White House threatens gay orgs before key DADT meeting - don't mention DADT cases or meeting over

[kpete]

White House threatens gay orgs before key DADT meeting - don't mention DADT ct cases or meeting is over
Posted by John Aravosis (DC) at 10/26/2010 11:57:00 AM

Kerry Eleveld at the Advocate has obtained a White House email to gay organizations participating in today's high-level DADT summit at the White House. The summit was clearly called as part of the White House's larger "charm offensive" to woo the left pre next week's elections.

In the email, the White House liaison to the gay community, Brian Bond, outright threatened our key national organizations that if any of them dare mention the DADT court cases - the ones the Obama administration keeps defending and appealing, even though they don't have to - the White House will immediately end the meeting.

I am speechless.
http://gay.americablog.com/2010/10/white-house-threatens-gay-orgs-before.html

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. Sit down. Shut-up. Please vote for us. n/t

[donheld]

19. That should read "Give us your money, Sit down, Shut-up, and vote for us."

Then they tell us. At least we're not them.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Will any of them have a spine and actually ask?!

[KittyWampus]

3. That isn't a threat. Here's PART of what Bond wrote with little context given:

“Obviously this meeting has gotten out. We are expecting the content of the conversation today to be off the record and to help us figure out how to move forward with the lame duck session.

Also as previously mentioned, there can be no discussion of current court cases or legal strategy or Counsel’s Office will end the meeting. The focus is repeal and the lame duck session. This is also a non-partisan meeting where we want everyone’s help.”


That isn't a "threat". It's a statement of intent and saying what the focus of the meeting will be.

We don't know the rest of what was emailed and what I read here is reasonable considering the White House is trying to form strategy on REPEALING.

[no limit]

4. How is that not a threat? They said if the court cases are brought up they will end the meeting

you have a funny definition of "threat".

[FreeState]

6. Because usually one would just say there will be no discussion of the case, no need to tell them the

meeting will end - that is a threat.

edit: (wasnt ment as a reply to you sorry!)

[asdjrocky]

13. If you talk about something I don't like I'm not going to talk to you.

No, that's not a threat.

[EFerrari]

14. It's bullying. n/t

[asdjrocky]

15. Of course it is.

It closes of any real possibility of dialog with people that disagree with them. I saw this tactic a lot from the Bush administration.

[EFerrari]

17. Do you remember that anti-drug ad "When we tried to talk to you like adults, you didn't listen"?

It might have been the "this is your brain on drugs" egg frying one.

Maybe we should all email the White House this link. :evilgrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p7jdg-p22I

I was watching these kids last night and they made me cry which is dam near impossible. lol :hi:

[Radical Activist]

22. This might be the most ridiculously overhyped distortion from Aravosis yet.

Accusing the administration of acting like Bull Connor, who turned dogs and hoses on protesters, is disgustingly over the top. Anyone who engages in that kind of hysterical, dishonest exaggeration cannot be taken seriously on any issue no matter what their viewpoint is.

[Tx4obama]

25. You're corrrect. See artilce on link below....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9394298

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. "fierce " arrogance, sounds like.

[EFerrari]

7. These people need to go back to charm school

because they suck badly at charm offensives.

[democrank]

8. White House to gay organizations....

We only care about you days before the elections, but not in real life. Got a check? A vote?

[damntexdem]

9. Winning hearts and minds.

This WH sure is savvy about PR.

;-)

[TriMera]

10. Kick and rec. n/t

[asdjrocky]

11. It was the same with single payer.

It seems, like most conservatives, these people are not capable of discussion with those who disagree with them.

[Dappleganger]

12. What? You call this respect and concern for GLBT issues?

Fuck THEM!

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Shut up and do as we say...

But of course. They sure know how to talk pretty, these Obama 'liaisons'.

[Scurrilous]

18. Kick

:kick:

[Pab Sungenis]

20. How long until this disappears?

Pro-gay posts don't seem so welcome on here any more. Shame. Someone needs to hold the Administration's feet to the fire.

As long as they think we'll vote for Democrats no matter what they say or do to us, the more crap like this that they're going to say and do!

[Pab Sungenis]

21. And how is this any different

from Sharron Angle running from reporters?

[fascisthunter]

23. this person is delusional

you don't talk to people like that and expect them to do as you want. WTF kinda household did this turd come from?

[struggle4progress]

24. More wedge-driving from Aravosis, wedge-driver extraordinaire

[Pab Sungenis]

27. It's not Aravosis doing the wedge-driving.

It's Obama and the rest of his White House. Aravosis is just calling them on their shit.

[struggle4progress]

28. The link in the OP goes back to Aravosis' website: he's famous for

involuntarily outing folk; after Prop 8, his website pushed "blame the blacks" hard; and the website regularly spins dishonestly, as it is doing here

Of course, I have no idea what happened at this meeting, but the President would have to be a complete fool to conduct an informal conversation with parties to a lawsuit, especially in a meeting intended for other purposes -- and I don't think he's a fool. You want to spin this reported failure to be foolish as evidence he is somehow full of shit: I can'tb help you there

[leeroysphitz]

26. Sounds like the ground rules for a VERY productive meeting. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

29. More of the same. Sit-down. Shut-up.