Strange Comment From WH Mouthpiece Gibbs.

From Wednesday’s White House Press Briefing:

Q Going back — sorry — going back to your comments on Ken Buck’s win, I want to expand it out a little bit. In the Georgia Republican gubernatorial primary, the winner in that race, Representative Deal, has actually dabbled in birther conspiracies. I don’t know if he is an avowed birther, but he certainly has pushed the notion that the President wasn’t born in this country. And I’m wondering if you — upon reflection, what do you think of the fact that the Republican Party has put forth someone to run a state who doesn’t believe in the President’s birthplace?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think if you look at what Nathan Deal is probably going to have to explain over the course of this primary, that might be some of the least of his concerns — in terms of some ethics investigations that are currently ongoing. (emphasis mine)

I think having — the last I checked, the results in that race were within a few thousand votes, which means even as you’re hoping to find a nominee, you have a very divided party, with somebody in Roy Barnes who has a track record that Georgians can be proud of.

Q Handel conceded.

MR. GIBBS: But you still have a very splintered party. Again, I think you are hard-pressed to see, whether it is gubernatorial races in Georgia, Connecticut, Denver — I’m sorry, Colorado — and Senate races in Connecticut and Colorado, where Democrats didn’t have an extraordinarily good night and are faced with I think, quite frankly, candidates that are largely out of step with the states and areas that they wish to ultimately represent.

Obviously, the “birther” charge is going to be a thorn in Deal’s side throughout this campaign, but I find it curious that the Press Secretary to the President Of The United States thinks he knows where a Grand Jury in Georgia is headed. The AJC was curious as well and tried to get clarification from the White House but none was forthcoming.

No surprise that Gibbs clammed up. The Democrats sure wouldn’t want people to think the US Attorney’s investigation was politically motivated. That would not be helpful to Roy Barnes.


  1. Ron Daniels says:

    Gibbs has said too much already to make any future investigation not seem politically motivated.

    It writes itself. Democrats don’t want a strong conservative like Nathan Deal in a position to pose a threat to Obama’s agenda, so they use Holder’s DOJ to attack him. Whether Roy wants that or not, that is what an investigation would appear to be – and Roy gets left holding the baggage.

    For the sake of argument, if such allegations were true – it would be nearly impossible to fast-track them to a trial date before November. Meaning the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot with the alleged ethics issue.

        • Monica says:

          I will… Deal is a political chameleon, adjusting his politics according to what keeps him in power. Not mentioning he’s a crook and, if a birther, a little stupid. The investigation has been going on for a while, didn’t they subpoenaed his little friends already? Of course they should start it before the election, you don’t want the actual governor ending up behind bars, do you? Now, that would be a nice advertisement for Georgia and the Republican Party…

          • Lady Thinker says:

            True Monica. Deal was a Democrat when it worked for him and a Republican when he thought he might lose. He is a sellout to whatever is best for him.

            • Doctor Death says:

              I guess God did not hear your prayer that Handel win?

              Maybe pray for a little grace and a little kindness to come into your heart.

              You are very bitter your candidate did not win, but that is no reason to continue to blast the Republican Nominee, Nathan Deal.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            How many times have we heard the President say it’s all W’s fault? President Obama seems to be the biggest whiner. That sounds like a new reality TV show.

            • ACCmoderate says:

              If you had to pick up after a moron that led the nation into two expensive wars, de-regulated the US economy into the toilet, and probably clogged the White House toilets, you’d blame him all the time too.

            • “How many times have we heard the President say it’s all W’s fault?”

              You’re right… W left the nation in a perfect position for whomever came next to continue, right? He eliminated the national debt, balanced the budget and the country was booming.

              Doug… wake up. Sorry to disturb you, but you were dreaming out loud again.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                Can you answer the question? I can’t.

                “How many times have we heard the President say it’s all W’s fault?”

