An Anonymous White House Adviser Was Talking About Your Mama.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2009&base_name=an_anonymous_white_house_advis

An Anonymous White House Adviser Was Talking About Your Mama.

Last night, CNBC's John Harwood offered an outrageous quote from "an anonymous White House adviser." Saying he didn't think the National Equality March yesterday was a serious sign of frustration or dissatisfaction with the president among his base, Harwood said:



I'd describe this as the journalistic equivalent of a "your mama" joke, except generally those aren't also anonymous. Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher and Pam Spaulding all reacted angrily -- which is understandable, given the circumstances -- the president has yet to make serious headway on a number of campaign promises on gay rights.

Still, I'd take this with a grain of salt. If an "anonymous White House Adviser" was quoted as saying the president planned to repeal DOMA or DADT next month, everyone -- the bloggers I've mentioned above in particular--would treat that claim with skepticism. But because the above quote fits with their general frustrations about the president's foot-dragging on gay rights issues and confirms their suspicion that the president's sloth is ultimately rooted in contempt for LGBT people, they're taking it almost entirely at face value. As Hamsher put it, "After pandering to LGBT leaders last night the truth comes out. Dear gays: grow up and let us get about the serious business of governance." How is it that Hamsher knows this is "the truth" and the speech the president gave on Saturday night was a "lie," other than the fact that it confirms what she already suspected?

Of course, the reaction Hamsher gave is the one the reporter was trying to get -- I was taught in journalism school never to grant someone anonymity just to talk smack, but doing so is now simply a part of political journalism, for the simple reason that it pisses people off and thus makes more news.

It's impossible to know where the reporters' own editorializing and characterization of the "adviser's" quote begins or ends, how highly ranked the adviser is, or how indicative his views are of the president's or even anyone in the White House of any significance. Greenwald observes that there's someone in the White House who appears prone to give such quotes -- this suggests to me that the above statement is even less evocative of the administration's thinking than we might assume, and more representative of one person's grudge towards the netroots. While I sincerely doubt Harwood fabricated the quote, a number of facts about the quote aren't just unknown, they're unverifiable.

In light of that, it seems more appropriate to judge the president on what he's done or hasn't done, rather than on the kind of anonymous smack-talking that helps reporters make news. There's plenty to be angry about already.

-- A. Serwer

Oh yeah, if anyone is listening on the Senate floor, "Go fuck yourself."

are still searching for relevance in a newly democratically controlled US. Their heyday began under the Bush regime, and they have to continue to be anti-government to milk the netroots. How else do they get people to talk about them, or visit their blogs?

hadnt considered that.

or is this Rahm in the background again? Either way, the slap right after the HRC dinner and the March was really poor sportsmanship. "Anonymous source" my ass. It seemed very pointed both to the President and to LGBTQ activists alike, just from where I sit.

I referenced Pam's thread here. There's also a bunch of lively discussions on Facebook.

So although I think the writer has a point (about the press), I think Rahm Emanuel said this. It sounds like him, and frankly, given the behavior of lefty bloggers on some issues (like calling Democrats who disagree with them guilty of "treason"), this view of "bloggers" in DC is widespread. You behave like a 2 year old, you get treated with disdain. OTOH, I actually think bloggers like Andrew Sullivan have not been childish at all expressing their impatience for progress on gay issues like DADT and the HIV travel ban. These are issues where the President has really dragged his feet.

considering it was an unnamed source, which in MSM talk probably means, "I made this shit up because I could."

They are all wetting their pajamas because of an unnamed source. LOL Defensive much?

I am surprised that folks are taking what CNBC has said as gospel. If this were the case, why aren't liberals abandoning single payer and the public option, because you would be hard pressed to find someone on CNBC who support these options.

It's hilarious how angry these homos get!

We were talking about getting your panties in a twist over some anonymous source that isn't even a high-ranking person in the adminstration, and you somehow turned that into no cares if gays have civil rights. WTF? This conversation was not about civil rights, it was SOURCES.

You're as pathetic as the whiny bloggers we were talking about. Not because you're gay, because you are, apparently, so desperate for something to complain about you complete twist and misinterepret conversations into something they never were.

For instance, people like you, who laugh off real concerns that real people have, and justify it by pretending the issue is the validity of the SOURCE, and not what the source SAID.

Priviledged, much?

and MSNBC thought it newsworthy to report.

Sounds like a chicken shit way to get a message across to me.

PO wouldn't be offensive and didn't they deny this story?

babylonsister (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-12-09 12:01 PM
Original message

"White House Disavows Report That It Disdains Gay Critics, Bloggers As “Internet Left Fringe”

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/white... /"

White House Disavows Report That It Disdains Gay Critics, Bloggers As “Internet Left Fringe”

The White House is strongly denying a report making the rounds that it views gay critics and bloggers as part of an “Internet left fringe,” with a senior adviser asserting to me that this sentiment “does not reflect White House thinking at all.”

Yesterday, CNBC correspondent John Harwood set off a min-firestorm on the left after he claimed that the White House views gay and blogospheric criticism of the administration’s foot-dragging on gay rights issues as part of the “Internet left fringe.” Harwood claimed that an anonymous adviser said that “those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.”

Asked for comment, White House senior communications adviser Dan Pfeiffer emailed:


“That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we’ve held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.”


Whatever you think of the White House’s record on gay rights issues or the respect it does or doesn’t have for the blogosphere, paraphrased second-hand claims from a single anonymous adviser don’t really seem like grounds for sweeping conclusions about the White House’s alleged disdain for the online community.

You can debate whether the White House has been solicitious enough towards the issues that matter to the online world. But it seems clear by White House actions — the hiring of Internet outreach staff, the frequent blogger conference calls, the elevation of Huffington Post at press conferences — that the White House sees the blogosphere as playing a valuable role of sorts.

********************************************

Update: I should add that it’s entirely legit to be concerned about the administration’s gay rights record and the disregard some White House advisers (albeit anonymous ones) hold for the “left.” My point is that this quote, given the sourcing and second-hand nature of it, doesn’t seem like enough to get upset about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8697898

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Wow. I haven't heard that one in a while.

That's interesting because you just complained in another thread that referenced some GLBT "action" this president has taken. Sure...it's not enough. But let's not pretend there is no action.

"Action" is suspending DADT. "Action" is coming out in support of marriage equality. "Action" is calling Senators and Congressmen and urging them to move along legislation to repeal DOMA and DADT. "Action" results in changes for all GLBT Americans, not photo ops.

it means it is best to discredit it as a person can't logically blame anyone for the comment. Don't know if it's politically motivated would potentially blame the wrong person, so what we get on record is the facts we deal with. The word anonymous only adds to a complicated debate.