Harry Reid Henry Kissinger Herb Kohl Hillary Clinton Jack Reed
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 10/28/2010
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
Location:
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:38 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS: Everybody got quiet quite quickly. That was -- that was made --
Q We’re just waiting for the Twitter question.
MR. GIBBS: The Twitter question I believe was on India. It was why we’re going to India.
Q Oh, you don’t do it here, you’ve already done it.
MR. GIBBS: No, we did it up there. The video will be out very fairly shortly.
Q We thought you were going to show it out here. At least I did.
MR. GIBBS: You should write in a question.
Q What was the question?
MR. GIBBS: What was the purpose of the trip to India? Why going to India?
Q Taking real hardballs, huh? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: Well, since we did a whole hour-long briefing on it yesterday it seemed like we should take one hardball and give it to the rest of them.
So, yes.
Q Anything happening with the Indian journalists with the President?
MR. GIBBS: I believe there was -- not with the President. I think the -- obviously I’m sure most of you were obviously either in this briefing or -- I know Ben emailed -- briefed the Indian press also yesterday.
Take us away.
Q Egypt’s Foreign Minister has been in the West Bank trying to move the peace process forward, and he said today that there’s been no breakthrough. If the Israelis and the Palestinians don’t change their position on the settlements, is there any way for this process to move forward?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I know that Special Envoy Mitchell, Secretary of State Clinton have obviously been very involved in this process. I forget when the timing of this was, but the Arab League had given -- had extended some deadlines about a month in order for the United States to try to bring the two parties back to the table to continue what we all believe were serious and constructive talks. And we continue to work on that.
I don’t have an update on that, based on what he said. And it’s obviously -- it’s a very difficult issue. It is -- it’s one that has been with us for decades, and we are trying to make some slow progress on it.
Q There’s a feeling, though, in the process -- there has been when he’s tried this process before -- that there’s always one issue where parties get hung up and then the process falls apart. And it seems that the settlements could be that issue in this process.
MR. GIBBS: Well, it’s sort of interesting, I was going through some -- looking through some different documents on different subjects just yesterday, and I ran into a question that was asked of President Reagan in 1982 on settlements in the West Bank. So, look, there are -- interestingly enough, he had the same position that we did, as many administrations have had over those years.
Look, there are a series of very tough issues that have to be addressed between the two sides as we move forward. That’s been that way for decades. We are -- we continue to work. I know Senator Mitchell has spent a lot of time trying to get these two parties back to the table.
Q I guess the question is, though, why should we expect the process to be any different this time than it has in the past?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, there are no guarantees in this process. We do know this, that the process works best and has its maximum chance of working if the United States is actively engaged in the process of bringing these two parties and these two sides together. We know we’re not going to make progress if the United States is not involved. That’s why the President has dedicated such time to trying to bring about a two-state solution to, again, a problem that has been very, very difficult.
We started this process, again, at the beginning of this administration and even in the talks that were held here with no illusions that it would be -- that this one was going to be the easy problem that we’d pick to solve. We will continue to work to try to bring folks together.
Q If I could just ask one question on the D.C. Metro arrest yesterday. I know you said that the President was aware of the investigation before the arrest, and the FBI said they’ve known about this man, going back I think to last January. When was the President made aware?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know when the -- I know that he certainly was briefed very recently, as many of us were, on the developments that happened yesterday. I can go back and see whether -- as you know, the President has regular counterterrorism meetings in the Situation Room. And I do not know the degree to which one of -- whether this individual came up in those or not.
Yes, sir.
Q New claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly fell to a three-month low last week. Is there -- does the administration have any belief that this is a trend that might continue, and could it be reflective of some improvement in the unemployment figures, the monthly unemployment figures, due out next week for October?
MR. GIBBS: Look, we -- I think we have -- I was looking through some of the statistics, Matt, on that today. We have seen good news in drops in the last two weeks, averaged out -- CEA usually averages out also over a four-week period to give us a sense in week-to-week volatility in the statistics and how they might -- how one might read that, because it obviously -- nobody here would hang their hat on simply one week’s movement as indicating a trend.
Obviously, any even week-to-week drop is good news. We’re still -- we’re getting a little closer to the level, I think, that most people here would believe needs to happen in order to see stronger growth in the job market.
The numbers are above -- in all honesty, they’re a decent amount above pre-recession levels, in terms of weekly claims. They’re also a bit -- quite a bit below, I think, the high water mark, which, if my memory serves, is in March of 2009.
So it’s progress. It is, as you’ve heard the President over the past many months and myself included, it is -- it’s going to take some time. It’s -- recoveries out of recessions caused largely by financial concerns take longer. That’s what we’re in the midst of. The week-to-week claims, look, are a heartening bit of good news, and we certainly -- our hope is that it will certainly continue. And we’ll continue to watch that.
Q There’s a New York Times report that the administration and European allies are putting together a new offer for talks, nuclear talks with Iran, and that it would include tougher conditions for a third-party fuel swap of the sort that the Iranians already rejected last time. Is there any truth to the report?
MR. GIBBS: Well, as you have -- I think when we were up in New York for the United Nations, Iran themselves suggested that in November they would like to meet with the P5-plus-1. I think that was a demonstration at that point and continues to be a demonstration that economic sanctions instituted through the United Nations, unilaterally through us, unilaterally through the European Union, and other entities, is having an impact on the Iranian economy.
So our offer, Matt, has been on the table to meet. It’s not -- those talks are not intended to be open-ended. They’re intended to fulfill Iran’s obligations in dealing with its illicit nuclear program.
So our P5-plus-1 partners are united. The EU High Representative for these talks has offered to meet Iran in Vienna, and thus far -- and despite what they said in New York, we have not heard back on that invitation. I think, without getting into the specifics of what might be in those discussions, I think it is very, though, clear to understand that what Iran both accepted and then ultimately rejected last year with the Tehran Research Reactor, that in order to meet their obligations and in order to have economic sanctions that are having a bite lifted, they’re going to have to do more because in that interim period of time they have stepped up their -- the percentage enrichment for low-enriched uranium and created a much stronger impetus to require that the Iranians do more in order to see progress on the sanctions front.
So we certainly await word from the Iranians, again, based on not only simply what they said in September but what our partners have issued in terms of an invitation for them to come and discuss with us living up to their obligations and responsibilities.
Q But at such talks, if they take place, the Iranians would be required to agree on a larger amount of fuel --
MR. GIBBS: Without a doubt.
Q -- to be sent to a third party than had previously been put on the table.
MR. GIBBS: Well, they have, based on the unilateral actions that they took, increased their enrichment. In order to live up to the responsibilities that they’ve made and to lift any sanctions, they’d have to -- they’d have greater responsibilities. Their responsibilities get greater each and every day, even as the sanctions impact their economy more and more each day.
Dan.
Q Yes, Robert, what was behind the thinking of today’s Rose Garden event on the miners, the people who helped in the miners’ rescue? It seemed to come out of left field in a week where there’s been so much focus on getting out the vote for the midterm.
MR. GIBBS: This was -- look, we had both government agencies and private companies here in the United States that were instrumental in helping a story that many of you guys dedicated a significant amount of your airtime to, and it’s a -- I think the efforts of those that were helping and involved is a good news story that we wanted to laud the efforts of those individuals for.
Q So taking a little break from midterms and the get-out-the-vote push to do this?
MR. GIBBS: Well, there’s some of that going on here today, too, so there’s -- it’s --
Q It just seemed -- it’s a Rose Garden event that sort of elevates it.
MR. GIBBS: Again, I think it’s a -- yes, I mean, look, it was, again, something that captured I think hearts and minds all over the world watching what had happened. And, look, I think as an American, we can certainly be proud of the efforts of folks like NASA and private companies in helping to solve a dire situation.
Q Can you take us behind the scenes a little bit to what the President is doing in terms of his get out the vote? We’ve seen it publicly where he’s gone on these radio shows and on Stewart as well. But what is he doing behind the scenes? Is he working the phones? Is he talking to some of these lawmakers in these states that are in tight races? What is he doing?
MR. GIBBS: He has -- we’ve certainly done, as you mentioned, we’ve done a decent amount of press. We’ve done some TV; we’ve done some radio. The President will continue to do some of that as we lead up to Tuesday. He’s held outreach calls with different groups in different areas that are in tight races. And that’s something that he’ll continue to do as well.
Jake.
Q You said that the President was going on “The Daily Show” to reach out to -- mainly to young voters. Do you think that appearance achieved what you wanted it to achieve?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I mean, look, first and foremost, there’s a big audience. There’s 2 million people that watch that show. I think the President had an opportunity to walk through what the last almost two years have been about and what he’s been able to accomplish.
Q Do you think that Stewart’s skepticism, Stewart’s seeming --
MR. GIBBS: Cynicism? (Laughter.)
Q Well, he seemed disappointed in the President and he’s generally I would say not unsupportive of the President. Do you think that that might have hurt with some viewers at all?
MR. GIBBS: Look, our viewpoint, Jake, is that when the President gets to talk about what he’s done and sift through what people may or may not have heard, that it’s a positive benefit. So I would think of it as a success.
Q The President signed a waiver on the 2008 child soldier law, which precludes the U.S. providing military assistance to countries that recruit child soldiers. And the President waived it for Chad, Sudan, Yemen and Congo, saying it was in the national security interests of the United States. Why is waiving the child soldier law --
MR. GIBBS: Jake, let me get some stuff from NSC. I don’t have any update on that here. So let me get some stuff from NSC and get it --
Q Okay. Well, can I read one question that you didn’t answer from Twitter --
MR. GIBBS: Sure.
Q -- which was -- in the feed that you asked people to send their questions to, somebody said, “Where are the jobs?”
MR. GIBBS: Well, some of them -- well, first of all, we’ve lost 8 million of them. We have seen nine months of positive private sector job increase and job growth after a recession that started in December of 2007 and saw the economy shed jobs through I believe October or November of 2009.
As the President said yesterday on “The Daily Show,” the Recovery Act and other steps that the President took have had a chance -- had a chance at that point to kick in. You saw positive economic growth where the economy was contracting at 5 or 6 percent, losing 700,000 or 800,000 jobs a month, to one that is growing in a positive direction and adding jobs. We are not moving or adding those jobs fast enough and we’ve got a big hole to fill in, the 8 or so million jobs that have been lost.
I’d point out that -- separate announcements today by both GM and Chrysler in increasing their investments at plants in Lansing and in Belvedere, Illinois, are signs of an economy that is beginning to improve. Adding jobs at those two plants are good news. There are a lot more that needs -- a lot more jobs that need to be added, because we have come through, as the President also said yesterday, probably the worst two economic years that this country has faced since the Great Depression.
Q Okay, but just to --
MR. GIBBS: I realize that might have been a little more than 140 characters.
