeting, but also respect that others may want to also take part in the town hall meeting, or you know, may just want to listen to the debate. And if somebody is yelling, or if somebody particularly is being violent, I'm not entirely sure that helps the entire process for anybody involved.

[...]

Q And just one follow up to Ben's question, just on the town hall meeting. This week there's just been an amplification in terms of the rhetoric. Some of the protestors against the President's position on health care reform have used Nazi imagery, a Democratic congressman said that the protestors were using Brown Shirt tactics; a Democratic senator called the protestors behavior un-American, although she retracted it; Rush Limbaugh went on a very long speech yesterday during his radio show in which he compared Democrats to Nazis and the President to Hitler. And I'm wondering if the President has seen any of this and has a take on it? Obviously the Nazi imagery has been condemned by Jewish groups, but I'm wondering if he feels anything about language being used this way?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he's certainly seen news reports about this. I don't know whether it's written or cable. I'd make a couple of points. I'll build on what I said to Ben, which is regardless of where we are, regardless of the differences we have on even an issue as important as health care, I know the President believes strongly that we can discuss these issues without personally maligning the person that we're discussing this issue with, that we're doing so in a way that respects the dignity of each individual.

I think -- I think any time you make references to what happened in Germany in the '30s and '40s, I think you're talking about an event that has no equivalent. And I think any time anyone ventures to compare anything to that, they're on thin ice and it's best not deployed.

But I think the larger point --

Q I'm sorry -- that's not?

MR. GIBBS: That's not deployed.

But, again, I think the most important thing is we can have a discussion in our democracy about where we want to go and why or why not we want to take certain steps. The President strongly believes we can do so without yelling at each other, without pushing each other, without degrading each other and do so in a way I think that respects the difference in all of our opinions.

Q The DNC put out a video earlier this week basically saying all of the protestors were birth-certificate-denying, angry mob hordes. I mean, it wasn't exactly a video that described the protestors in accordance with the respect and dignity you just spoke of.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think we've seen -- as you mentioned, we've seen some stuff that I think is -- I mentioned a week ago I think, or maybe it was earlier this week, it all sort of blurs together -- you know, that we've all seen imagery that really just shocks and surprises us. I think the best thing to do is to take that temperature down a bit.

[...]

Q On the town halls again, what advice does the White House have for Democrats who are going home and are confronting this kind of hostility at their town halls? Should they cancel the meetings? Should they marshal forces on their side? Is there a way they should deal with this? What advice does the White House have for them?

MR. GIBBS: I think the personal advice I'd give somebody is to continue doing the town hall and ask those that participate to behave themselves, like your mom would probably tell you to do, and have a robust discussion of the issues.

Q Are you aware of what Axelrod and Messina told members of Congress yesterday when they went up there --

MR. GIBBS: I was not there, so I --

Q But do you have any knowledge of what went on?

MR. GIBBS: I've seen different reports that say they were up there talking about it, but I have no -- I have not talked to David or Jim about it.

Q So you don't know what advice is being given to members of Congress -- Democrats when they go home?

MR. GIBBS: No, I mean -- again, I don't think it's much different than what I said. I mean, I think it's important that people be civil. We can discuss these issues without being uncivilized. It's the same thing I tell my six year-old --

Q But if they're not civil?

MR. GIBBS: -- with varying degrees of effectiveness. (Laughter.)

Q But if they're not civil? But if they're not civil, should they stand up to them, fight back, shout them down? What do they do?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think that probably depends in some ways on the individual member. I think we can all conjure up images of how different people might handle these things differently. I think the best advice would be to finish your answer, make sure that -- I mean, look, I think a town hall meeting is always bigger than whatever one person asks a question, right? It's just like if you're asking a question, Chip, the answer is for the benefit of everybody.

I think continuing to discuss the issues that are important -- ranging from health care to the economy to the war in Afghanistan -- I think those are things that are of great interest to the American people. I think asking a question of those that represent you in Washington is a fairly time-honored tradition that --

Q I'm not talking about asking questions. I'm talking about people who are getting booed and shouted down and chanted -- what do they do? Why hold it at all?

MR. GIBBS: Because I think you've got to continue to talk to people about where we are on the issues. I mean, you know, you may not convince the person that asks or shouts or boos or hollers, but, again, that's why I say I think that town halls are not necessarily for the benefit of just one individual question or one individual questioner.

Labels: Health Care, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Townhall Meetings, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:53:00 PM

Hello, McFly! - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 8/6/09

Q Do you know how many e-mails have been sent to the flag at whitehouse.gov address? And, secondly, isn't the White House required by law to save all correspondence it receives, so will it be informing individuals whose e-mails have been forwarded that they might want to have a chance to correct the historical record about the alleged fishiness of their e-mails?

MR. GIBBS: I, for the life of me, didn't understand your question.

Q Is the White House required to save the e-mails?

MR. GIBBS: Obviously, the National Archives documents correspondence with the White House.

Q So the people whose e-mails have been forwarded, they won't be informed that their e-mails are being forwarded to the government?

MR. GIBBS: Maybe I'm missing something. I'm sure you're hashing some nefarious plot, but I, for the life of me, can't understand it.

Labels: Health Care, Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:34:00 PM

A Decision And A Debate - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 8/4/09
— Tuesday, August 04, 2009 —

Q A couple of questions -- one on North Korea and one on Iran. I'm trying to take North Korea from a slightly different angle. The President --

MR. GIBBS: Good try. (Laughter.)

Q Former President Clinton is there, a very high-ranking former U.S. official. Some analysts are saying that his mere presence there can be seen as a reward for bad behavior, and that's something that President Obama has made clear that he does not want to do in dealings with Pyongyang. What's your -- what's the administration view on that?

MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get deep into this issue at this point, like I said to Phil. I do think we have looked at -- as I said a few months ago, we're not equating -- we look at detainment and other issues separately. We always hope that the North Koreans would look at it the same way. That's how this administration has approached this.

Q You want to keep those completely de-linked as issues.

MR. GIBBS: That's what we talked about.

Q And on Iran, President Ahmadinejad will be sworn in tomorrow. Some of the U.S. allies will be sending representatives to attend that ceremony. The administration is not. Does the U.S. absence in any way indicate that it is not, shall we say, does not recognize the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's reelection?

MR. GIBBS: No, I -- let me get some larger guidance on our participation. Look, I think we have said throughout this that this was a decision and a debate that was ongoing in Iran by Iranians. That they were going to choose their leadership.

The President has discussed our goals for reaching out in order to ensure that they don't develop a nuclear weapons program. Those continue to be our goals.

Q But does the administration recognize Ahmadinejad as the legitimate President in Iran?

MR. GIBBS: He's the elected leader.

Labels: Ahmadinejad, Foreign Policy, Iran, North Korea, Obama Administration, President Clinton, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:34:00 PM

It's A Pattern Of Controlling The Press - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 7/1/09
— Thursday, July 02, 2009 —

Q At today's town hall meeting, questions coming in on YouTube and Twitter and such -- who decides what questions will be asked?

MR. GIBBS: I think a group over at New Media is shuffling through questions. I think if you go on -- I did not do this today, but I think if you go on our Web site you'll see some of those questions. And I think, Chip, at the end of the day, when you -- I think the questions that will be read to the President -- obviously he'll take some questions from the audience there -- I think will be a representative sample of the issues in this debate that we're dealing with.

Q And the audience is all preselected, right?

MR. GIBBS: No, we usually just generally hand out tickets on a first come, first serve basis.

Q Well, I think in this case, the people were invited either by the White House or by the university -- I mean, invited by this community college, as it was explained to us.

MR. GIBBS: Well, if the university is --

Q It just feels very tightly controlled. It feels -- I mean, the concept of a town hall I think is to have a open public forum, and this sounds like a very tightly controlled audience and a list of questions. Why do it that why? Why not open it up to the public?

MR. GIBBS: How about we do this -- how about you can ask me that question tomorrow based on what questions were asked rather than preselecting your question based on something that may or may not come through.

Q But why pre-select? Why not just open it up for people and allow any question to come in?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, I think if you get on your computer from your e-mail address --

Q I have. I have.

MR. GIBBS: Have you sent in your question?

Q I think that would be inappropriate. This is for the public.

MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry, I'm confused -- are you not a member of the public?

Q Well, I think if you were going to allow questions from the press you'd have us in a prominent position over there and allow us to ask questions -- you haven't done that.

MR. GIBBS: Let's not get into the notion of where you'd be sitting -- (laughter) -- if I let you ask a question, but --

Q Well out of shouting range.

MR. GIBBS: Well, but you could e-mail.

Q Would you put my question in there? I don't think so.

MR. GIBBS: Maybe. Have you e-mailed?

Q I mean, this is a town hall.

MR. GIBBS: It's a little -- if you haven't e-mailed.

Q This is an open forum for the public to ask questions, but it's not really open.

MR. GIBBS: I couldn't agree more.

Q But it's not open.

MR. GIBBS: Based on what?

Q Based on the information that your staff gave us on how the audience and the questions are being selected.

MR. GIBBS: The questions are being selected by people that e-mail on Facebook and Twitter.

Q Well, they're not deciding what questions actually get in.

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, I appreciate, again --

Q It just feels completely controlled --

MR. GIBBS: I appreciate, again --

Q -- in a way unlike his town meetings all the campaign and --

MR. GIBBS: I appreciate the pre-selected question on your part.

Q Will there be dissenting views --

Q Yes, how about that?

MR. GIBBS: I think that's a very safe bet. But, again, let's -- how about we do this? I promise we will interrupt the AP's tradition of asking the first question. I will let you ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted at Annandale --

Q I'm perfectly happy to --

Q That's not his point. The point is the control --

Q Exactly.

Q -- we have never had that in the White House. And we have had some, but not --

Q This White House.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I was going to say, I'll let you amend her question.

Q I'm amazed -- I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and --

MR. GIBBS: Helen, you haven't even heard the questions.

Q It doesn't matter. It's the process.

Q You have left open --

Q Even if there's a tough question, it's a question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened.

Q It's shocking. It's really shocking.

MR. GIBBS: Chip, let's have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting. How about that?

Q Okay.

MR. GIBBS: I think --

Q No, no, no, we're having it now --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'd be happy to have it now.

Q It's a pattern.

MR. GIBBS: Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?

Q It's a pattern. It isn't the question --

MR. GIBBS: What's a pattern?

Q It's a pattern of controlling the press.

MR. GIBBS: How so? Is there any evidence currently going on that I'm controlling the press -- poorly, I might add. (Laughter.)

Q Your formal engagements are pre-packaged.

MR. GIBBS: How so?

Q Well, and controlling the public --

Q How so? By calling reporters the night before to tell them they're going to be called on. That is shocking.

MR. GIBBS: We had this discussion ad nauseam and --

Q Of course you would because you don't have any answers.

MR. GIBBS: Well, because I didn't know you were going to ask a question, Helen.

Go ahead.

Q Well, you should have.

Q Thank you for your support.

MR. GIBBS: That's good. Have you e-mailed your question today?

Q I don't have to e-mail it. I can tell you right now what I want to ask. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I don't doubt that at all, Helen. I don't doubt that at all.

Q Actually, could you pass along a question to the President from all of us, is he going to support a tax increase on the middle class?

MR. GIBBS: I will -- if you get on your computer you can ask him that yourself.

Q I think you're a more direct pipeline than --

MR. GIBBS: I don't know. I was just told that you guys have a pretty good -- go ahead.

Labels: Helen, Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:28:00 PM

We're Seeking To Restore That Democratic "Norm" In Honduras - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/29/09
— Tuesday, June 30, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.

Q Thank you, Robert. Five years ago when President Aristide of Haiti was overthrown by the military, the previous administration promptly recognized the new government by the chief justice, because under the Haitian constitution he was next in succession. Now with President Zelaya leaving Honduras, the congress elected their President, Mr. Micheletti.

MR. GIBBS: Certainly one way of putting it, I suppose.

Q "Ousted."

MR. GIBBS: Or "ousted." (Laughter.)

Q -- elected their President, Mr. Micheletti, as new President to the country, which is in accordance with Honduran law. Why doesn't the administration simply follow the precedent of Haiti after Aristide here?

MR. GIBBS: Because I think what we saw over the course of the weekend was a severe disruption in any sort of democratic norm. We're seeking to restore that democratic norm in Honduras and haven't changed the recognition of who we believe is the President of that country.

Labels: International Relations, Latin America, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:32:00 AM

The Details Are Less Important - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/25/09
— Sunday, June 28, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Let me go to Laura real fast. Yes.

Q On the energy bill, what is the President or the White House's view on this provision that's come up regarding punishing imports from China and other countries that do not have similar controls on their carbon emissions? And sort of as a corollary to that, how important are the details of this actual bill right now, or is it more important just to get sort of anything out of the House?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I've seen very little -- something but not in any detailed way, and we can look through something relating to I think some of these Ways and Means provisions. Again, I haven't -- I have not focused in on that.

I think in terms of your larger picture, look, obviously getting something through -- onto the floor and through the House would constitute I think a big step towards progress and create momentum that it's possible to get this done. I think we are at a time and a place where, as the President said today, those that can deny that the planet is getting warmer -- we're past, in many ways, that debate.

We have an opportunity to create millions of clean energy jobs. We have an opportunity to further lessen our dependence on foreign oil. And all of that together represents -- would represent a big step forward, and I think the President believes that that would be an important facet of getting something ultimately to his desk that he can sign.

Q So, really, the details are less important than just moving the process forward?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean -- I think obviously the fundamental details are important. I think moving the bill forward is tremendously important. And I think this is the first of quite a few steps, and I would assume that some of those details will be debated even -- will be debated further as this goes to the other side of the Hill and then ultimately when both bodies iron out whatever differences exist.

Labels: Congress, Global Warming, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:34:00 AM

Robotic Knowledge Of Robert Gibbs' Thinking - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/18/09
— Thursday, June 18, 2009 —

I am not programmed to respond in that area.

Q Robert, on Iran, is there an internal debate in the White House now between those who clearly support what the President is doing in terms of the hands-off approach and those who think the President needs to have some stronger language? Is that ongoing in the White House?

MR. GIBBS: There's no debate in the White House.

Q Never?

Q Is there division at all? Is everyone on the same page on this, or are there those who think that the President -- internally, that the President is --

MR. GIBBS: Everybody is on the same page. There's no difference of opinion. I think the only thing I might take -- the only thing I would take some exception to is the notion that the President has been hands-off. Again, the President --

Q Well, in terms of not wanting to interfere with the election.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, I think that's a fairly time-honored principle. At the same time, the President has been -- has talked about, and we talked about it from my statement on Sunday and every statement either by me or other administration officials and by the President, concern about how this election was conducted, as well as stating, as I said earlier to Phil's question, ensuring that the world knows and that people in Iran know of our belief that they have the right to have their causes and concerns heard and not fear violence, while at the same time respecting that this is a debate being had in Iran, by Iranians, about their leadership. I think if you look at Democrats and Republicans alike, they share where the President has been on this as we continue to watch the developments unfold.

[...]

Q You said there's no difference of opinion. Well, we've been led to believe this President seeks out different opinions from his advisors. You've got these incredibly knowledgeable people sitting around the room. He can't find a single person who does anything other than nod, "Yes, Mr. President, you're absolutely right on this"? I mean, how can there not be -- how can there not be some difference of opinion on this?

MR. GIBBS: There is a belief by all here that this is a debate that, as I've said I think every day for the last five days, four days, plus my statement, that the American people and this government are not going to pick the next leader of Iran. That's something that the Iranians have to do.

We have to ensure that we express our views, as I've said, about ensuring that people can demonstrate, have their causes and concerns heard. And that's what people here believe.

Q But is there nobody who believes he ought to be a little more open in supporting the demonstrators? Nobody has expressed that opinion to him?

MR. GIBBS: Everybody is on the same page.

Yes, sir.

Q Just absolutely verbatim? Nobody --

MR. GIBBS: We walk around like robots, Chip. (Laughter.)

Q Can we quote you on that?

Q Too late.

Q It's already there.

MR. GIBBS: It's on the record -- I'm a senior administration official -- (laughter) -- robotic knowledge of Robert Gibbs' thinking. Go ahead. (Laughter.)

Q So you say "We're all on the same page." But the world sees many members of the United States government, members on Capitol Hill, who believe that --

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip didn't ask me did the entire Congress believe everything --

Q I didn't say that -- no, no, no, no --

MR. GIBBS: That I can tell you on the record is likely not the case.

