The reaching across the aisle continues, as Obama has asked pro-life, pro-Prop 8 evangelical Rick Warren (who put Obama and McCain on the hot seat back in August) to perform his inaugural invocation. Obviously, this has gotten the GLBT community pretty pissed, even more so than Auburn fans after a pitiful coaching move. Pro-choice folks are likewise cleaning the morning/evening beverages off their computer screens.
Obama had better be saving up this political capital for something awesome, because otherwise this will be remembered as the time Obama started throwing his base under the bus. (Ok, maybe not.) I'm personally hoping for the "something awesome", so I'm not up in arms yet.
Discuss.
87 Responses to “Rick Warren to deliver inaugural invocation”
"because otherwise this will be remembered as the time Obama started throwing his base under the bus."
I think that was sometime around the John Roberts confirmation.
>_>
I don't think Obama is all that different from any other politician. Ignore your base once you have them locked up, pander to the big special interests, and marginally change a few things here and there. Whether that's good or bad, whatever. It's just as it is.
I'm not a social liberal, I have no problem with people opposed to abortion, as I am largely myself, but even to me Warren's quite the bigot and evangelical apocalyptic nut.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/posner
Again, Obama's pandering to the big power bases -- it's OK to throw a bone to white bigots, to people who think we should incinerate Iran (read his comments about that nation), because they're the big boys.
If he had Wright come, well, all hell would break loose. But Wright saying things not nearly as inflammatory about Israel is much worse than Wright's statements about Iran or non-Christians, because well one type of bigotry is OK in this country and even the most minor criticism of Israel isn't.
It'll be pretty humiliating to some people to see the first bi-racial minority US President declare that some types of discrimination are kosher, that "change" means we can still realpolitik with some people's lives.
"Historically evangelicals and mainline protestants were all in one group. Along about the beginning of the 20th century there were some protestant theologians who started using the term social gospel. What they meant by that was you don't really need to care about Jesus' personal salvation any more. You don't really have to care about redemption, the cross, repentance. All we need to do is redeem the social structures of society and if we make those social structures better then the world will be a better place. In many ways it was just Marxism in Christian clothing. " - Rick Warren in an interview with beliefnet
Oh hell no. Social gospel of King-Mandela and liberation theology of the South does not deserve to be called that.
But I would be remiss to not point this out -- it was a Congressional panel that chose Warren not Obama.
While I too am not crazy about this choice, I'm not with the "under the bus crew". Why? Here's why:
If he repeals the Global gag rule within the first 100 days, thats way more important than whatever this fool says on Jan 20th.
The inaugration is about all america having a voice, not just Dems.. ok flame away..
As Zaid rightly points out it's a Congressional panel that makes these decisions..
Don't forget, Rev. Lowery is doing the Benediction-and we all do appreciate his candor and know that if Warren gets kookie he's been known to deliver a smack or two- think his treatment of Bush at Coretta's funeral.
If all else fails, we have Aretha, who I feel sure is quite capable of whomping the Rev upside the head if he goes too far.
All in all he's actually not the worst choice out of the new evangelicals.
If a bone was to been thrown it might as well be him.
Lastly, the freepers are actually much more unhappy than our people... their blogs are a nightmare of spew.
Well, I've been saying since 2006 that whoever got the nod would surely disappoint us.
I am torn about this though. On the one hand, if the only thing he ever does for these folks is have their pastor speak at a symbolic event, then who cares? It won't actually have any effect on policy (and the political cover may even make it easier to make good policy), and that's the real prize.
On the other hand, it *is* a symbolic event, and symbolism does matter. This President especially does know that.
Sigh.
Yep. Its definitely a sign that there will be no progressive laws from Obama. Or something.
Seriously though, who the f*ck cares? Obama has NEVER BEEN ABLE TO BE LABELED AS A LIBERAL!!!!
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...warren_choice.php
BTW: I am glad to see HRC get outraged over this. Maybe soon they can turn into an effective organization.
Zaid: "I don't think Obama is all that different from any other politician. Ignore your base once you have them locked up, pander to the big special interests, and marginally change a few things here and there. Whether that's good or bad, whatever. It's just as it is."
Yep, and that's why I'd get so upset during the primary when Obama supporters would say that Obama was different, he wasn't like this, etc., etc. I knew Hillary was a politician too, but at least I knew what to expect from her. With that said, he's still going to do some good-- waaaay more than McCain ever would have...
The Congressional panel that Obama's defenders (but, notably, not Obama himself) have blamed for this has already said that this decision was Obama's, not theirs. So that excuse is not operative.