Q It was, but just to probe a little deeper into the “where are they,” you obviously expected and hoped that there would be more jobs that had been created by now. Why haven’t they?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I will say this, Jake. We -- if you take what we thought and what has happened as part of the Recovery Act and take the hole that we’ve been in, nobody was under the impression that what -- the Recovery Act alone would spur the depth of the job loss that we face. We are seeing private sector investment. Obviously -- and we’ve talked about it in here -- we’re at a slightly different trajectory than we were earlier in the spring. There were some -- certainly some things that happened in Greece and overall in Europe that put the brakes on a recovery that was moving more strongly in that direction.
But, look, the bottom line is that those jobs are going to take some time to bring back; that none of this was going to happen overnight or even necessarily in the first 18 to 20 months. But the President and the team have the economy moving in the right direction.
Chip.
Q Thanks, Robert. Has the President accepted the dismal predictions on the House of Representatives yet? Has he -- or is he still --
MR. GIBBS: Has he accepted the predictions? I don’t --
Q Conventional wisdom in this town is the House is gone. Is the President wavering on that or is he still --
MR. GIBBS: No, the President is still actively working in this election, as I’m sure both sides are.
Q I know he’s working, but, I mean, in his private conversations, if you could share those private conversations, is he --
MR. GIBBS: I will share with you that he has not mentioned any of that in any of our private conversations.
Q Can you share anything -- does he yet know what he’s going to do or do you know what he’s going to do the day after Election Day?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have the schedule finalized on that yet, no.
Q Okay. How about after that? There have been stories about his meeting with Republican leadership, perhaps even at Camp David. Anything on that?
MR. GIBBS: Again, I don’t know that -- obviously we are -- I mean, obviously Congress is certainly going to come back after the election. We’re obviously going to be in India, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan before obviously also going to the NATO summit in Portugal. I don’t doubt that over the course of some period of time in the next several weeks we’ll have a chance to sit down with leaders from both parties. I don’t have a finalized schedule yet, though.
Q And from the briefing today, it was clear that he’s not going to have time to take a stroll down memory lane when he’s in Jakarta, to visit his school, or -- is he disappointed that he’s not going to be able to do that, to show the First Lady where he grew up for a few years?
MR. GIBBS: No, look, I think that, as we talked about, this trip is anchored in two important stops at the G20 and the APEC economic summits. We have an important relationship, obviously, as we talked about yesterday, with India, a quickly growing economy in a rapidly growing region of the world. And Indonesia, obviously, is an important counterterrorism relationship that is important to this country and to this administration.
But it’s a quick trip that covers a lot of ground. I don’t think he’s too disappointed.
Q The original plans were that he was going to take the family and kind of show to them some of his haunts.
MR. GIBBS: Well, that was last March. That was --
Q Do you think that will happen in the future? At the briefing --
MR. GIBBS: That was decades ago. (Laughter.)
Q At the briefing today it was said that he certainly would be going back there during his presidency. Do you think that he will plan a family trip to take a look at --
MR. GIBBS: Chip, I honestly don’t know. I don’t even know that there have been -- there haven’t been a tremendous number of even foreign travel discussions for next year yet. Obviously in the readout of the call to President Zardari in Pakistan, the President mentioned his strong desire to visit there next year. But there has not been extensive planning for the next year.
Q And could you clarify one thing from the “Daily Show” interview where he said that Larry Summers did a “heckuva job,” and Jon Stewart came back and said, “Hey, you don’t want to say that, dude,” and the President then said, “Pun intended”? What was he --
MR. GIBBS: I think that was just the comedy portion of “The Daily Show.” I think he was having a lot of fun with Larry.
Q He’s not poking fun at Larry Summers, then.
MR. GIBBS: He might poke fun at Larry. Larry pokes fun at us. And that’s the way it goes.
Look, I think if you look at the substance of his answer and you look at, again, what the team has had an opportunity to do in moving the economy in the right direction, it’s an effort that the President and the team can be proud of.
We were in a much different economic situation when we came in here. And we were looking at something that was far worse than the situation that we have now, even though we’ve got more work to do.
Let me just make one point on -- there was a report -- you mentioned the foreign trip -- there was a report going around, I saw on my email before I came out here, that the President was visiting the Taj Mahal in India, despite walking through the schedule yesterday. That is not on the trip and was not on the schedule. So I can just --
Q Robert, does the President or any member of his inner circle regret in any way him doing “The Daily Show” last night?
MR. GIBBS: Jake tried that and I -- no, I don’t have any regret, no.
Q Well, because some of the takeaway from people who, I think -- columnists who generally have been supportive was that the joke was on the President. I mean, does he take any offense to that?
MR. GIBBS: How so?
Q Being called “dude” as opposed to “Mr. President,” or “sir” or --
MR. GIBBS: Let me say, if the President took offense at somebody calling him “dude” -- (laughter) -- given the names that are hurled around this town -- (laughter) -- I hazard to guess he’d rarely leave the top floor of the residence every day for being -- for fear of being called, “Hey, guy.” I mean, it’s -- no, I mean, again, it’s a comedy show, guys.
Q Can we follow on that?
Q But was he surprised at all by Jon Stewart’s tone? I mean --
MR. GIBBS: No, again, I think he had -- the President had an opportunity to talk about what we’ve done, and to tell that to a set of viewers that may not watch -- may not get their news from traditional places, or watch or listen to normal newscasts. But it’s -- look, we’ve done -- we’ve sat at “The View.” We’ve done Jay Leno, David Letterman, “The Daily Show,” all of which have had really big audiences. I don’t know -- it’s on average, it’s about 2 million on “The Daily Show.” That’s a pretty good chunk of people.
Q Robert, do you think Republicans get the same kind of treatment when they’re on networks that are supposedly friendly to them as the President got on Comedy Central?
MR. GIBBS: Are you asking me or Mike? I’m not going to get into that.
Q Yesterday in a session with bloggers, the President said that his attitude was “evolving” with regards to same-sex marriage. I’m wondering if you can elaborate on that and when the President might finish his evolution of his thinking and come to a decision? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I would -- I’d point you to -- the blogger, I think, posted the fairly -- the full text of what the President said. I think he went through what his position is. He went through why his position was that. But, Mike, at the same time, he talks to colleagues and co-workers and hears them talking about being treated differently. And the President internalizes that.
So I don’t have a lot to add to the answer, because I think he went through where he is and what he thinks about it.
Q When the President was asked and others have been asked about prospects for cooperating with Republicans, whether they be in the majority or simply enhanced minorities in both the House and the Senate, he mentioned specifically I think in the same interview yesterday infrastructure, education, but he didn’t mention some of the big-ticket items that are really left over from the first two years of his term -- immigration, energy. Is that an intentional omission? Does the President think that those things are unreachable in terms of compromise?
THE PRESIDENT: No, because, look, we have had -- I forget the exact number -- 11 or 13 Senate Republicans that have in the past supported comprehensive immigration reform.
So there’s certainly a path -- a legislative pathway to making something like that happen because you’ve got, as you have in infrastructure, as you have in education, you have an issue that has broken out of what has happened here in the last two years where Republicans oppose everything. Somewhere in the past, they’ve supported infrastructure and immigration and education reform. I think the same is true on energy.
I don’t think that -- I don’t think the prospects of those are diminished because -- and I’ve said this again -- I’ll say this again, I’ve said it certainly before -- and that is that we have problems like immigration, like infrastructure and creating jobs for blue-collar workers who because of the housing market collapse find themselves disproportionately unemployed; education reform we know is certainly one of the most important issues that the President faces. There are pathways to work together if both sides want to do it.
The President has said, regardless of the outcome of this election on either side, that he’s ready to sit down and work through some of these tough issues that remain. And I anticipate that the President will seek to do that.
Q And finally, one of the Twitter questions you had was about presidential decorum and if it’s being diminished somewhat by appearing on “The View” or “The Daily Show” or being referred to as “dude.” How would you respond to those concerns?
MR. GIBBS: Again, we have a, as you all well know, a very different and changed media environment, right? We’ve -- you’ve got a news cycle that -- there isn’t a news cycle that last three or four hours and then another news cycle. There’s -- many outlets that are represented in this room right now were -- didn’t exist only a few years ago. So as the President of the United States and certainly in campaigning, the President wanted to explain to the American people why he does what he does, the decisions that he has to go through, and the choices that we face as a country and as a people.
And there may be people that watch “The View” that don’t watch NBC News. It doesn’t make them less involved in the political process. It just makes them -- it makes them a group of people that watches a different segment of television, and the President still wants to talk to them, too.
I don’t -- look, I was -- there were two or three of us that were involved in the first decision to put -- I think it was “The Jay Leno Show.” It was one of the easiest decisions we ever made. There were 9 million -- I think it was 9 million people that watched that show. I mean, that’s a -- in today’s media environment that is a sizable audience, not all of whom are -- probably not all of whom spend all day like I do or Bill does or we do reading news on the Internet. So I think it’s an interesting and an important place to reach people and to talk to them about what’s going on in this country. I promise I’m not going to call any of you guys “dude” anymore, so that you don’t --
Q Can we follow on “Daily Show”?
MR. GIBBS: Laura.
Q Following up on that, I guess the question on “The Daily Show” that I had was usually you expect when you go on something like this, this is going to kind of be fun and he’s going to have a chance to show his sense of humor and a lighter side. But it felt very serious and a very serious recitation of his accomplishments, which I know he wants young people to hear. But I’m just wondering if the tone was what you were expecting.
MR. GIBBS: I will say this. I think Jon Stewart is about as good an interviewer as there is in the public domain right now. I certainly -- we didn’t walk into that interview with -- thinking that we were going to get asked a bunch of softball questions and somebody was going to hand us a list of jokes that -- and they’d hit the laugh machine and it would sound like a bunch of people -- we didn’t expect that to happen.
Again, I think Jon Stewart is somebody who on either side of the aisle usually gives pretty good interviews. And it’s not surprising. I think, again, the President thought it was a good opportunity to talk about what we’ve been able to do and, honestly, to talk about what is left to do and how to try to do it.
Q Following up on the gay marriage question, are you -- you were talking about an evolution and he’s heard all of this input from people who care about this. So should we anticipate that at some point in the future, he is likely to feel comfortable with gay marriage being legal?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the answer to that, Laura. I think he -- I think he, again, listens to those around him who -- and those that he meets that talk about feeling like they’re not treated the same -- and even while they’re good parents, they’re good people, and that’s something that he thinks about.
Q So in his mind, what’s the best argument against gay marriage?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I would simply point you to what he said in the answer in outlining why he believes what he believes. Again, this is -- he gave a pretty lengthy answer on sort of where he is on that.
Mark.
Q Robert, as California voters vote to legalize marijuana under Prop 19, will the administration and the DEA accept that vote?
