An unnamed White House adviser had some choice words for liberal bloggers who've criticized the administration for failing to make progress on gay rights issues, CNBC's John Harwood said yesterday, and some are pretty upset about it.
When asked about "conversations about some things they thought would have been done but haven't," Harwood said that "[t]he White House views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe...And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult."
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
It's important to recognize that, as for the "Internet left fringe" part of his comment, Harwood was simply saying what he thinks the White House thinks. That part, as far as I can tell, isn't directly attributable to anyone at the White House, named or unnamed. So if one is to be roiled about this clip, the quote about "pajamas," from the unnamed White House adviser, is probably a more apt provocation.
Made one day after President Obama addressed the Human Rights Campaign, the timing seems bad. The gist is a lack of political pragmatism on the part of gay rights supporters--and, to be sure, the health care debate has sucked the air out of the room when it comes to other parts of the administration's agenda--but, for many, this issue is about justice, not politics. Gay rights leaders have hung in there with the president so far, knowing that they still haven't got what they wanted, but believing this administration is a vast improvement over the last, and it's unclear how much a comment about bloggers will ripple through the whole movement.
An unnamed advisor? Sounds like a sissy to me.
FYI, the White House has already disavowed this comment, stating that it "does not reflect White House thinking".
Still, if true, it was a phenomenally dumb thing for that advisor to say.
Now that it's out there, there's no need to take ownership of the line. The "fringe" comment is probably the half they're worried about, but the "pajamas" comment is far more interesting.
It's revealing. With commanding majorities in the House and Senate (including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate), President Obama should be able to pass whatever he wants. And, in fact, where the troika of the President, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid are in agreement, he has pushed some very unpopular stuff through (the stimulus, for example).
So "closely divided" should be translated as "democrats are closely divided". Which one of the three is relucant to push these issues? And why? Or is it that this is an issue that all three would prefer to hold off? Preferably, forever.
We learned from Prop 8 in california that there is a significant element in the democratic party that opposes progress on gay rights. Is President Obama catering to them?
There are a few advisors I can think of who would certainly make that statement. But can the chief of staff take himself to the woodshed?
As to the issue....
It certainly easy to campaign and much harder to govern. The gays in the military issue is a prime example. If we take the issue and tweak it a bit you can see why...
Whatever said you are on just ask yourself some basic questions...
Would you be comfortable with your 18, 19, 20 year old enlistee being ordered to cohabitate in an open barracks with members of the opposite sex?
If you are not comfortable with that, why?
What makes the gay issue different from the simple cohabitation issue?
While rhetoric is fine...those are the real questions the Obama administration has to come to grips with. Right now this nation can't fully come to agreement, and to just blatantly abolish a rule (which BTW is currently supported by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a code passed into law by Congress) would be both foolish and a potential political nightmare.
In fact, the "rule" is a law, also passed by Congress. The President couldn't sign it away if he wanted to.
Of course the White House is right, even if it disavows the statement Harwood quoted. I passionately believe in ending the suffering inflicted on animals on the farm and elsewhere. But I don't expect the President to sabotage his legislative agenda and to divide the country by pursuing that cause--even though I see the issue as one of "simple justice," to quote gay rights advocates' characterization of their cause. Understandably, gay rights advocates may choose to die on this hill, but it's solipsistic of them to demand that the President and the rest of us die with them.
I suppose comparing me to an animal was intended to be inflammatory. Congratulations, you succeeded. One of the most depressing, but proabably salutary, realizations I have come to over the last year is that for many straight Democrats there is "our" agenda (health care/climate change/peace) and "your" agenda (LGBT equality). Political capital is worth risking for "our" agenda but not "your" agenda. I thought I was in a coalition. But I wasn't, was I?
I beg your pardon but I am a blogger at www.dailyRUFF.com and being naturally furry I don't wear pajamas!
Why wasn't he saying the same thing 2 years ago, when W was flying the plane? Back then the democrats were claiming that running the country was as easy as falling off a log.
I have a very simple response to Rahm Emanuel (see the New Yorker profile of him to confirm the origin of those off-the-record and off-the-cuff remarks):
Stop asking us for money. Stop asking for our support. Stop making promises you have no intention of keeping. We'll get out of the way while you don't close Guantanamo, while you dither over strategy in Afghanistan, while you reward the financial stupids for the mess they helped get us into, while you let Bush and Co. go scot-free for war crimes, while you mess up healthcare reform. ETC. I could go on and on, but a President who accepts a reward for work he hasn't even done yet...Now that's an accomplishment you can take to the bank!
And FYI, who the f*** wears pajamas anymore, Mr. I'm Too Scared To Make My Comments On The Record While I Cower In The White House Cloakroom Closet? And where have we heard the old refrain, "It's so hard!" before? Sounds like Mr. Whiny pants needs to speak less and do more before he can complain that "life's...so...difficult!"
Bill Davis: "war crimes?" I presume you mean waterboarding a couple people? Do you know what the current administration is allowing to occur with prisoners in Afghanistan, Somalia, or wherever? No, you don't know, because none of us does. Do you care? Or are you only fastidious and moralizing about "war crimes" putatively committed by Republicans? As soon as you mention prosecuting Bush for "war crimes," everyone stops listening to you, because they know you are a rage driven nut like Andrew Sullivan. It's fine to object to waterboarding in principle. It's quite another to ignorantly insist that "crimes" were committed. They weren't.
I have an idea, pretend Bush was a Democrat, and utter the following phrase: "Mistakes were made. Time to move on."
Victor Ermita:"I presume you mean waterboarding a couple people?"
Errr... How about a brutal regime that has included thousands of prisoners and so far has caused over 100 deaths? If crimes weren't committed, why are you so terrified of investigations?
I have an idea. I'll go rob a bank. You can tell the judge, "Mistakes were made. Time to move on." Sound good?
There is plausible evidence (i.e., the public statements of the former vice president) that crimes were committed (naturally he doesn't understand what he said to be admission of crimes). The law of the United States (i.e., the UN Convention Aganist Torture, ratified by the Senate in 1994) REQUIRES that plausible accusations of torture MUST be investigated. Deal with it.
I'm a liberal gay and yet have been dismayed by media reports of gay leaders being critical of the Obama administration's slow progress on gay rights. Folks, it's been less than a year! We're fighting two wars, global climate change, and a Great Depression-like belching of the economy. Or did you not notice that lately? You (gay liberal leaders) are right to remind Obama and others that there is more work to do, but your current tone risks alienating current and potential allies.
The debate is quite interesting, complete with arguments, and provide good information.
Force Factor
Harwood certainly doesn't bring anything to the table. He spewed anonymous catty gossip. He should joine Wolf on Celebrity Jeopardy. Wolf could use the [lack of ] competition.