                • How many times have I heard him say “It’s all W’s fault” ? Zero. How many times have “we” heard him say “It’s all W’s fault”? Well, if you don’t know how many times you’ve heard him say it and I haven’t heard him say it once, then the equation becomes X+0=X. 🙂

                  Granted, I have heard him say that he took over the position with the country in a less than desirable state due partly to the previous administration. But you also can’t tell me that W did everything right either.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    I disagreed with several of President Bush’s decisions. That being said, I don’t recall him blaming President Clinton when he took over and everything wasn’t perfect then either. If you haven’t heard President Obama blame President Bush for anything, you have missed about half of his speeches over the past year and a half, not counting the campaign.

                    • I think you read what I said but you didn’t comprehend it. I don’t recall hearing Obama blame *everything* on W. As in it’s *ALL* Bush’s fault. Sure, he’s blaming Bush partially. I’ve heard him blame Bush for something, but not everything. It’s like saying the oil spill covered the entire gulf when it fact it only covered part of it.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      So you got hung up on the word “all?” I guess you will be Clintonian and debate the meaning of the word “is.”

                    • “So you got hung up on the word “all?” I guess you will be Clintonian and debate the meaning of the word “is.””

                      Should that be my response to you where you were telling someone they paint with too broad of a stroke of the brush when using the term “all Republicans”? 😉

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      The difference is that the other party did mean all Republicans. You should know that I didn’t mean “all W’s fault” for everything. That would include the rising and setting of the sun and the rain outside. When questioned on it, the other party confirmed they meant “all Republicans.”

                    • I knew what you meant, but since you gave the other person a hard time about using the “all” phrase, I had to at least give you a hard time about it. Because truly, I’ve never heard Obama say it’s ALL W’s fault. If you can find somewhere that he did I’ll be happy to listen. 🙂

                    • Come on Doug, you’re more fluent in the English language than that. One video you linked to basically stated what he walked in the door to. He didn’t say it was Bush’s fault. You realize Bush didn’t spend all that money by himself, right? It takes over 500 of our finest politicians to spend that much money. And it’s not just the 8 years before him. Step backwards in time to Clinton, Bush I, Reagan (*gasp* – you mean he overspent? blasphemy!) etc. Are you trying to say Obama created the mess that this country was in all on his first day of being in office?

                      The other video he also didn’t mention Bush’s name… he said people have been unhappy with how things have been going the last 8 years. That doesn’t mean they were happy until Bush took office, nor does it mean they’re any happier now that Obama is in office. I’m no Obama supporter, but you’ve got to *listen* to what he’s saying and not just read into it what your GOP leadership tells you to read into it.

                    • Doug Grammer says:


                      You are more fluent in logic than that. Of course it takes 536 people to make a law, but 1 of them has much more impact on the process than the other 535. If you are going to nit pick until I come up with a link that says quote “it’s all W’s fault” coming out of President Obama’s mouth, I’m not that interested in it. The average PP pundit reader can go to the links I have provided and see if I made my point.

                      Contray to popular believe I don’t get talking points or am told what to hear (or read into) from the GA GOP or the RNC.

                      Just for information, here is the Speaker saying that they will stop blaming President Bush when the problems go away.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I’m sure I have more faith in him than you do. I don’t disagree that he was a horrible speaker and made consistent gaffs. What I find most funny about the link is that the guy from MSNBC ended with a made up word.

                      I’m not sure what his ability to trip over his own tongue has to do with the current white house occupant blaming him for many things.

  2. Blog Goliard says:

    If there’s one thing I learned from observing Alabama politics, it is that the following are not mutually exclusive:

    a) Politician X has been unfairly railroaded by a partisan inquisition; other politicians of both parties have done much the same in the past; and we all know the investigation would never have even got started if the Attorney General weren’t such a partisan on behalf of the opposite party.

    b) Politician X is guilty of serious official misconduct, and it is in the public interest that he be removed from office, and barred from seeking any other public office in future.

