I used to like Cheetos (one of my favorite why the hell not? pig-out foods), but I can't eat them any more. Ditto chicharones and potato chips -- my stomach rebels. I've gotten too thoroughly conditioned to fresh fruit and vegetables as snacks.
With that out of the way, I'd like to address a couple of reactions to the reactions to the "internet leftist fringe" remark, since stoutly disavowed by the White House, both of the "why'nt you all grow up?" variety.
First, from Jim Burroway, this comment:
An NBC reporter quoted an anonymous source with an axe to grind — who is it? Chief of staff? Press Secretary? Electrician? — and bloggers go off the deep end fulfilling every blogging stereotype. Take a deep breath. I know people are frustrated with the slow pace of change with this president. I am too. But if an anonymous minion complains that bloggers are acting like cry-babies throwing temper tantrums, one doesn’t exactly counter that image by throwing a temper tantrum. We’ve all been called names before on the playground. Sheesh!
I think Burroway's overstating his case just a bit -- he starts off his post by noting "Aravosis shrieks" before quoting him, and frankly, Aravosis was no more over the top than he usually is -- in fact, a little less. As I pointed out in my update to the previous post on this, there are some questions I have about this whole thing, starting with "Did Harwood actually have a source?" (It wouldn't be the first time that a story got legs based on nothing.) And the White House has been coming out with statements disavowing previous statements (or not, depending on their mood, I guess) almost since day one.
There are also a couple of commentaries from John Cole that build to an interesting climax. The first is about the stump speech:
I understand that may not be as cathartic as knee-capping your own guy while chanting “just words,” but it might be more productive. And it isn’t settling. It isn’t telling you to shut up or relax or be patient. It is telling you that working to change the status quo is more productive than hurting your own team, even though throwing eggs and making farty sounds with your armpit is more fun.
I have to point out one thing here: there is a split in the gay movement, and it is a deep and serious difference, and that is between the people who are out there working to change the status quo and those who have steadfastly counseled "wait" -- and it's this latter group that the president is willing to speak to. The rest of us are, I think, getting quite justifiably impatient. We're not looking for catharsis, we're looking for action.
The second stems from the furor surrounding the "fringe leftist" remark:
I doubt it, but hopefully this will stop the insanity:
“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.”
You’re good enough, you’re smart enough, and doggone it, people like you. Now that we have our daily affirmations out of the way, can we stop lobbing grenades at each other? Hug it out, bitches.
I'm going to point out one thing I think these two commentaries have in common, whch is actually something that disturbs me a little: as in the Village, every item inhabits its own universe, and has no contact with any other.
(I'd also like to point out something that relates to the original comments by Harwood, but not directly to these comments by Cole and Burroway, but still serves to fuzz the issue: did anyone else notice how the LGBT and allied demonstrators yesterday have suddenly become the "internet fringe left"? Not to mention those of us who have been critical of Obama and the "establishment" gay rights groups. Somehow, I can't really think of John Aravosis, Andrew Sullivan, Pam Spaulding, or even Jane Hamsher (not to mention myself) as "fringe left.")
Unfortunately for that doctrine, there are some of us who do connect the dots, and who remember previous and too similar situations, starting with the infamous motion for dismissal, known in blogger shorthand as "the DOMA brief." (Word is that the president had not seen the brief before it was filed and was not happy. I have to ask -- doesn't anyone in the DoJ have any idea what's acceptable to this president? Were they all asleep?) This was supposed to be assuaged by inviting a select group to the signing of an executive memorandum (not, mind you, an executive order, which remains in force until specifically rescinded, but an executive memorandum, which expires when this presidency does) guaranteeing some benefits for gay government employees and their partners that were already available -- but not including anything that might even remotely be construed as a benefit of marriage, like health insurance or pension benefits. And meanwhile, we've seen action in Congress when we've been able to find someone -- interestingly enough, usually someone fairly new to the Village -- to go to bat for us.
