Until Jennifer Rubin returns from vacation, coverage of the comedy gold of Robert Gibbs’s press conferences will necessarily be inadequate, but there was a moment yesterday that bears noting in her absence, starring (as usual) Jake Tapper as the straight man:
TAPPER: . . . In a letter sent last week to the White House from the National Association of Postal Supervisors, the president of that union, Ted Keating, said that his union had a, quote, “collective disappointment that you” — meaning the president — “chose the Postal Service as a scapegoat and an example in efficiency.” Does the president — has the president seen that letter? Has he responded? Does he regret using the post office as an example of inefficiency?
GIBBS: I doubt he’s seen that letter, and I don’t have any reason to believe he regrets it, since he repeated it.
It might have been better to say something like “I don’t know if he has seen the letter yet, Jake, but I am sure he will respond because he holds the Postal Service and its employees in the highest regard”—rather than assert that Obama must not regret using the post office as an example of inefficiency, since he did it twice.
Keating’s letter informed the president that the U.S. Postal Service, with its 35,000 employees, has been suffering during the economic downturn, has eliminated a lot of overtime and thousands of management positions, and that:
With all these efforts underway within the Postal Service community, it was a kick to the chest to have you take a shot at a group of federal employees who are working hard every day to support this country.
Employees of the Postal Service are largely represented by unions and management associations, all of whom strongly supported your candidacy last year. For our support we do not expect any special consideration. However, we would like to be treated fairly and not have our current situation misrepresented, especially by the Commander-in-Chief.
So in addition to his unfortunate use of the post office—twice—as an example of what his health-care plan would look like, Obama insulted federal employees, antagonized campaign contributors, and heard his press secretary effectively reaffirm the insult.
It is not clear how Obama can now correct the situation (much less remove the image from the minds of the public of a health-care system gone postal). It is probably not possible to invite 35,000 people to the White House for a beer.
UPDATE: I am indebted to Boyd Klingler for writing to note that the 35,000 figure in my post was a bit off:
At the end of September 2007, according to Fortune’s list of the world’s largest employers, the U.S. Postal Service had over 785,000 employees. Now I know service seems to get worse every year, but we do eventually get our mail, so I have a feeling the figure cited in your post is slightly low. I also think we might have heard about the layoffs of 750,000 postal workers in the less than two years since fiscal 2007 . . .
I should have referred to 35,000 management employees, since Keating was writing on behalf of the 35,000 members of the National Association of Postal Supervisors. As of 2009, Fortune Magazine lists the U.S. Postal Service as No. 84 in its list of the 500 largest corporations in the world, with 765,000 employees, so I should also have noted the absolute impossibility of serving beers to all the people affected by the Obama/Gibbs remarks.
Well, let’s look at a real-world test of the theory that voters prefer Republican “ideas” more.
Who’s winning in conservative NY-20, where Republican registrants outnumber D’s by 60%? The central issues in this house race have been AIG, bailouts, stimulus, deficits, taxes.
And yet, the Democrat has moved from being 12 down in Feb. to up 4 today, according to Siena Research Institute. The election is Tuesday.
Don’t worry, I’m sure your seats in Utah and Alabama are still safe.
I now have a renew sense of hope.
And still, the same Rasmussen shows the hopium working:
Friday, March 27, 2009
“The Rasmussen Consumer and Investor Index climbed to their highest levels in four months on Friday.”
So maybe you worry too much?
Rasmussen also shows the Dems ahead Republicans by several points in a generic congressional matchup, and every polls seems to show Dems leading Republicans on the big issues of the day– economy, security, health care — so I’m thinking Democrats will be OK.
here’s something pretty strange
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/19021.html
kathryn jean lopez and jonah goldberg have both apparently written the exact same column.
there is some bad language at that link but they are right, it is the same paragraph. must be a logical explanation
Voter registration in NY-20 has Republicans outnumbering Democrats by 14.8%. Where this 60% figure came from would be wonderful to know–it would mean the district is 80% Republican and 20% Democratic (that’s what “outnumber [...] *by* 60%” means).
Democrats and “Other” comprise ~59% of voters in NY-20. I fail to see how would it be surprising that a Democrat could win where a near-supermajority are not registered as Republicans. Every single Republican voter in the district could vote for the Republican candidate and that candidate could still lose overwhelmingly.
Additionally, this is also a district that voted in favor of Obama in the 2008 election (by 3%), so the district’s purported Republican bona fides are quite questionable.
ok #1 Eric, here is your real world test,
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Investors-cash-in-some-gains-apf-14766925.html,
is the market losing hope in Obama today? yes, according to your theory.