      • fishtail says:

        A great example of Blog Goliard’s hypothesis is the undisputed politically-motivated prosecution of State Senator Charles Walker. Jack Kingston and Sonny Perdue, etc. got the Republican US Attorney Rick Thompson to start the investigation that led to Walker going to the slammer. Later Rick Thompson was removed from his position by the DOJ’s Office of Professional Conduct because he allowed himself to start an investigation motivated by political enemies of Charles Walker. Notwithstanding the politically driven origination of the investigation, Walker got convicted. Later, Sonny Perdue gave Rick Thompson a job as an attorney in State government. The GOP is expert in such matters.

  3. Oh please. So now, if the ethics investigation goes anywhere, it isn’t because Deal is in fact corrupt. It is instead due to an Obama/Pelosi/Reid/communists/gays/abortionists “conspiracy” plot, and should therefore be disregarded.

    Pathetic, guys.

      • No doubt. However, this is not how a thinking person would objectively view it. It is how a partisan person would portray it, as spin for the benefit of his or her party – and you know that Ron.

        • Ron Daniels says:

          Strong partisans in this State make up a sizable voting block that dictate the way of the election – or so we’ve been told.

          I hesitate myself to determine whether Deal has done anything wrong, until I see an actual report or transcript. At this point it’s as solid as that pesky binder we got lectured about so much.

          • ACCmoderate says:

            “Strong partisans in this State make up a sizeable voting block that dictate the way of the election – or so we’ve been told.”

            Now I understand why we’re slowing turning into the next Mississippi.

      • Umm… are we allowed to link to anything to anything Icarus ever said prior to this week, now that we’re in Unity?

        I’m sure he retroactively didn’t mean it. 🙂

      • Doctor Death says:


        Let me get this straight, you are a contributer to a Conservative, Republican Blog and you are fueling Roy Barnes campaign against Deal? UNBELIEVABLE!
        This site continues to prove its outrageous bias!

        • I take it you’re new here… the “conservative Republican blog” label isn’t completely accurate. At least it hasn’t traditionally been.

          Two of the front-page posters are active in the Libertarian Party… another is altogether independent… another is active in the GOP but doesn’t tow the conservative line on social wedge issues… and up until the very recent past, there was a Democrat or two. The regular crowd in the comments are all over the map.

          It is fair to say that the front-page is nowhere near as diverse as it was a couple years ago, and I could see how a newcomer would assume that it’s a GOP mouthpiece. That is a shame, but it is a private blog and what shows up here is subject to the wishes of its owner. As for “bias”… no s**t Sherlock, see the previous previous sentence. It’s a blog, not a newspaper.

          • bowersville says:

            I enjoyed the blog more when we had Andre and SpaceyG around on the front page. Did anyone ever figure out if SpaceyG was a girl? At least they gave us a different perspective to discuss. With them, the discussion wasn’t limited to one line of thought echo chamber rhetoric. The blog has become like going out and rounding up the usual suspects, the same old same old.

            Maybe if Grift could get over his feud with Erick as to whether a blog is news, opinion or spin, he might consider it. Or maybe ProgressiveDem. I’d especially enjoy feuding with PD.

            • B Balz says:

              I believe people gravitate to their ‘information comfort zone’. Simply put, we are generally more comfortable being around, listening to, and chatting with folks whose opinions generally match our own.

              We are more comfortable reading news, watching TV channels, etc. that are in synch with our own views. Most people here do not goto Dem rallies, speeches, or functions.

              Ideas are dangerous things, and ideas without ego or ideology are more dangerous. When we cloister ourselves, we close off objectivity and the ability to reason clearly.

              I enjoy the articulate, civil views of folks whose opinions are different than my own. I wish SpaceyG (definitely a female), Andre’, and Progressive Dem came ‘roun more often.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                I like Andre and respect him very much. He knows how to debate civilly and can take a joke, unlike others on here. Because he is a member of the DPG, I can relate to him. Spacy G had been entertaining from what interactions I have had with her. As for P.D., it depends on his mood when he’s posting and my mood when I’m reading.

