This morning at Netroots Nation, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer was pressed repeatedly by dogged moderator Khali Joy Gray about his boss’s “evolution” on same-sex marriage, at one point asking if Obama was ever going to evolve back to his previous position, expressed on a 1996 candidate survey, that he supported same-sex marriage.
Today, the author of that survey and the editor at the time of the magazine that published it (Outlines, now owned by Windy City Times), Tracy Baim, responded to Pfeiffer’s assertion that someone else completed the survey and that it wasn’t signed by the president:
This is the first time a claim has been made that Obama did not complete the surveys himself, even though his signature is on the typed one sent to Outlines, and the IMPACT survey appears to be completed in his own writing.
To Outlines he typed in the survey response, dated Feb. 15, 1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” It was faxed from the law firm Obama worked for at the time. And it was reported in Outlines newspaper that he backed gay marriage, something his campaign never denied in 1996. He would have had a very small campaign staff, so it was unlikely he had someone else complete the form. In fact he went to the trouble of typing full answers when the form was actually able to be completed as a Q&A. Even if someone else completed the form, Obama signed it, and never denied subsequent reports of its content.
In January of 1996 he filled out the IMPACT questionnaire, and it appears to be in his own writing, and uses the first-person “I” throughout. While the IMPACT questions were a bit more complicated, Obama did say he would oppose any attempts to outlaw same-gender marriage, by supporting a resolution stating “the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who chose [sic] to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage.”
Watch Dan Pfeiffer squirm when pressed by moderator Gray this morning:
I propose an amendment to I.F.Stone’s motto — “All Governments Lie:” Government spokesmen lie the most.
h/t AmericablogGAY
{update via Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly}
[UPDATE @ 6:55 PM: This evening, the White House is distancing itself from Pfeiffer's comments, with spokesman Shin Inouye telling Metro Weekly, "Dan was not familiar with the history of the questionnaire that was brought up today, but the President's views are clear. 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 three of DOMA and expanded Federal benefits for same sex partners of Federal employees."
Inouye did not respond to a follow-up question asking whether the White House acknowledges that Obama did, in fact, sign the 1996 Outlines survey.]



64 Comments

Where’s watertiger when I need her?
Schiess Pfieffer = Shit Whistle.
I think Dan Pfeiffer told Netroots Nation this morning that some of the President’s best friends are gay couples whose marriage he opposes.
That’s bigotry, not religion.
Are you really surprised that Obama lies?
No, but this a pretty bold-faced lie to his biggest supporters by his biggest Communications honcho about a huge issue. So: no, not surprised, just shocked at the brazenness of this one, particularly since it is so easily knocked down.
Someone will ask Jay Carney about this at the White House press briefing, you can believe it. There are Washington Blade reporters and maybe Advocate reporters there regularly, who ask about these issue all the time.
I heard it too, unbelievable. Obviously did not do his homework or is taking a bullet for Obama. (figuratively)
I think this is another wrong-headed attempt to head off an issue by Team Obama when all it does is inflame opinion. I mean, the person who wrote the questionnaire has written a book where she features the topic (thanks, Bev, for getting Tracy for Book Salon, too!) quite extensively, and actually marvels that it never became a real issue in the 2008 primaries.
I can’t imagine why a ‘communications’ professional wouldn’t say, “that’s been litigated and resolved’ and move on. His claim about falsity can only make things worse. People are PISSED now.
Adding: I don’t think this guy’s job is to generate a question at the next White House press briefing, “So was the president lying then or is Dan lying now?”
I think the problem here is simply one of misunderstanding. The guy is clearly just confusing EVOLVING with REVOLVING (as in spin, spin spin). It’s a simple mistake really.
Our entire political system is overun by equivocating assholes.
Perfect (except it’s spelled Scheiss Pfeiffe)
Damn that whining Weiner and his mis-pronounced Wiener name.
Okay, here’s what bothers me about the White House’s reaction to this kerfuffle. The first words out of the WH-based spokesperson’s mouth were:
Does that mean it is the position of the White House Director of Communications to disavow any survey with which he is unfamiliar? His default setting about surveys presented to him for discussion is: “Obama didn’t sign that.”
That seems weird.
Directing the Communicatinz is hard!
Bumblers r Us
Apparently — okay, this IS rich — there’s ANOTHER survey that was already disavowed by Obama during the 2008 campaign, on other topics (very liberal Y/N answers, according to politico. So, Dan’s stance essentially is:
“It’s so hard to keep track of which past candidate surveys our boss, the President, still stands behind and which he disavows – I thought Angry Mouse’s question was about this OTHER survey filled out by someone else!”