To me, this is outrageous because this was Obama's decision and his decision alone. He didn't have to run this by Republicans or other Democrats and get their approval or disapproval - he could have chosen anyone, and rather than chose someone as honorable for the invocation as he did for the benediction, he chose someone who compared same sex marriage to incest, rape, and beastialiy, compared abortion to the holocaust, and compared the social gospel to Marxism.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that this is everyone's inauguration, but including someone who thinks gays and women deserve to be demonized and deprived of equality under the law is as contrary to that goal as inviting the KKK would be.
And I really think that Obama should be made to answer for this choice, if only because it will put him on notice that he can't screw over his base and expect to get away with it unscathed.
I'm with Jules on this one. I'm not thrilled with the choice, but the palpitations over it from the left seem a bit hysterical.
Obama did something similar by having that ex-gay dude on the stage with him in SC during the primaries. I don't think symbolically reaching out to people who are flat wrong is necessarily a bad thing. It's not like Obama hasn't been specifically mentioning LGBT people in his high profile speeches or that he hasn't been clear on where he stands on LGBT rights. Just because we are in power now does not mean we have 4-8 years to do to the right what Bush did to us and anyone else who dared disagree with him.
Plus, Rev. Lowery as the benediction speaker is a nice book-end. I'm with Jules... if Warren goes off the reservation in his invocation, he better hold on to his top hat when Lowery closes the ceremony.
Obama's a pretty pragmatic guy, so I'm willing to see what he does in office. Anyone who actually thought that Obama's administration was going to be hard left does not understand what it means to govern.
Well, maybe people attending the inaugural can BOO loudly when Rick Warren is introduced for the inauguration.
Maybe a few "HOMOPHOBE!", "HATER!" cheers thrown in for good measure.
TBS.. what I've been reading is that when Warren speaks folks are silently turning their backs.. since booing during prayer will only make everyone else crazy and service the nutjobs who say we're all too "fringe" to be reasonably negotiated with.
Which we're NOT... since Obama hasn't put in him charge of anything and has a shit ton of stuff on LBGT on the change.gov site for reasonable folks to read.
I really just can't get my undies in a bundle over this. Now I will get cranky and crusty if by June he hasn't used his muscle to fund family planning and made efforts with the joint chiefs over DADT. AS far as prop 8, he's always said this was a state matter.. so this isn't a change.
Again, the "outrage" serves mostly to keep us at arms length from being at the table.
HRC actually used this phrase "genuine blow"... okaaay..
Rev. Warren is a huge assclown, but he's not going away just because don't like him, and I rilly rilly don't.
BUT we have got to figure out how to work from polar opposites to get shit done.
A convocation speaker is a lot less important to me than cabinet picks.
The most riled up you'll get me is the Hitchens quote about how awful a person you get to be in public if you can just get someone to call you "Reverend" first.
Great choice. As one of the bigger Obama critics on here, I have to say, he's surprising me so far.
Obama has responded to the criticism:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/...n_to_give_invoc.html
On the plus side, Obama seems to have chosen a very strong Labor Secretary, Hilda Spoils.
http://www.iht.com/...2008/12/18/america/Obama-Labor.php
http://www.hildasolis.org/...=Labor&category=Issues
The daughter of a union family, Hilda is widely considered to be one of the strongest supporters of America's workers and the labor movement in the House of Representatives. She fervently believes that unions are vital to the health and strength of America's communities, allowing workers, the backbone of our nation, to stand up for themselves and their families.
Time and time again, Hilda has stated that the strength of the national economy is directly linked to the ability of America's workers to organize. For this reason, Hilda proudly cast a "yay" vote in favor of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that restores the right of workers to form a union.
Sounds like people are finally realizing Obama is not the liberal people thought him to be.
As for him ignoring the base, that's the base's fault for thinking of him as a savior, he was never going to be that.
His style is this, of bringing people together. People who are surprised by this just weren't paying attention.
Do better next time.
Good lord, sorry for sounding so damn pissy lately.
Really I am! I'm in a good mood lately (for some strange reason).
Much love,
The Thunder.
Thunder..
I have to say-I was begining to wonder about you..
I think we all need a bit of a break. I for one will be taking a big step back from the politics of politics in 2009. I've got other things to do-and they don't include holding hands and singing kumbya & wiping the snot off of everyone's noses for the next 12 months.
I don't think people should boo during a prayer. It doesn't sound like something that'll turn Middle America or whatever towards your side.
Instead people should turn their backs, and call Rev. Lowery, who will also do a prayer, and ask him to include something about LGBT rights and when he does say those things cheer loudly.
I think that's the classy way to do this.
As for IRE, Obama "bringing people together," no, he's staffed his cabinet full of Wall Street elites and foreign policy hawks who created the disasters we're in in the first place. That's basically the same pandering to elites and screwing over of the rest that's been happening for a long while, it's just wrapped up in a guy who can give a heck of a speech.