Q I understand that. Does the President or does the administration believe --

Q (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: A little delayed back there, Lester. What was the --

Q I know, we're on the seven-second --

MR. GIBBS: Right, I know, it's --

Q -- delay. (Laughter.)

Q Does the administration believe that the vocal criticism of -- that members of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill, and many very prominent members of Congress, have said -- have spoken out forcefully in favor of the demonstrators, do members of the administration believe that's a bad thing for the U.S. government to be doing?

MR. GIBBS: Well, it's not -- it's not the tack that we've taken. But, Chuck, let's --

Q But should the government -- I mean, are you guys reaching out quietly to members on Capitol Hill, saying, hey, guys, this is what our intelligence is saying, you shouldn't be doing this?

MR. GIBBS: No. Look, I appreciate the opportunity to get Congress to agree with everything that we believe. I will wait and see whether that comes to fruition. Again --

Q But this is a national security issue. It's not uncommon sometimes for -

MR. GIBBS: Chuck, let's be honest. Let's -- but hold on.

Q -- for the White House to reach out to Capitol Hill and say, hey --

MR. GIBBS: No, no, but let's be honest.

Q -- let me tell you what we know.

MR. GIBBS: You make it sound monolithically like the President is saying one thing and everybody else is saying another thing. That's not even true in the Republican Party, right?

Q So you think it's good that there are members out there, prominent members of the United States government, saying --

MR. GIBBS: The President and his team are responsible for what the President and his team say. I'm not going to get into what motivates other people to do or say what they do or say. But I think the President believes that he's struck the right tone, and as do others in the administration, as do others in the Republican Party, as do others in the Democratic Party.

Q And you're not reaching out? Nobody in this administration is reaching out to members of Congress who have been very vocal in saying, can you buy us some time, can you give us a few days to get this sort of --

MR. GIBBS: Give us a few days for what?

Q To see what happens. I mean, it seems to be --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think everybody is watching what happens, but I'm not -- you know, I'm not -- ask for two days to do what? Count the ballots

Q I'm talking about the critics -- the very vocal criticism that is now --

MR. GIBBS: But what are we asking for a few days for?

Q I'm asking you.

MR. GIBBS: Okay. (Laughter.)

Q So I guess the answer is no.

Iran | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: Iran, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:44:00 PM

Do We Care What Happens In Iran? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/17/09
— Wednesday, June 17, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Yes, ma'am.

Q Do we care what happens in Iran? And does both sides -- are they both planning to continue nuclear -- their nuclear development?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously we care about --

Q The outcome.

MR. GIBBS: Of the election? Well, as I said yesterday, Helen, I think regardless of -- and I think the President certainly said this, as well -- regardless of who emerges from this election, there are still two principal national interests that this country has relating to Iran. First is their pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and second is their support and sponsorship of terror.

Those are causes and concerns, as I said, that we had the day prior to the election and in the days after the election. I would also say that the President remains committed to engagement and understanding that the principle of national interest that I talked about, the sponsorship of terror and the pursuit of a nuclear weapon, are in many ways policy aspects relating to foreign policy and national security that are controlled by the Supreme Leader, who is likely to be the same regardless of who wins the election.

Q So why are we worried?

MR. GIBBS: Why are we worried --

Q At all?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously we have --

Q And how do you know they sponsor terrorism? What is terrorism? I mean, we're in two countries.

MR. GIBBS: Well, we can get into a long discussion about the definition of this. I think this one is fairly well held.

Q You mean you oppose the status quo?

MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry, I don't understand.

Q Sponsoring terrorism and terrorists -- the American revolutionaries were called terrorists.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, leaving aside whatever moniker might have been affixed several hundred years ago --

Q Not that long.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I will -- I think there's a fairly well held definition of what that means today.

Yes, sir.

Q Following up on her question. Yesterday the President, and you mentioned -- the President addressed this yesterday -- in one of the interviews yesterday, the President said the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, in terms of their actual policies, may not be as great as has been advertised. Is that U.S. policy, that there's not really much difference between these two candidates and that there's no preference for one over the other?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think I was asked in this room prior to the election whether this country had a preference. And we're not going to get involved in picking candidates in elections.

Q But he did get involved in a way in saying that. What was he trying to say by saying that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he was saying exactly what I've said the past two days, and that is, regardless of the outcome of what we're seeing, the United States still has two principal national interests as it relates to the Islamic Republic of Iran: the state sponsorship of terror and the support of terror, as well as their pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

I don't think that's likely to be markedly changed, even throughout this process. And it's something that still obviously is a principal concern of our country and something we'll pursue.

Q You said not going to be markedly changed -- you mean no matter who is elected here.

MR. GIBBS: Right. And I'm echoing what he said in there, as well as, I think, underscoring that our principal national interest, as it relates to Iran, regardless of the outcome, are still going to be the same.

Q Is this another way to phrase that, to say it doesn't really matter who wins this election in Iran?

MR. GIBBS: No. Again, I'm not going to get involved and our government is not going to get involved in picking a candidate. Obviously there is international concern for the way an election was conducted, and it's being looked into, and certainly, we believe, rightfully so.

But at the same time, again, there are principal national interests that we had as a country Thursday, we had before the polls opened -- the moment before the polls opened and the moment after the polls closed. Those remain.

Q No preference? No preference?

MR. GIBBS: It's just not the policy of this administration to pick the leaders of other countries.

Labels: Elections, Iran, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:31:00 PM

"Pissed" At The Obama Administration - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/12/09
— Friday, June 12, 2009 —

Q I have two questions, Robert. First, how do you respond to the charge that in the hurry to make the President's deadline of closing Guantanamo within a year, some decisions are being made without proper consultation of -- a senior State Department official yesterday said that the British government was "pissed" that they had not been consulted about Uighurs going to Bermuda.

MR. GIBBS: I think they were -- if I'm not mistaken, and I don't want to parse the word "pissed," but I think they -- (laughter) --

Q It was their administration's word, not mine.

MR. GIBBS: But I think if I read most of the stories correctly, they were not pleased with the government of Bermuda.

Q They were "pissed" at the Obama administration, is what we have been told by the State Department.

MR. GIBBS: Well, maybe I misread many of the stories --

Q Maybe they were "pissed" at both of you. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: There may be a lot of that. I don't know. I think that, again --

Q But we're not getting into that, the issue of just the fact that you are trying to make this deadline, for that reason, there has been criticism that the decision was made to close it before there was a full plan of what to do with all the detainees. The decisions are being made, as you say, on a case by case basis. The other day you couldn't or wouldn't say what would happen to Ghailani if he's found not guilty.

Obviously, the British government is not happy -- regardless, of who they're not happy with, whether it's Obama, Bermuda, or both. Clearly, you are trying to make this deadline and decisions are being made before there is completely a plan in place for everything.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think I would obviously take a -- I don't think that's true that any of these decisions are being made in a hasty way. But keep in mind -- let's take, for instance, as I had mentioned here, five of the six transferees just this week were required by a federal court.

The Uighurs that we've discussed, five of them were transferred in '05 or '06 to Albania. I don't know if that was a hasty decision. Since they've no record of acting violent since that transfer, I don't think that it would be considered hasty. A court ruled that of the remaining 17, one was -- one should not be labeled an enemy combatant.

And the Bush administration labeled, after that, the other 16 being held as not enemy combatants. They've been waiting for a location for resettlement. I don't think moving them was hasty, and I don't think the decisions that are being made are hasty.

As I said earlier this week, I think bringing somebody to trial after committing a crime 11 years ago indicted on 286 charges, responsible for taking part, allegedly, in the death of 224 individuals, including 12 Americans in 1998; since it's 2009, I'm not sure many people would think that's hasty. The President and his team are going through this process in a very methodical way, understanding that it's complex, but that the benefits to our security and to our image in the world demand it.

Labels: International Relations, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, United Kingdom, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:36:00 PM

Miranda Rights Read To Detainees - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs
— Wednesday, June 10, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.

Q Robert, something completely different. Mike Rogers is a member of Congress, Republican from Michigan, has come back from Afghanistan and he tells our network that while he was there he witnessed U.S. military personnel reading Miranda rights to high-value detainees at Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan. He said this -- was informed by the military there that this is a common practice now to, upon their capture of these high-value targets, read them the Miranda rights. And he considers this a significant policy change, one that suggests to him, at least, that the administration has changed the orientation in Afghanistan from war fighting to law enforcement with this use of Miranda rights read to detainees. Would you care to comment on any of those observations?

MR. GIBBS: I think I'd need a little bit more information.

Q Do you know if that's true or untrue, that the Miranda rights are read?

MR. GIBBS: I have no reason to disbelieve a member of Congress, but I don't know any of the circumstances that are involved around it.

Q Would it come as a surprise to the White House that that's what would be happening?

MR. GIBBS: It's not a surprise to me, but again, I think I'd need a little bit more information to begin to surmise some of what the Congressman has -- I don't know if he spoke with commanders on the ground, I don't know if he saw General McChrystal or --

Q In general does the White House think that's a good idea?

MR. GIBBS: Major, let me get a little bit -- I'm happy to look at whatever longer-form information and get someone at NSC also to look at it. I hate to speculate on four sentences off of a report.

Q Okay. Just so I understand what you're saying, when you said it wouldn't come as a surprise to you, what did you mean by that?

MR. GIBBS: I'm not surprised by a lot in this town anymore. Let me look at what you're talking about --

Q You're not contesting that that's a policy that's being used? I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying.

MR. GIBBS: I feel like you should be reading me my rights. (Laughter.) That's why I'm hoping to get my lawyer.

Again, I'm happy to look at whatever you have and try to give you an informed opinion based on somebody who's got greater jurisdiction over detainees at Bagram. That's outside of my portfolio.

Labels: Afghanistan, Department of Justice, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:20:00 PM

This New System Of Justice - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/9/09
— Tuesday, June 09, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q Two questions about developments today, one regarding Ghailani's trial, him being flown to the United States. If any of the detainees who are brought to trial through the U.S. criminal courts, or even through military commissions, if any of them are found not guilty, will the administration let them free?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about --

Q Well, forget the military commissions --

MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about the court cases, either.

Q Well, this is an important part of the -- you're talking about a credible justice system, bringing these people to justice. You've spoken at great length about this, the President has. If they are found not guilty, will they be found --

MR. GIBBS: Well, let's discuss that if it ever comes to fruition.

Q But isn't that what is underlying a credible justice system, the idea that if you're found not guilty you'll be free?

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q So --

MR. GIBBS: But I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about how certain cases may or may not play out.

Q So you're not willing to commit to freeing people if they're found not guilty?

MR. GIBBS: I'm not willing to get into playing hypothetical games.

Q It's not a game, Robert. It's a question about the credibility of the justice system.

Q It's the principle of it --

MR. GIBBS: No, it's -- I'm not debating legal principles. I'm just not getting into the hypothetical back-and-forth of what happens on a case.

Q Okay. So the Obama administration is refusing to say that if somebody is found not guilty they will be set free?

MR. GIBBS: Jake, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about specific outcomes of cases.

Q I'm not asking you to talk about a specific case. I'm talking about in general --

Q And for all the detainees brought into this system of justice, which the administration said can and has in the past handled adequately -- more than adequately, according to your talking points this morning -- the terrorism cases brought before it in whatever venue -- if that justice system, which the administration says should be trusted, renders a verdict of not guilty, is that person released?

MR. GIBBS: We will talk about what happens about a verdict when a verdict comes.

Q Well, then how is the world supposed to have any confidence that this new system of justice that you guys are ensuring is going to be the case with the detainees is actually credible?

MR. GIBBS: We think the Southern District of New York has a very good record as it relates to trying and convicting terror suspects.

Q I believe what you're -- the fact sheet said this morning was that it has a 90-percent success rate.

MR. GIBBS: I think 90 is pretty good.

Q I'm not questioning whether 90 is pretty good; I'm asking about the 10 percent.

MR. GIBBS: And I'm, in this specific case, not going to get into those hypotheticals.

Labels: Al Qaeda, Guantanamo, Judicial System, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:55:00 PM

Jobs Created or Saved Through Smoke & Mirrors - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/8/09
— Monday, June 08, 2009 —

Q Just a few follow-ups. The 150,000 job figure, should we be identifying that as a projection, since it seems like Jared himself -- there is no hard evidence yet of this number, correct?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, again, I would point you back to his answer about the reports and the economic formulation --

Q But he said it was based on multipliers and an economic formula and that we don't have the facts yet of how many hard jobs.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, Chuck, I think -- and I hate to paraphrase what Jared said, but again, if I move you money because you have a window business, just like the example I was using, or some economic stimulus, you are going to -- you're going to buy supplies from somebody else who is going to create --

Q But you don't know if that's going to create one job or two jobs --

MR. GIBBS: No, but --

Q You don't know that it's going to -- so it's a projection.

MR. GIBBS: Based on a tried and true, as he said, economic formula on how to do that. Projections are --

Q Jobs trickling down the window pane -- I mean, why is that not trickle-down economics when you guys are talking about tax cuts and how --

MR. GIBBS: Are you suggesting that the multiplier effect of job creation is part of trickle-down economics?

Q I'm suggesting that you guys are saying --

Q Sure, they're jobs --

MR. GIBBS: Point out for me how, if somebody builds a windmill -- right -- and needs --

Q You guys are saying that unmeasured jobs -- and they're out there -- and you're saying it's a result of tax cuts.

MR. GIBBS: No -- in the example of window panes, absolutely. But what I'm talking about -- you don't make window panes out of papier-mâché, right? You're going to have to buy aluminum; you're going to have to buy glass. Does the production of aluminum and glass for the purchase of making windows in order to increase the production so that the tax credit can be fully taken advantage of -- are window producers doing that? Yes. Is the sale of aluminum for windows and glass creating jobs? Ask some of the readers of Bloomberg when they make investments in resources --

Q But you're not going to provide numbers on total jobs that have been created or saved through this window pane example.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, there's multipliers and there are formulas, as Jared talked about, in order to make determinations as to what that number is.

Q Well, it did sound like you are going to provide a hard number on direct government contracts. Every quarter we will get a hard number.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that's what Jared talked about as part of the obligation of those reports.

Q So far we have none, because there hasn’t been any --

MR. GIBBS: Right. But again, just to build off your examples, Hans, you can't build a window out of nothing. You can't build a wind turbine out of nothing. The purchase of resources to build a wind turbine so that a wind company can take advantage of a tax credit is a multiplier effect that creates jobs based on the purchase of resources to construct that turbine -- right?

Q Will you concede that the wind is free? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I will concede that the wind is free. And some of it is blowing hot in my direction.

Q Ooh! (Laughter.)

Q There are a lot of numbers being thrown around here, and you guys are claiming credit for -- earlier you were claiming credit for summer jobs that won't be there in three years --

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no --

Q -- and that will be --

MR. GIBBS: Hans, I appreciate you asking -- you should ask as many questions as you want, but if Jared gives you an answer about how two part-time jobs equals one full-time employment job, don't act like the question didn’t get answered, because --

Q I'm not.

MR. GIBBS: -- and he's not trying to say that -- he didn’t tell you that 125,000 was immediately being factored in. He gave you the formula for part-time and full-time jobs.

Q I'm not saying -- I'm just -- I guess what you -- would you then concede that that job won't be there in three years when the stimulus --

MR. GIBBS: Will I concede that a summer job won't be there in the fall? Yes, I will concede that.

Q You guys are counting this towards the 3.5.

MR. GIBBS: I think Jared answered your question. Send a transcript to --

Labels: Economy, Jobs, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Stimulus Package, Unemployment, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:53:00 PM

Conflicting Pressures Of A New Car Company In A New Auto World - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/2/09
— Tuesday, June 02, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Mara.

Q I want to try to ask a better question about the inherent conflicts of owning 6 percent of GM than I did yesterday. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Take two. (Laughter.)

Q If it turns out that GM could make more profits for the taxpayer investors that you represent by outsourcing some of its production to China, even at the cost of maybe losing some U.S. jobs, is that something that you as the 60 percent owner would push them to do?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think we're -- there are core governance issues that, again, as I talked about yesterday, that the government will take part in as a holder of almost 60 percent or 60 percent of common equity. I think the major thrust will be basically being involved in a majority of a new board of -- a newly constituted board of directors.