MR. GIBBS: Mark, I would you over to ONDCP -- National Drug Control Policy. I think they have -- I think those guys have made statements on that and I’d point you over to that.
Q Anything on what you expect in the GDP tomorrow?
MR. GIBBS: I have -- I don’t have any expectations and the poor people at CEA are currently watching me answer this question for fear that I might give the impression that I know anything about tomorrow’s number, which I do not. So given the EKGs that have now been attached to the arms of economists throughout the West Wing, I think I should probably call on Roger and hope he doesn’t ask a follow-up. (Laughter.)
Q Well --
MR. GIBBS: Cross that one off, please. (Laughter.)
Q Within the past hour, The New York Times reported that China has ended the embargo or restrictions on rare earth exports. Are you in a position to confirm that at all?
MR. GIBBS: Roger, I don’t think I’d add much to what I’ve said here and what the Secretary of State said in meeting with the Japanese Foreign Minister earlier today.
Q She said she didn’t -- she didn’t address that, so she apparently didn’t know or --
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think she -- I think what she said, if I read the transcript correctly, was that she would welcome any clarification of Chinese policy as it relates to rare earth elements and to how that -- obviously underscoring how that is seen in terms of trade and commerce. So we would certainly welcome that clarification.
Q Are you checking that?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, again, we’ve -- NSC has looked in -- is looking into the reports I think that surfaced last week.
Q On another question, for tomorrow evening, this will be -- aside from Speaker Pelosi, this will be the first campaign rally he’s attended for a House member. How did -- what was the reasoning behind going to this --
MR. GIBBS: This was -- look, I think you -- I would say this. I think one of -- I think the best answer around that, honestly, Roger, was what the President said in mentioning Congressman Perriello directly on “The Daily Show” last night, somebody who is in a tough race but is -- has done the right thing in the votes that he’s cast to represent Virginia and to represent the United States in Congress.
Q All the polls show that he’s way behind the Republican candidate.
MR. GIBBS: It’s a tough race and the President looks forward to traveling down with him.
Q Just to follow up on that, and then I have two questions of my own, right next door to Perriello’s district is Glenn Nye’s, where of course if Perriello has done the right thing, I guess Glenn Nye has done the wrong thing, because he’s voted, I mean, almost the opposite of Perriello on issues like health care and energy.
I’m wondering if, since he’s going to be there, does he also hope that his visit helps Nye get reelected, too?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that the President’s visits, the President’s media, the President’s outreach is not always simply confined to the area that he’s in. And I think we’ve seen that -- I think you’ve seen since the President has been out there that enthusiasm among Democratic voters has increased, and that’s why the President continues to do it.
Q So he can’t just confine -- I mean, when he goes to one district, obviously his impact is much broader. I mean, you’re not just --
MR. GIBBS: That’s our hope.
Q -- trying to help one guy.
MR. GIBBS: No, I mean, that’s why you guys tag along.
Q Okay. My two questions, one economy and one Jon Stewart. Apparently in the last 18 months, corporate profits are up 62 percent, which is faster than any other 18-month period since the 1920s. And I’m wondering, what is the President’s theory of the case as to why this hasn’t translated into hiring?
MR. GIBBS: That may be a better question for those that are reporting the greatest corporate profits since the 1920s.
Q I’m just wondering what is his -- I mean, he must have some theories as to why --
MR. GIBBS: Look, I think that obviously -- look, I don’t think it’s any mystery that certainly part of it is we still have not seen the type of consumer demand for -- that would return us to sort of where we were pre-recession levels; that there’s still -- I mean, look, consumer spending drives 70-75 percent of our gross domestic product. Please don’t worry, I’m not going to get into the number. So, look, that, by definition, is what’s going to move consumer demand; it’s what’s going to move companies to hire more employees to make more products to meet that increased demand.
That’s what we’re trying to change, based on the fact that in December 2007, a recession officially started, but for far longer than that people have felt a frustration and an anxiety about where our economy was going. That’s why we had, as you’ve heard the President say, in a time of economic expansion, the past 10 years actually added fewer jobs than at any period of economic expansion since those same 1920s.
There’s an economic anxiety that, again -- it didn’t start when it was reported that Lehman collapsed. It started a long time ago with shifts in our manufacturing, watching your neighbors and your friends work longer but not see their pay go up.
Q No, I get that part, but it seems like there’s such a disconnect between companies literally booming and not hiring people. I mean --
MR. GIBBS: I don’t disagree, but I also think that, again, some of those decisions -- I’m not a corporate CEO, but I assume some of those decisions, if not most of those decisions, are met based on, again, consumer demand. If you’re anybody but Apple, your -- just joking -- that, again, consumer spending, consumer demand is what drives economic -- what will drive large amounts of the GDP, as you’ll see tomorrow. We’re obviously working on trying to get our economy in a place where people are more hopeful.
Q Just one question on Jon Stewart. Last night he -- I just wanted -- he really seemed to express this sense of kind of liberal grievance and how he took the President at his word you were going to change everything and the political system was going to be completely reformed and now, look, it looks like your stuff has been timid. Of course, on the other side they say that he’s destroying the American way of life and the capitalist system, but I’m just wondering --
MR. GIBBS: I think we’re anti-colonialist. (Laughter.)
Q But I’m just wondering if that --
MR. GIBBS: Which will be interesting when we go to Charlottesville. I hope nobody tells the late Thomas Jefferson.
Q But I’m just wondering if that incredible gap between the expectations of the President’s supporters and base and their sense of disappointment is a kind of singular problem --
MR. GIBBS: Well, I will say this. I will say this, Mara. I think if you -- I think by any empirical data, and this -- Pew had this a couple of days ago; each and every one of your news organizations is doing as much if not more polling than individual campaigns. Our numbers among -- I’m addressing your question particularly on our base or on Democrats. I think Pew had our support among Democrats, among the five most recent Democratic Presidents, at the highest at this point that any of those five Presidents saw -- again, at this point -- at this respective point in their term.
So I think -- I will say this. I think this overall notion of huge disappointment among Democratic voters is -- it is not matched in any of the empirical data that you guys produce and that we see. I will not -- look, certainly -- and you can go back quite clearly in the speeches that the President was giving at that time running, this is not going to be easy. It’s not going to happen overnight. It’s only going to happen if you stay involved. And it’s going to take a while. I don’t doubt that -- look, there were pretty high expectations.
We also faced some really, really, really big problems. And, look, the President is frustrated. We want to see things happen faster, but we understand that it takes a while to turn the ship around and move it back in the right direction where we are.
Q Can I follow up on Mara’s questions?
Q Did the President make any comments about his appearance on Jon Stewart? Did he feel like he did a good job? Did he feel like he was effective? Did he feel like the joke was on him?
MR. GIBBS: I rode -- David and I rode back with him yesterday. We rode to the interview with him. And the President said he thought it was a good opportunity to walk through what he had done. That’s what he said to us.
Q May I follow on this, too? You’ve been skirting around the issue of the “timid” question, which is a very valid question.
MR. GIBBS: No, no, no. You’re asking me, based on the fact that the President very clearly answered that question. So I don’t -- I’m not going to -- I don’t -- well, I don’t think anybody, the President most of all, skirted around that question.
Q Well, my question is, is there any second-guessing here in the administration whether he could have acted faster on the war, “don’t ask, don’t tell,” health care, jobs, the big issues, and is there anything that could be changed by executive order in the lame-duck session?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let’s go through some of these, right? There are 100,000 troops in Iraq -- that were in Iraq that are not in Iraq anymore because they’re -- they’ve been brought home, right? I’m happy to send the clips around when the President goes to Camp Lejeune and says, “By the end of August, we’re going to have our combat troops out of there.” And you know what? Most of those articles say, “Good luck. Pie in the sky. Won’t ever happen.” And it did. The President said that’s what he was going to do, and that’s what we did.
The President said we were going to take some extraordinary steps to get our economy moving; they may not be popular, but they’re the right things to do. That’s what we did.
I don’t think taking -- I don’t know anybody that would say that taking two auto companies, putting them into bankruptcy, asking them to restructure, firing the CEO of one of them, was timid. That certainly wasn’t -- that wasn’t the case when -- it certainly wasn’t the Republican reaction when they thought we were doing too much for the auto industry. It was the right thing to do.
Connie, change takes time, as you heard the President talk about yesterday. It’s just not all going to happen overnight. That’s maybe why the Constitution affords Presidents four-year rather than four-month terms.
Yes.
Q Thank you, Robert. Today NSC senior director Jeff Bader mentioned that “China should abide by global norms, like in South China Sea and Central Bank.” And also he said the President could raise the issue of rare earth when he meet with President Hu. So the President will also mention the issue of South China Sea when he meets with President Hu?
MR. GIBBS: I have learned long ago never would I contradict the honorable Jeff Bader when it came to anything Asia. And, look, obviously those are important issues in our relationship with countries in that area of the world and, as we discussed here, the global trade and commerce around rare earth, I don’t know what the President will bring up with Hu Jintao, but we will certainly let you know after that happens. Certainly those are issues that could come up.
Q Just a fact check, I believe Jon Stewart’s own company says that his average viewership is about 1 million a night.
MR. GIBBS: The memo I saw said 2 million. I wouldn’t sneeze at 1 million, so --
Q And it’s an easy -- I mean --
MR. GIBBS: Plus I do think this kind of stuff -- it’s replayed -- I can’t stay up until 11:00 p.m. to watch it, so I usually -- well, I watch -- if I watch parts of it on television -- on the computer.
Q The President in his interview with Hispanic radio --
MR. GIBBS: Can I ask why you were fact-checking 1 or 2 million? (Laughter.)
Q That’s a hundred percent difference. And the three network newscasts I think are about 20 million. You said it was an easy call for Leno at 9, so --
MR. GIBBS: It is. It was an easy call at Jon with 1 or Jon with 2.
Q Most people are in bed watching Jon.
Q Let me ask you about the interview that he did with a Hispanic radio station where he said --
MR. GIBBS: The largest Hispanic radio station in the country. I’m not going to guess the viewership for fear that --
Q I wasn’t going to ask that.
MR. GIBBS: -- you already know the answer and I --
Q Listenership.
MR. GIBBS: See?
Q The President said if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying we’re going to punish our enemies, is that how he views Republicans on issues such as immigration?
MR. GIBBS: I think if you go through the entire interview, you’ll see that Piolin asks some tough questions of the President about why we haven’t made more progress on immigration reform. And the answer to why we haven’t made more progress on immigration reform was the answer I gave over here, which was, again -- I’m going to say 11 or 13 -- I don’t know the answer and you may have it --
Q I don’t.
MR. GIBBS: -- Republicans in the Senate that supported immigration reform until just recently. So --
Q It’s the use of the word “enemies.”
