Netroots Nation asks White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer about fake questionnaire

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GknRjbq86ak>

<http://gay.americablog.com/2011/06/senior-white-house-aide-1996-obama-gay.html>

"Those are some fighting words from the Obama administration, and they're almost certainly an outright lie.

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told the Netroots Nation blog conference this morning that the Barack Obama never filled out the 1996 questionnaire, when he was running for the Illinois legislature, in which he averred that he supports gay marriage. The questionnaire - two questionnaires in fact - have been out there for years - 15 years in fact - and it has caused the President, who now claims to oppose marriage equality for gay couples, a good amount of heartburn as reporters, such as the Blade's Chris Johnson, keep asking the White House it.

This is the first time Obama has tried to question the questionnaires' authenticity. Both are fakes?"

:mad:

I can't phathom what they are thinking.

:evilgrin:

planned and well practiced by the Bush administration, and now, the Obama administration.

Throw out something slightly unrelated to the issues before you, make it slightly contentious, and make that the issue under discussion, rather than being forced to face up to a hostile group of liberals on a whole shitload of issues.

I am not saying that GLBT issues are some throw-away, not at all. To the contrary, I suspect that they chose one small aspect of the far broader GLBT issues in order to sow confusion and distract us from other issues, including equality of marriage, DADT, and more.

This morning I was listening to Joe Scab on MSNBC. He made the argument that on many issues, social, legal, military, there is so much overlap between Obama and W, that it is hard to tell when one starts and the other finished. The more I pondered that, the more I agreed with that analysis.

rec.

Like making sure Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon have everything they could possibly want.

before it was:
"He was for it before he was against it"
now it is:
"That's a lie, he was always against marriage equality"

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1317063>

Seems like Wednesday and Thursday's conversation has served to further support the professional "supporters".

Here he is in 2004:

I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, 'should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, 'absolutely.' And then if you talk about, 'should they get married?', then suddenly ... What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed ... I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game
Obama Seeks U.S. Senate seat
by TRACY BAIM
2004-02-04
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=3931

In 2008:

Obama opposes proposed ban on gay marriage
July 02, 2008|By John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
... "Senator Obama supports civil unions, and he has consistently opposed federal and state constitutional marriage amendments because as we have seen in some states, enshrining a definition of marriage into the constitution can allow states to roll back the civil rights and benefits that are provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions" ... http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-07-02/news/17171328_1_same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-ban-on-gay-marriage

There would have been much more progress on these issues by now, if Rove hadn't looked for and exploited their "wedge-issue" potential. The Rs dishonestly set out to convince uninformed voters that allowing "gay marriage" would force unwilling church pastors to conduct wedding ceremonies. I don't know what Obama said fifteen years ago before Rove's techniques dominated national political discourse; in particular, I have no idea whether the alleged questionnaire is a forgery or not; and frankly, I don't give a rat's ass. If jerks like John Aravosis and Jane Hamsher and Ben Smith want to push this, I can't stop them -- but they're effectively pushing one of Rove's old wedge-issues, and they're doing it only because they're attention-seekers and the controversy puts them in the spotlight. If one really wants marriage equality, one should figure out how to sidestep the religious aspects of the Rovian wedge: maybe start saying "civil marriage" instead of "gay marriage" and starting demanding a "Civil Marriage Rights Act"

you are not telling the truth.

That's two cherry picked quotes.

(1) A year - 1996

(2) Obama's signature

is like trying to nail jello to a tree. Neither the President, nor the jello will cooperate.

Reminds me of Tarheel Dem.

Aravosis, Hamsher, and Stein

I gave two Obama quotes; consistent with the quotes, I explained what I thought the political problem was and indicated my thinking about what's needed to move forward: you're free to disagree with my thinking, of course

What are you interested in?

Don't bother. I know the real answer is getting Obama re-elected.

The next couple of Republican administrations will be even worse, to judge from the current crop

going for the courts?

of the federal judiciary -- where Rs have made court appointments for about 20 of the last 30 years, held up appointments under Clinton, and are holding up appointments under Obama -- that, of course, is your choice

"The Rs dishonestly set out to convince uninformed voters that allowing "gay marriage" would force unwilling church pastors to conduct wedding ceremonies." then you must be counting Obama as an uninformed voter because HE IS CONVINCED. If he were not he would never have said "God is in the mix."

"If one really wants marriage equality, one should figure out how to sidestep the religious aspects of the Rovian wedge: maybe start saying "civil marriage" instead of "gay marriage" and starting demanding a "Civil Marriage Rights Act."

Well this is what we thought Obama would have and SHOULD have done. If the oft proclaimed Constitutional law professor can't figure out how to "sidestep the religious aspects of the Rovian wedge" how do you expect us mere mortals to do it? Just as Obama has bought into the Rights usage of phrase "clean coal", in YOUR OWN QUOTE, Obama used the phrase "gay marriage". We are merely speaking the language that he obviously understands and uses himself.

If one really wants to give Obama a pass, please try to do so without demanding that we stop looking for leadership from the man who promised us "Change we can believe in." By demeaning our outcry for justice by saying that we are doing so just for attention, you ignore the fact that we have every right to hold OUR President to his word and to change his mind when we believe his position to be wrong or weak.

I'm not at all implying I believe that Obama's birth certificate is a fake, I believe he was born in Hawaii. But come on... it's like he's taking a page out of Weiner's recent scandal or the Tea Party's stance on his birth certificate. Then again, maybe both questionnaires are fakes.

Deity Quizzing Is Against The Law.... and If It's Not, It Should Be.....


Who the Hell do these people think they are?


"House Atreides" has confirmed that the president is in fact one fierce "Kwisatz Advo-Cat"....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwisatz_Haderach


Everyone knows he didn't sign that paper... and anyone who does think he penned that signature has been ingesting way too much Spice....

but if it's good enough for Sting, it's good enough for me.

Hugs To You......

I miss you, and send you hugs.....

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_wct_20090114_obama.html

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/06/17/netroots-pfeiffer-suggests-1996-obama-statement-supporting-marriage-equality-a-fake/
UPDATE: The White House is backing off of the comments Pfeiffer made on Friday on Obama’s 1996 statement in support of same-sex marriage. Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, addressed the issue in a statement:

“Dan was not familiar with the history of the questionnaire that was brought up today, but the president’s views are clear,” Inouye said. “He has long supported equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian couples and since taking office he has signed into law the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ signed into law the hate crimes bill, made the decision not to defend Section 3 of DOMA and expanded federal benefits for same sex partners of federal employees.”

Inouye didn’t respond to a further question from the Washington Blade to verify whether the White House believes the president in fact filled out the questionnaire in 1996."

So is it is or is it ain't? Inquiring minds want to know if Obama is running into the closet and wants to drag us in with him.