I like the Labor appointment, but let's be honest, Labor Secretary doesn't matter all that much vs. the economic team, Treasury, Fed, etc. Reich had almost no influence on Clinton, I doubt she's more than a token pick to make Labor less angry about Geitner, Summers, etc.
Yeah, it's not really as big a deal with Warren as a cabinet appointment, but I'm not GLBT either. I'm just another straight guy. If it was someone up there that said the things about Jews that Warren has said about Iranians or gays, I think they'd have to have riot police at the inauguration. Just pointing that out there for the straight white guys heaping praise upon this brilliant pick.
That's just gross Jules.
"Reich had almost no influence on Clinton..."
We'll see how a different President and eight-sixteen years (depending how you count) of a greatly different experience for the middle class, labor and outsourcing do to this dynamic.
Summers et. al know how to spin the economic knobs as well as anyone. Old-school economists are still handy for that.
However, it would be very helpful if Obama seeded his deputy levels (the guys to put at the top when the older hands are made to retire late 1st term or between terms) with experts tuned to issues of trade from both orthodox and heterodox schools. Stiglitz seems to be more interested in his own projects, but maybe he has some disciples that can be shared.
"
Summers et. al know how to spin the economic knobs as well as anyone. Old-school economists are still handy for that."
Him and Rubin engineered the deregulation of the derivatives market -- how'd that turn out for us again?
I remember McCain saying he'd appoint Warren Buffet to head of Treasury during one of the debates. That's funny the Republican would've appointed someone with more heart for the working class than the Democrat.
I remember watching the Frontline documentary on Obama on his election to the head of the Harvard Law Review. Once he was elected he turned his backs on the liberals who helped him and appointed more Federalist Society folks than their opposition. I was thinking, "Hah, in a couple months he'll be doing that on a national scale."
Sometimes I wanna be wrong.
And I want to ask again, what if they invited someone who said these things about Jews that Warren has said about gays? That would be OK too? A 2006 survey found that 37% of Americans think Muslims should carry special ID cards. Should we invite an anti-Muslim speaker to rope in those people for the discussion, too? I mean, 37% of America -- how can you have a consensus without them?!
Actually, that'd be a brilliant political move. Tolerant people aren't going to jump ship from the Democrats to the Republicans, and maybe you'll pull in some intolerant far-right folks. I say we invite Ann Coulter to the inauguration. That's a brilliant move. Democrats aren't going to get a spine and vote third party or anything, and some Republicans might join on.
OK, even better. How about Dick Cheney? That'd be a real masterstroke.
"I've got other things to do-and they don't include holding hands and singing kumbya & wiping the snot off of everyone's noses for the next 12 months."
Strangely, my plans do involve wiping snot for the next 12 months. But only off of one nose.
Oy.. I should have added off ADULT noses!
Your plan at least includes a adorable nose and tiny warm little hand..
http://www.openleft.com/...8BE6A42997FCD30?diaryId=10522
And there's the betrayal on trade.
Is CIA chief still open? I hear this guy Dick Cheney's open january 20th.
Though I wish someone from the evangelical right could have picked who didn't compare being gay to incest, I am glad that Obama (or rather the Congressional panel) picked him.
As Obama has constantly said, we are not a collection of blue states and red states, but the United States of America. Freedom of speech is part our nation's foundation and we have to be a party that hears and respects all voices even if we don't agree.
I for one believe that Obama will move our country decidedly to the left and I think you will see executive orders in the first 100 days that do this including removing the Global gag rule. His openness to all Americans does not mean he ignores the moral convictions (because we Dems have moral convictions too!!!) that helped him win the Presidency.
"
Though I wish someone from the evangelical right could have picked who didn't compare being gay to incest, I am glad that Obama (or rather the Congressional panel) picked him.
As Obama has constantly said, we are not a collection of blue states and red states, but the United States of America"
Yeah, and the best way to do that is to invite someone to give the main prayer who doesn't believe all that crap and thinks gays are third class citizens and stick the guy who actually believes in inclusiveness -- Rev. Lowery -- at the end.
Yup, I don't think people would be making these same arguments if the guy discriminated against Jews. Oops.
Update, now Barney Frank is up in arms:
http://www.house.gov/frank/warren121808.html
Great job, Mr. Uniter-Hope-Change.
Uniting means finding common ground, not magnifying our differences.
Big mistake.
I would like to thank the straight men on this thread for their outrage on behalf of the LGBT community.
As a member of that community, I can do that! hehe
I still think it ultimately will be good politics, although the uproar does tell Obama that we're watching.
While I certainly understand the outrage from the LGBT community, there should be outrage across the board about this. I've been hesitant to say anything but the more I think about it the angrier I become.