MR. GIBBS: Again, I think that the President was making a pitch to Latino listeners that he has made progress on issues important to them, that he hopes that they show up on Tuesday, and in the process of early voting, in numbers similar to what they did in 2008. And I would note that enthusiasm among Latino voters has increased over the past several weeks, and I think that the President -- the President is serious about doing something about immigration reform.
We know what happens when -- and it’s understandable that states like Arizona along the border are deeply frustrated about the federal government, for, over the course of many administrations, has done little to address the problem. We’ve instituted more strongly our border security than ever before, but more must be done and it can only be done comprehensively.
Q And those who fundamentally have a different approach to immigration can be called enemies?
MR. GIBBS: Again, I think the President was talking about those that have and have not supported -- I haven’t asked him about the specific word. I think -- again, I think the President was making an argument about helping those that have been a true friend to the Latino community.
Goyal.
Q Thank you, Robert. Two questions. As far as the President visit to India, Indians are ready to welcome him with open arms, hearts and minds. And I think the President will make history while he is in India. One, what Indians want to hear since the President will be in the city where India’s 9/11 took place on 11/26, they want to hear that what sort of U.S.-India will have relations, as far as fighting cross-border terrorism from Pakistan. And also, from Carnegie, Mr. Ashley Tellis is telling the President, if he is listening, that the President will have a historic opportunity as far as U.S.-India relations are concerned. So what do you think the President will have the message for the Indians in India and also across the border as far as terrorism is concerned?
MR. GIBBS: Well, as you guys know from the briefing yesterday, our first stop is a ceremony that commemorates the lives lost, as you said, on November 26, 2008, in a horrific terrorist attack. We have -- and you heard I think Bill Burns say yesterday that we have unprecedented cooperation with the Indian military. We do more exercises now than we have ever before with them. And our relationship on counterterrorism and subjects of the like is tremendously important. That is -- will be the subject of some of the talks that the President has with Prime Minister Singh and the subject to the very first stop on the trip.
This is -- as we said yesterday, this is a rapidly growing region of the world; Asia and India is a rapidly growing -- it’s the largest democracy in the world. Its economy is moving quickly. And our investment -- our partnership is paying benefits in our ability to increase our exports and create -- and support jobs here in America. Both of those will be highlighted by the President on this trip.
Q And second, before my question on Afghanistan and India, people who are getting ready for -- to welcome President also at the Taj Mahal and also in Amritsar at the Golden Temple, it’s really -- they were expecting that he will visit. And now, finally, as far as -- you said that he is not going to visit Taj Mahal.
MR. GIBBS: Right.
Q And since during his visit in Delhi, I’m sure the Afghanistan issue will be on the table with the Prime Minister of India and other officials in Delhi, and they will want to hear from him that as far as India and Afghanistan is concerned or their investment and their workers in Afghanistan, how is the safety concern? It is a concern in India, as far as their safety is concerned.
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, one of the things that has happened in the last 12 to 24 hours is -- as it relates to the United States in particular -- is President Karzai’s agreeing to keep some private security contractors at development sites which are important to making progress in Afghanistan. Our goal, obviously, is to get us out of the private security business -- private security contracting business. That’s the goal. But in the short term, we have to ensure the safety of our workers. And in that, I anticipate that our cooperation on this subject and on many others will come up with the Prime Minister.
Q Thanks, Robert.
Q Robert, you differentiate between folks like Stewart and the mass of the base of the party, just in terms of the --
MR. GIBBS: Say it again?
Q You’ve differentiated between Jon Stewart and some of these other folks and sort of the liberal base of the party, just in terms of the polling. You just talked about it before. Do you think this sort of -- this group of sort of liberal pundits gives the President a tougher time than sort of the same equivalent to Republicans, you know, the conservative pundits do to the Republicans?
MR. GIBBS: You know, I -- Glenn, I’d be -- I don’t spend a lot of time watching conservative pundits grade Republicans. Look, I can’t speak to that. Again, nobody here scheduled the interview with Jon Stewart expecting that he would ask does he like living at the White House, what’s his favorite color, does he like a dog or would he like a cat. I mean, again, that’s not --
Q What is his favorite color?
MR. GIBBS: I wish he would have asked.
Q But did you want to have this sort of like couples -- (laughter) -- how do I put this -- this sort of discussion of the President’s larger -- bad choice of words.
MR. GIBBS: Glenn, you’ve now completely lost me on the whole couples therapy analogy so I don’t -- (laughter.)
Q Did you really want this sort of very public discussion of the President’s difficulties with the liberal base a week before the midterm election in this milieu?
MR. GIBBS: Glenn, do I think people that might be frustrated watched that and came away with a better understanding of where the President is, why the President did what he did, and the progress that we’ve made? I hope so. I think that’s probably the case. And my guess is that -- look, that’s what -- putting him out there to talk to an interviewer and to ultimately talk to the American people is to explain, as I said earlier, why he does -- why he makes the decisions he makes, why we approach problems that we have the way we do, and our belief is that the American people are helped with that discussion. That’s what we expected to happen yesterday and I think that’s what we got. I was very pleased; the President was pleased with how it worked out.
Q Robert.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, ma’am.
Q In Ohio, there’s a lot of firepower happening on Sunday in Ohio. What was the White House’s decision-making in terms of putting so much behind that?
MR. GIBBS: Look, Ohio Governor Strickland is an important -- that’s an important race, it’s an important area. The President has worked hard to turn around and help the people of Ohio. Certainly we talked earlier about some of the things that the President did on autos and manufacturing. It’s an important place, and it is --
Q The Vice President is also going to be there.
MR. GIBBS: He’ll be there. The President will be there. I think it’ll be -- we had a good crowd the last time we went to Ohio and I anticipate we’ll have a pretty good one here. It’s an important place and worthy of both of them being there.
Sam.
Q Yes, hi, one of the things that the President said was going to have to be fixed is the way that the filibuster operates. And I’m wondering if you can get into some specifics about how he wants to see that fixed.
MR. GIBBS: I have not -- Sam, I don’t have or have not gotten from him specifics. I think if you look at what has happened over the past almost two years and what has historically happened, you’ll find a great variance with the way in which the filibuster has been used by this Senate. We’ve talked about it in here. Having to go through a cloture motion simply to get -- simply to get an up or down vote on a non-controversial nominee that has gone through a committee unanimously, and then ultimately gets through the Senate with one or two no votes or also gets through unanimously, is nothing more than a ridiculous abuse of the rules of the Senate.
Q Doesn’t he want the filibuster now? My goodness, isn’t that going to be his friend? I mean, he wants to give it up now when he’s losing all these votes in the Senate?
MR. GIBBS: Mara, you’d have to come to the conclusion that the rules of the Senate are more important than getting something done for the United States of America. I think the President was pretty clear yesterday -- if all you have to do is muster 40 people to say no, how do you foster an atmosphere in which each side knows they’re not going to get everything? Now, again, this is --
Q That’s very high-minded of them.
MR. GIBBS: No, it’s called governing. Right? I know this is -- it’s not always just a sport. It’s not always just about who’s up and who’s down and who wins. That’s the crazy viewpoint of this administration. I think it’s what drove most people to come here -- whether the rules and the atmosphere of this place have largely corrupted some into believing that this is all about stopping you from doing this and me from doing that. I mean, tell me, Mara, how we make progress on any single issue if this is the case. How do we address anything?
Q So he doesn’t want it as a tool to stop the Republican agenda?
MR. GIBBS: How do we stop anything? No, I think -- look, there have been reasonable uses of -- so that -- right? There’s reasonable uses and there are irrational uses of, right? But to take the administrator of the GSA, who none of us can name right here, right? She’s that controversial that we don’t even know her name, and require that she be -- require that she have a cloture vote, and then pass the Senate almost unanimously, if not unanimously, seems like an irrational use of the time rules of the United States Senate.
Q Robert, you’ve been putting a spotlight on it for a while now, and I’m wondering if we can expect to see any efforts at actual rule change.
MR. GIBBS: Again, I don’t have any specifics on this, Sam, but I can certainly look through for some of that.
Q Thanks, Robert.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, ma’am. I’ve got a meeting. Sorry, go ahead.
Q Yes, could you just clarify the answer you gave Mara about corporate profits? Because you’ve been making the argument it’s business uncertainty. Isn’t it business uncertainty --
MR. GIBBS: I have what?
Q Haven’t you been making the argument that it’s business uncertainty, and since the corporations don’t know what the tax law is going to be at the end of the year --
MR. GIBBS: I have not made that argument -- no, I don’t work for the Chamber. (Laughter.) I haven’t made that argument, no.
All right. Thanks, guys.
END
1:39 P.M. EDT
John Ensign John F. Kerry John Kerry John McCain John McCain
Background on the President?s Domestic Violence Awareness Event Today
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
Location:
EAST ROOM
This afternoon, President Obama will deliver remarks in the East Room at the Domestic Violence Awareness Month event. The audience will be comprised of advocates, women’s and fatherhood groups, faith leaders and law enforcement agencies.
PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
Vice President Joe Biden
Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to the President and Chair, White House Council on Women and Girls
Lynn Rosenthal, White House Advisor on Violence Against Women
Joe Torre, Founder of the Safe at Home Foundation, former Major League Baseball player and manager
ELECTED OFFICIALS EXPECTED TO ATTEND
US Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ
US Representative Donna Edwards, D-MD
Mayor Mitch Landrieu, D-New Orleans
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS EXPECTED TO ATTEND
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
Rosie Rios, US Treasurer
Susan Carbon, Director, Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice
Sara Manzano-Diaz, Director of the Women’s Bureau, Department of Labor
Ann Marie Oliva, Director of Special Needs Assistance Programs, Housing and Urban Development
Ralph Nader Richard Burr Richard Durbin Richard Shelby Robert Foster Bennett
More Money, More Problems
Ezra Klein, Newsweek
The 2010 election cost more than $4 billion"”a staggering sum. It's large enough that some of my colleagues, like Daniel Gross, have wondered if, in a weak economy, we shouldn't have elections every year. "Quantitative electioneering," he calls it.But it's also a depressing sum. Some of that money came from small donors, people who felt strongly about the direction of their country and dug into their own pockets to make it better. That's all for the good. But much of it came from corporations trying to buy access with winners,...
The 2010 election cost more than $4 billion"”a staggering sum. It's large enough that some of my colleagues, like Daniel Gross, have wondered if, in a weak economy, we shouldn't have elections every year. "Quantitative electioneering," he calls it.But it's also a depressing sum. Some of that money came from small donors, people who felt strongly about the direction of their country and dug into their own pockets to make it better. That's all for the good. But much of it came from corporations trying to buy access with winners,...