But, look, business decisions are going to be made by General Motors. I don't want to get involved in making those business decisions for them.

Q So if they did out-source that would be a decision for them --

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q I mean, there are public policy goals that the government has and then there's the goal of making the highest return for the taxpayers as you can.

MR. GIBBS: And understand this -- I spent a little time thinking about this yesterday. About half the questions yesterday were, you know, good golly, you can't possibly do that. And the other half of the questions were, good golly, why aren't you doing that.

Q Well, that's the whole point -- (inaudible) conflicting pressures, yes.

MR. GIBBS: And the goal of the restructuring plan is to get a company that -- and again, I think when we got a look at some of the details yesterday of the filings, we've got a company that was -- these are rough, remembering these figures -- I think $85 billion in assets and $172 billion in debt. One gets a pretty good grasp on why a company is where it is based on those numbers.

Obviously now this is a company that we hope in a short period of time -- 60 to 90 days -- that emerges restructured, competitive, and without the massive debt that it previously had. And that they'll be free to make a series of decisions as a new car company in a new auto world. And I think our goal and I think their goal, too, as a business is to produce profit for its shareholders. And I can assure you the President's goal is to get out of the equity business in auto companies as quickly as possible.

Q So all of these topics are for them to wrestle with and resolve, not for you.

MR. GIBBS: Yes. Yes, sir.

Labels: Automobile Industry, General Motors, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:43:00 PM

I Don't Know If Anybody Has Talked To Her - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/29/09
— Friday, May 29, 2009 —

Q Can I ask you, on the Sotomayor nomination, has the White House or anyone here had a chance to talk to her about that 2001 Berkeley speech to see if she might have wished she chose different words or meant to say something other than what she said?

And on a related note, do you know if she has any personal reaction to people throwing words around like "racist" or apparently today Rush Limbaugh compared her to David Duke? Is it difficult for her, given her background, to hear those type of things or does she just sort of slough it off?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't know if anybody has talked to her specifically about that comment. I don't think you have to be the nominee to --

(Cell phone interruption.)

MR. GIBBS: That's helpful. (Laughter.)

Q Sorry.

MR. GIBBS: I don't think you have to be the nominee to find what was said today offensive. And I think maybe the best example of that, Josh, is to look at any number of conservative and Republican leaders who over the past 24 hours have specifically addressed the comments of people like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. It's sort of hard to completely quantify the outrage I think almost anybody would feel at the notion that you're being compared to somebody who used to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan. It's amazing.

On the other question, obviously folks have -- she's been here, she's made calls. Look, I think that -- I've not talked specifically with her about this, but I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor; that she was simply making the point that personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging; that your personal experiences make you -- have a tendency to make you more aware of certain facts in certain cases; that your experiences impact your understanding -- I think we all agree with that; and that on a court that's collegial, that it can help others that are trying to wrestle with the facts of those cases.

And, I mean, look, there have been allusions to this in the media over the past few days. I mean, if you look at -- let me read some quotes from current and recent justices, or in this case, both. Justice Alito, during his confirmation hearing, referenced his heritage. He said that, "When a case comes before me involving someone" -- and there's some ellipses in here, but -- "someone who is an immigrant, I can't help but think of my own ancestors because it wasn't long ago when they were in that position."

Or he later says -- this is not paraphrased -- "You know this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time and they were people who came to this country." More recently --

Q Obama voted against Alito.

MR. GIBBS: I understand. I hope that doesn't preclude me from being able to quote him.

Q Well, I mean, it adds a little context.

MR. GIBBS: Well, he wasn't here for Justice Ginsburg -- wasn't here to vote on Justice Ginsburg, but Justice Ginsburg just recently said, I think quite clearly, in a case involving the strip search of a 13-year-old girl, that -- that she said that some justices seem to ignore the humiliation that might be involved because "they've never been a 13-year-old girl. It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I don't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."

So I think that's what Justice Sotomayor was talking about.

Q But Robert, those both seem to talk about identity with a certain circumstance, where the 2001 speech said because of her experience she would come to a better conclusion, which to some people --

MR. GIBBS: Well, that's why, Major, I started this by saying I think if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she'd change that word.

Q How do you know that?

MR. GIBBS: In discussions with people. Thanks, guys.

Q Discussions with who?

Q What's your people?

MR. GIBBS: People who have talked to her.

Labels: Nominees, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Supreme Court, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:27:00 PM

Under Enormous Pressure - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/28/09
— Thursday, May 28, 2009 —

What can I do to get you to close this dealership today?

Q Okay, great. Two quick policy things. We had a conversation yesterday about closing Chrysler dealerships. A gentleman named Leonard Bellavia, who has deposed Chrysler executives on behalf of some dealers, told Reuters, "It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers. It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They're under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."

MR. GIBBS: Under enormous pressure?

Q To close dealerships that Chrysler itself, according to this man who has deposed Chrysler senior executives on behalf of dealers --

MR. GIBBS: In the absence of seeing -- since we're talking about the law, I obviously haven't seen what affidavit he refers to. The President's task force on autos did not pick individual dealerships. It hasn't -- it isn't involved in picking what plants may or may not be closed. That's not the job of the President's auto task force. That's the job of the individual car company. They've got to figure out in their newly restructured world, based on the market, what their central supply chain is. And I think those are the decisions that they made.

Q Related to that, there is some concern in the blogosphere that -- of the Chrysler dealerships being closed -- a disproportionate number appear to be dealerships in which the operators contributed to Republicans, and hardly any in which contributions to Democrats have been closed down. I'm not saying the White House knows anything about this. I'm just asking, would you be concerned about any taint of politics whatsoever in any of these decisions?

MR. GIBBS: Look, again, Major, let me reiterate that we don't make those decisions, okay. Chrysler makes those decisions. So I'm sure you can send Chrysler the address of the blog that you refer to. I don't know whether that report is accurate, but I can simply say that since my first answer was we're not involved in making those decisions, I would think your question would be appropriately dealt with by the company that is.

Automobile Industry | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: Automobile Industry, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:57:00 PM

She Said One Was Better Than The Other - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/27/09

Q To follow up on Chip, briefly, are you saying that there's no racial dimension and there should be no racial dimension interpreted or drawn from Judge Sotomayor's comments made in 2001 at Berkeley -- after she was confirmed both times by the Senate, so the Senate never had a chance to evaluate that, just to point that out -- that there is no racial dimension? Americans who look at that should think, what, if they think that their might be a racial dimension there?

MR. GIBBS: I think, one, I think Americans should read all of what she talked about. Read the full article. I admonished April yesterday for her YouTube clip. Read the whole article, and I think there's --

Q There's a larger contextual point there --

MR. GIBBS: Read a couple of sentences past that and we can certainly discuss that. But more importantly, Major, let's -- as I said to Chip and others, you have somebody with the vast federal judicial experience that she has, not somebody who served on the court for a year or less than a year, but somebody who served on the court for quite some time. I think there's a strong record with which to evaluate.

I think we can all move past YouTube snippets and half-sentences and actually look at the honest-to-God record of these nominees -- even as April shakes her head. I think even April will do some due diligence and come to the conclusion that the President came to, that we've nominated somebody that deserves --

Q It's out of her mouth. Those were words that she said out of her mouth. You can admonish YouTube. You can admonish that and talk about her record, but she said these words.

Q Well, I'm just asking you, Robert --

MR. GIBBS: I understand, but I'm asking --

Q I'm just asking you if you want to offer -- as the White House had nominated her -- something that you believe the American public should read into it or evaluate from that statement that they read that we haven't heard from the podium so far. So I'm just offering you the opportunity --

MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry, just tell me the last part again.

Q Something that the White House wants to add to what Americans who may look at that fair-mindedly and say, this sounds to me as if there's a racial dimension to it, and maybe that might trouble them. Do you have anything to add to that?

MR. GIBBS: I think it -- I have confidence in Americans reading not just part of, but the whole statement, and I have confidence in Americans evaluating the full depth of her record and coming to an honest and open-minded conclusion.

Q In all fairness, a follow to that -- it's not just a racial dimension, but it's a gender dimension. And do you at least acknowledge that she did say these words? You're asking us to look beyond.

MR. GIBBS: I can confirm that it appears likely that she intoned both of those sentences, yes.

Q I mean, you're spinning it, trying to make us look at the record. Okay, we look at the record. But we're also looking at her words.

MR. GIBBS: Can I just say -- and I want to make sure that I get this on the record -- looking at the record isn't spinning you, okay.

Q I know, but you're spinning --

MR. GIBBS: I appreciate that --

Q -- what she actually said.

MR. GIBBS: I'm not spinning what she said. If I'm spinning what she said, April, then you at least have to acknowledge that you're not understanding even remotely the full context of what she said in that debate. Right?

Q I understand it, but I --

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no. I just want to know, do you believe that in judging eight seconds, or six seconds of what somebody says in a 40-minute clip, you've fully understood and taken into account the full context of what she said?

Q You have to look at the context --

MR. GIBBS: Is that a spin?

Q -- but, yes, as well, you have to also see the words that she said. You have to have a whole --

MR. GIBBS: Well, 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, just as I hope that people don't take a 10-second snippet of what you and I are talking about and form some larger conversation.

Q Robert, some of us have read the entire speech --

Q Thank you.

Q -- and we're wondering if you can explain what she meant. Because some of us who have read the entire, lengthy speech --

MR. GIBBS: And I talked about this yesterday. Let me get
--

Q She wasn't saying that a Latina woman judge and a white male judge would have equal views; she said one was better than the other.

MR. GIBBS: Here's what I believe. I think she's talking about the unique experiences that she has. I think the next sentence -- I don't have it in front of me -- I think the next sentence denotes that --

Q We want to get it. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I am surprised you don't have it, right, April. Have you -- cue your YouTube up right there on your Blackberry. Again, I think if you look at the totality of this, if you look at the next few sentences, I have every confidence that people will come to the conclusion that -- and again, and look at her whole record.

Q You're not spinning us. We're asking you, spin us. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I appreciate --

Q Explain what you think she meant.

Q Thank you.

MR. GIBBS: I have done that now --

Q And why there is no racial component to it.

MR. GIBBS: -- I have done that --

Q You dismissed Newt Gingrich as not doing well enough at Princeton or doing as well as Judge Sotomayor at Princeton --

MR. GIBBS: I think -- I don't think --

Q -- and all he's saying is there's a racial component to it, and a fair-minded person could read that and wonder to themselves if there's not a racial component. You deny that. I'm just trying to get an explanation as to why.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm saying -- I'm also saying you should read all of it.

Q We have.

MR. GIBBS: I think you should look at the totality of -- (laughter) -- let my look denote that I'm casting doubt on what you just said, April.

Q Have you read it?

MR. GIBBS: I've read most of it, yes.

Q And what conclusion do you draw? And what conclusion does the White House draw?

MR. GIBBS: That she has different experiences than -- she has lived a different life than some people have, based on her upbringing; that she understands that --

Q And it's okay, therefore, to say that that different life could lead you naturally to better conclusions than someone who didn't live that life?

MR. GIBBS: Or you could certainly lead to different conclusions, because we all have perspectives.

Q She said "better."

MR. GIBBS: Again, look at the totality of it. I have confidence that people will come to a reasonable conclusion on this.

Labels: Nominees, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Supreme Court, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:54:00 PM

Strong Letter To Follow - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/26/09
— Wednesday, May 27, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q If I could, just a quick question about North Korea. What is the administration's goal, other than some sort of piece of paper from the United Nations expressing disappointment with the nuclear bomb going off? What does the administration want to have happen concretely in terms of action?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think that the Security Council is currently meeting. I think they're likely to discuss next steps as far as that goes. Let me, though, address the initial part of your question.

I think the uniform and unified international criticism that we've seen since the reports of this testing demonstrate the outrage that countries around the world have for these actions. I think North Korea continues to deepen its isolation from the international community and continues, as we've said all along, to take steps in the wrong direction.

Q I'm sorry, but you didn't actually answer my question.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I just said that obviously I think the Security Council is involved in some of these discussions --

Q You don't want to tip your hand as to what you --

MR. GIBBS: I don't want to get in --

Q -- guys would like?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Labels: North Korea, Nuclear Arms, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, United Nations, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:55:00 PM

Just Like Bush And Totally Opposite Of Bush - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 5/14/09
— Friday, May 15, 2009 —

Any resemblance to persons political or not is purely coincidental

Q Robert, on the photos, do you know if the administration has communicated to the court yet its decision to retract what it had said previously? And the ACLU and others have been really harsh, calling the administration just as bad as the Bush administration now when it comes to secrecy. Does his decision on this reflect a fundamental kind of position that you think he takes or is going to take in his tenure on secrecy when it comes to national security?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- a couple comments.

Q Thought you might.

MR. GIBBS: One, I suppose, since you all keep asking me about Dick Cheney and how we're so different than George Bush in keeping the American people safe, it's a little hard to answer a question about why somebody thinks we're just like George Bush.

Q On this issue, they're saying. I mean, you know, they're saying on the issue of secrecy.

MR. GIBBS: Dick Cheney is not talking about global warming, right? I mean, we can't be either -- we can't be just like Bush and totally opposite of Bush all in the same issue. So I'll let people decide what part of the spectrum they think we land on. I think there are a lot of analogies out there that people probably haven't thought well through before they opened their mouths.

The second thing is, look, I think it is very -- I don't think it makes any sense to look at these things -- I think each of these things has to be looked at individually, right? Like let's take, for instance -- because all the stories today include this analogy to Abu Ghraib. Let's understand that Abu Ghraib -- the existence of the photos was the first that people understood of the notion of detainee abuse. That's what led to the investigation.

In this case, these photos are part of investigations that have been completed. The existence of these photos are not how we know about the abuse; it's because they've been investigated.

So I think we're all trying to draw parallels that might not necessarily work. I think the President is going to take -- look at the individual facts on a case-by-case basis and make the determination that he best believes protects our national security.

Q And I think most people would understand the kind of case-by-case approach. On the other hand, there are people who would probably say they voted for this President because they understood him to have a fundamentally different belief when it comes to these kinds of issues, and a fundamentally more open approach to issues like secrecy -- they voted for him because they didn't like George Bush's approach to kind of keeping everything secret and not turning -- and not being transparent. And that's what you guys promised, is a fundamentally different approach.

MR. GIBBS: And I'm pushing back on -- because now you seem to -- you've morphed from this being the ACLU's question and --

Q I'm just -- I'm playing devil's advocate here, Robert. I'm just --

MR. GIBBS: I'll be transparent and make this The Washington Post's argument. I think if you have any doubt about where we stand on the issues of detainee abuse, enhanced interrogation techniques and torture, I'd be happy to provide you the copy of the executive order that once and for all ends their use as part of this administration. I think if anybody has any doubt about how we fundamentally differ from the past administration on this issue, I'd suggest they take a look at that.

And again, I just want to push back on this whole premise that somehow -- these cases are on the Internet. These cases have been investigated. These cases -- we've seen punishment handed down for people that are involved in these cases. The notion that these photos add anything other -- anything to the record about these cases other than some matter-of-fact sensationalism -- that's why the President believes that the detainee abuse investigations are important and it can't be overlooked and it shouldn't be overlooked. But materially, these photos don't add anything to it.

Labels: Air Force One, Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Obama Administration, Photos, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:43:00 PM

We're All In This Together - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/11/09
— Monday, May 11, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q I'm wondering if the White House is at all concerned that you're not preparing the American people sufficiently for the fact that they, along with everyone else, will have to give something up for health care reform to happen. The President has talked a lot about everyone is going to have to give something up. But I'm wondering -- I mean, if you look at the Dartmouth study that Mr. Orszag talks about all the time or you look at some of the cost-cutting measures that are being discussed, there are some things that patients will have to give up. And I just -- I don't hear anybody in the administration -- and I know you're not drafting the legislation -- but I don't hear anybody in the administration talking about that at all.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, I think you prefaced your question by the President discussing overall the notion that we're all in this together and in order to reform the system each of us is probably going to have to give. I think what the President would tell you in response to this question, Jake, is right now what they're paying for and what their outcome is, is as outsized here as in any country in the world; that we can make reforms that will cut the cost that they -- the families and small businesses -- bear each day with a series of outcomes that is even greater than what we're experiencing now.

Whether that's dealing on the front end with wellness and health prevention is something that certainly may be moderate on the front end, but has huge impacts and effects, particularly in the amount of money that you're spending on health care in the out years.