Must be tough to keep track of which past views your boss has now disavowed. Here’s the politico link:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7312.html
Here’s the relevant excerpt:
The questionnaire, which was provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama’s presidential campaign, raises questions of whether Obama can be painted as too liberal and whether he is insufficiently consistent.
A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out. It includes first-person comments such as: “I have not previously been a candidate.”
The campaign said his views have been consistent, and points out that his positions have always been more nuanced than can be conveyed in yes-or-no answers.
BHO stands for nada
Nuanced. Is that another word for fudged?
Pfeiffer used weasel words worthy of Rove or Bobo. But I really hafta to take exception to the “walk back”:
What about ENDA Mr. Obama? And if you’ve signed legislation repealing DADT, pray tell us why people are still being discharged for being gay? And good on Ms. Gray for pointing out what a ridiculously low bar it is to be “more progressive on LGBT rights than other presidents”. Ya know, if you hack off both my legs left arm with a machete but spare my right arm, (unlike other people would), it still sucks major ass.
Right. Translation: “I want your money and your votes, but you can forget me doing anything about marriage equality for you.”
So, my nuanced position is:
Translation: “Walk the talk or kiss my support, ass and cash Adios liar.”"
well then, now that the White House knows what survey was being asked about, did they provide an appropriate answer to the question?
Nah. Just another word for bullshit.
The guys a piece of shit.
Hammer their asses.
Even small children learn early that broken promises calls into question your integrity.
After the bullshit that came out of Rahm Emmanuels mouth, retarded, etc, fuck them.
Professional Left has become a badge of honor.
I’ve evolved out of supporting the current fraud in the WH.
LMAO! Well said.
Yo! TGIF, eh? I just might walk out on the “porch” in a moment. Heh.
Preach it, Kelly! Obama is such a liar that it is well past time for ALL of us to stand up and sing out. I got another fundraising letter today, this time from Michelle O. I wrote my notes on the “polite request” and stuffed everything into the metered return envelope. They won’t read my letters or emails, but at least I can make them pay for my commentary on their fundraising crap.
Do you suppose this is why the Obama Administration has been so uninterested in stopping all the robo-signed fraudulent mortgage foreclosures? If Pfeiffer is right, they’ve been robo-signing fraudulent documents for years now.
Well, see, now there’s proof of evolution. Suck it, SarahThePee.
Gettin’ my porch gear together as we speak. And yep! Whadda week! Crappola! If this is being “slow”, I can’t wait to see “busy”.
The original quote is both sad and hilarious all on its own. It’s like something you’d here in a sitcom, from the dithering boss who never wants to be tied to a specific commitment.
My support for Obama is more nuanced than can be conveyed by voting for him in 2012
Must be tough to keep track of which past views your boss has now disavowed.
Spreadsheet? Relational database generated from the questions universe? I thought these were the brightest and best.
I have an off topic work story in fact: We had a salesman promise a customer that we could have a job ready by next Tuesday that was enormous. It would have required the entire production department to work all weekend and even at 12 hour days, it’s unlikely we could have gotten it out by then. So I spent the morning repairing the broken drill and then told the salesman that I needed him to come back so I could train him on it. When he asked why, I told him that he was going to be right there with us, working to get it out. The job suddenly became due two weeks in the future, a much more reasonable amount of time.
Had to laugh! Hey, Margaret, would you mind too much if we run YOU for President? You are enormously well-spoken, smarter than our current faux leader, and you know how to manage stuff. I’d vote for you, for sure.
Bullshit Heaving Opportunist.
O is laughing all the way to the bank about this. He really doesn’t give a ff about this issue.
Thanks Dearie, that’s sweet of you to say. As it turns out, there have been other people who have promised to vote for me as well.
Not that he cares about any other issue either, except collection a lot of contributions, getting reelected, then playing on his power position to become really really rich.
He doesn’t give a flying f**k about anything. Which is why he needs to go.
I owe ya a drink. Whatcher poison?
I’m not that sweet. I’m becoming an acidic old lady, but I’ll tell you what….I find more intelligent people here at FDL than in any political group. And you have management sense. It’s fun to hear about your new job and how you are taking control of it. Best to you.
Khali may have done well on that issue, Teddy, and I’m glad she did. But I just watched part of her questioning of Pfeiffer Phipple-flute on C-span, and I found her woefully unprepared to counter his spin on far too many policy areas. Shorter: Disappointed in Khali’s performance; disgusted by his.
Actually, I think you beat me to it. I’m having a nip of cabernet while watching Rachel Maddow rail away. Want a bit?