I'm going to hold up one glaring example of what I think has been typical of this administration on gay issues. Here's a bit from Jim Burroway on repeal of DADT:
This is David Morgan characterizing CBS News Chief Political Correspondent John Dickerson’s description of the administration’s prioritization of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
John Dickerson says the message from the administration is: Don’t hold your breath.
The indication from the White House is they want to show the president is still committed to this, but that it’s further down on the list of priorities,” Dickerson told “Early Show” anchor Harry Smith. “He’s got a lot in front of him, and the big question is how much political capital he’ll put behind this. Will he pressure Congress? Will he pressure the Pentagon?
“There’s just no indication right now that he’s going to spend his political capital in that way.”
This didn’t come from a White House Staffer, named or unnamed. It’s Morgan’s summation of Dickerson’s observations, which is consistent with what we’ve seen so far. No political capital.
I'd like to ask what political capital has to be expended on legislation that is supported by clear majorities in every demographic you can think of -- except retired right-wing generals. I mean, FTLOP, 58% of Republicans support repeal of DADT.
Burroway quotes an AP item in the last post he links to above:
President Barack Obama will focus “at the right time” on how to overturn the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.
When is the "right time"? Does he think Elaine Donnelley is going to have a hissy fit? WTF?
OK -- now can I connect a few more dots? Think about the clear majority of Americans supporting health-care reform legislation with a good, strong public option. This has been a fairly stable number all along. And guess what's likely to be stripped from any bill that passes. Yes, you're right.
Which leads to the not-so-startling conclusion that it's been a while since anyone in the Village (and this includes the government, first and foremost) gave a shit what anyone outside the Village thinks.
I guess we don't go to the right cocktail parties.
Update:
Glenn Greenwald tackles this one as only he can do it. One point that had occurred to me:
Greg Sargent reports that the White House, on the record, is denying that the anonymous comment reflects their view of blogs and the gay protesters. Did anyone expect them to do anything else? Greg also says that the White House has taken steps which show that they recognize the importance of blogs. That's true; they're willing to harness the power of blogs to help advance the President's agenda, and that's smart. But the issue is how they view criticisms from Democrats and the left of the President, not whether they're willing to use blogs to support Obama.
I was thinking of doing an addendum myself this morning pointing out that, like everyone else in Washington, Obama wants to control the Internet. He, however, doesn't want to regulate it -- he just wants to use his "bully pulpit" to enforce his message on the blogosphere. Got news for ya -- the Internet isn't like that. That's its value.
Backtracking aa bit, Greenwald also starts connecting some dots, in more detail than I did:
In the updates to her post about all of this last night, Pam Spaulding notes with exasperation the excuses and denials flying around everywhere, with all sorts of people expressing doubt that anyone in the Obama White House could possibly be capable of such an ugly sentiment, particularly in light of the President's eloquent, on-the-record commitment to gay equality (other than marriage). As is true for all instances of reckless and petty uses of anonymity like this, it's impossible to know how reflective it is of administration sentiment generally -- was this a senior White House official or some obscure low-level aide? -- but how could anyone who has paid any attention at all to the way Washington functions be doubtful that this sentiment is pervasive or find this at all unusual?
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. In June, an anonymous "friend of John Brennan's" told Jane Mayer in The New Yorker that the people who prevented Brennan's nomination as CIA Director (because of his support for some of the most radical Bush Terrorism policies) were nothing more than "a few Cheeto-eating people in the basement working in their underwear who write blogs." Last year, "Democrats on the Hill" anonymously dismissed opposition to telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping as nothing more than a fringe issue being exploited by Chris Dodd for his presidential campaign, and then anonymously warned Dodd to abandon his left-wing obstructionism if he wanted to resume good standing in the Democratic caucus. Can anyone miss the pattern?
So we have a contingent that's criticizing "The Left" for criticizing Obama based on one incident while refusing to see the pattern that is quite obvious to anyone with a memory reaching back farther than fifteen minutes.
No comments:
Post a Comment