So, look, I think this is a -- this will be a long process. But I think the President believes that today was an important step in seeing health care reform come to fruition this year. I think many of the actors that were involved in previous health care reform debates on the opposite side are now -- have what the President talked about, a seat at the table, and are actively involved in looking for a solution that will cut costs for the American people.

Q Just a follow-up to that. Is there any talk of these cost-saving proposals that the industry is talking about, making them mandatory instead of just voluntary?

MR. GIBBS: Well, the President in meeting with the group this morning -- before they went out, he said to this group, you've made a commitment; we expect you to keep it. And I think there's a pretty good conceptualization of the baseline for health care spending. And I know on some of the calls over the weekend -- this isn't something that CBO will score. But you guys all do stories, and we certainly watch the amount of health care inflation each year. And I think people believe that there's a sufficient ability to track whether or not these reforms are being taken.

We certainly believe that the players that are involved and the trade associations that they represent are genuinely serious about moving health care reform forward. But we will be certainly evaluating throughout this process how effective they're being, how effective the government is being at curtailing costs for Medicare and Medicaid in hopes of making sure that that savings is realized by American families.

Health Care | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: Health Care, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:48:00 PM

A $357,000 Photo - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/8/09
— Friday, May 08, 2009 —

Q Robert, will your office release the photo and report about the mock Air Force One flyover today or tomorrow?

MR. GIBBS: Today.

Q Can you tell us when or under what circumstances?

MR. GIBBS: It will be sometime later this afternoon. I think the final stuff is on my desk to review when I get back and we'll release the report, the photo --

Q A photo.

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q How would you suggest the American people interpret the handling of this in relationship to the administration's commitment to transparency?

MR. GIBBS: I'd suggest they'll be able to read the report, which the President instructed the deputy chief of staff to undertake. We'll have -- without getting into some of what's in there, I think you'll also have -- I don't think this is the only look into this incident that's taking place.

Q Secretary Gates had his own.

MR. GIBBS: Right. The President has also, without getting into some of the recommendations -- and I've got to finish reading all this -- looking into some of the breakdowns that allowed something like this to happen. And the President instructed the staff to ensure that it doesn't happen again, and those are the steps that we're taking.

Labels: Air Force One, Obama Administration, Open Government, Photos, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:57:00 PM

This Conversation Is A Little Silly - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/7/09
— Thursday, May 07, 2009 —

(Chart not to scale due to Spending)

MR. GIBBS: Chip.

Q When you and the President both are questioned on spending and deficits, you often say the previous administration and the deficits that you inherited. But even that previous administration last year proposed bigger budget cuts than this from discretionary spending. Wouldn't you at least want to exceed what they -- what their goals were?

MR. GIBBS: Well, no, no, no. I would reject that notion simply -- again, based on what we proposed this week. I don't think the previous administration sought to close tax loopholes for offshore tax havens at $210 billion. I don't think the previous administration entered into contract and procurement reform that we believe will save tens of billions of dollars -- legislation that's going through the Senate right now.

Q That's a pretty good answer.

MR. GIBBS: Not bad. Next. (Laughter.)

Q But how is -- staying on this a minute -- (laughter) --the President said the following: "During these difficult economic times, Americans are tightening their belts and making tough decisions about where they need to spend." One half of one percent -- how is this truly a tough decision and a tightening of the belt? Why not say, you know what, we're going to do 2 percent, 3 percent, 4 percent? No, but you want to have a money argument, but the percentage doesn't matter. People are cutting back their spending by 10 percent, companies are cutting --

MR. GIBBS: NBC?

Q -- by 5 percent. Trust me, no --

MR. GIBBS: The stock of GE?

Q A lot of -- a lot of companies are cutting back by real numbers. One half of one percent doesn't strike us as a real number.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'd -- do this. Let's do this. Let's you and I walk out on the street today. Let's interview maybe a dozen people and ask them whether they think $17 billion is a lot of money. I'm free right after this. Let's go --

Q You're a political guy. You can ask the question.

Q And then ask them do they think one half of one percent -- one half of one percent is a lot of money.

MR. GIBBS: We can do that. And then let's ask them if $210 billion, which the President proposed on Monday, is a lot of money, or a hundred and some billion dollars in changes to insurance company middlemen as part of Medicare is a lot of money, or contracting and procurement reform in our weapons system is a lot of money. Let's ask them if cutting the budget deficit in half over two years -- over four years is a lot of money.

Q Do you still stand by that projection, by the way? Because all of the others --

MR. GIBBS: No, no, don't stand by that -- it's not my projection, Chuck.

Q No, it's your -- but budget projections have changed, GDP has changed, unemployment -- tax revenues that are coming in. Do you really still think you can actually cut the deficit in half?

MR. GIBBS: Don't believe me saying it. Don't believe me. Simply go up to Congress, go to the Congressional Budget Office, and ask them for the scoring on the budget that passed the House and the Senate. I'm happy for you to go -- don't believe me; go ask the people that keep the score on this, Chuck. I'm simply saying --

Q No, wait a minute. You guys have not changed your -- but the projections get changed in July, do they not, on the budget?

MR. GIBBS: There will be a mid-session economic review based on where the economy is. But, look, Chuck, if you're willing to predict where the economy is in July, any of us would be happy to take notes.

Q Really quick, does the President support this economic commission that's passed Congress, both Houses? It's got to come to the President's signature. Is he going to support that, even though it's not a bipartisan split; it's a 60-40 --

MR. GIBBS: Six to four. I haven't asked them specifically to evaluate the legislation, but I'm sure if it landed on his desk the President would sign it.

Jonathan.

Q This conversation is a little silly because in fact he's not cutting $17 billion --

MR. GIBBS: I want to defend both Chucks -- (laughter) and say I don't think it's silly.

Q But he's not cutting $17 billion. He's cutting programs worth $17 billion, but there are more than $17 billion worth of expansion, expanded programs, and new programs. There isn't a $17 billion cut from projected budget cuts.

MR. GIBBS: Well, there's 17 -- I'll go back and look at the transcript. You just said there are not $17 billion in cuts; there's $17 billion in cuts to programs.

Q Right.

Q It's not net.

Q It's not net, right.

Q Not net.

MR. GIBBS: No, I get where he's going. Again, the budget is cut -- not based on what I say; what the Congressional Budget Office says -- the budget deficit is cut in half in four years. That's a net, that's an actual cut in spending by the government.

Labels: Budget, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:22:00 PM

Lowering Corporate Taxes By Raising Them - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/4/09
— Monday, May 04, 2009 —

3 comments

Q When the President had a Q&A session with the Business Roundtable, this idea, the tax proposals he's introduced today, came up. And one of the questioners said, Mr. President, would you consider, as you evaluate this policy, reducing corporate income tax rates -- because there is an economic argument that one of the reasons these tax havens flourish is to avoid higher corporate income tax rates around the globe, particularly in the U.S. The President said he would take it under consideration. It's not here today. Can we therefore assume we're not going to see any proposals from this White House on lowering corporate income tax rates anytime soon?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think what the President has laid out here would lower corporate taxes because for 10 years we are instituting certainty in the research and development tax credit. Businesses will pay less taxes by taking advantage of that.

But as I said a minute ago, the President believes this is a down payment on tax reform and I think the President would be -- I think the reason the President said he would take that under advisement is the President believes that closing loopholes and using that to bring down the corporate tax rate is exactly what he has in mind. But what that requires is a closing of the loopholes and the tax havens that you talk about that companies are taking advantage of to put money elsewhere to avoid paying taxes here.

Q Chairman Baucus said that this needs further study to assess the impact on the plan -- of the plan on U.S. businesses. Mitch McConnell said, I can't endorse a plan that gives preferential treatment to foreign companies at the expense of U.S.-based companies and the 52 million people they employ. At least at this level of bipartisanship, there appears to be some more that Congress would like to learn about this than it presently knows. How do you answer that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we are fortunate that Congress has to the power to call hearings and investigate the topic, but we're happy to have a long discussion about the fairness of tax havens and tax loopholes that let companies avoid paying the taxes -- taxes like you and I pay each day -- and instead reward companies that are investing right here and creating jobs in America.

Labels: Congress, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:46:00 PM

3 comments

Obama's 100 Days Presidential Press Conference Coverage
— Wednesday, April 29, 2009 —

Labels: Obama Administration, President Obama, Presidential Press Conference, Twitter, Video, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:33:00 PM

I Would Contact The White House - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/27/09

Q Second question, do you guys feel you owe folks in New York City this morning an apology for this incident having to do with the airplane that looks like Air Force One with two fighter jets? There seemed to be a lot of panic --

MR. GIBBS: I would point you to the FAA or Air Force.

Q Everybody's pointing us to the White House Military Office, so that's why --

MR. GIBBS: Well, then I would contact the White House --

Q Well, the White House Military Office won't tell us anything -- they'll refer us to you. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Well, then let me go discuss with the White House Military -- I don't -- I have seen some news reports but --

Q What was the photo op for?

MR. GIBBS: I don't know. That's -- I have no information on this other than what I saw --

Q I mean, I understand the way this works. I'm just saying, appearance-wise, it's odd that you guys don't have a response. I mean, this is the President's aircraft or what looks like --

MR. GIBBS: I understand. I was working on other things. You might be surprised to know I don't know of every movement of Air Force One or what happens to it. But I will certainly talk to the Military Office.

Q -- very edgy about it.

Labels: Air Force One, Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:36:00 PM

Hopeless To Appeal? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/24/09

Q Robert, on the issue of the release of photos of -- photos being released of abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, two questions. One, can you explain why those are going to be released?

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q And secondly -- well, let's start with that.

MR. GIBBS: Sure. The Second Circuit Court ruled in December of 2008 that the photos had to be released. The previous administration lost a court case on that. The Department of Justice decided based on the ruling that it was hopeless to appeal, and a mandate ordering the release of those photos came Monday. And the administration, the Pentagon, and the court entered into an agreement to release those photos.

So this is part of the very same case that OLC memos were derived from. This was a court case based on information that was compelled to be released.

Q So did this administration think that it was out of legal options, it had no more recourse, or did it decide it was time to release those?

MR. GIBBS: I'll double-check. Specifically on the second part of that, I know that the Department of Justice determined specifically based on the ruling that they were not likely to be successful.

Q And more big picture, just one last one. When these are released, are you concerned at all that that's going to be another version of the debate we've had here for the last week of a lot of looking back, looking back to the Bush administration and that time?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again -- again, this was -- this was largely compelled by a court decision than this is -- there are going to be actions that -- many actions that are out of our control. But I think the President believes that -- the President believes that, as I've said throughout this process, that it is important to look forward and not to look backward, and that's the posture that he'll continue to take.

Labels: Department of Justice, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:15:00 PM

Whether To Prosecute - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/23/09
— Friday, April 24, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Steve.

Q Robert, as you said, it's up to the Justice Department, not the White House, to decide whether there were crimes committed and whether to prosecute. Will the White House --

MR. GIBBS: Let me say -- let me -- I want to rephrase it. I haven’t said that. Well, I have said that, but that's what -- that's the legal system that's set up in this country. I mean, I -- what I said -- I didn't say that in terms of setting this doctrine up, right? Like if you drive 85 miles an hour on your way home, I may think it's against the law, but it's not likely I'm going to be the one providing you a speeding ticket, Steve.

Q Will the White House play any role in that conversation, particularly if the decision is made to charge high-ranking officials like the Vice President or the President with a crime?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President campaigned on, and will continue to keep the promise that he made in that campaign, as he has on many others, to leave legal determinations up to those that make legal determinations, not the President.

Q Well, the White House worked with the Justice Department on the determination not to hold accountable the field operatives that are responsible for this behavior.

MR. GIBBS: But that wasn't a political decision, Major. That was a decision based on --

Q I'm just saying it was a cooperative arrangement between this White House and the Justice Department on that decision.

MR. GIBBS: I wouldn't discuss this as an arrangement. I think two people can understand that -- again, this isn't -- this is a fairly time-honored legal tradition, if you follow legal advice rendered in good faith to govern your actions that you're not going to be held accountable or prosecuted for those actions.

All this is to say the best way to determine --

Q That's not what I'm talking about. What I was talking about is the collaborative effort between the White House and Justice Department some places and not elsewhere.

MR. GIBBS: The best way to determine -- the best way to determine who's going to -- the rule of law is to have it determined by lawyers who can determine whether or not somebody knowingly broke the law.

Q We've started talking in the last 24 hours more and more about very high-ranking people -

MR. GIBBS: I haven't talked about --

Q -- Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney --

MR. GIBBS: -- you guys have.

Q If in fact it reaches that level, would the President weigh in?

MR. GIBBS: Okay, you guys and Jay Rockefeller. (Laughter.)

I'm sorry, what was --

Q Would the President weigh in --

MR. GIBBS: Now, that we've --

Q -- turn to very high-ranking levels of the government? What does he think, for example, of the fact that Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon? Was that a breach of the presidential duty, or should that have been left to the Attorney General?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President has seen Frost/Nixon, but I do not know whether he's determined the efficacy of such a pardon.

Thanks, guys.

Labels: Department of Justice, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:08:00 PM

The Non-Clarity of Yesterday - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/22/09
— Wednesday, April 22, 2009 —

Q Any clarity from yesterday on the President's position on torture memos, and any reaction to Dennis Blair's memo that appeared in papers today?

MR. GIBBS: Well, on the first question, what exactly -- what clarity are you looking for?

Q We're looking -- you said you were going to talk to -- get back to us with clarity on the President's remarks.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think what -- maybe what I wasn’t clear about yesterday and -- because what was said yesterday was exactly what the President has said for not just the past week, as we've dealt with these OLC memos, but for the past many months. Let's just go through the whole sort of decision in general.

The President, at the beginning of his administration, banned the use of enhanced interrogation techniques because he believed they were -- they opposed our values and, on balance, they made the country less safe. As part of an ongoing legal proceeding, the President released these memos because there was no legal justification for continuing to keep them classified; that a lot of the information that was contained in the memos, that the types of techniques were in the public domain.

So that is part of the backdrop of where we are. The President also believes that the memos and their release should be a moment for us to reflect, but not a moment for retribution. The President, as he said yesterday, has a lot on his plate and he believes that our focus looking forward should be on the crises that we have in the bank industry, in unemployment, the financial sector, and as he and the Attorney General have said, that while no one is above the law, those that worked within the four corners of the legal advice they were given, and those that acted in good faith based on the advice they were provided should not be subject to interrogation.

That's what the President said -- that's what the President has said all along.

Q Should not be subject to what?

MR. GIBBS: Should not be subject to prosecution.

Q The President said yesterday that he wanted to ensure that if there was any kind of investigation, politics were not part of the equation. Given that, would he be supportive at some point appointing a special prosecutor to look into these Bush-era officials?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think this goes into the -- in some ways, the non-clarity of yesterday. Let me use an example. If you go in the back of the plane, Air Force One, and spray-paint the walls and smoke in the bathroom, the President isn’t going to determine whether you broke the law; a legal official is going to determine whether you broke the law. That's the determination that will be made in any instance whereby anybody knowingly breaks the law.

Q But due to the fact that his AG, Eric Holder, is a political appointee, would it not be less political to have a prosecutor to look into these issues?

MR. GIBBS: I think that the lawyers that are involved are plenty capable of determining whether any law has been broken. I want to stress that that determination is not going to be made by the President, or the Vice President, or anybody that works in the White House, because that's why many, many, many, many moons ago we created a Department of Justice.

Q To switch gears, can you tell us a little bit more about this planned summit with Zardari and Karzai? What does the President hope to achieve with this, what I understand is going to be a three-way?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, it will be a trilateral meeting in early May. Look, obviously, without getting into a lot of the technical details, these are -- this is part of the ongoing new policy and process that was put into place at the conclusion of the review of where we are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Understanding that this is a very important and very dangerous part of the world, the President wants to be personally involved, as he has been throughout his administration, in seeking to find solutions to the problems that are in this region and to protect the United States.

Q He said before that he doesn’t -- that they're not going to have a blank check. Is that something he's going to communicate to them again when he meets them?

MR. GIBBS: Absolutely. And I don't -- the President will reiterate his hopes and his belief of the opportunities, but also the responsibilities that each leader has.

Q There are lots and lots of news reports today saying that what the President did yesterday was open the door, change his policy, make a surprising announcement. Are all of those stories just flat wrong?