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2010/10/31/more_money_more_problems_244936.html
Dennis Hastert Dennis Kucinich Dianne Feinstein Dick Cheney Dick Lugar
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 10/26/2010
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
Location:
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:13 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS: Just one quick housekeeping thing before we get started. Tomorrow morning, in here, off-camera, we will do the first of our briefings for the trip to India, with Mike Froman, Ben Rhodes, and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns to walk us through some of what the President will do and see and talk about in India. We’re likely to do the latter portion of the foreign trip later in the week, the Korea and Japan G20 part a little bit later.
Q Do you have a time?
MR. GIBBS: Tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.
Q Embargoed or off-camera or --
MR. GIBBS: It’s off-camera. Let me check on the embargo. My guess is there won’t be one. But it would be on -- it will be on the India portion of the foreign trip. Like I said, we’ll do the second part of the trip probably Thursday.
Q I’m sorry, Thursday?
Q But Froman is not going to be there to talk about the G20 itself?
MR. GIBBS: Not tomorrow, no.
Q Separate for Indonesia or --
MR. GIBBS: Oh, yes, we’re just focusing on India tomorrow. So we’ll do sort of post-India, so that -- you’re right, Indonesia, Korea, Japan is all -- we’ll do the latter part of the week.
Q Will that be next week, Robert, or Thursday?
MR. GIBBS: No, it’s either going to be Thursday or Friday. My sense at the moment is Thursday. But I will have more on that.
Yes, sir.
Q With the volcanoes, the earthquakes and everything going on in Indonesia, is there any concern about that leg?
MR. GIBBS: I have not heard any expressed concern about any of those things impacting the trip.
Q Robert, thanks. Two topics. On Afghanistan, can you give us your sense of whether the President supports the U.S. giving bags of cash to Karzai, as the Afghan President said yesterday? What does the President have to say --
MR. GIBBS: Well, Ben, I think you know that the United States provides assistance through U.S. aid and development programs. I think I’d steer you away from that characterization of how the United States provides aid to the Afghans.
Q Well, that’s what he said.
MR. GIBBS: Well, this is what I’m saying.
Q So he’s wrong?
MR. GIBBS: Again, we provide aid through a process that’s appropriated through Congress, goes through steps and helps in a series of development projects and improves democracy and governance.
In terms of -- look, we closely monitor what happens in Afghanistan. Those efforts at moderating include making sure that its neighbors do not provide an unnecessary or negative -- don’t exert negative or unnecessary influence on that country. And, look, I would remind all of -- all the countries in that region that they have a responsibility to play a constructive role in the future of Afghanistan.
Q So what is the President’s response to Karzai’s companion assertion that he receives bags of cash from Iran?
MR. GIBBS: Again, only to say that we closely monitor what happens in Afghanistan and monitor countries that may negatively -- try to negatively influence the country and the future of it.
Q You monitor it, but is there a concern that that in fact is what Iran is doing?
MR. GIBBS: Again, I’m not going to get into the intelligence of what we might see.
Q On domestic politics, can you tell us whether the President has a personal reaction to Senator McConnell’s quote that the single most important thing we have to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President?
MR. GIBBS: Ben, I’ve said this before and I think you saw the President -- the President gave an interview to the same publication where Senator McConnell gave an interview and came up with that quote.
I doubt that regardless of the outcome of the election in a week, that the message that the voters of this country are going to send is that they want to see more politics being played, that they want to see the process bogged down and mired in more partisan political games.
Our job should be to work together to move this country forward, to strengthen our economy, and to improve the lives of its citizens. There’s time for a political campaign now and there will be time in two years for a presidential campaign. But in the days and the weeks and the months after this campaign, the message that voters are going to send and the message that we as elected officials should take is that of working together, of getting things done that are constructive, again, that help strengthen our economy.
We have had over the past two years enough game-playing to satisfy ourselves for many political lifetimes. It shouldn’t take two extra months to get a small business tax cut and a small business lending package through the United States Senate.
It shouldn’t -- we shouldn’t have a United States Senate that -- where you have co-sponsors of and supporters of a commission to look into the federal deficit, have it come up for a vote and vote against it. We’ve been through that for two years.
Q When then-Senator Obama was advocating for Senator Kerry for President prominently, isn’t that what he was trying to do, is make sure that President Bush wasn’t a one-term President?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Ben, there’s a difference -- look, again, there will be time for an active presidential campaign, okay? And maybe Senator McConnell is interested in running for President. But if you walk out on the trail during a presidential campaign and advocate for the election or defeat of somebody, that’s the political campaign season. But the political campaign season for the presidency of the United States is not going to be a week and a day from this election, or from right now and the day after this election.
There’s time for a presidential campaign. There will be time for a political campaign. But members of the Senate are elected and hired by the people of the United States to get stuff done for the people of the United States, not to posture and play political games, gum up the system.
We’ve seen people who’ve said, look, our goal is gridlock. That’s not what the American people are going to say -- regardless, again, of the outcome on Tuesday.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, does the White House have a reaction to Iran loading fuel into its first nuclear power plant? Is that a sign that sanctions are not working?
MR. GIBBS: No, no. And, look, we have addressed -- this reactor is monitored by the IAEA with cooperation from Russia. It should not -- again, we have a monitoring -- we have monitoring in place on something that is -- and we believe Iran has the right to produce peaceful nuclear power. That does not let it get out of its responsibilities in international agreements and commitments to step away from an illicit nuclear weapons program. So I would definitely divorce the two things.
I think if you look at articles over the past several weeks, sanctions are having an impact on the economy of Iran. The President that travels around the world and makes outlandish comments is, in stepping away from his country’s obligations, making it harder for the people of Iran. That’s the message I think that’s being delivered with sanctions.
Q And a follow-up question on a different topic. With the GDP figure coming out on Friday and the elections next week, do you think that Democrats are not getting credit for the economic measures that the White House has taken and/or has the Republican Party been more effective at their economic message?
MR. GIBBS: Well, their economic message has been “no.” And that also coordinates with their political agenda in the Senate and in the House. Look, again, I think you can look at the steps that we took, the change in when the President came in where the GDP figure was for that quarter, I think it was somewhere near negative 6 percent. We were losing close to 800,000 jobs the month the President came in. We’ve had nine consecutive months of private sector job growth. We’ve seen now a GDP that’s moving and pointing in the right direction.
But, again, Jeff, that having been said, it’s not a surprise that people are frustrated with the pace of where we are, especially given the depth of where we’ve been. It’s going to take some time. It’s not going to be remedied -- it’s not going to be remedied overnight.
Q I guess the question is, why are the Democrats not getting some credit for that? And is that --
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think -- I think because when you make some progress from very deep in a hole, you’re still in a hole. This was not a shallow recession. This was not a recession that saw an increase in unemployment. We saw -- or just an increase in unemployment. What I’m saying -- I’m trying to describe the sort of magnitude of that.
Look, 8 million jobs lost as a result of bad economic decisions -- that’s a hole that will take a long time to fill. And we’ve filled in part of that hole. But for many people who watched their economic well-being eroded not just since a bank collapsed in New York but over many, many years, there’s a logical frustration that is built up, and progress in coming out of that hole has not been as fast as they would like, it’s not been as fast as the President would like. You’ve heard the President tell the story on the campaign trail. The car is out of the ditch and it’s pointing in the right direction.
Q Heard that once or twice, yes. The question is --
MR. GIBBS: I didn’t even go into the Slurpees, but it was --
Q The question is, are the Republicans -- have they been more successful than Democrats at whether they would agree with your description of your economic message or not and getting -- and harnessing that --
MR. GIBBS: I just described -- I just simply described their votes.
Q But in harnessing -- or presenting their economic or taking advantage of the economic conditions to help their electoral --
MR. GIBBS: Again, I think they are -- again, I think we have a -- the political environment has been determined largely by the economic environment, and it’s one of frustration. I think we would all readily agree with that.
Jake.
Q Can you tell us what the President’s plans are for voting?
MR. GIBBS: He just voted absentee in the West Wing.
Q Who did he vote for?
MR. GIBBS: I did not ask. I assume that’s a private decision.
Q Because we know now he’s not necessarily a straight Democratic ticket guy, right? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know whether he voted independent or not. No, I can assure you, I know who he voted for governor and Senate in Illinois -- the two Democratic candidates who I believe will win.
Q Did the President have any reaction to the comments from Governor Manchin yesterday in which he refused to say that he would endorse President Obama for reelection in 2012?
MR. GIBBS: I did not hear anything from the President on that. Again, I don’t think the President -- we’ve got a long way to go before 2012, so I don’t think that would cause the President to lose a lot of sleep.
Q Robert, to follow up on the story about the Republicans driving the car into the ditch, the President has now been behind the wheel of this car for two years. At what point does he stop --
MR. GIBBS: Well, just -- I would say pushing the car out of the ditch first, right? Yes.
Q Right, but he has been trying to move the car --
MR. GIBBS: Let’s be faithful to the story.
Q So he has been moving the car -- he has been moving this car now for two years. At what point does he stop talking about the people who were last driving that car? I mean, does this continue after the midterm elections?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Dan --
Q It becomes his car and he’s behind the wheel.
MR. GIBBS: No, and -- look, there’s an Obama bumper sticker on the car; we get that. But, Dan, inherent in your question is somehow that on January 20th everything reset to zero and we all got to start all over again. That wasn’t the case, right? We watched an economy from December 2007 through -- I’m doing this off the top of my head -- probably sometime in the fall of 2009 lose jobs every single month, right? We’ve now had nine consecutive months of positive job growth, and probably -- I know there was one month in there -- so it’s probably like 11 of 12 or 12 of 13 -- I’d have to go back and look at the exact graph.
Look, Dan, the President has taken responsibility for the steps that he’s taken since coming into office. But the six months before he got into office we lost 4 million jobs. You can’t -- again, you can’t reset the frustration involved with somebody who lost their job in that time period, can you? I mean, that’s just --
Q At what point does he stop talking about --
MR. GIBBS: How we got into this mess?
Q Right.
MR. GIBBS: It’s going to take us years to get out of --
Q You would think you would be talking about the incremental steps of getting that car down the road now, as opposed to how that car got in the ditch. It gets to be somewhat of a broken record, does it not?
MR. GIBBS: No -- well, the record of the last eight years was pretty broken, I would give you that. I don’t think keeping -- I don’t think repeating how we got into this mess, partly because we don’t want to repeat it. You’ve heard the President say, I’m not saying this because I want to re-litigate, I don’t want to re-live it. That’s the President’s message in this campaign.
We don’t -- look, let’s take, for instance -- leaving aside that the chairman of the House campaign committee said, our goal was to go back to the agenda of what we had before the President came into office -- Senator Cornyn, the head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, has said one of the first things we ought to do is repeal Wall Street reform. Well, that’s what got us into this mess -- a series of rules and regulations that didn’t impact anybody’s behavior and handed taxpayers the bill.
