Gays are internet leftwing fringe according White House Official

[Orlandude]

Good luck. What you will likely find is that no White House official made any such comment. It's all propaganda to neutralize the rally today. The right is running scared. Too much gay power.

 

[hotatlboi]

Um, that seemed clearly like the reporter's words in that piece.

 

[chuck10x]

I wish there had been more to the clip to get the full context.
Are they calling gays - an internet left fringe for wanting an end to DADT?
As to this being propaganda from the right- NBC is Left.
It will be interesting to see how this story plays out.

 

[Kulindahr]

I ran it three times to be sure what I was hearing.

I, too, doubt any White House representative said such a thing. It appears that this reporter is taking the comments about bloggers and putting his own spin on them.

But it's really weird that any network's chief correspondent in D.C. would be so out there!

 

[NickCole]

Amazing, reading this thread.

Well, no more amazing than what I've read the past year and a half here, and the way I've been attacked for seeing ObamaCo for what it is and saying so. But it's heartening to see some Obama supporters figuring it out.

Glenn Greenwald gets it:

The only thing remarkable about the comments Harwood passed on is that anyone would be surprised by them. In that regard, the furor over Obama's complete inaction on gay issues vividly illustrates the same elements that shape political controversies in virtually every other area -- from war to civil liberties to health care and beyond:

• Pretty words and inspiring pageantry from the President, accompanied by endless inaction or contradictory policies;
• Hordes of people who believe in their heart of hearts that the administration is led by such a nice, just and likable man that it couldn't possibly be guilty of anything worse than a little benign political calculation (just as the evangelical, Texas-swaggering Bush did for Red State loyalists, the urbane, charming and highly intelligent Obama possesses all the cultural markers of a good and decent person for Blue State loyalists, and thus simply can't be capable of anything malicious or destructive -- there's a reason Bill Maher tried to remind liberals: "He's your president, not your boyfriend");
• Organizations (exemplified by the truly dreadful HRC) that suck funding out of progressives and serve as liberal validators of administration conduct whose overaching devotion is to the Democratic Party and the administration rather than the causes they claim to promote (fortunately, civil liberties groups are the exception, as they have remained steadfast, unapologetic, independent and principled in harshly criticizing Obama); and
• Deeply personalized scorn directed at those who try to hold Democrats and the Obama administration accountable -- since they're the ones who control all branches of government with huge majorities -- rather than devote all their energies to the cheap and easy partisan task of ridiculing and blaming a marginalized, impotent conservative movement which is a small minority and currently wields no power in Washington.

I have no idea who the person is who said this to Harwood or how influential or obscure s/he might be, but whoever it is, that person is anything but unusual or aberrational. Quite the opposite.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/12/fringe/

 

[hotatlboi]

Amazing, reading this thread.

Well, no more amazing than what I've read the past year and a half here, and the way I've been attacked for seeing ObamaCo for what it is and saying so. But it's heartening to see some Obama supporters figuring it out.

Glenn Greenwald gets it:

Of course the obsessed Obama hater would naturally jettison reason and pounce on anything negative that even has the appearance of having a chance at coming from anyone even tangentially related to his object of obsession.

 

[NickCole]

They have issued a statement that says that it is not reflective of the white house... but we will see when actions start meeting words... i mean the continuation of some elements of the patriot act... i am not sure that was part of his campaign, but he did do just that in once he became President...

Yes they've effectively called John Harwood a liar, though anyone who's been paying attention and has a clear head knows it's right in line with ObamaCo.

Quoting more from Glenn Greenwald, linked above:

Just this weekend, a "top gay Democrat close to Obama" was granted anonymity by Politico to dismiss administration critics on gay issues as "naive." Just six weeks ago, an equally cowardly "senior White House adviser" hiding behind anonymity told told The Washington Post that the only people who cared about the public option in health care were "the left of the left" -- those same fringe, irrational extremists.