By inviting Reverend Warren to officiate at this event President Elect Obama provides legitimacy to his views. Frankly, the idea of "bringing us together" is obscene to me. This guy should be shunned. There should be no room at the table for someone with these strident views.
Uh, my response is ... who cares?
This is a Presidential inauguration, not a Democratic political event.
Joseph Lowery is giving the benediction.
I understand you don't like Warren, neither do I, but a Presidential inauguration should be for the American people. It just so happens that a large portion of the American people follow this guy.
We need to learn how to be winners, and part of being a winner is to do symbolic shit like this, that has no impact on any core principles.
"I understand you don't like Warren, neither do I, but a Presidential inauguration should be for the American people. It just so happens that a large portion of the American people follow this guy."
What the fuck? He's a coffee table crackpot of the moment. Get the Harry Potter lady next.
Stop whining about winners, it's looking pathetic. You're just like the Dixiecrats now, you'd be ragging on LBJ for making overtures towards blacks and condemning racists.
Again, no one would be giving these bullshit arguments if it were Jews.
They could've picked a noncontroversial preacher or just Lowery but they had to pick this shithead of the moment and now there's a huge controversy and he's being hit from all sides. That's really unity and hope changey!
I expected the self immolation would wait until after the inauguration. I have to stop being so damned optimistic.
Zaid, just FYI, decaturguy happens to be gay, so you might want to listen to why he feels the way he does.
"Again, no one would be giving these bullshit arguments if it were Jews."
I shouldn't respond to that, but, you've mentioned the J-E-W-S multiple times here, and other places, do you have anti-Semitic paranoia or something?
All this talk of Jews is going to force me to raise the Godwin Threat Level of this thread to Orange.
Joseph Lowery is not the other side of the spectrum to Rick Warren. Rev. Robert Goldstein is. Would he be OK?
Even that's not right. I think he's pretty tolerant. You'd have to find an openly gay, hater of straight people to get the full spectrum covered.
Once again we are asked to balance an extreme with a moderate and call it even. Too bad.
In fact, my Jew analogy ends up being a little to truthful to be an analogy:
http://www.slate.com/id/2207148
"It is a fact that Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., was present at a meeting of the Aspen Institute not long ago and was asked by Lynda Resnick—she of the pomegranate-juice dynasty—if a Jew like herself could expect to be admitted to paradise. Warren publicly told her no. What choice did he have? His own theology says that only those who accept Jesus can hope to be saved. I have just missed the chance to debate on CBS with one of Warren's leading allies and defenders, the Dallas preacherman who calls himself Dr. Robert Jeffress. In the opinion of this learned fellow, even though Mitt Romney "talks about Jesus as his lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity."
Oops, just wait until the ADL sniffs this one out. Then Obama's pathetic effort to pander to the far-right will have completely imploded.
Zaid, you're a Green right?
Who did you guys nominate again?
Hey griftdrift, maybe you should stick to the topic.
And by the way, McKinney is a much more honorable person than most I'd say after meeting her. All the folks who supported attacking Iraq are far worse people and far less qualified for anything. But she isn't the topic of discussion. Why'd you bring her up, again, other than just having an urge to be an asshole?
Oh I thought it was relevant since her diddy once said the J-E-W-S were trying to buy her district.
Maybe I was wrong.
Carry on.
"other than just having an urge to be an asshole?"
You got grift confused with me.
I'm going proactive and saying "Keep Zaid!"
"Once again we are asked to balance an extreme with a moderate and call it even. "
I don't think that's the case, I think people are saying this is pretty meaningless, let's save the outrage for when it matters. I mean think about it, what does this do to affect policy in the grand scheme of things? Are we really that concerned with images and how things appear that we stopped worrying about concrete threats to our aims?
And second of all, I'm tired of people bringing up critics of the Democratic leadership or establishment as if they're wide-eyed fools. I'm pretty sure in terms of being right on stuff, it's Democratic Leadership: 0, progressive critics: too many too count.
"I mean think about it, what does this do to affect policy in the grand scheme of things?"
The crew he selected for that suck, too, so don't worry.
Zaid,
So, your argument seems to be, it is bad when someone criticizes gays or some other minority and it is bad when someone criticizes jews, the difference being that there is universal condemnation when someone criticizes jews, but not when it is gays (or others)...do I have that right?
Since when is "policy" the criteria for having an important discussion? Obama himself said that we need to have this discussion. Well, maybe he was talking about race, but I think the same thing applies here. He brought it up, he knew what this meant. It's not like it's a surprise what this guy represents. I don't think Obama forgot the previous moment in the spotlight for Warren, so I think it is a logical conclusion that he doesn't think this conversation is over yet.