MR. GIBBS: Yes. And let me -- again, I'll use the example that I used with Jonathan to you -- I think you were getting a pen or something. If you spray-paint the back of this plane, if you tear up one of the seats, even though it's Air Force One, the President doesn’t make a determination as to who broke the law. That's a legal official. The notion that the President is open to anything is -- I think misses the point.

If somebody knowingly broke the law, that's a determination that will be ultimately made by a legal official, not by the President of the United States, or not by anybody else.

Labels: Air Force One, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:34:00 PM

Whatever Confusion Might Exist - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/21/09

Q It sounded as though the President took a somewhat different policy today than his Chief of Staff did on Sunday regarding possible prosecution of those who devised the policies. The President said today, regarding those who'd formulated these legal decisions, that that's more of a decision for the Attorney General. And Rahm Emanuel said on Sunday, for those who devised the policy, he -- being the President -- believes they should not be prosecuted. Is that a shift in position?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let's -- instead of referring to what anybody might have said, I think it's important -- or anything that I might have said -- it's important to refer to what the President said, and what he said over the course of many months, in all honestly, because this dates back to questions that has received in press conferences or even during the transition, and that is, very much as he said -- reiterated today, that he says as a general deal, I think we should be looking forward and not backward.

The President has also said he does not believe that people are above the rule of law. And the President stated accurately that any determination as to whether a law was broken would rightly be made not by the President but by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

Q But it did seem like a sound -- at least a difference in tone, if not policy, by particularly saying the Attorney General would be the most likely one to look at those who devise a policy. That sounds different from what he has said in the past, where he always talked about let's just move forward --

MR. GIBBS: Well, again --

Q -- and in fact, Rahm Emanuel --

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, whatever confusion might exist, I think it's important -- again, the President said throughout the campaign that he would leave determinations on science in his administration to scientists; that he would leave determinations about the law to those in the Justice Department. And I think he reiterated that today, that people aren't above the law.

I do think it's important to make a distinguishing -- to distinguish exactly what the President said last week. The President believes and was assured by the Justice Department that those that have acted in good faith on what they believed was legal won't be prosecuted. The President still believes that.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Robert, I just want to follow up on Chuck's question, because it does seem that there is a shift there. Because if you look at what the President said today, he said, with regard to those who formulated the legal decisions, he said that that was a decision for the Attorney General, and he said he didn't want to prejudge that. But Rahm Emanuel on Sunday said that those who devise the policy, he believes that they should -- that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, so --

MR. GIBBS: Well, to clear up any confusion on anything that might have been said, I would point you to what the President said.

Q Did he have a change of heart on this issue over the last few days? Is he --

MR. GIBBS: No, I think the President, as I said, you can date back to the -- I think was asked, at least I recall it being asked in the transition -- and discussed the rule of law, that nobody in the country is above that rule of law.

Q And just on the issue of a further accounting, which he talked about today and which Chuck also asked you about, is he actively considering a 9/11-type of panel? Is he --

MR. GIBBS: No, I think --

Q -- it seemed like he was trying to get at something like that, he said that he would like to see something outside of the hearing process.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he was asked, if something were to be set up, how would it be set up. How would --

Q Right. But wouldn't he be the one to set it up?

MR. GIBBS: Not necessarily. I'm reminded that Congress has a pretty big say in something like that, given their ability and their lawmaking power.

Q Is he conferring with people on that?

MR. GIBBS: I will check if it's something that's active. Again, the President's position is to look forward. If there are those that want to look back, I think the President strongly believes that anything has to be done in a way that doesn't, as he said today, doesn't overly politicize and hamper either the ability of anybody involved to carry out the functions of their job or the functions that protect our country.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, what changed over the last 24 hours, though? Because yesterday you were flat in saying that we're not going there, as Rahm was on Sunday. And in the last 24 hours we've seen groups like moveon.org on the left come out and write a petition to the Attorney General saying they want accountability from the Bush administration. Is this an example of this White House giving in to pressure from the left?

MR. GIBBS: I don't -- I have not, and I doubt the President has been on moveon.org in the last 24 hours, so, no.

Q Okay. But then why was Rahm so firm on Sunday, and you were firm yesterday in this very room; what changed?

MR. GIBBS: Again, to clear up any of the confusion, I would simply say that the President reiterated that there is -- that, as he said, his general posture is to look forward, and that at the same time, nobody is above the law.

Q Why would there be any confusion, as you call it? I don't understand. This is a pretty straightforward topic.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I predicated your question then posited some confusion with acknowledgment.

Q Did you misspeak? Or did Rahm misspeak?

MR. GIBBS: You know, I -- whether or not anybody was confused or misspoke, I would take what the President said as -- I'm informed he got more votes than either of the two of us.

Q Can I follow on -- Vice President Cheney yesterday weighed in on this and said he found it disturbing that the President put these memos out. And he also is charging, if you can answer, that this White House basically selectively declassified some of these torture memos, and that there are other memos somewhere in the CIA that would show that the interrogation actually yielded what the former Vice President would call good intelligence that prevented terror attacks. How do you answer that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would suggest that you contact the CIA. You might be --

Q Well, they're not about to turn these over to me or anyone else in this room?

MR. GIBBS: Including me. (Laughter.)

Q But if the President wanted to declassify it, he could. He just declassified it --

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I would --

Q So the question is, are there other memos that you're keeping under wraps?

MR. GIBBS: And I just said, I don't know. Again, that's why I would -- I know sometimes when I ask you to contact the agencies with the wherewithal to answer your questions, you think that I'm not answering your question. But as you just said, they're not going to give them to you, they're coincidentally not going to give them to me. And I think the best place to ask about their existence is the CIA.

Labels: Attorney General, Bush Administration, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:08:00 PM

I'm Being Completely Sincere - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/20/09
— Tuesday, April 21, 2009 —

Q Thank you. The $100 million target figure that the President talked about today with the Cabinet, can you explain why it's so small? I know he talked about -- you know, you add up a hundred million, a hundred million, a hundred million and eventually you get somewhere, but it would take an awfully long time to add up hundred millions to make a dent in the deficit. Why not target a bigger number?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think only in Washington, D.C. does $100 million --

Q The deficit is very large. It's not a joke. The deficit is giant; $100 million really is only a dent.

MR. GIBBS: No joke --

Q You can make a joke about it, but it's not funny.

MR. GIBBS: I'm not making a joke about it; I'm being completely sincere. But 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.

Q But the point is it's not a very big portion of the deficit.

Q You were talking about an appropriations bill a few weeks ago -- that at $8 billion -- being minuscule; a billion in earmarks. We were talking about that and you said that that --

MR. GIBBS: Well, in terms of --

Q A hundred million is a lot, but $8 billion is small?

MR. GIBBS: What I'm saying is I think it all adds up -- just as the President said, just as Jennifer was good enough to do in her question. If you think we're going to get rid of a $1.3 trillion deficit by eliminating one thing, I'd be and the administration would be innumerably happy for you to let us know what that is.

Q Why not try to get a bigger number so you can get a -- at a bigger share --

MR. GIBBS: Let me explain sort of what has happened. Let's walk through this so that everybody understands this. The President has laid out cuts, large and small, in both the administrative costs and in the program costs of the federal budget.

Some of the examples that we were -- we provided you all will add up. For instance, the Department of Veterans Affairs either cancels or delays 26 conferences that can be better, or more effectively and more cost-effectively done by video conferencing that saves almost $18 million.

A lot of these administrative things will add up. This is a short-term goal to come back with, over the course of the next few weeks, to identify further administrative savings that secretaries haven't already both identified and eliminated.

The President has also proposed savings on a much larger scale. The President has proposed ending the bank middle man for college loans, saving $94 billion over a 10-year period of time.

The President has attacked, in his budget, the subsidies that we provide insurance companies to provide the same Medicare coverage -- private insurance companies the same type of Medicare coverage that's already being offered at a savings of over $200 billion.

Jennifer, the reason that the President can stand up with the backing of the Congressional Budget Office and talk about cutting the deficit in half over the course of four years time is because there are cuts that are large -- student loans and Medicare Advantage -- as well as small. This is part of the President's promise and proposal to go line by line through the federal budget deficit. Will we enumerate programs that don't work that we're going to eliminate in the future? Yes. Some of those cuts will be large; some of those cuts will be small.

But we are not going to put ourselves back on a path toward fiscal sustainability if we don't look at each and every item in this federal budget and make some of the cuts that are necessary to get us on that path.

Federal Deficit | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: Federal Deficit, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:47:00 PM

Toning Down The Expectations - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 3/31/09
— Tuesday, March 31, 2009 —

Q Can I ask about -- can I sort of put the Russia and China meetings together? Both of those nations have been pretty aggressive in the way they've talked about the U.S., particularly on the currency issue, and are kind of looking to boost their own image and stature in the world by talking that way. How big a part do you think those kinds of issues will play in the meetings tomorrow?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I -- look, I can't speak for what those countries will bring up. I think it's been -- we've been quite clear that the reserve currency of the world is now and will continue to be the U.S. dollar, the strength and the breadth of our economy is unmatched.

I do think the President looks forward to each of these meetings as a way, again, of speaking of issues that are of mutual concern. Obviously there are -- there's a lot to deal with on the world stage and this is an opportunity for him to get a chance to talk to these two leaders on a very personal level tomorrow.

Q Both of these nations are trying to sort of use this moment to more assertively challenge the U.S. So how does the President go into those meetings, sort of knowing that they occur in that context?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't think it -- look, I think the President will have the issues that he wants to discuss and bring them up with each of those two countries. I don't think that changes what the President does at all.

Q Robert, there seems to have been a -- everything seems to be toning down the expectations, trying to tamp down expectations for everything on this trip. What are the fair measuring sticks? April 7th, flying back, measuring sticks out of G20, out of NATO, out of the EU -- is it -- what are they?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, let's take the G20, for example. I think it's likely that we will come out of the G20 with very broad agreement on measures that have to be taken to address the global recession. We've already gotten -- despite what a lot has been written about -- at the financial ministerial level just a couple of weeks ago the commitment to continue to evaluate what has to be done to spur the global economy along.

Q What does that mean? "Commitment to evaluate" -- I mean, that sounds like -- do you worry you get so much to a broad consensus --

MR. GIBBS: Let me be more specific, because this also hasn't been reported -- so I'll give you a chance to enumerate my evaluation.

As we said last Saturday on the phone call in preparation for this, if you total up what the G20 nations have pledged to address the economic downturn, it represents 1.8 percent of GDP for the G20 nations. That is a significant commitment to addressing the downturn in GDP around the world. The pledge is to evaluate whether or not more steps will be needed in the future to address the breadth and severity of the crisis.

I think secondly there will be broad consensus about far stronger financial regulations to ensure that what we're dealing with now never happens again, that we have different rules of the road for the 21st century. And I think that the United States and the Obama administration last week demonstrated its commitment to leadership in this endeavor by rolling out as strong a set of financial regulations as any country has proposed -- as well as a commitment to get them through Congress this year. So that we will not simply propose new rules of the road, but have them instituted by the end of the year, which will make progress in the sense of we won't just be speaking about this stuff, we'll be acting on it.

We'll address hedge funds and derivatives as part of regulation. There are tougher capital requirements. There are tools to ensure greater security and safety in our financial system. And finally, as both the President and the Secretary of Treasury have spoken about, they give any administration unique tools and necessary tools to deal with systemic risks like resolution authority, which is something we lack in dealing with something the size of AIG.

Q NATO?

MR. GIBBS: You know, NATO, I think we will have an opportunity to discuss and review what the President has proposed. As I said, the Secretary of State heard some -- was pleased with what she heard in public and in private. So I think we want -- I think we're making progress and we'll see progress that demonstrates that the concern, as I said a minute ago, about Afghanistan and Pakistan are not simply the concern of one country or one --

Q -- measureable, though? Is it troop commitments?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't want to get ahead of where we are. I think if we can demonstrate that there's broad international concern and that people are working together to address it, I think that'll be a success.

Q What specifically pleased the Secretary of State the most, that she heard?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think it was an understanding that -- well, first of all, bringing together neighbors in the region to address in a larger way the problems that we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As you know, the President committed at the beginning of his administration to reviewing our policy -- not simply as one that relates to Afghanistan or one that relates to Pakistan, but one that relates to the region as the whole. That was important. Demonstrating -- understanding and demonstrating that commitment I think is important. And she was pleased with what she heard, as I said, in public and in private.

Look, I think it's a helpful development if they're willing to continue their involvement to have Iran, a neighbor of Afghanistan, who can and should be concerned about drug trafficking into their country. If they are willing to accept the responsibility of playing a constructive role in that region, I think that's an important development. We'll see as we move forward how that goes.

Q What parts of the G20 agenda are still in flux or still being negotiated? Or is it pretty much set right now, in terms of what the outcome will be?

MR. GIBBS: I can go ask those guys in terms of what, in terms of the communiqué. I think the call that he had with Prime Minister Brown demonstrated that they made progress on a number of issues.

One last thing I forgot to mention at G20 is obviously -- and this is largely agreed upon -- is a far greater commitment to international institutions in order to help emerging economies as we see this massive slowdown in global trade.

Q -- contribution?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q And do you think -- is that on the China agenda? When he meets with Hu, is that about getting them to kick in on this?

MR. GIBBS: I will double check on that. But I know, again, that that is -- you know, greater exports from our country into emerging economies means jobs back home, so that's important.

Q You talked about his consultations going into the G20, you know, all the conversations he's had with leaders in person and on the phone. Could you quantify that? I mean, pull together how many conversations and meetings he's had?

MR. GIBBS: I can go back and try to -- you mean with leaders, not --

Q Yes.

MR. GIBBS: Okay. Again, I know that -- like I said, in the past 10 days he's had --

Q We know, but when the President announced -- it seems like he's had a couple different conversations with some leaders, that once --

MR. GIBBS: Let me go back and try to pull together all of it. Again, I know -- you know I think about most of them. As I said, conversations in the past 10 days or so -- teleconferences with Sarkozy and Merkel; conversations with Brown, and visits by Rudd and Lula to the Oval Office. I should mention he talked with Prime Minister Harper in within the last, I think, 48 hours.

Q Was it about cars?

MR. GIBBS: I think partly to talk about that, but also to talk about G20.

Labels: Air Force One, Economy, G20, International Relations, Obama Administration, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:33:00 PM

Why No Timeline? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 03/27/09
— Friday, March 27, 2009 —

Q The President really had the focus, in terms of the threat, on Pakistan. And we see the buildup, the troop buildup, for Afghanistan. But what is the U.S. planning to do to go after this threat? If the terrorists are hiding out and currently planning to strike us, what is being done to cut that off?

MR. GIBBS: In Pakistan?

Q In Pakistan.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not going to get into operational details --

Q Is there something being done?

MR. GIBBS: Is there something being done --

Q To go after the threat in Pakistan? Because there's $5 billion a year in humanitarian, but nothing -- we haven't heard anything at all about some active engagement to go after that threat if we know the threat is there.

MR. GIBBS: I think it would be wise for us not to lay out in front of the world the plan -- that plan of attack.

Q Well, I'm not looking for the plans. Is there something that is ongoing to go after that threat? Because he stated the threat is there; they're planning to attack us.

MR. GIBBS: I think you can be very assured that we're taking the steps necessary to address the threat and to protect the American people.

Q In terms of the timeline, no timeline to extract troops out of Afghanistan. The President I believe in the past has talked about wanting to have a timeline. Why no timeline? Why not sort of set some sort of mark and say, we need to be out by this time?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President did state quite clearly that the policy would be reviewed and evaluated as we go. Obviously if you add in the increase in the number of troops that were added in -- before the President took office, in addition to the 17,000 that the President ordered previously, and the 4,000 trainers today, you're looking at an expansion of roughly 30,000 American troops.

So we have important elections coming up in Afghanistan in a deteriorating security situation, and I think -- first of all, I think the President wants to evaluate what -- and the security team want to evaluate what that increase means for the situation in the region. Obviously the announcement today is to build the capacity of the Afghan army to ensure that ultimately that responsibility of rooting out extremism and protecting the democratically elected government can be done by the Afghans. And also the President will look to evaluate the policy as we move forward as we increase our diplomacy, as we increase the number of civilians that are there to do what the President talked about in terms of the delivery of services without corruption, and for developmental aid.