 

[Kulindahr]

Some givens:

Obama addressed the HRC.
The HRC is a left, gay group.

Does a president go address a meeting of a 'fringe internet group'?

 

[NickCole]

... the obsessed Obama hater ...

Ascribing that to me, as you and some others have on this forum, is reflective of what Glenn Greenwald refers to.

I have criticized Obama; I criticize many elected officials. Nothing I've written can be reasonably characterized as hating Obama.

And in fact my conclusions about Obama and how he'd perform as President is being proved as spot-on.

 

[NickCole]

Some givens:

Obama addressed the HRC.
The HRC is a left, gay group.

Does a president go address a meeting of a 'fringe internet group'?

What an example of a flawed thought process!

Human Rights Campaign is not a fringe internet group.

 

[Kulindahr]

What an example of a flawed thought process!

Human Rights Campaign is not a fringe internet group.

Um... that was the point.

 

[NickCole]

Um... that was the point.

What was your point?

Neither Harwood nor anyone else, except you, has said Human Rights Campaign is connected to the reference "fringe internet group."

 

[Kulindahr]

What was your point?

Neither Harwood nor anyone else, except you, has said Human Rights Campaign is connected to the reference "fringe internet group."

He said that gay groups are, according to te=he White House, internet fringe groups.
The HRC is a gay group.
Obama spoke to them.

But one does not go speak at gatherings of internet fringe groups.

Thus his premise is false.

 

[NickCole]

He said that gay groups are, according to te=he White House, internet fringe groups.
The HRC is a gay group.
Obama spoke to them.

But one does not go speak at gatherings of internet fringe groups.

Thus his premise is false.

You say you listened to it three times to be sure what you were hearing; and still you got it wrong.

He did not say that gay groups are, according to the White House, internet fringe groups.

NBC did a piece about the gay rights march in Washington. For the political context of gays protesting at the march, NBC went to Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood. Harwood was asked if the White House was worried about "the left as a whole," and concerns they have that the White House isn't doing things that "the left" expected them to do. Harwood said the following:

"Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe."

He went on to say:

"For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one adviser told me those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult."

Human Rights Campaign is not a blogger and was not among those protesting. In fact at HRC's event they cheered Obama's speech and gave him a standing ovation.

 

[hotatlboi]

Nothing I've written can be reasonably characterized as hating Obama.

Maybe not hate, but you have a somewhat distorted viewpoint of him. You often don't make your real reasoning overt. But it's the irrationality of a lot of your barbs that makes it easy to infer something more than mere criticism.

And in fact my conclusions about Obama and how he'd perform as President is being proved as spot-on.

I'm not saying you have never had any valid criticisms.

 

[NickCole]

Maybe not hate, but you have a somewhat distorted viewpoint of him.

My viewpoint about Obama is clearer than most Democrats here. I saw him for who he is a year and a half ago. Evidence of that is that my conclusions about what he'd do as President are turning out to be right.

 

[naked gent]

And in fact my conclusions about Obama and how he'd perform as President is being proved as spot-on.

Oh goody, the return of one of the little group that likes to toss out personal insults against JUBers rather than discuss the words and actions of public officials. Back to lowering the level of discourse here.

If the first post quoted above is an indication of what you consider discussion of the words and actions of public officials then absolutely count me among the 'little group'.

 

[NickCole]

If the first post quoted above is an indication of what you consider discussion of the words and actions of public officials then absolutely count me among the 'little group'.

Yes, a comment about "my conclusions about Obama and how he'd perform as President" is about the words and action of the President, a public official.

 

[Apollo]

lol Obama needs to do some firing. There is open and transparent, then there is just talking too much.

 

[hotatlboi]

My viewpoint about Obama is clearer than most Democrats here.

Could we find a happy medium between obsessive hero worship and obsessive demonization?

Unless he really is Hitler/Stalin like the wingnuts claim, that's likely where reality lies.