I believe the standard non-discrimination policy of the federal government includes a statement about sexual orientation. Others here can better explain what the actual law of the land is at the moment. Warren may "represent" a lot of people, but he does not represent the policy or the spirit of the US government in this. There are lots of preachers who don't have the high visibility baggage that Warren has that would have been more appropriate. My hope would be that by having the conversation we could make some progress on the tolerance front, but it sure seems unlikely. I mean, the suggestion is that Obama is "reaching out". So is Warren going to "reach out" somehow?
let's save the outrage for when it matters.
Exactly. I just can't get worked up enough about some mega church preacher to split apart the coalition we've built here, which is, by the way, what they are trying to do and many of you are falling for it. Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks.
And I find it laughable that HRC or the "LGBT community" (is there really such a thing anymore?) is trying to use this as an attempt to stay relevant when the real "LGBT community" no longer takes its marching orders from them anymore. Not gonna work.
"
Zaid,
So, your argument seems to be, it is bad when someone criticizes gays or some other minority and it is bad when someone criticizes jews, the difference being that there is universal condemnation when someone criticizes jews, but not when it is gays (or others)...do I have that right?"
Here's my basic point, which actually got undermined when I found out Warren told that one Jewish lady she's going to hell (he has some antisemitism with his homophobia).
I didn't used to care so much about gay rights. I thought, yeah, there should be equality of rights, they should be able to marry, all that.
I think it was because of my age, I was young and my generation as a whole is very supportive of gay rights as opposed to older generations.
So I had that belief, right?
OK, so one day I was talking to someone and I said that we don't have to worry about gay rights very much, that history is trending towards them all over the world, that eventually same sex marriage rights will be legal so we should spend time on other things. Then that person told me, "But what about all the gay people who live and die until then?"
And then it hit me, there will be people who live their whole lives hated and having their rights suppressed -- and it wasn't justified for me to tell them to wait anymore than it was justified for someone to tell King or Mandela to wait a few generations.
So now we have Rev. Warren being picked to deliver this prayer for the first ever minority president of a white-majority country. And what kind of message does it send?
"We're trying to score political points at the expense of your group, sorry?"
What if it were Jews? What if he invited Rev. Farrakhan, who is also quite popular and respected amongst some people, and then claimed it was just a matter of being inclusive and tolerant of those you disagree with?
What if it were Blacks? What if he invited an anti-Black preacher?
What if it were hispanics? What if it were all these other groups?
We'd never stand for it. But the gays, ah we can play political football with the gays.
Just like all the Democrats, when time came to blow the shit out of Iraq, said, we'd better support this, a shit ton of people might die, but it's politically expedient.
Obama and the Democrats just won a pretty good sized victory. They don't have to do things like this inherently. No one's paying him to do this -- like the big industries are paying him to water down all his policy plans, from healthcare to taxes to the environment, his cabinet picks are center-right, right-wingers -- he's making a political overture, and he's doing it at the expense of a huge group.
At first I wasn't very offended by Rick Warren. But then I saw how awful his statements and beliefs and activism were towards LGBT people, towards Jews, towards anyone who doesn't toe his fanatic line. He even called for assassinating Iran' President! What are Iranians going to think, when we elevate this man to such a position?
There were those during the civil rights times who said we should back off this stuff, we should pander to the racists, we should compromise the rights of these black folk -- heck, I"M NOT BLACk -- I mean these sorts of arguments were common. Well I don't want to be on that side of history.
Lastly, I don't want to ever hear Obama again say "I'm a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian americans" if he doesn't believe in their right to marry or at least won't say so publicly. If you're going to play realpolitik with them, OK, but don't pretend you're better than you are. Fierce advocate? You had basically the same position as John McCain on gay rights. There's nothing fierce about that.
So of course I will get angry about Obama about this, because I'm standing up for my gay brothers and sisters. And I will get angry about Obama about many other things and it isn't personal, it's political. Our political system will compel him to do many bad things, I'm sure, and the only way it changes is if people don't accept it. Heck, he's getting so much fire here that he might just rescind Warren's invitation. And if the intent was to rope in right-wing evangelicals, well I waltzed over to CBN's webboards and saw they are probably even more pissed off than the LGBT community. This is turning into lose-lose-lose, and maybe if Obama wants to win he will change his mind and put a moderate preacher forward for this historic moment, not a deranged hatemonger.
If he wanted to unite people, he'd have someone who actually wants to do that give the prayer.
" Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks."