                While not a Dem, I’d like to see Just Jenny on here more.

    • AlanR says:

      The DOJ decided not to prosecute the Black Panthers in Philadelphia. Do you seriously think the same political hacks at DOJ that made that decision won’t try to steal the election in Georgia?

      And it won’t take any formal action. Just the occiasional leak about a grand jury, unnamed sources say federal prosecutors talked to fillintheblank.

      Steve Perkins — wake up. This isn’t the DOJ we had two years ago.

      • Steve Perkins — wake up. This isn’t the DOJ we had two years ago.

        Err, prior to the last two years we were firing U.S. Attorneys for not being ideologically slanted enough… and it’s still fuzzy whether the DOJ’s torture memos were criminal or mere malpractice. I wasn’t keeping tabs on the black folks in Philly at the time, sorry.

        Have you ever noticed that whenever a political statement has the phrase “wake up” in it… no matter what the views are behind that statement, they are ALWAYS bats**t crazy?

        • WAKE UP, STEVE!!!!!!!!!!!

          You KNOW that Elvis, Bigfoot and Oliver Stone are behind ALL of this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s ALL for the movie marking Elvis’s return. Good grief, man, have you no common decency?????????????????

          And I”M NOT CRAZY!!!

          Ah, here come my meds! Sweet!

  4. NoTeabagging says:

    This is a good example of how politics is viewed as a team sport. The media, and many bystanders, just analyze the day’s events as it relates to offense/defense strategy and who scored the most points that day for their team. It is a distraction from public officers doing their jobs when all we do is analyze their actions as a contribution to ‘their team’.

    • joe says:

      “And I hope the AJC keeps pushing to get a straight answer.”

      That is because nobody here will give one.

  5. Red Phillips says:

    “Obviously, the “birther” charge is going to be a thorn in Deal’s side throughout this campaign”

    No it won’t, because the only people who worry about the taint of birterism are liberals who won’t vote for him anyway and a small but obnoxious group of centrist (highly in evidence on the PP front page) who fancy themselves the self-appointed guardians against taint. For everyone else Deal’s alleged trivial brush with birtherism elicits a big yawn.

    • Blog Goliard says:

      Precisely so.

      The left-leaning and self-righteously centrist wings of the chattering classes often convince themselves that something absolutely must be electoral poison, just because it personally bugs the hell out of them.

      But with the notable exception of the Washington Post’s Great Macaca Crusade of ’06, this rarely pans out.

  6. rightofcenter says:

    I don’t think the birther issue will be brought up very much – certainly not by the Barnes campaign. That would require them to utter the word “Obama” and they are not going to do that unless they are in African-American churches and there are no cameras around.

    • AubieTurtle says:

      Judging by the fact that the birther issue is the subject of conversation here on a Republican leaning blog, it appears the Barnes camp won’t have any need to bring it up themselves.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        I’m sure than many GOP candidates in Georgia will have no problems bring up President Obama in conversation…robo calls….direct mail…youtube video…and so on.

        • Ambernappe says:

          You must be referring to the good parts of the Obama Administration: socialism, firing Inspectors General for doing their jobs, nationalizing auto companies, appointing unaccountable czars, lying, on and on and……………………

  7. hannah says:

    The U.S. attorney would not be investigating ethics violations, he’d be investigating crimes.
    That said, the effort to find some criterion, any criterion, as a basis for discrimination in support of a stratified society is really getting tedious. Social stratification is not a natural condition for humans, as it is for the honey bee, and the effort to segregate some group for some reason is really a waste of time. There must be some other way for insecure people to conquer their deficiency than by arguing that some group is even less valuable than themselves.

    • Chris says:

      “Social stratification is not a natural condition for humans”

      12,000 years of human history disagree with your premise. Care to elaborate?

Comments are closed.