And so I think that the President will have said and set forward -- and I think you guys heard last night about a flexible strategy that allows the team to evaluate whether the goals are being met and whether the benchmarks are being met, so that we can determine the progress toward making that region of the world safe and stable.

Labels: Afghanistan, Obama Administration, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:51:00 PM

More This Than That - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/23/09
— Tuesday, March 24, 2009 —

Q Robert, in rolling out the details today, Timothy Geithner used a more, sort of, quiet approach -- pen-and-pad with reporters, not getting out there on television in a very public way. Why?

MR. GIBBS: You guys always -- every time we do one of these things, we do a background briefing, and somebody asks if it can be on the record --

Q But this was a major --

MR. GIBBS: -- and, you know, we don't want just a speech, we'd like to do some Q&A, and so we put the Secretary of Treasury out on the record to --

Q This was a major event. Everyone was waiting for the details, and it almost seemed like it came out in a less than, sort of, bombastic way.

MR. GIBBS: I guess he's worried a little bit less about what the packaging is on the present, and more importantly, what’s inside of the box. I suppose we could have rigged out some flags and printed up some placards and cued up some old campaign music, but I think what's important -- maybe not for Washington reporters, but what’s more important for the American people is to get the details of a plan that works to get their bank lending money again.

I think that's, in all honesty, what the Americans people care most about. I think if you objectively look at what this administration has done, or what the economic team has done in the course of about nine weeks of service, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find nine weeks where more solutions were outlined of problems and challenges that have been facing this country probably since the 1930s.

Q Just to follow another question –- Christina Romer, in an interview with CNN earlier today, talked about how if this doesn’t work that we’ll review it – we’ll tweak it, I think was the exact language that she used. Is there a backup plan if this doesn’t work? And to say "tweak" it, does that sort of instill sort of a lack of confidence that this will actually work?

MR. GIBBS: Do we have a backup plan if it doesn’t work, and if we do have a backup plan, does that denote that we're preparing for it not to work? I want to sift through the circular --

Q I asked a backup plan because she said if it doesn’t work we'll "tweak" it. But I'm just wondering, does that give a sense of --

MR. GIBBS: Again, I think it is safe to assume that any policy that this administration or -- I'll speak broadly for any politician in the country -- if they roll out a plan, it's constantly evaluated to ensure that the objectives by which the plan was introduced are met by the implementation of the plan. And if the plan doesn’t meet through its implementation the objectives of what it was outlined to do, that that plan might be augmented to meet those objectives.

Q That was deep. That was deep.

MR. GIBBS: That was more this than that. (Laughter.)

Labels: Banking, Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:54:00 PM

Geithner Time Loop Theory - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/20/09
— Saturday, March 21, 2009 —

Secretary Geithner at work in the Treasury Department

Q On Geithner, is the administration sticking to -- are you sticking to this March 10th date for when he found out about this? Because I -- he was asked about it in Congress a week before -

Q It was March 9th.

Q March 9th. He was asked a week before, specifically.

MR. GIBBS: And I think the Treasury Department addressed that in the newspaper this morning. Look, I think there's -- there has been -- obviously, the Treasury has talked about taking responsibility for knowing more about the timeline.

Q When Secretary Geithner talked about that yesterday, he really parsed words. He said, on Tuesday, March 10th, I was informed about the full scale and scope of these specific bonuses. He's not saying that was the first time he learned about it --

MR. GIBBS: Well --

Q A very careful parsing of words here, suggesting he did know about it before then.

MR. GIBBS: No, I -- I think if you read carefully the report you're discussing, the Treasury Secretary takes responsibility, as the President does --

Q But he's sticking by that October 10th date -- excuse me, March 10th date --

MR. GIBBS: Right, I --

Q -- even though he clearly knew about it before then. He was asked about it in Congress --

MR. GIBBS: But, again -- but again, Chip --

Q -- and he was overseeing the AIG bailout. I mean, is it --

MR. GIBBS: What committee --

Q It just doesn't seem credible.

MR. GIBBS: That was Ways and Means?

Q Yes. But he was specifically asked the question.

MR. GIBBS: No, I understand. I understand. And I think he's addressed that and I think that's addressed in both the reports today and what he said yesterday. Chip, we're -- we understand and the President shares the outrage and the frustration that everybody has. The administration is taking steps to recoup money that's gone out, as well as to put in place a financial stability plan and to seek progress on getting our economy moving again.

Q Let me just ask you specifically. When he says, on March 10th he was informed about the full scale and scope, is he saying that's the first he learned about it at all?

MR. GIBBS: Chip, the question is predicated on the report in the paper and I think the report in the paper answers your question.

Q So he did know about it before then? 20:54

MR. GIBBS: Chip, I will -- can somebody go get a dollar and buy Chip a newspaper so that he can read the report? Again, I think it's pretty clear --

Q Been read.

MR. GIBBS: Excellent. Then I believe it's been answered.

Q Robert, can I follow on that real quick? Why did you tell us that it was March 10th, then, that you found out? The statement from the White House was very specific, he found out March 10th.

MR. GIBBS: Again, I would point you to the report that the Secretary of the Treasury takes responsibility, as does the administration, with knowledge about the structure and the scope of those bonuses.

Q But we were accidentally or however misinformed about the day that he found out.

MR. GIBBS: Well, let's -- let's not -- I'm just going to leave it at that. I think the report is pretty clear and so are the answers.

Chuck.

Q Did he misinform the White House about when he found out?

MR. GIBBS: Chuck.

Video
(note the difference between the uhhh-redacted transcript and the video of uhhhs):

Labels: AIG, Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:32:00 PM

Going Backwards - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/16/09
— Tuesday, March 17, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q Did you guys first find out about these bonuses last week?

MR. GIBBS: I think that's true, based on what I read in the newspaper.

Q But you gave money to AIG two or three weeks ago. How could you not know that they have these millions, hundreds of millions of dollars --

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, Jake, there's -- according to news reports, there's existing contracts, some of which the President -- of which the President has asked the Secretary to examine, going forward. I think you also heard the President speak today about having a resolution authority that gives the government and taxpayers far more flexibility in dealing with the disposition of AIG in a way that gives taxpayers protection and flexibility; a disposition that we don't currently have, but steps that we would like to see taken in order to deal with AIG as a whole.

Q But why didn't you attach it to the $30 billion you gave a couple weeks ago?

MR. GIBBS: Again, Jake, the --

Q You're looking to retroactively attach it to this new $30 billion.

MR. GIBBS: Well, they're looking through contracts to see what can be done to wrest these bonuses from their recipients.

Q No, I'm sorry, I don't think -- I don't understand, so maybe I'm just not understanding. But President Obama said in early February when he gave the speech on executive compensation, "These kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn't just bad taste, it's bad strategy, and I will not tolerate it as President. We're going to be demanding some restraint in exchange for federal aid." Since that time, he gave tens of billions of dollars in federal aid to AIG without demanding restraint.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, Jake, we've got existing relationships, contracts, as I just mentioned, that were negotiated a year ago, assistance that was granted outside of the legal authority prior to the creation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The President has asked the administration to go back and look at what remedies are possible to block those bonuses.

Q Well, why didn't he do that before?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, the excessive compensation rules that you noted -- and I think somebody asked this at the background briefing that we had -- obviously are prospective based on some limitations that we have in looking backwards. The President has asked Secretary Geithner and members of the administration to exhaust all legal remedies in looking backwards to see what steps could be taken to block these bonuses.

Q I know, but since -- and I'm sorry to belabor this point -- but since President Obama gave his speech, you guys gave more money to AIG. Why wasn't it attached to the new money?

MR. GIBBS: Because it's -- again, it's part of the --

Q Part of the old contract.

MR. GIBBS: Right. It's part of --

Q But you're looking now retroactively to see if you can attach something to that old money?

MR. GIBBS: That's what we're looking at.

Q Well, why didn't you do it at the time, if you're looking to retroactively do it?

MR. GIBBS: The administration is taking the steps today to go back and see what can be done, as Jeff said, to call those bonuses back.

Q But, Robert, to follow up on Jake's point, did Secretary Geithner make a mistake by not reviewing these contracts -- they're a year old -- before he cut a new check to AIG? Why didn't he do that?

MR. GIBBS: I would certainly ask the Treasury -- I'll ask the Treasury that. But again, to some degree, there are legal instruments and contracts that predate this administration, that predate the legal founding of the TARP program. The President has asked this administration to exhaust all legal avenues to see what can and should be done going backwards.

Labels: Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Wall Street, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:20:00 AM

A Billion Dollars An Hour - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/11/09
— Thursday, March 12, 2009 —

Why must I be surrounded by frickin' idiots?

Q Robert, following on what Jennifer was saying about gentle rhetoric from the President today, when you mentioned that Congress didn't get nine of the 13 appropriations bills done, that's something the Democratic Congress -- his fellow Democrats failed to get those bills done last year. Now Mitch McConnell today, the Republican Leader, was saying that when you add up the $787 billion stimulus, you add on the $410 billion the President is about to sign for omnibus, that's a billion dollars an hour in 50 -- 51 days. When the American people look at that, is that really change to the way Washington is working?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I probably shouldn't engage an individual Senator who ran Congress for a number of years where deficits set records, and I won't do something like that today. I mean, I -- (laughter.)

Q Tomorrow maybe?

MR. GIBBS: Or later in this briefing. (Laughter.)

Q But the President is signing these now. Regardless of what Mitch McConnell did before, the President is signing --

MR. GIBBS: Well, but hold on, let's not -- I'm asked about the debt every day. That's not exactly -- let's not exactly put aside --

Q That's last year's business, right?

MR. GIBBS: No, I -- well, according to some in the Senate, it was last hour's business. The President has proposed a return to fiscal sanity, and a path towards fiscal responsibility.

Look, here's what I would say -- I'll break my campaign promise and engage the Senator from Kentucky, and any senator or representative in Congress. They're -- it is certainly within one's right to criticize the budget. That's -- we get that. I think the best way for him to put forward a budget that we can look at and debate and see whether there's honest accounting -- whether we take into account natural disasters, paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the possibility of continued financial stability, investments in health care, education, and energy independence -- I think the best way to do that is for Senator McConnell, and anybody else, to put forward a budget plan that does those things and puts ourselves on a path towards fiscal responsibility. I think that's the best way to have the debate joined.

It's an important debate that we're having, and I think it's important that, as Mr. Buffett said, we work constructively together to try to solve our economic challenges. But that's all part of the process.

Q Why did the President apply a different standard of "this is last year's business" for this legislation, when in things like TARP, when he was President-elect, he reached out to then-President Bush and said, look, we need to authorize the other $350 billion -- even though TARP was last October, it was clearly last year's business --

MR. GIBBS: Well, no, no. let's be fair, Ed.

Q I am being fair.

MR. GIBBS: Okay, well, let's understand -- how does the next $350 billion get triggered?

Q It's triggered by the President --

MR. GIBBS: No, it gets triggered by the Senate. The Senate had to -- I'm sorry, one House of the Congress had to basically authorize the re-spending of that money. So that was something that was put in by last Congress -- at our request certainly -- I mean this -- but it's not a -- trust me, having listened to some of those phone calls, it wasn't a one-sided deal. Triggering an additional amount of money in order to be spent in the current -- isn't last year's business.

Q There are a whole host of things like that, that President Bush -- you've said you inherited from President Bush, but you're not running away from them -- like Iraq timetable. The President followed through on that, said --

MR. GIBBS: I'm glad to see you --

Q Okay, the question is, on this piece of legislation, the President used the principle: This is last year's business. So even though it's got all kinds of things I don't like, I'm going to sign it anyway. Okay? There are a whole bunch of other things he got from President Bush that he doesn't like either. And he's going to change -- President Bush didn't want to have a timetable in Iraq, but President Obama came in and said, we're going to put that timetable -- I campaigned on that. Well, he campaigned on earmarks, as well, pulling them out of these bills. Where is the consistency?

MR. GIBBS: I'm having a lot of trouble connecting the dots in your -- I mean, I suppose the President could have come in and assumed that people weren't in Iraq, but I don't understand your analogy.

Q You're saying this legislation is last year's business, but he's signing it into law this year. He could have vetoed it. Why wouldn't he veto it?

MR. GIBBS: Let me give you last -- let me give you yesterday's answer. The President believes that, despite protestations, that appropriations bills designed to be completed before September 30th of the previous year are last year's business. I think any reasonable look at the appropriations process would understand that. The President believes that, moving forward, dozens and dozens of appropriations bills will cross his desk because he's asked, first and foremost, that Congress not lump large bills together. And to be fair, that's done virtually every year; six to nine of these appropriations bills get glommed on at the very end or go into overtime in order to do that -- that changing the rules going forward were important because the President is best able to have an impact on that legislation moving forward.

That's what the President enumerated through transparency and a full set of earmark reforms that -- I bet when we look back on a year or two from now we'll see a decrease in the number of spending projects, just as the President has asked that we put ourselves back on a path toward fiscal responsibility through a budget that will cut the deficit in half in just four years.

Labels: Congress, Legislation, Obama Administration, Pork, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:50:00 PM

Six Weeks and Six Days - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/9/09
— Monday, March 09, 2009 —

Q Back to Warren Buffett for a second. Understanding what you said and what he said about part of the confusion that people feel is the function of 535 members in Congress, and so on. He did say the President has the most authoritative voice. Does the President bear any responsibility for what Warren Buffett described as confusion and fear --

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think that Mr. Buffett, and again I -- I think Mr. Buffett is talking about a period of time that has spanned now two administrations, that has watched different policy proposals to deal with different things. But I think Mr. Buffett would agree that -- and in fact, said in not so many words -- but that this problem isn't going to be fixed overnight. We didn't get here -- we didn't get here overnight; the problems that we dealt with starting in sort of early to mid-September of last year didn't start last summer. Many of those problems started years ago. Many of the systemic problems that were rooted in what ultimately failed took place a while ago.

Q In terms of communicating a solution or even a sense that we have it well in hand, can you -- any room for improvement there?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think obviously the President would always say there's room for improvement; that the President believes that we have to continue to give people a realistic sense of where this economy is, but also talk about, as he did at the speech to Congress, that we've got to make sure people understand that brighter days are ahead. But I think there's a sense from certain people that -- of either chagrin or surprise -- that in one day less than seven weeks all of the problems that took many years to take hold haven't necessarily been solved.

I think if you look -- if you realistically look at what this administration has done in that six weeks and six days, you'll see putting in place a recovery and reinvestment plan that we think will create jobs, put money in taxpayers' pockets, and get money directly out to the states to deal with crushing budget cuts that will impact those that can least afford it; a home foreclosure plan that will begin to address millions of people that have played by the rules, but should they get into further economic trouble, might have problems making their mortgage payment and watch a home foreclosure crisis spread; put in place the building blocks of a financial stability plan through a capital investment program, business and lending initiative that the Secretary announced just last week. And obviously we've started and will continue in Congress and through the G20 to ensure that a regulatory structure is in place to ensure these types of problems never happen again.

We've made tremendous progress in getting the pillars, as the President said last week, in place to deal with our economic problems. The recovery will take quite some time, as it's taken quite some time to get into these problems. But the President remains focused each and every day in ensuring that we take the steps to make those decisions and get the economy moving again.

Labels: Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Wall Street, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:20:00 PM

Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Four Months Ago? - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 3/6/09
— Friday, March 06, 2009 —

Q Can I ask you about the trip today, and then a question about the FDIC? In terms of the trip today, you're going to highlight 25 jobs saved -- and we've lost 651,000, I believe, last month. So, I mean, do you think this makes even a dent in the psyche of the American people?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, you know, let's -- I think if -- I think on that scale, you'd never even undertake -- you'd never even undertake any action to seek cuts in wasteful spending unless you saved trillions of dollars with the stroke of one pen.

I mean, I think it's a -- you know, I'm sure it's one viewpoint. I think it's a bit cynical to think that the only jobs created or saved today will be the 25 or 27 that the President is going to see in Columbus. I think it demonstrates for the American people that the President has a plan to get the economy moving again, that we're seeing results from that plan, and that the American people -- because they understand this -- know it's going to take us a while to get out of this hole, but that there are brighter days ahead.

I'm always amazed -- you know, a week ago we were talking down the economy. This week we're not talking the economy up to the heights of which we -- you know, I mean, there's -- it's a moving set of hurdles.