I'm also criticizing Summers and Clinton and Salazar and any other number of picks which show that Obama is more and more showing himself to be more of the same, to be showing that all the Wall Street money he got during the campaign (much more than McCain) is actually buying a lot from him, but for some reason they haven't created the same fire as Warren. I wish they did, to be honest, but cabinet picks are really peripheral politics in this country, most people have no idea that Larry Summers was a chief advocate for deregulating the CDS market or that Salazar has an anti-environmental, pro-industry record that'd make Newt Gingrich blush.
The previous Green party candidate and perennial ultra left darling, Ralph Nader, also has said some not so kosher things about Jews and Israel. (Not to mention calling Obama an Uncle Tom just this year.)
Of course, Zaid was a mere pup when most of that stuff happened. So we probably shouldn't expect him to remember that plenty of presidents have associated with people who take unpopular positions, that is when said presidents aren't taking unpopular positions themselves.
Jerry, there is no federal statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as far as I know. There is an executive order prohibiting discrmination in employment within the federal government, but that theoretically is subject to withdrawal by each individual president if they choose. Certain individual states have passed such laws, but most have chosen not to.
But I do like your point about continuing the conversation...there might be some value in that, and maybe we should see if Obama is going to find a way to highlight his differences of opinion with Warren in a way that makes clear he wants to persuade the people who are anti-abortion and homophobic, rather than simply shunning them and hoping they change their minds. I don't pretend to know what Obama is thinking, but I am open to the possibility that there is a strategic purpose here that may go a little bit deeper than pandering to the middle and the right. Maybe. I dunno.
Jerry I think that's kind of my point. This isn't substantive in anyway.
Why are we using political capital here when the outrage we're showing over this (come on, admit it, this is nothing) could be better spent in a few months with DADT comes up.
If we want to sound like what we love to think of ourselves as, we probably shouldn't go about our business in a way that frankly, makes us sound like whiners (BTW: that's a blanket statement not calling any individuals out).
Look, this has been Obama's style all along, He's always been unorthodox to say the least, I mean anytime a Dem gets endorsed by a Buckley and a Bush spokesman, that's a VERY odd mix of supporters.
I'm just asking here, but I wonder what the correlation with this is between HRC support and outrage.
"The previous Green party candidate and perennial ultra left darling, Ralph Nader, also has said some not so kosher things about Jews and Israel. (Not to mention calling Obama an Uncle Tom just this year.)"
Ultra left darling? What are you, Bill O'Reilly?
Airbags, seatbelts, FOIA, clean air and clean water acts - these sure are ultra-left causes, aren't they?
And he didn't call Obama an uncle tom but given your penchant for character assassination I guess the facts don't matter to you.
The quote is whether Obama will be an uncle sam for the people or an uncle tom for the corporations.
Try harder next time mate.
And stop trying to make attacks based on age, an argument is an argument no matter what age the person is. You don't have to be engage in so much character assassination.
Second of all, to address your point (I'm sure you have one besides being a dick, somewhere), inviting this divisive hateful man is dividing people on all sides and not bringing any real progress. To compare it to Roosevelt invited Booker Washington or something like that shows how much of a historical ignoramus you are, not I.
Zaid, how in the world do you read Ralph Nader's direct quote which was:
"To put it very simply.. his choice is whether or not he’s going to be Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom"
and be led to the conclusion that he actually didn't call Barack Obama an Uncle Tom? How can I listen to another word you have to say about anything after that?
Ralph might have done some good things in the 60's, but the last 30 years he's done nothing of any worth, and caused us 8 years of George Bush at the very least with no results to show for that "moral victory."
"
and be led to the conclusion that he actually didn't call Barack Obama an Uncle Tom?"
He said he could be an uncle tom to corporations or an uncle sam to the people.
Let me ask you this, why did the media say he caled him an uncle tom? HE also said he could be an UNCLE SAM. It sounds like they're trying to start a fight.
The way I see it, if the left allows Obama to embrace Warren now, he'll consider that permission to embrace another, even more loathsome person later. Give a politician an inch and they'll take a mile.
I think the left should leave him with cause to hesitate the next time he considers whether to compromise his commitment to human rights in the service of speculative political gain.
Like, say, when his advisers recommend that he wait until his second term to repeal DADT.
The idea that the left should save its ire for "more important" fights reminds me of the strategy of the Senate Democrats to save the filibuster for "more important" fights. No fight, not even Roberts' or Alito's confirmations, was as important as the future "more important" fight and as a result, the Senate Republicans trampled them.
Meanwhile, the Senate Republicans have done nothing but filibuster since they lost power, with little apparent concern over whether the fight is more or less important than some future fight. That, and the promise of a veto, has been surprisingly effective.
Fighting Warren now will make it easier to fight for other issues - more or less important - later. Capitulating now will make it harder.