We’re going to change that. And we change that in this legislation, and we’re putting people in charge of things like the consumer agency that can advocate on behalf of middle-class workers, middle-class families, middle-class taxpayers, not for fly-by-night lenders or getting suckered into mortgages that they can’t afford. We’re putting somebody on the side of the middle class. We don’t want to walk away from that.
That’s what got us into this mess. And, look, I think the President will continue to talk about it. It’s how we got where we are.
Oh, go ahead.
Q The President will be on a radio show with Al Sharpton this afternoon. Does he feel like he has to shore up support among African Americans?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know what the latest numbers are. I think there’s -- I think our numbers in the African American community are as high as -- almost as high as they’ve probably ever been. I think obviously our desire was to get as many people that do support the President out to the polls. He’s done a number of these calls. He’ll continue to do a number of these calls between now and Election Day.
Bill.
Q I just want to get it straight. Are you saying that no entity of the U.S. government transferred any cash to any member of President Karzai’s government?
MR. GIBBS: Again, we provide assistance and aid to the Afghan government through a fairly well-established developmental aid program.
Q But only through the aid program?
MR. GIBBS: We’re not in the big bags of cash business.
Q Well, are you sure that no government agency is in the big bags of cash business?
MR. GIBBS: I’ve not been read into that, so I can tell you what I know, Bill.
Q Briefcases of cash.
Q Yes, I mean, bags, briefcases, whatever, you know, shoeboxes.
MR. GIBBS: Again, I’m relying on the knowledge that I have on this subject and I don’t know, Bill.
Q Frank Caprio has repeated his frustration with the President’s refusing to endorse his campaign for governor of Rhode Island. Have you a reaction to that?
MR. GIBBS: Not anything more than I think the way we reacted yesterday and I think what Axelrod said this morning, which is -- you know, he has a relationship and a friendship with former Senator Cheney. And we were clear with the campaign that we weren’t going to get involved in the race.
Q Chafee.
MR. GIBBS: Chafee -- I’m sorry. Did I say Cheney? (Laughter.) Wow.
Q Thanks for making news.
MR. GIBBS: I know. Just doing that to see if you guys were awake. No, I -- sorry.
Q Do you support him too? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: Good question. I’m sure he’ll do an ad on the Iraq War.
Q Was it disrespectful what he said about the President?
MR. GIBBS: It’s not what I would have said. It’s not what -- his words don’t in any way meet the actions of a campaign that was looking for support.
Q Should we read this as the President takes his responsibility as a friend more importantly than his responsibility as head of the party?
MR. GIBBS: No.
Q Could the President have handled it any better perhaps by calling Mr. Caprio and telling him personally that he wanted to stay out of the race?
MR. GIBBS: That was communicated clearly and well in advance to the campaign.
Q How was it communicated?
MR. GIBBS: By a senior official in the West Wing.
Q When -- when?
Q To the candidate?
MR. GIBBS: Several weeks ago.
Q Oh, several weeks ago.
MR. GIBBS: To the campaign.
Q To the campaign?
MR. GIBBS: Mm-hmm.
Q Communicated -- what was communicated? I’m sorry.
MR. GIBBS: That we weren’t going to get involved in the race.
Q Okay. I sense a difference in tone, less discussion of hope in this year of campaigning by the President than we heard in 2008. Why is that?
MR. GIBBS: Based on what?
Q Based on the car, the ditch, riding in the backseat. Is this a reflection of the past two years? Is it a reflection of the President --
MR. GIBBS: I’m not following you, Wendell.
Q -- talking to different people? Has the President basically conceded that he needs to reach out to his base more than independents now? Is that the --
MR. GIBBS: Because we tell the -- you’re going to have to help me understand this, Wendell. We tell the story about getting the car out of the ditch, which is a metaphor for the economy, that he is appealing to his base rather than independents?
Q Well, the fact that -- the Slurpees, shall we bring in the Slurpee then, and Republicans standing on the sidelines, okay, Republicans riding in the backseat.
MR. GIBBS: I think we said the middle class would be in the front seat, which would be a departure from where the middle class rode during most of the Bush administration. And I think we said as much in 2008 during the campaign.
Q You’re not going to concede more focus --
MR. GIBBS: I will say this, Mark called 7-Eleven and they declined to comment specifically that Slurpees were a Republican drink, right? That is true. That is true. So I guess I don’t follow your Slurpee contention.
Q Is the President appealing more to his base now because he has despaired of the support of independents?
MR. GIBBS: No, again, it’s hard to follow what you are laying out in the question, Wendell. But the President is seeking the votes of everybody in this election. We’re not just appealing to one group of people. The President, the actions that he’s taken, the decisions that he’s made, were the right decisions, the right thing to do in a tough economic environment, and we hope it appeals to everybody.
Q Can I follow on that? In the last few speeches, President Obama upped the ante, saying not only are Republicans not helping pull the economy out of the ditch, fanning themselves, sipping Slurpees, but the last few speeches he has them kicking dirt in his face from above. I mean, where is this going? What’s next? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: I hope there is an ad for the last weekend on the story. Look, I think -- my sense, Mark, is that the President added part of that into the speech, because I think to just simply assume that for the past two years all the Republicans did was sit by and not do anything tells only part of the story.
They voted against every one of these things. Again, they voted -- I go to Mitch McConnell’s “here’s what the future is going to look like” to explain apparently what he believes his job is as the leader of his party in the Senate, leaving aside, again, the fact that if at any point two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you would have said to Mitch McConnell, do you support cutting capital gains taxes on small business -- if you were in a town hall meeting and you asked that question, do you think the first word out of your mouth would be anything besides yes?
You know, there’s a series of political games that get played in this town and the Republicans have played a lot of them. Again, I don’t think they would mischaracterize the fact that they tried at every effort to help get the car out of the ditch. Many of them are running a campaign exactly on that. We’ve just illuminated it in a story and added Slurpees for a laugh.
Q And kicking dirt.
MR. GIBBS: And kicking dirt and putting them in the backseat so the middle class can ride shotgun in the front I think is a pretty good representation of what’s happened over the past two years.
Q So two quick questions, one going back to Caprio in Rhode Island. It’s one thing not to endorse the Democratic candidate, but I guess the question is why go to Rhode Island at all? It seems like it’s throwing the non-endorsement in his face.
MR. GIBBS: We went to -- we went there for a DCCC fundraiser.
Q But you could have raised money somewhere else, correct?
MR. GIBBS: Well, except that’s where the DCCC wanted us to go to raise money.
Q All right. Well, second question, going back to the McConnell issue and the relationship with Republicans, setting aside any predictions about what’s going to happen next week on November 2nd, putting that all aside, what changes -- how is the President going to approach the relationship with Republicans differently? What changes will he make? And how do you balance trying to work with Republicans on one side and then not angering or further angering the Democratic base on the other side, who some of them think he spent a lot of time trying to work with Republicans already?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, we’ll have plenty of time to get into operational changes. I will say this. I think if you just read the interviews -- just read the two interviews side by side. A President that regardless of the outcome wants to sit down, work with Republicans, find common ground, figure out how we can work together to move this country forward, versus somebody who has decided that his first job as leader of his -- of the Senate for the Republican Party, regardless, again, of the outcome, is to defeat the President and keep him as only a one-term President.
Again, the job of the President and the job of any senator or any member of the House after this election is going to be solving the problems of this country, of which we know there are quite a few that need to be addressed.
Q So how do you do that if you already know what McConnell has said? I mean, what will change from the White House’s approach?
MR. GIBBS: Look, you’ll have to ask Senator McConnell how he’s going to approach this differently given what he said and given the fact that the President said he looks forward to sitting down and working with them.
That goes back, again, to some of our earliest -- some of the earliest time that we spent here in the White House in trying to get their support for a Recovery Act, trying to get their support for passing middle-class tax cuts to spur consumer demand.
A lot of the things, quite frankly, that they’ve always said they were for -- increases in infrastructure investments -- all of those things, I can assure you that when the political and election season has passed, and we get the next day into -- back into the governing of this country, that this is a President that will reach out to -- as he did and try as best as he can to work with the Republican Party because I think at the end of the day, the President strongly believes that there is enough common ground to be found to help move this country forward.
The Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the posture they’re going to take. I would say that the first message that has come from Senator McConnell is one of -- it’s a deeply disappointing message that regardless of the outcome of this election, political gridlock and political gamesmanship is what the American people have to look forward to over the next two years.
Jonathan.
Q Serious question. If President Obama --
MR. GIBBS: As opposed to?
Q As opposed to all the other ones.
MR. GIBBS: If I had a picture of the look on Mark’s face when you said that, I would -- sorry, go ahead.
Q If President Obama believes that the problems the administration is facing is not over policy but over communication, why is that all these policymakers are leaving the White House and all the communications people are staying? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: Well, Jonathan, again, let’s -- I think it’s important to not -- look, I’ve described this before. There is a natural, as you know in covering both Washington and the White House -- there is a natural churning of personnel inside this building, right?
So I think the notion of -- look, people leave for a hundred different reasons, right? Some people, as we know, are leaving because they were going to serve for two years and that two years is up. They have opportunities that they walked away from in academia or in business or in anything, and they’re going to return to that.
So I don’t know that I’d overly read into the fact that people are leaving as somehow the -- those involved in policy are somehow leaving in a disproportionate level to other positions. There are also eminently more policy positions in this White House and in this administration than anything else.
Q Well, do you believe that there might be -- or there is a need for some change in communications strategy if the President of the United States is talking --
MR. GIBBS: I should do this as a senior administration official.
Q If the President of the United States is saying out loud that there seems to be a problem with communications, where does that leave you?
MR. GIBBS: Look, I think what -- look, it is -- and I’ve said this and I think you’ve heard others, and I think you’ve heard the President say this, it is -- we were confronted with a lot of things very quickly.
Look, you could imagine what was encompassed in a Recovery Act -- the size of, the breadth of that is something that you could have spent months flying around the country touting the proposals contained in something like that before Congress ever considered it.
We were afforded -- we weren’t afforded that opportunity because the economy was contracting at such a rate that ours was to get into the bloodstream that investment as quickly as possible in a way that was effective, but also in a way that ensured that we weren’t seeing waste, fraud and abuse. That’s what we’ve done.
I don’t -- but, again, it’s all overlaid on a very tough political climate. That’s what we’ve faced from the get-go. And I don’t imagine that those are going to -- I don’t think that’s going to change much next week or two weeks after that. We’re still going to have a lot of challenges.
Mark.
Q Robert, is getting out the vote the singular objective of the last week of the campaign?
MR. GIBBS: I think this is a -- I think it would be fair to say that that is probably the -- probably on the top of every to-do list of every person working in a campaign at any point in the country. This is -- you’ve identified who your voters are, and now it is time to make sure that if they have an early vote opportunity, if they’re not going to be there for the election -- like the President is and just voted -- and to get them motivated to show up on Election Day.