Labels: Air Force One, Economy, Obama Administration, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, Unemployment, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:52:00 PM

Take the Bull by the Tail and Face the Situation - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/4/09
— Thursday, March 05, 2009 —

Photo by barcoder96

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q Secretary Vilsack, just moments ago, spoke about saving $18 million in savings on modernizing financial systems, $400,000 by canceling a consulting contract. And he spoke very movingly about everybody is tightening their belts in this nature and, therefore, the government needs to do so. You probably know where I'm heading with this. The President is going to sign a bill, the spending bill, which contains $8 billion in earmarks. Democrats in the Senate are now calling for the President to, if not make an effort to have it stripped in the Senate, to veto the bill. Evan Bayh has an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal today.

I don't fully understand this argument that this is -- we're moving forward. This bill hasn't even come to the President's desk yet. If you guys are really serious, why not take the bull by the horns and get this stuff out of the omnibus spending bill?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me try again, what we've talked about before. This is the culmination of the legislative business from the previous fiscal year and the previous Congress. The President is greatly concerned, and I think that shows in the efforts that he's taken to illuminate through transparency and accountability wasteful spending and earmarks in legislation. That's why he put his on the Internet. That's why he hasn't asked for any in the past few years. The President believes that we can work with Congress to reduce wasteful spending in the future.

Q Why not now?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we are --

Q This isn't a legislation -- I guess -- you make it sound as if the legislation is written and it's just waiting for him to sign, and it's not. It's being worked on right now on Capitol Hill. It's in the progress of being assembled. So it's not that he comes to office and this is outstanding business.

MR. GIBBS: Well -- well, it is outstanding business in the sense that typically appropriations bills are done before half the fiscal year is over.

Q Right, but it's not too late to, like, tell Harry Reid, if you send this to me with this $8 billion ---

MR. GIBBS: I think as I said before, Jake, that the President will lay out some very clear objectives on how we move forward. There will be, over the course of the next several years, dozens and dozens of appropriations bills that cross his desk. And we'll change the rules going forward, understanding that we have to deal with last year's business.

Labels: Congress, Economy, Legislation, Obama Administration, Pork, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:50:00 PM

Of Course We Have A Plan; We Just Don't Know What It Is - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/3/09
— Wednesday, March 04, 2009 —

Q February 10th, Secretary Geithner came out with his plan to deal with the banks, and there was obviously some negative reaction to that. And at the time we were told, well, this was a broad outline; details are going to be filled in. It's three weeks later, and a lot of analysts on Wall Street continue to say, we don't know where the bottom is because we don't know how many toxic assets are out there. So when are you coming out with more details?

MR. GIBBS: Well, but let's complicate the question a little bit. Let's -- because I think you may have seemingly vastly oversimplified that the market on 20-some days ago acted on one piece of information and has followed Jake's trend for the better part of those three weeks in order to get us to where we are yesterday.

Q There was a lot of negative reaction to the plan. We could agree on that.

MR. GIBBS: We could, and we could also agree on that -- in watching your network I've seen any number of reports about the earnings of different companies. I've seen bank problems in Europe. I've seen bank problems in Eastern Europe. We've seen regulatory failings both here and overseas.

I think the larger message of what the President was trying to convey today is that it's also overly simplistic to look at any one piece of information or one group of information that's driving the market in any particular direction. I'd --

Q Okay, so people could agree --

MR. GIBBS: Hold on, let me finish. I think the broad scope of data and information that we're getting denotes the fact that the economy is suffering severe problems. I think that's probably what has driven, in the short term, the market to where it is. And I don't think that's necessarily surprising given the data that we see. I don't -- I think the market is looking at what Mr. Buffett said over the weekend. I think the market is probably looking at the notion that the growth rate in the 4th quarter was vastly different than what we presupposed because we ended December -- we now understand that goods were sitting in warehouses, but not leaving stores.

So I think a lot of things are priced into the market.

Q We can agree the President can't control all this economic data, especially around the world and other countries. But he does have some control over what his administration is going to do about failing U.S. banks, toxic assets that these banks have on their books. And this administration said at the beginning they were going to deal with that problem. So the question is, putting aside all the other data, what is the administration doing to deal with U.S. banks?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I've been asked in recent days about Citi. I was asked yesterday about AIG. As you know, Treasury and others are beginning the process of trying to find out exactly the health of banks given different economic scenarios. The President and his team have developed and passed through Congress a comprehensive recovery plan that is beginning. Tax cuts will start showing up in people's pay checks in April.

Again, if you want to take just your time line of three weeks or three and a half weeks, I don't think the American -- I think the American people understand we didn't get into this problem in the beginning of February. So we're not likely to get out of this problem by the end of March.

We've got many steps to take, and the administration and the President particularly have taken those steps: a home foreclosure plan that for the very first time deals with people that have played by the rules, but if the economy changes and gets even worse, they may find their selves the next on their block with a home foreclosure sign. So let's take steps to reduce that and make sure that the crisis in home foreclosures doesn't spread.

The budget obviously doesn't just look in the short term, but lays out a long-term plan for economic growth. And I would be happy for any number of reasons if this were a three to six week problem. But I think the American people understand that.

Q Does it take longer the longer it is for you to come up with a plan, is really my question, because if you keep three weeks, three weeks, then --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I guess our -- we're passing in the night largely because despite my enumeration of the many things that we're doing, you at least have priced into the market with the acceptance of --

Q But you came back to housing and other things, and I understand they're all part of the broader issue.

MR. GIBBS: Right. They're all part of the broader issue because, again, as I've said many times from up here, there isn't just one thing that we have to do. There isn't just -- if just passing an $800 billion recovery plan would get the economy going again, I'm sure that would be received quite well here. We'd have more time, probably, on the weekend.

But again, there's -- the economy faces many challenges, and the President and the administration are working day and night to address the many challenges that have gotten us to this point, and the many steps that we have to take over the course of the next many months to turn the economy around.

And look, let me -- let me look ahead. We have unemployment numbers coming out on Friday. I don't anticipate that they're going to be good. I don't know anything, I'm just surmising. But I don't think that's -- I don't think that speaks to the implementation of the recovery plan. But I do believe and understand, and the President believes that we have taken and are continuing to take the steps that we need to get the economy back on track.

Labels: Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Treasury Secretary, Unemployment, Wall Street, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:21:00 PM

How Many Jobs Did Robin Hood Create - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/26/09
— Friday, February 27, 2009 —

Sorry, but a toll is a toll, and a roll is a roll, and if we don't get no tolls, then we don't eat no rolls.

Q On jobs, which is the big complaint up on Capitol Hill right now from Republicans, that this plan is a job killer, I mean, the $787 billion plan was all about jobs more than anything else, and now you've got a plan in place that -- how can you possibly tax people making over $250,000 something like $667 billion over the next 10 years and not have a downward effect on jobs?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, how did it work in 1994 and 1995 and 1996 and 1997?

Q I guess their argument would be, imagine if they didn't have those -- those taxes, how much better it would have been?

MR. GIBBS: Isn't it interesting that there's always some little slip? Again, you know -- again, I don't do this by happenstance. There isn't a member of Congress, if they were to file a single taxpayer form, that makes above $200,000 a year.

Q Well, Congress.

MR. GIBBS: Well –-

Q There's a lot of millionaires up there.

MR. GIBBS: Well, that's true. But it's on their income. I mean, I think it's interesting, as people listen to those complaining about some aspects of the budget, I think it's just interesting to note -- I think the President was pretty clear on Tuesday -- we're talking about people that earn in excess of a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Q And a huge percentage of those people are small business owners.

MR. GIBBS: Some of them are, sure. Some of them are big business owners. Some of them are home-run hitters in major league baseball. Some of them run kickoffs back for a living. Some of them are the President of the United States.

Q But a lot of them create jobs.

MR. GIBBS: Some of them -- certainly, some of them, that's what their job is. But I would reject this overall premise that when we're asking for tax fairness from the American people, that we're -- that this is going to kill jobs. I guess if I follow the logic of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, how do you explain last month's unemployment figures? Current tax rates, 550,000 jobs -- what happened?

Q This is a unique moment. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Apparently, it always is. The President believes that he's put forth a budget and a Reinvestment and Recovery Plan that will save and create 3.5 million jobs, get our economy back on track, make the necessary and needed investments for sustained long-term growth in things like health care, education and energy, and do so in a way that's most fair for the American people.

And again, I go back to my first thing -- the President ran specifically on the promises that are contained in what he believes is a blueprint and a vision for our future. And that's what the American people -- that's the result they rendered in November.

Labels: Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, Unemployment, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:31:00 PM

Charity Begins With Government - White House Press Briefing by OMB Director Peter Orszag 2/26/09
— Thursday, February 26, 2009 —

I'm from the Government. I'm here to help.

Q Peter, for those who are making more than $250,000, I understand that they're going to be limited in terms of the itemized deductions for their -- filing their taxes, including charitable contributions. Considering that at least one-third of charitable organizations last year took a real nosedive, and you have some big names -- the Salvation Army, Goodwill, American Red Cross -- how do you stop the bleeding when it comes to those charitable groups, considering that you're now taking away an incentive to actually contribute?

DIRECTOR ORSZAG: Well, let me be very clear. In the recovery act, the President supported -- and contained in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support non-profits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty.

In addition, the recovery itself will provide a strong boost not only to charities, but to the overall economy and to the people who contribute to charities. But I think the real question as you look out over time is the following: When a middle-income family makes a $1,000 contribution to a charity, they save $150 in their taxes. When Bill Gates makes that same contribution to that same charity, he saves $3,500 in his taxes. All we're saying is we think Bill Gates should get a $2,800 tax break -- still a lot larger than a middle-income family -- rather than the $3,500 one.

Q And to the larger point, is there a concern that you have people -- that the wealthier folks who are providing the jobs, who are spending the money, and also contributing to charitable organizations -- that in some ways they are going to start saving, that they’re not going to give, and that they're going to undermine the success or the progress that you're making?

DIRECTOR ORSZAG: I really don't think so. I think what drives charitable contributions is overall economic growth, is other motivations. It's -- typically, again, it's not done for a tax incentive, but rather out of benevolence or some other related desire.

And furthermore, if you really wanted to get wonky, if you look at all the provisions in the budget, even from a narrow economic perspective, I think you'll see that there's roughly a wash in terms of the financial incentives for giving to charitable contributions -- to charities.

Labels: Charity, Economy, Obama Administration, Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:44:00 PM

Weekend Roundabout Briefs - Gibberish - 2/22/09
— Sunday, February 22, 2009 —

Obama Administration Robert Gibbs Roundabout Briefs White House Press Corps White House Press Secretary

TIME on the rapid pivot of Robert Gibbs.

Leaving the press out of the loop.

Fleischer, Thomas, Donaldson, Perino and Rather offer advice on the handling of Presidential Press Conferences.

Transparency is hard work.

Hiding behind a paper statement to announce an increase of troops to Afghanistan.

Dana Perino on email's impact on the White House Press Office.

A few weeks out of date, but an interesting analysis of the early stumbles of the White House Press Office.

Fairness Doctrine Feature of the Week

Karl Denninger's response to Mr. Gibbs' statements
regarding criticism of President Obama's anti-foreclosure plan:

Labels: Obama Administration, Robert Gibbs, Roundabout Briefs, White House Press Corps, White House Press Secretary

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:49:00 PM

Public Comment Period Waiver - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 2/12/09
— Wednesday, February 18, 2009 —

NOTE: Due to the incredibly slow and sporadic manner in which the White House Press Office releases press briefing and gaggle transcripts, this entry is just now being posted after a delay of 7 days. This transcript was only released at about 8pm on 2/18/08, even though the timestamp on the document misleadingly claims "February 12th, 2009 at 8:02pm". "For Immediate Release" seems to be a relativistic term on these documents and should not be taken seriously.

Q During the campaign I'm pretty sure it was on your website that you said that all bills should have some kind of public comment period and they should be posted on the website for five days before the President signs it. What are you going to do about this one?

MR. GIBBS: That included non-emergency legislation.

Q Ahhh -- the waiver. (Laughter.) There was a waiver.

MR. GIBBS: It's not a waiver, it was written right there on the website. We are working out a series of procedures to ensure that -- for non-emergency legislation, that people do have five days to look at the legislation that's been passed by Congress before it's signed into law. There have been some -- we're working through the technicalities of how that happens and we'll get a process together. I know there's something up on the White House blog on this right now, or has been within the past few days.

Obviously, if we get this bill, this would certainly meet the President's test of emergency legislation. And if we're lucky enough to have it pass, we'll sign it rather quickly.

Q And I just have a question about that. What would be the point of the public only getting to look at it by the time it's been completely passed and the President is about to sign it? I mean, by then it's kind of all over.

MR. GIBBS: Mara, I'm amazed at the number of differing hurdles that --

Q I'm just curious. You know, you didn't post it while it was in progress. In other words, you're just waiting until the very end --

MR. GIBBS: Mara, people can go to the same website you go to when you read bills. There's congress.gov, there's the Library of Congress. There are any number of resources. I can only imagine that your reporting is informed by the careful examination of that very legislation throughout the process --

Q I'm just wondering why you wanted the five days in the first place.

MR. GIBBS: It's important to put out -- for people to understand -- I think we've seen instances where legislation is done quickly and it's important for people to get a look at what's in those bills. And that's why the President outlined that policy.

Labels: Air Force One, Legislation, Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:23:00 PM

Robert Gibbs' Response to Sen. Gregg's Withdrawal as Commerce Secretary 2/12/09
— Thursday, February 12, 2009 —

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) announced he was withdrawing his name for Secretary of Commerce today:

"However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs released the following statement on Sen. Gregg's withdrawal as a nominee for Commerce Secretary:

"Senator Gregg reached out to the President and offered his name for Secretary of Commerce. He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace, and move forward with the President’s agenda. Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama’s key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways. We regret that he has had a change of heart."

Not to dispute the official White House version of events, but The Atlantic had this out 50 minutes before Gibbs' statement was released:

"Sen. Judd Gregg's decision to withdraw caught the White House by surprise. The press office found out about it at about the same time as the world did. If senior administration officials had advance notice, they did not widely disseminate it."

Commerce Department | Nominees | Obama Administration | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Office

Labels: Commerce Department, Nominees, Obama Administration, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Office

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:57:00 PM

One Measurement - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/11/09
— Wednesday, February 11, 2009 —

Q Robert, if I can follow up on Jennifer's question, do you feel -- the President said on Monday night in his press conference Secretary Geithner would unveil details the next day. Do you feel that -- do you feel that it was ready? Was the plan ready? Does the President feel it was ready? And number two, if so, is he pleased with how it was communicated yesterday and how it was rolled out?

MR. GIBBS: I was going to say, you're not judging me already, are you? Again, I think there's a -- again, I think there's a tendency to look at simply one measurement of this, and by and large that measurement was a few stock markets. I don't believe --

Q Well, a few stock markets that people all over the country are investing in.

MR. GIBBS: I understand, I understand. But what I'm saying is the plan wasn't created, nor do I think it should be judged by a one-day reaction in any of those stock markets. The plan that was outlined was ready. Again, part of what this plan will do will be to consult with those private entities in not just the formation, but the execution of the plan. And those consultations are ongoing.

But again, the -- again, I just hesitate to judge the breadth of this and the comprehensiveness of this based on one day's reaction. I don't think that's -- I don't think that's how we judge the health of the financial system and I don't think it should be how one judges this plan.

Q Even if you don't -- even if you disregard the fall in the market, there was widespread confusion about the plan, period. Is that a result of poor communication, or is that a result of it not -- just all the details not being there?

MR. GIBBS: You know, I would ask you to go back and look at all of the news on this, read beyond the larger font and the bigger, bolder print, and dig deep into many of the things that I outlined that were pointed out as big weaknesses in the previous plan that are addressed by what Secretary Geithner said yesterday -- a plan that's based on transparency and disclosure; something that works with the private markets and understands that the taxpayers alone can't do all of this work; that coordinates among the agencies that are involved; that evaluates the financial health of the system and the individual banks, and does so by greatly expanding a program that we think will help provide credit to families and businesses and to people looking to buy homes right now.

I think if you look through this you'll find -- you'll undoubtedly find, as I said, some disappointment by people that had hoped that there would be some large big bank announced that would take up in one fell swoop everything that had been wrong with the system over the course of several years and wipe it away overnight. But I think the President was very clear yesterday in saying there's no easy way out of this. There's no easy way out of this for the country, and there's also no easy way out of this for Wall Street.