Zaid, I seriously doubt YOU can cry about anyone resorting to character assassination around here. Your snappy little foulmouth makes ME look stoic. And I'm not just saying this to be a dick or an asshole or some other completely deflecting puerile insult you reflexively fling at your critics. Who the hell ARE you, anyway? Good gravy, I hate children.
You can't dismiss this argument by saying there are other things that are more important. So what. We can do more than one thing at once, even if they have different relative significance.
And it's not automatically "outrage" for everyone who opposes this. Perhaps Obama will dis-invite Warren, but I doubt it. I think it would be a good idea, but it's not like I'm going to become a Sarah Palin supporter if he doesn't. We are sophisticated adults (maybe except for IRE), and we can have meaningful discussions without taking extreme positions. In fact, that's probably where the meaningful discussions take place. But just because I am unlikely to get my ideal resolution to this doesn't mean I also forfeit any chance to express myself. Hell, that's why Al Gore invented the Intertubes. So that I could express myself. Barack Obama and the Dem Party are going to have to learn to deal with it if they haven't already.
Zaid, you make me look reasonable and smart, in comparison.
That may hurt but it's true. Because of that stick around.
Anyone who feels differently may want to investigate Greasemonkey.
"Zaid, you make me look reasonable and smart, in comparison.
That may hurt but it's true. Because of that stick around."
I must be truly awful then, because you're like a Joe Lieberman autibio with more fail.
"Zaid, you make me look reasonable and smart, in comparison."
I think you'd sound reasonable and smart if you were on a panel next to Ann Coulter, maybe. I mean afterwords you two could make love while moaning platitudes about the anti-American left or something (we could put an audiotrack of Joe Lieberman's autobiography on to put you two in the mood).
The elephant in the room here is that nothing but good can come from the gigantic backlash against Obama.
He's going to feel the heat, and he'll respond.
They say there's gay people on the shortlist for a few positions. Maybe they'll magically find their way to the top due to all this?
I think he'll make a lot of overtures to the LGBT community following this. It's all good.
grift,
You finally made Zaid come clean about his Green Party ties.
Finally.
Good job.
Zaid,
As a Green, shouldn't you be working to build up your party into something credible other than electing random city council members in Vermont and other liberal states instead of crying foul about everything the Democratic Party does?
Hey RuralDem, given that you are a "critical" Democrat of Obama until he picks a antisemite homophobe to lead off his inauguration, shouldn't you be in the party where you're more at home?
The idiotic character assassination you're involved in keeps straying from the topic. Unable to keep to a straight debate, bud?
Or do you want to compare me to Tookie WIlliams or other gangbangers on a moment's notice, diving headfirst into something you know shit about, like you did with Troy Davis?
Pick your poison wisely, asshole.
Zaid,
I'm beginning to wonder if you're really a troll just seeking attention. Others have verified who you are, but I can't help but to think that the real Zaid left months ago and this is someone else.
IRE or someone else, the joke is up.
I hope.
It's funny how hard RD and Zaid fight when they are really the same person on different sides of the political coin.
Also, I have to split my opinion with Drew. I still don't think Warren is that big a deal (maybe wishful thinking since Warren's basically a self-help wanker with some Biblical background), but I can support an outcry that people, whatever their merits, should get instant disqualification from public attention if they cross certain lines. For instance, it is probably not a bad thing if you get caught saying the n-word anywhere near a microphone that your career on any real stage is *over.*
So, if this thing with Warren is the beginning of that road for fundies, I'm totally behind that.
"It's funny how hard RD and Zaid fight when they are really the same person on different sides of the political coin."
Care to explain, or are you simply going to attempt a witty remark and leave it at that?
This character assassination that you're engaging in because you are nothing but corporate shills is bullshit.
All of you need to shed your ignorance and stop being giant assholes because you want to sell out America to make money.
Look, think about it, no one will ever say anything bad about the Jews.
NO YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME 1000%!
RD,
The fact that you both seem to lack a bit of gravitas, fall in hard for anything with the right label, and generally get all bunchy when you get called out for the above.
About the same age, too, IIRC.
The old man Odin is trying to put the youngins in place.
What's wrong Odin? You don't want the new generation getting uppity?
What is the record for most active BforD thread? Surely this gets some recognition for being the most meta-thread?
You guys are failures. I believe the most active BfD thread had well over 100 comments.
It's not nice to call people failures Jen B. It might hurt people's feelings (people like me).
Drew,
Do you really think it's Obama's advisors that will prevent any movement on Don't Ask Don't tell? What makes you think Obama wants to go anywhere near that? He has made a career out of pushing on issues everyone is already together on, like ethics reform. He is not going to waste political capital on that. Plus, DADT was the compromise position, you open that up, and you might end up with, Ask, Tell.
And regarding Rick Warren, Zaid, and the future of the Greens.