Q And The Daily Show is part of that?
MR. GIBBS: I think absolutely. I think the -- we have -- two things. I think obviously you’ve got a constituency of younger voters that watch that show, and it’s a good place to go and reach them.
And, look, sort of ancillary to that, my second point, which is -- whether it is -- whether you’re doing something like The View, or you’re doing something like The Daily Show, look, I don’t have to tell you guys that not everybody -- there’s a lot of different channels for people to watch these days.
They get their information from not just television news and cable and newspapers and radio and the Internet. They get them from -- there’s a lot of different places. And the President hasn’t been shy about going to the places where people are getting their information and trying to make his case. And I think that’s what he’ll do on the show.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, I’d like to ask an economy and trade question. China has moved to limit its exports of something called rare earth. There’s 17 different minerals. You’re familiar with it a little bit.
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q Used in everything from flat-screen TVs to smart bombs. It has military implications and so forth.
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q Is the administration concerned about it? And if so, are you looking into it --
MR. GIBBS: I’ll say this, Roger -- and you guys had this question last week. NSC has seen the reports and is monitoring to see whether something like that is happening. And they continue to do so. But I don’t think there’s any update past some of those reports from last week.
Obviously, as I said -- or as you said -- these are important in the production of a whole host of things and obviously something that NEC and NSC will monitor.
Q Is this a question of not being assured that they have reduced exports?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think it is -- again, we’ve seen the reports and we’re monitoring to see whether or not those -- whether or not what is happening on the ground is reflected in those reports.
Q Is this something that could come up -- or be part of the agenda at either G20 this month, or when the -- Hu Jintao comes to Washington next year?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we are likely to see President Hu on the trip at the G20. Look, if it’s something that the security and economic teams think is important, in terms of where those reports are, certainly we wouldn’t hesitate to bring it up.
I guess my bottom line is we’re monitoring to see whether those reports are, indeed, the case.
Q There is concern --
MR. GIBBS: Well, there’s concern to monitor to see if the reports are true. I don’t -- it’s -- and they’ll continue to do something on that.
Q May I follow up?
MR. GIBBS: I’ll come back.
Q Robert, just about The Daily Show interview. You explained kind of the President’s reasons for going on it. It does coincide with the run-up to this big rally that he’s having over the weekend.
MR. GIBBS: I will say this. Jon Stewart announced a long, long time ago that he would be in Washington before the existence of the rally. That’s when we -- we signed up to do the show many months ago, I think long before the existence of the rally.
Q Okay. But does the President -- first of all, does the President have any opinion or even an understanding of what the rally’s purpose is, and whether it’s something that he thinks would be useful to the Democrats?
MR. GIBBS: I’ve not talked to the President about the rally. I don’t know what his opinion is on it.
Q Okay. And just another follow-up. The President is going on another kind of blue state tour over the weekend. Can you just --
MR. GIBBS: I’m not sure -- I appreciate --
Q Well, most of them --
MR. GIBBS: -- that Ohio is blue. (Laughter.)
Q Well, okay. With the exception of Ohio, there are a lot of blue states --
MR. GIBBS: I don’t think that’s necessarily been, say, the hue of that state on election nights.
Q Connecticut, Illinois -- I mean, states that he won.
MR. GIBBS: Sure. Let’s not forget Ohio.
Q And let’s not forget Ohio.
MR. GIBBS: I mean, that’s -- sort of a -- kind of a big state.
Q No, Illinois, Connecticut, Pennsylvania -- what are the -- and then Ohio. Can you just talk about why he’s doing what he’s doing in the last weekend?
MR. GIBBS: Look, there -- these are all important races. Again, I don’t -- look, I think you could -- I think it would be accurate to say that Pennsylvania is a battleground state. I don’t think that is -- I don’t think that’s up for a lot of discussion.
But, look, you’ve got important close races in each of these places. And the President will -- I think you -- many of you guys -- some of you were certainly on the trip. Some of you certainly saw I think the President making a strong case for Democrats in this election over the past several days in Portland, in Seattle, in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Minneapolis. And that certainly continues in races that are close and are of concern to this White House.
Q Robert, what kind of briefings, if any, is the President getting on the state of play in the races and the elections? Are you adding any sit-downs with the political team? How much is he kept up to date on that?
MR. GIBBS: There’s -- he generally gets a quick update in -- on a fairly regular basis in the senior advisor meeting that takes in the Oval Office, usually most mornings. I think today it got pushed back until later this afternoon.
And certainly on the road, people give him updates on what he’s -- on what they’re hearing and what they’re getting -- the information that they get from the national party, state parties or the individual campaign.
Q And how much is he involved in deciding where he is going in these last days, versus simply just responding to requests from, say, the DCCC or the DNC or -- how involved is he?
MR. GIBBS: We I think put together a sketch for where we thought would be an important -- where would be important stops for this last weekend. But he was not, to my recollection, involved in, oh, we should go here rather than here. It’s just not usually how he does that.
Q And just a housekeeping thing on the Stewart interview. Is that -- I assume that’s a closed press thing? He’s doing in the venue before a live -- before an audience, isn’t that correct?
MR. GIBBS: I believe so, yes.
Q So --
Q Would we see it, contemporaneously?
Q In other words, there will be people in the audience who -- for the show -- who will witness the President being interviewed. So I’m wondering will reporters be allowed to be in the room --
MR. GIBBS: I can check on that.
Q -- and witness the President being interviewed? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the last time that The New York Times was in the Oval Office, whether we did a print pool, but --
Q Well, you ordinarily wouldn’t --
MR. GIBBS: No, no, I know -- I know --
Q But sometimes you’d make a transcript --
Q But when The New York Times goes into the Oval Office you don’t invite members of the public.
MR. GIBBS: Sheryl, Sheryl, I’m just kidding. We could.
Q We could, it’d be fun.
MR. GIBBS: No. (Laughter.) Seriously, in all honesty, let me check on the coverage. We would generally put out a transcript. So let me check on that and I will get back to you.
Q Robert, does the President not have any concern about the conflation of entertainment comedy and politics? Does that -- does it take away from the seriousness?
MR. GIBBS: Jon Stewart is sort of past that.
Q It’s not just about the interview, but the weekend as well.
MR. GIBBS: How so?
Q Well, to the extent that a leading comedian is holding a political rally -- no concern about that?
MR. GIBBS: Not necessarily, no. I mean, look, we’ve had entertainers join things like Rock the Vote to help register people to vote and help get people involved. Look, I think the President would tell you that we have a very special gift in our democracy that the people get to render their judgment and they get to elect those that will represent them in Washington. And efforts that help get people involved in and excited in participating in that democracy on either side is a good thing.
Q Speaking of comedians, David Axelrod in his web chat -- that well-known comedian.
MR. GIBBS: You lost me on that one. (Laughter.)
Q Axelrod talked about Republicans will no doubt find greater parity on Capitol Hill after Tuesday. And he said that will be met with a “welcoming hand from us.” Will the President do something on Wednesday, the day after the election, to put aside the car in the ditch and extend some kind of welcoming hand? Republican leaders will be here in Washington.
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the -- what the schedule is for that day. But as we get closer, I’m sure we’ll have something to say about it.
Look, but I will say this, Ann, again, I think you’ve seen this in several interviews that the President has given over the last few weeks and certainly, again, the one that is juxtaposed with the interview that Senator McConnell did. And that is, look, where there’s a political season, that political season on election -- after the Election Day will be over.
Now we’re in a season of governing on behalf of the American people, Democrat and Republican. And I think he was pretty clear about his desire to do all that he can and hopes they will do all that they can to work together to move this country forward.
Q But will he do something to encourage that in a day or two before he leaves for --
MR. GIBBS: Again, I don’t have a final schedule. I would assume we will have stuff on that. I just -- there’s no specifics as of yet.
Q And how will he watch the returns on Tuesday? Does he plan to come in here and make any statements during the evening?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know of any plans to come in here that evening. And I assume he’ll be either in the Residence or in the West Wing. He’s not usually one to sit by the TV and watch over and over and over again. He’ll usually get -- sometimes he does, most times he doesn’t. He certainly will get written updates or email updates from us. And I’m sure we’ll be in fairly regular communication with him that night. I do not anticipate -- at least not that I’ve heard -- that he’ll be in here that night.
Q Are you anticipating Wednesday or Thursday for him to -- or you don’t know yet?
MR. GIBBS: Again -- I don’t know the final answer to that.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” I understand the meeting is taking place today between the White House and repeal advocates. What commitments is the White House going to be offering during this meeting in the effort to repeal the law?
MR. GIBBS: Well, likely the same commitments that I’ve enumerated in here, and that is our desire to see the defense authorization bill pending before the Senate taken up. That includes a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” as the House has already voted on. The President wants the defense authorization act and that repeal passed. That is the basis for the meeting today. And I think the President and the administration have committed to working to see that through.
Q I want to follow up on that. Is among the commitments -- is among the commitments reaching out to senators who may have voted no in September to get them to change their votes to vote yes in the lame duck? Has that taken place yet?
MR. GIBBS: Not to my knowledge. To my knowledge, it hasn’t taken place yet. But, look, the only way we’re going to get something through the Senate is to change the vote count and to move past -- look, you got to get -- you’re going to have to get past a promised filibuster and -- in moving to the bill. And certainly the only way we can move to that bill is to change some of those votes.
Q It’s been reported that any discussion of litigation on “don’t ask, don’t tell” during this meeting would terminate the discussion. Why is that?
MR. GIBBS: Again, understand that some of the participants in the meeting are with groups that are in litigation as the plaintiff where the United States government is the defendant. I don’t think either side believes that those type of conversations about the litigation between two parties represented in a lawsuit is appropriate at the meeting.
Q Who initiated the meeting, you or them?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the answer to that. I can check.
Karen.
Q One last question, is the President expecting --
MR. GIBBS: You got to move up to front row. (Laughter.) Go ahead, I’m sorry.
Q Is the President expecting repeal legislation on his desk by the end of this year regardless of what happens at the polls next week?
MR. GIBBS: That’s our hope. Again, our desire and our hope and the President’s commitment is that he will work to see this pass. This is -- look, we are -- we’re approaching the beginning of December, which is when the Pentagon’s study of implementation and of the attitudes of the military will be complete. And the President believes, continues to believe, that this is a law that -- the end of this law -- that time for the ending of this law has come.
The courts are signaling that. And certainly it’s been his political belief going back -- when I met him in 2004, that was his position.
Do you have a -- we might have covered it, but go ahead. (Laughter.)
Q No, no. Of course not, of course not. Two quick questions. Any sense of what that report looks like? Has anyone in the White House had a chance to see some of the prelims of that DOD report?
MR. GIBBS: Not to my knowledge. The last time I heard about this, nobody in this building had seen that, no.