4-It’s a snafu. Do you spend all your time reading conservative blogs? Whatever floats your boat.
jan- like I said I’m sure there’s a logical explanation. that’s not my blog, I guess that person must read alot of conservative blogs.
Americans want tax cuts–for themselves, not for the rich. Which is why Obama is giving 95% of all Americans a tax cut.
I saw that congress took out tax break for middle class. What is 95% getting?
6
Well, your link appears to be dead, but the headline embedded in the link is all the argument I need: “investors-cash-in-some-gains.” Profit taking is what happens on a Friday in the midst of a nice run in the market.
And, while I would love to take credit for the “theory,” it actually was promoted here, at Contentions. The story goes that Obama was responsible for the market decline (that started in 2007) during the first weeks of his presidency. Well, if that’s the case — and the market is responding to the actions of the president and their impact on the future economy — confidence in his plans must be improving, right? Of course, I’m happy to agree that Jennifer Rubin was completely clueless when she blamed Obama for the continuation of the Bush bear market. Is that the argument you are making? Or are you saying the market is wrong for having a more positive outlook for the future than you do? That would make the markets quite fallible, correct? In that case, your ideology is on shaky ground, because the unfettered market is unreliable and error prone. Either way, you have problems.
“Where this 60% figure came from would be wonderful to know–it would mean the district is 80% Republican and 20% Democratic (that’s what “outnumber […] *by* 60%” means”
Skipped math, eh? And why in the world would you combine “other” and Democrat. I spot checked my nos. They look right. (And your example is also wrong: you confuse percent with percentage points. Big difference.)
Let’s Google:
This site http://www.2008racetracker.com/page/NY-20?t=anon
has nos. through Nov. 2008. 194K Republicans, 125K Democrats, 156K Other. That is 55% more Republican registrations than Dem.
FiveThirtyEight.com puts the difference at 196k to 125k, or 57%. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/ny-20
The Washington Post notes that “The 20th district has roughly 70,000 more registered Republican than Democrats,” also consistent with my numbers.
Politico says: “With 71,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats in the Hudson Valley-based 20th District, …” ditto
Only one poll shows Dems winning – and it is the outlier although everything is within margin of error. It comes down to turnout, if the GOP turns out, they win, if they don’t they won’t; simple.
Eric, the market likes the current bank bailout plan, hence the little run. It was so low that people are at least looking for certainty, and his plan pretty much shields the private investor from any risk, so it is the taxpayer who will get screwed, the question is only by how much. Congress’ posturing – as well as Obama’s – on the AIG situation, when they lied about the bonuses being paid will just increase the cost. Any private buyer will have to assume there will be significant risk if they show too high a profit. The market just really abhors a vacuum, and at least it is gone, so we can pray we have seen the bottom.
However, many economists, who weren’t excited about TARP 1 either, don’t think this will work. So if you look at the financial press here is the argument. The toxic assets are more numerous than we think and another round of foreclosures is coming due to a rising unemployment rate that may last at very high levels into 2010. Thus with a requirement to pay a higher premium to convince the private sector to particpate, the money required to pull this off is much higher than reported, in excess of $2T. We don’t have the money, and Geithner’s comments about a world currency just tanked the dollar a little more and stabilized higher oil prices than necessary. China essentially has to decide whether they want to buy our debt.
Most polls show faltering support for the budget plan with the more they learn the less they like, and everyone who knows anything about currency realizes that we will be flirting with the US being insolvent. I didn’t like Bush’s spending, and Obama’s is worse. You can be as cute as you like to be, but that is the fact. China will determine whether or not we go bankrupt. Makes you feel real good doesn’t it. If you approve of Obama’s spending plans, you are a fool. Not because of the politics, but because we cannot afford it. And if any of you think 95% of the population is getting a tax cut out of this, ha – I have some beach front Arizona property for you to look at. There isn’t enough money in the upper 5% to touch the bill the One is building. The current cap and trade proposal is an average $1200 hit to everyone.
#11, ” In that case, your ideology is on shaky ground, because the unfettered market is unreliable and error prone. Either way, you have problems.”
Are you talking yourself out of using the market as an indicator of Obama’s success? You two should have a quick conference on the mound and get back to me, thanks!
Before anyone gets too excited about the current administration’s contribution to the “Obama bounce” in the market it makes some sense to check the rest of the world. A quick comparison of the US Dow to the Global Dow (via the Wall Street Journal) shows that over the last month the US Dow tracks the Global average up, but lags by an appreciable amount.
Put simply, our market is bouncing because the world is bouncing, but not as fast or as high. Perhaps we should put a stop order on that praise for the “one” until he stops underperforming the world market.