The Greens of Zaid, as far as I can tell, only stand in opposition of compromise positions, standing for only untenable, unworkable but very moral stands. I do think people should argue for these views, preferably without name-calling, but governing from them is near impossible in our country, especially in the current economic times. The American left has to pull to the left when the ship is going right, but we should all know that the ship won't ever get to the left, it will merely tack back when it passes critical mass.
Let them have Rick Warren. Let them have the symbolic. Hopefully, Warren himself will be there when we do have a grand social issue, but simply putting him on the program will help Obama push his agenda. That agenda may be more to the right then we'd like, but it is difficult to get ourselves heard, what with zero lobbyists and all.
IRE,
I think it's a "shut up back there or I'll turn this car around" moment.
MotS,
I don't really think of fundamental rights as a left or right thing. On that front, this country has long made progress in a general direction, tacking back in only in fits and cycles.
Progress will be made in the face of opposition, whether it is the outright hateful like Dobson and LaHaye, or the more happy-faced foes like Huckabee and Warren.
Also, if this comes out, Warren better damned well come out on social justice and environmental stewardship issues. Although given his low regard for science, I kind of doubt he understands global warming.
Odin,
I agree with your point, so let me clarify my stance, I don't mean that the middle is static or the same on every issue, or that the mass holds the same position now as it did 10 years ago, on anything, just that there is a middle, and moving too far from will leave you beached, to continue the sailing metaphor (left and right are used here for convenience, not all political decisions are left/right decisions obviously). I think that's what happened to Bush, and even he didn't really satisfy the people on the right. (thus the whole he isn't really a conservative thing, and the reaction of those in the office of faith based initiatives or whatever).
Here's what a friend of mine at All Saints Episcopal in Atlanta said about this topic:
"I personally think the President-elect is being very shrewd with this. And I also think this provides an excellent opportunity to educate the Rev’d Warren about those who profess the Christian faith but are very different from him. Perhaps we should all begin to share with him stories about the LGBT folks we know who clearly exhibit the love of Jesus Christ in their lives. Hearts and minds can be changed. Rather than vilify him, maybe we have been given an opportunity to confront him with images of people and lives lived very differently from his own prejudiced stereotypes. Perhaps we can hold up a mirror to behavior on his part that is not in accord with the One whose birth we are about to celebrate."
"What makes you think Obama wants to go anywhere near [DADT]?"
This is why I think that Obama wants to go somewhere near DADT:
"Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy."
http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/
"He has made a career out of pushing on issues everyone is already together on, like ethics reform. He is not going to waste political capital on that."
Recent polling shows that 75& of America would support an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." That suggests consensus, at least outside of Washington, D. C.
But even if there weren't such consensus, whatever happened to the candidate who was right on Iraq when everyone else was wrong, and quite proud of that fact? Clearly, consensus wasn't so important then, so why is it so important now?
Drew,
Personally, I'd like to see Obama take on one really big issue (like the economic stimulus) before going on to DADT. If DADT goes first, those jackass Republicans are going to steal all the oxygen in the room for what is basically a stroke of the pen to Obama (if I understand DADT's current status properly as an executive thing). On the other hand, if Obama becomes the adult in the room, he can snuff the R's when DADT comes up. A simple case of "look, I'm out here putting food on everyone's table and trying to fix the country while these dill-holes still what to make noise to make convicted felons more welcome in our military than homosexuals."
Not to say that the media won't still fall to the gaybaiting, but at least there will be something else to put to.
DADT is law, so it would require Congressional action to repeal. Which presumably would be more likely if Obama were forcefully on it's side.
But DADT is merely an example of some poltically troublesome issue that Obama might think he can avoid addressing without consequence if he were to get a pass on this. It could as easily be a transgender inclusive ENDA, adoption, immigration, recognition of marriage, etc.
I don't care if he addresses any of these as his first acts - even if it would be an example of his ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. But I do expect to see something before 2010, and I don't think that prostrating ourselves before him is the best way to ensure that happens.
What I would really like to see is Obama treat these issues as self evident. There should be no reason why, given public opinion, he shouldn't simply claim that the debate that has been raging for decades has finally been resolved in favor of equality, and that his action merely codifies that consensus.
But his embrace of Warren suggests that he doesn't see things that way. We still have to pretend that the bigots have a point and that they need to be coddled and reassured that the President really understands and sympathizes with them.
Drew,
Source your 75% poll. I'd like to take a look at it. I am surprised it's not 100% actually, since neither side was happy with it.
He may certainly delve into it at some point, but my guess is he will not do it at the expense of anything else.
"Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...18/ST2008071802580.html
Drew,
Thanks. I am honestly surprised it is that high. Maybe he will take a crack at it sooner rather than later.