Q And in terms of contingency planning, I know this is your favorite subject, but, look, there’s a very real possibility this doesn’t go through. I know you guys want it to, I know that’s the meeting today. But if it doesn’t go through, I mean, is something like stop-loss on the table? Perfectly within the President’s authority, by the way, during a time of war.
MR. GIBBS: I think that -- look, you’ve seen steps that have been taken over the past several days at the Pentagon involving service secretaries. You have for -- you have a sitting chair of the Joint Chiefs that believes it’s time for this law to end; the President working closely with the Secretary to make that happen.
And our efforts in the short term will be focused on the durable repeal of a law that the President thinks is unjust, and that’s where our focus will be.
Yes, sir.
Q Thank you, Robert. Some analysts say that because of concern about China’s (inaudible) currency that U.S. is taking tougher stand toward China. So has the administration changed their policy toward China?
MR. GIBBS: Look -- in terms of currency? Well, look, I will say this. We’ve had this discussion in here, and we will have this discussion for the foreseeable future, and that is our belief that China must move. And that is communicated in our dealings with the Chinese government, whether it is in a meeting with the President, whether that is with Secretary Geithner or National Security Advisor Tom Donilon.
That is -- our position is that has to change. And the House before leaving weighed in that it’s of concern to members on Capitol Hill. I think that the President believes that that simply demonstrates the widespread concern of people here in this country of leaders of the Chinese needing to take action on this topic.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, Amnesty International is demanding that Pakistan investigate the torture and killing of 40 politicians, activists in Baluchistan. Is the administration backing that demand?
MR. GIBBS: Let me get some guidance. I have not seen that from the ACLU. Let me get some guidance on that. I will say this, if it hasn’t -- it may have already gone out -- the President did speak with President Zardari late this morning, and there is a readout of that call that we’ll -- again, if it hasn’t gone out, it will go out.
Q Can I just follow the region? India?
MR. GIBBS: I’ll go there and I’ll go with Ken.
Q Robert, are you leaving Monday open for the possibility of adding something GOTV-wise?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of.
Q He’ll definitely be down? And if I could just ask you another question. I’m not saying this is a reflection of what may or may not have happened yesterday in Rhode Island, but is this the way the White House anticipated the home stretch to look? Is this --
MR. GIBBS: How so?
Q According to the blocking strategy, according to the way you figured the closing arguments would go coming out of here, the role of the President in the effort, or is it a -- has it become a Hail Mary pass at this point?
MR. GIBBS: Look, I think that the way we’ve seen the President deployed in different races is much as we expected the President would be used. Look, I think there were -- I think if you looked at last week’s -- I think it was an AP poll that showed when you asked people the role that the President played in their voting, it wasn’t a huge role on either side. But the President believes that if he can certainly be helpful in getting our voters out for support, that that’s a role that he should play and can play and certainly will play.
But I think it has gone out -- we’re likely to add a stop Friday in Charlottesville for Congressman Perriello, but I do not anticipate that Monday -- I anticipate the President will be here working on different topics.
Tommy.
Q Thanks, Robert.
Q Robert, was it press reports --
MR. GIBBS: Hold on, let me call on Tommy real fast.
Q Will you come back to me? Thank you.
MR. GIBBS: Maybe. (Laughter.)
Q Maybe?
MR. GIBBS: I got to be truthful, Lester. (Laughter.)
Q I think that’s a wonderful thing.
MR. GIBBS: I don’t want to put all my chips on a commitment I’m unable to keep.
Q I have three quick ones.
MR. GIBBS: Welcome back, by the way.
Q Thank you. I feel great. First question, there’s apparently a lot of outrage building over the President’s addition of -- to the car story of the Republicans riding in the back. I don’t know if that’s new, but apparently now people are upset about it. I think they’re casting it even as some sort of a civil rights reference. Are you aware of this? Megyn Kelly on FOX said specifically she wanted to know what Gibbs would have to say about it, so --
MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, Megyn can come out to a rally, but -- and you hear -- I almost looked at Mark because he’s sort of the aficionado on the ditch story. But the President says -- and I think he said it this weekend -- that Republicans are going to ride in the back and the middle class is going to ride up front in the passenger seat. That’s what the President’s view is. We’re certainly concerned about backseat driving in that scenario, but it is what it is. (Laughter.)
Q You’ll like this question.
MR. GIBBS: Hold on, Tommy has got a couple more.
Q You’ll like this question.
MR. GIBBS: I am going to like this question?
Q Yes, you’ll like the question.
MR. GIBBS: My sponsors tell me I should tell people that I’m not calling on them generally because I think I may or may not like it. Go ahead.
Q Well, my second question is, regarding Leader McConnell’s remarks, the President has talked about -- well, prior to these remarks, that he hopes that following the midterms that he’ll be able to work with Republicans. And given McConnell’s remarks, it doesn’t seem like that’s going to be the case. What sort of hope can you offer people that anything will get -- is going to get done in the next two years? It sort of seems like you can’t get much done now without --
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, Tommy, I think that -- let’s look back at any of the elections that -- look back at the last four or five elections. I don’t think at any point, regardless of the outcome, people took from that election that what they wanted to see was an increase in political gamesmanship and gridlock. That’s not what -- I don’t think that there’s any chance that that’s the message coming out of this campaign.
I think that the American people are going to want people that can sit down in a room together, find common ground -- nobody is asking anybody to leave their principles or their values or their otherwise strong beliefs at the door, but let’s sit down and look for where the two -- where the ideas may overlap and see if we can move forward on that. I think that’s -- that’s certainly the President’s hope. I hope that Senator McConnell will reconsider what looks at this point to be his view of going forward.
One more.
Q Well, the last one is really quick. Is there any chance the President is going to put in an appearance at the rally?
MR. GIBBS: Put in an appearance?
Q At the rally to restore honor/fear -- sanity and fear.
MR. GIBBS: No, we’ll be flying around to the other states.
Q Thanks, Robert.
MR. GIBBS: I’ll go David and then I’ll go to Lester.
Q I’m setting you up here, Les.
MR. GIBBS: You’re the straight guy. (Laughter.)
Q In the interview that came out yesterday, the President said that we have to -- that he has to have humility about what we can accomplish. I wonder if you can explain that a little, and also square that with some of his favorite statements from the past when he talked about the “fierce urgency of now” and the “audacity of hope.” How can you do that and be humble at the same time?
MR. GIBBS: Well, because -- look, David, I would explain this I think the same way that David Axelrod explained this I think when he was asked this morning, is this is a President that came to Washington wanting to work with the other side. Again, I think we have -- look, we were criticized for wanting that for too long on health care. We were criticized -- the President sought to get support of Republicans for the Recovery Act in going to Capitol Hill even after they said en masse that they weren’t going to support it. That’s not going to -- that didn’t stop the President then; it won’t stop the President after this election trying to sit down and work with Republicans and Democrats alike who want to move the country forward.
That does not mean that we can’t do important things. That doesn’t mean we can’t -- look, I think you could -- and I would make the case that the only way you’re going to get progress on things like energy, the only way you’re going to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform, the only way you’re going to make real progress on getting our fiscal house in order is to do so together. There is not a scenario where only one group of people can move this country forward and govern this country.
As it is noticed and has been said, regardless of what the outcome is, there is going to be greater parity, which means everyone is going to have to work together.
Q But on these important issues, there has been disparity between the two parties and the two sides that you haven’t overcome when you’ve got a political advantage. Under what set of circumstances does this greater parity increase the odds of working with the other side that says again and again, it rejects some of the President’s key policies and key ideas?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, David, first and foremost, we understand -- look, if you look back at the past two years, you’ve needed 60 votes to pass a bill that required 50, right? That at every step of the way, you couldn’t get past that. Again, maybe that had something to do with the fact that there were 60 or 59 Democrats, but we are going to be in a situation -- again, regardless of the outcome -- that will require progress to be made only by working -- where that’s possible only through working together. And I think that any party, again, coming out of this election that believes that the message that voters send is screeching everything to a halt, that’s not what -- that is not what their message will be.
Q Thanks, Robert.
MR. GIBBS: Bill.
Q Doesn’t the experience of the last two years lead you to the conclusion that it’s not going to be any better in the next two years and may be even worse?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t think it will be easy, Bill. I don’t think anybody here is naïve that it won’t take some hard work. And my point is it will take hard work on both sides.
Again, I cannot conceive of somebody walking out of Election Night, regardless of how -- of what the final score is and believing, you know what, the voters have spoken, grind everything to a halt, political gridlock, nothing happens for two years -- no nominees, no budget, no progress on energy, no progress on putting our fiscal house in order. Everything just stays the same. We all just yell and scream at each other.
Q But there are people --
MR. GIBBS: There’s not going to be an exit poll that shows that.
Q But, Robert, there are people running -- there are people running to block Obama. And some may or may not win. And if they’re in the Senate, that would give the obstructionists even more power.
MR. GIBBS: But, again --
Q It sounds like you’re gilding the lily a little here. Maybe a lot.
MR. GIBBS: Again, I simply took Mitch McConnell at his word that that’s what he wanted to do, right? That’s what he said in an interview in the same publication where the President said it was time to work together. I think that’s the message that voters are going to send.
One more, Lester, and then --
Q Was it --
MR. GIBBS: Poor Ben has been trying to get me out of here for hours. (Laughter.)
Q I appreciate it.
Q Thanks, Robert.
Q Was it -- I have a two-part. (Laughter.) Was it press reports --
MR. GIBBS: You said I’d like this question, right?
Q He didn’t say which part.
Q All right.
MR. GIBBS: You just put an and in between them and we’ll --
Q Was it press reports of the President’s repeatedly dropping any mention of the Creator in referring to the Declaration of Independence that led him to commendably restore it in four speeches this weekend?
MR. GIBBS: No, look, I think the President has at certain times quoted from and at other times paraphrased the Declaration. I wouldn’t read anything into it, much as I didn’t read anything into it when on a couple of the speeches in this trip, somehow the Slurpee got dropped.
Q Today in Baltimore, 52 percent of the 16- to 19-year-old African Americans cannot find a job, reported the Washington Examiner. Since these are United States citizens, does the President agree or disagree with Governor O’Malley’s repeated description of illegal aliens as new Americans?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, there’s a -- I neither saw the story or what Governor O’Malley has said. I think that there are -- I think Governor O’Malley is somebody who has lent his voice, as Democrats and Republicans have lent their voice, to dealing with the immigration reform --
Q Illegal aliens --
MR. GIBBS: Dealing with the immigration reform problem --
Q Criminals --
MR. GIBBS: -- as a -- in a comprehensive way. Thanks.
END 3:15 P.M. EDT
Lindsey Graham Lisa Murkowski Maria Cantwell Mark Begich Mark Pryor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)