Labels: Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:58:00 PM

So Transparent, You Can't See It - Some WH Press Briefing Transcripts Go Dark - 2/11/09

In another demonstration of their acclaimed tech savviness, President Obama's White House Press Office today has removed, lost, deleted, who-knows-what recent press briefing transcripts since 2/4/09 with no comment as to their eventual return.

Press briefing transcripts for February 4th, 5th and 6th 2009 are no longer listed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/pressbriefings/ and their old links will gift you an Official White House 404 message.

Monday's Air Force One Press Gaggle is missing from the list but the link still currently works. Monday's first Presidential Press Conference, not hosted under the Press Briefings section, still remains available on the site.

Besides the continuing delayed and slow posting time of press briefing transcripts, the team running the whitehouse.gov site has had a confusing and conflicting information architecture since the site's relaunch. URL references have flipped back and forth between different standards and styles for postings, so we just assume this is another glitch in their operation.

UPDATE: The transcript for today's 2/11/09 briefing (using the more dominate URL style) has now appeared on whitehouse.gov but not the missing transcripts.

UPDATE #2: The transcripts for the February 4, 5 and 6 briefings were finally reposted sometime on February 12th. Yay. However, the February 9th Air Force One Press Gaggle is still MIA on the whitehouse.gov Press Briefings page although still available at this link. What a mess.

Obama Administration | Open Government | Press Briefing | White House Press Office

Labels: Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, White House Press Office

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:07:00 PM

3 comments

Pertinent Transparency - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/5/09
— Friday, February 06, 2009 —

Don't ask me questions that you want answers to.

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q Robert, two questions. One is a housekeeping one. In the name of the transparency that you and the President herald so much, is there any way we could get the copies of the waivers that the OMB issues to allow certain Cabinet posts or deputy posts --

MR. GIBBS: I'll check on it.

Q -- free of the ethics constraints you put up? And also the disclosure forms that your nominees put out that go to the Office of Government Ethics that somehow they're not able to email or put on the web -- is there any way we can get copies of those?

MR. GIBBS: I will check. I don't -- I don't know how those forms are distributed.

Q Just based on listening to the President's rhetoric, I'm sure it's something he'd want to do. (Laughter.) The question is --

MR. GIBBS: Knowing of your crystal clarity on his opinion, I'll certainly check.

Q He doesn't believe in transparency?

MR. GIBBS: Did you have another more pertinent question?

Q I think that's pretty -- I think it's fairly pertinent here, Cabinet nominees and whether or not they pay their taxes and whether or not they have speaking fees. With all sorts of industries they're supposed to regulate, I think it's fairly pertinent. You don't?

MR. GIBBS: Obviously I do, and obviously the President does.

Q Okay, well, then we'll move on. A majority of the American people apparently support blocking or making major changes to the stimulus bill, according to a Gallup poll. Are you worried at all that you've lost control of the process on how this bill is perceived?

MR. GIBBS: No.

Labels: Nominees, Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:43:00 PM

Trumping Principles - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/4/09

MR. GIBBS: Anne.

Q The President talked yesterday in his interviews about not wanting there to be two standards for people, to understand there shouldn't be -- how then should people understand why it was okay for Timothy Geithner to go ahead in his job, but not Tom Daschle?

MR. GIBBS: Well, as I said yesterday, obviously Senator Daschle made a decision to withdraw his appointment. And as I said yesterday, Mr. Geithner has gone through a process in the Senate that included passage through committee and passage through the full Senate with bipartisan support and is now the Secretary of the Treasury. So I don't --

Q Is there not a double-standard there? I mean, isn't --

MR. GIBBS: No, again, I -- there's a lot of -- we can look a lot of rearview-mirroring in different decisions, but I think the President probably did what many people don't here in this town a lot, and that's take responsibility and set a very high standard for himself and for this administration.

Jeff.

Q Robert, as you know, the President -- he said several times in those interviews that he screwed up or he messed up. What exactly does he believe that he screwed up?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that -- taking, for example, the appointment for HHS, that obviously making health care more affordable is a, as you've heard him talk about a lot for many years, a very important issue to him. He worked on it in Springfield, he talked about it on the campaign trail, and hopes to make a significant impact on that important issue as the President of the United States. He found Senator Daschle, he believed, uniquely qualified to pursue health care reform that would meet many of the goals that he shared, despite making a mistake.

I think in the interest of getting those appointments, the President trumped the principles that he laid out in the campaign. And he took responsibility for that.

Labels: Health Care, Nominees, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:54:00 PM

Health Care Taxes Obama Administration - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/3/09
— Tuesday, February 03, 2009 —

Maybe what we need first is Tax Reform instead.

Q I'm sorry, can I follow up real quick? You didn't quite answer the question. Was Daschle given any kind of signal, yes or no, from the White House that he should withdraw?

MR. GIBBS: I don't know how much more clear I can be. The decision was Senator Daschle's.

Q No, no, no, no. He could have decided after he got a signal. Did he get a signal -- just say yes or no -- from the White House? You can answer that question, yes or no.

MR. GIBBS: No, from the White House, he did not get a signal.

Q From anywhere else? (Laughter.) I just -- words are chosen --

MR. GIBBS: You know what I'm going to do from now on? I'm going to have you guys write down your questions so I don't misinterpret --

Q Words are chosen very careful in this briefing room, as you know, that's why I'm --

MR. GIBBS: I don't know how much more clear I can be with the word "no."

Laura, please phrase your question clearly and succinctly. (Laughter.)

Q I'll do my best.

MR. GIBBS: Speak in slow monotone so that I can understand. (Laughter.) Go ahead.

Q I don't know about the slow monotone. But Robert, the President and others have spoken of Senator Daschle's unique qualifications to lead the health reform effort. Given his withdrawal, two questions. One, what impact do you think that will have on the opportunity to get health care reform, which was a heavy lift to start with? And secondly, was there or is there any consideration of keeping him on in the White House post, which does not require a confirmation?

MR. GIBBS: The President -- well, Senator Daschle has withdrawn his nomination and withdrawn from serving in the White House in the capacity that we had talked about earlier.

As it relates to your first question on health care, I think Senator Daschle would be -- and I think he says it, in essence, in his statement -- that much like the agenda that the President has outlined on any number of subjects, the issue of affordable health care for every American is bigger than one person; and the job of ensuring health care reform will outlast any person nominated for the Secretary of HHS and likely anybody that serves in this administration.

This a problem that confounds federal and state governments. It confounds families and businesses large and small. We watch each year as health care prices get higher and higher and higher, and more people slip through the cracks, more businesses are unable to afford to provide health care coverage for their employees. We are hopeful to sign a bill this week that closes that gap for children by expanding the popular Children's Health Insurance Program.

I don't think the effort slows down for health care reform, and I think Senator Daschle and others would admit that the effort is far bigger than any one individual. It's so important, it encompasses so much of our economy, and we understand that the system that we currently have whereby Americans pay more for health care and get less from it than virtually any industrialized country on the planet underscores that this is bigger than any one group or any individual.

Q But given the fact that you now have to start all over trying to find someone to lead this effort --

MR. GIBBS: Well, we have to --

Q -- to be HHS Secretary, you don't think that this is going to put things back?

MR. GIBBS: No, I -- no, because I think there are obviously many people in this administration that are working on this issue right now. We're looking for a new nominee, but the problem has existed for quite some time and the work toward a solution to make health care more affordable won't stop or won't pause while we look for that nominee.

Major.

Q Since you brought up the process with Secretary Geithner -- Max Baucus, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, has put out a statement saying he thinks that if allowed to stay, Tom Daschle would have been confirmed. John Kerry put out a statement saying it was a mistake to withdraw his nomination. Why would the White House believe it's a good idea to disappoint Democrats, who are their natural allies on health care, by preemptively taking away someone they believed could have been confirmed, as Mr. Geithner was -- despite his tax problems -- and they believe would have been someone that --

MR. GIBBS: Major, I wouldn't -- I think I'd address those questions to Senator Daschle, who, taking all of my answers into account on these subjects, made a decision to withdraw today, a decision that the President accepted.

Q But it's the President's health care reform agenda, not Senator Daschle's, and --

MR. GIBBS: Well --

Q -- the natural allies of yours appear to be, A, believing he could have been confirmed, and disappointed that this was done, in their view, prematurely. What is your explanation to them?

MR. GIBBS: My explanation to them is if you want to know the decision-making process of Senator Daschle, that's the best person to address that question to.

Q How seriously would the White House consider Howard Dean for the Health and Human Services Secretary?

MR. GIBBS: I've given -- been given many opportunities to play the name game and I don't want to spin the wheel and start today.

Q So assuming that Daschle stays in the private sector, will he be able to lobby the administration on health care? And will he be in any way involved in health care?

MR. GIBBS: I assume that Senator Daschle's passion for health care isn't diminished by today's announcement. But Ann, as you know, Senator Daschle has not been and is not a registered federal lobbyist; therefore, based on the rules that the government -- stringent rules that the government sets out, he can't lobby the federal government.

Labels: Health Care, Nominees, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, Wall Street, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:52:00 PM

One Mistake - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/2/09

Q Thank you. On Tom Daschle -- I just want to step back just a minute -- I understand the President's remarks that he absolutely stands by him. But if you could just take a step back, you've got two nominees now who have had to pay more than $100,000 in back taxes. That's an awful lot of money. That's more than most people in the country make in a year, much less that they owe in taxes. What kind of a message does this send, do you think? How are people supposed to kind of get their heads around that and accept that as top people in your administration?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me also step back and say that no one in this building or in this administration is insensitive to the report that we were -- that was given this weekend about Senator Daschle. I think that includes Senator Daschle. He discovered a mistake, mistakes he'd made on his taxes, and he's paid now what he owed and paid interest on that.

As it relates to Senator Daschle -- and I know he's meeting with the Finance Committee now -- we believe that the committee and the Senate as a whole will examine not just one mistake in a career, but look at that longer, three-decade career of public service, serving this country, serving the constituents both in South Dakota and across America.

The President believes that Senator Daschle is the right person for the very important job of ensuring that we cut costs, reform our health care system, and finally give the American people in health care the outcomes that they deserve. We spend more money on health care than any other nation in the country [sic], but don't get the quality of care that many other countries get.

So again, I think the Senate will lay a serious but corrected mistake against that three-decade career in public service. And in the end, the Finance Committee and the Senate as a whole will vote to extend his career in public service so that he can take on the very important task to America to reform that health care system and cut our costs.

Q Is the President at all embarrassed by this? And does he see that there's any problem in the vetting that you all do --

MR. GIBBS: I don't think that we believe there's any problem in the vetting. When I say that no one is insensitive to the report in this building, that includes the President of the United States. He understands that.

Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taxes | White House Press Corps

Labels: Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:18:00 PM

Washington As Usual - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 1/30/09
— Saturday, January 31, 2009 —

Q And on another issue, I think it was yesterday or the day before yesterday, when you were asked about these outside groups that are running these attack ads -- you said the President didn't want to referee, I guess.

MR. GIBBS: Still doesn't.

Q Well, let me -- let me try to get at it at a different angle. You have these groups going after people like Senator Gregg, a Republican, who has admitted that the President is looking at him for Commerce. Is this sort of Washington old --

MR. GIBBS: I'm wondering which question we're trying to get at. Are we trying to get at Ann's question or are we trying to get -- (laughter.)

Q It's not -- I'm not trying to get at that question. It's just, is this sort of Washington as usual where you have the Democrat or liberal groups attacking Republicans, and this is someone who the President is reaching out to?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, as I said yesterday, the President has a lot on his plate. I think refereeing what this group or that group is doing to this group and that group might not be something that encompasses a lot of the President's daily schedule.

Q But is this more Washington as usual? It's not the tone that the President wants to see here.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President feels like the efforts that he's made, and will continue to make on this, will live up to what he wants to do to reach out to Democrats and Republicans. Again, this is -- it's not just being nice to be nice; it's being nice to get something done that's important for the American people. I think that's what the focus of the President's efforts are, and he'll continue it. I don't know if we sent the list out -- and he'll have more members of Congress over here Sunday to watch the Super Bowl and, again, reach out to and get to know in a better way members on both sides of the aisle to see where we can work in concert to improve the lives of the American people.

Labels: Bipartisanship, Obama Administration, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:05:00 PM

White House Press Briefing Transcripts Available on whitehouse.gov
— Thursday, January 29, 2009 —

The Press Briefing Transcripts have been released after
06 Days, 20 Hours, 35 Minutes, 29 Seconds.

The clock has stopped and the wait is over.

For the last several years of the Bush administration whitehousepresscorps.org has provided selections from daily press briefings, with the intent of highlighting the relationship between the White House and its press corps. This was made possible by the Press Office's prompt posting of full transcripts in a public section of the White House website.

The new administration has finally released press briefing transcripts to the public on the new whitehouse.gov site after 6 days.

The archive can be found at the following URL:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/PressBriefings/

We applaud the Obama Administration for fulfilling, in this matter at least, their promise of openness and transparency by releasing the press briefing transcripts to the public.

A special thanks to Master Transcription, a great company, for providing unofficial transcripts of the press briefings for the past week.

Obama Administration | Open Government | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps | White House Press Office

Labels: Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps, White House Press Office

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:36:00 PM

Transparency, Please!
— Wednesday, January 28, 2009 —

Facebook users can now lend their voices in support to a return of the White House Press Office releasing daily briefing transcripts by joining the site's new Group @ Transparency, Please! Obama White House should publish the Press Briefings.

Excellent.

Tip o' the hat to Ken Shepherd.

UPDATE: 1/29/09 - Just to be clear, Andrea Wojtanowicz Dvorak started the facebook group to raise awareness of the missing Press Briefing transcripts. Good job!

Facebook | Obama Administration | Open Government | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps | White House Press Office

Labels: Facebook, Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps, White House Press Office

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:03:00 PM

whitehouse.gov Finally Releases Transcripts of a Press Briefing - Sorta Kinda 1/26/09
— Monday, January 26, 2009 —

After 4 days and 4 hours the whitehouse.gov web site finally released transcripts of a press briefing. Well, not exactly, as it turns out.

"Selected responses" to Monday's (1/26/09) Press Briefing at long last appeared on the blog portion of the White House web site in more of an apparent effort to control the narrative than to live up to the promise of open transparency much ballyhooed by the Obama Administration.

And if that weren't bad enough, the blog entry claims that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' third press conference held today is his "second press briefing." Careless in small things, careless in great things.

So far, a major FAIL by the White House Press Office in providing information to the public in a timely and open manner.

Obama Administration | Open Government | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs

Labels: Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:46:00 PM

Monday Roundabout Briefs - 1/26/09

We start a new feature with Roundabout Briefs to highlight current and developing narratives involving the Obama Administration, the Press and information technology.

First up, information wants to be free or, at the very least, available in transcript format.

The Transparent Case of the Mysteriously Missing Transcripts

Web 2.Oops

Obama Administration l33t Web 2.0 doesn't involve Turn-of-the-Century transcript tech apparently

Capturing the spontaneous and not-so-spontaneous moments of an Administration

An Associate Professor of History gets just about everything wrong

Transforming the YouTubing-Facebooking-texting-Twittering Masses

MSM Press FAIL

Obama Administration | Roundabout Briefs | Technology | White House Press Corps

Labels: Obama Administration, Roundabout Briefs, Technology, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:18:00 PM

First Press Briefing of the Obama Administration by Robert Gibbs 1/22/09
— Friday, January 23, 2009 —

Obama Administration | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

As of this posting the Obama Administration has yet to provide public transcripts of any press briefings on whitehouse.gov.

Labels: Obama Administration, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:50:00 PM

Obama Administration Twitter Coverage

Obama Administration | Twitter | White House Press Corps

Labels: Obama Administration, Twitter, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:10:00 PM

The Promise of Transparency in Government 1/20/09
— Tuesday, January 20, 2009 —

Bush Administration | Obama Administration | White House Press Corps

Please be aware all hyperlinks to the archived Bush Administration press briefings have been expunged from the new whitehouse.gov web site by the Obama Administration.

At this time, it is unclear if the Obama Administration will continue the practice of providing full transcripts of daily press briefings and conferences to the public.

Labels: Bush Administration, Obama Administration, White House Press Corps

>> Full Story

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:46:00 PM