O yeah; now Business Insider ran a piece today about O’s Wall Street contributions being very minimal. Feh! Yup; it just proves he hates the rich.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-wall-street-donors-fundraising-issues-difficulties-2011-6
Sure. Holding out wine glass. Thanks.
Part of his incontestible talent for precisely identifying the point that pisses off both sides to the max.
He’s dreaming of that walnut paneled corner office on Wall Street that’s waiting for him. His work in DC is done and it’s time to move on.
What amazes me is that they didn’t have to send Pfeiffer, he probably wanted to go: “I’ll tame those Netrooters!” or some such macho driven. And he goes back to DC with his tail tucked between his legs, exposed as ignorant or a liar, having called his boss dishonest, essentially.
Not the hallmark of a Communications pro by any means.
This team is woebegone.
Keep “pushing me.” Yuh. Heard that one enough now.
I think that’s probably wrong, and that the reality is worse. He thinks gays should be allowed to marry, and has some gay friends. He may not get it in a big way, but he gets it. He also gets that it’s better for him politically not to back it. Period. That’s what he boils down to on a lot of liberal issues. When it comes to the big money–what matters–his is a down and dirty DLC neoliberal. When it comes to a vision of a militarily dominant US, he is a neocon, including being down with torture and a large secret state apparatus. That’s what we’ve got evolved to. . . about where Edward Brooke Republicans were 30 years ago. (If I could think of someone who is not Black to compare him to I would do it, because race barely enters in, unfortunately. This guy might have done a cameo as an “organizer” somewhere, but he clearly feels no strong or real connect with poor people, of any color. Like Clinton, he likes to rub up against something rough every now and then for some street cred but. . . no.)
So did the net nation participants actually formulate any kind of organized plan for doing something? In other words, did anything come out of it or was it just stern words directed at Dan Pfeiffer? Anybody decide how long progressives should wait for the President to evolve?
Late but thank you
Exquisite.
But that wouldn’t give them, or him, plausible deniability.
Or they are waiting for pledges about…whatever else he can cede to them. Lord love a duck, kisses.
You are welcome!
Just amazing. Thank you, Teddy, for bringing this to our attention.
The moderator could have pursued a comparably dogged line of questioning on any number of topics, not least Obama’s abandonment of his on-the-record, on-videotape, support for single-payer, Medicare for All healthcare financing.
In 2002, he stated in a public forum that he supported straight-up Medicare for All but that it couldn’t be practically considered unless Democrats won both houses of Congress and the White House. When those criteria were actually met, he consigned his statement to the memory hole, and I’m unaware of any mainstream or even progressive interviewer pressing him or a spokesperson face-to-face on the walk-back. Bill Moyers showed the 2002 video clip in a spring 2009 segment, but no one from the White House was cornered to comment.
Ditto for warrantless eavesdropping, Guantanamo, etc., etc.
As strongly as I support gay marriage, Obama’s walk-back on supporting genuine universal health care financing, and on various matters of “kinetic” foreign policy, have actually killed thousands of people. The gay-marriage questionnaire flapdoodle is delicious, and I cheer it. If Ms Gray pressed the spokesman on any of the other issues for which Obama has unequivocally abandoned his previous on-the-record positions, I look forward to seeing those video clips.
Yep, Barry’s lying.
Latest FaBlog: The Theory of Evolution
Agree.
President Obama always opposed same-sex marriage, much like how he was always for an individual mandate without a public option, and how he was always for keeping Guantanamo Bay open!
Sure, President Obama might not be perfect, but don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. At least he’s not all over America shooting puppies. Half a loaf of bread is better than none.
don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good”
And don’t let the mediocre in the front door.
Are you serious?
President Obama is moving forward with the repeal of DADT. He also said his team will no longer prosecute for that. The UN just endorsed the rights of homosexuals. The president has also added Supreme Court Justices to the bench that better balance the court with more liberal and progressive views.
President Obama has the right to his personal view – and if he has come to the conclusion that he supports civil unions over marriage, he can think that. And what Pfieffer is saying is just as suspect as what anyone else is saying.
But if you would rather not vote for the president in 2012, and let a Romney/Bachman or Romney/Pawlenty team win the whitehoues, and have repubs take over both the House and the Senate, and roll everything back to the days of the 1920′s where the robberbarrons ruled, then you have that choice.
Homosexual couples are the solution to the nation’s abortion problem.
You don’t see a lot of gay abortion clinics. Same-sex couples almost never have unwanted pregnancies. If every man and woman in America would commit to a homosexual relationship, we could virtually wipe out abortion in a generation.
Let us amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a monogamous, homosexual relationship.