After reading the Warren thread from last night, I have come to the firm conclusion that anyone who uses the phrase “slap in the face” needs a swift kick in the ass.
Also, I hear that Rick Warren ALSO OPPOSES SCI-FI MOVIES. ZOMG, SLAP IN THE FACE, MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE VOTED FOR MCCAIN. WARREN TALKING FOR 90 SECONDS IS JUST AS BAD AS HAVING JAMES DOBSON RUN THE FCC.
Discuss.
Just Some Fuckhead
Don’t forget about all the non-whites that were slapped in the face when Obama appointed HRC to Sec. State, what with her white-people-matter-more tour through Appalachia.
It’s time to document the face slapping atrocities!
PaulW
You slapping my face is a slap to the face of all those who haven’t been slapped in the face. Yet.
ed
Obama damn well better use this bulljive for whatever cover he can (prob’ly none) to repeal DADT.
Conservatively Liberal
I agree. Slap in the face is exhausted, please retire it. Change it up to spice it up! Maybe a kick in the nuts? ;)
Comrade Stuck
For some people, I fail to see the difference.
proudprogressiveTG
how about this ? Its a kick in the face. Obama is not playing a deeper game. Not with this team. Its a very insensitive choice – and until you have been personally on the receiving end of rabid homophobia, and disenfranchisement as a woman, as a transgendered person – you don’t know what it feels like – so many worked their asses off for Obama – there are other choices besides Warren. Jim Wallace for one – So thanks a lot John for adding more insult to injury – Many of us remember the lavender foot in the door , David Mixner in the Clinton yrs…what did we get ? Broken promises, DADT and DOMA – so sorry if you don’t like the words slap in the face – you’re right , its more like a gut punch to many of us. Much ado about nothing ? – obviously that under estimates the desparation of the right – they want to rebuild on our backs , the usual modus operendi and the Warren choice – and our reaction to it – has them doubled over in joy. So what are we to do ? Not react, trust, hope, yadda yadda yadda. Believe me i want to –
but this makes it pretty god damned hard.
Eric
I hate to break it to the gay community, but Obama doesn’t support gay marraige either. And anyway…are we sure that actual, real people are upset by this? Or is this another in a (seemingly endless) line of phony-Liberal-outrage media inventions?
bootlegger
What if I like having my face slapped? Some people do ya know.
To be serious for a moment, I too think Obama should have selected one of the more liberal theologians who fought tirelessly during the long dark years of the Bush Apostasy. Those men and women deserve a nod for the lashings they received as Bush swore off American principles and brought religious bigotry into government.
However, I think there is also something to be said for Obama’s political instincts on this. NPR had a reporter down in Deep Red Oklahoma where 22 out of 22 counties voted for McCain, the only state to be so Red. Shockingly, the reporter found all kinds of former Obama-haters who were impressed by Obama’s "humility" and "inclusiveness". One said that she and Obama would never agree on "moral values" but that his thoughtful actions thus far made her believe that he is a president for all Americans.
So I line up with JC on this one, if Obama doesn’t bust out some gay-rights policies rather quickly I’m going to have to throw a shoe at him, no weak face-slapping. But until that time, chill and let the man do his thing. We elected him because he would bring the country together, not because he’s the second coming of Wright/Ayers.
Face
Maybe we can intitiate a Warren commission to study his pastoral fuckshittery.
sgwhiteinfla
My question is which leading evangelist/priest/pastor all of these people who are running around with their hair on fire would have rather have had leading the invocation? If somebody can answer that question for me and give me a name of a religious leader who has a following anywhere near Warren’s and his "Purpose Driven Life" books who endorsed gay marriage and doesn’t think homosexuality is wrong then I will pour on the gasoline and strike a match. Until then this is yet another dog whistle signififying nothing.
Jeffrey Kramer
How about a blow on the head? No? I’ll offer you a poke in the eye! How about a punch in the throat? All right then, a boot in the teeth and a dagger up the strap!
TCG
I can’t get worked up over a Preacher.
It is not like Warren is being appointed to run the EPA.
bootlegger
Agreed. Now we’re on to "throwing a shoe at…"
His religious beliefs oppose it, according to his statements, but in terms of policy his opposition to Prop-h8 suggests that he is willing to subvert his religious beliefs to the greater idea of equality for all. And I mean real fucking equality, not just symbolic posturing by hiring a token homo.
Punchy
Why is there even a Jesus rep at the swearing in to begin with? Does he come automatically with winning the state of North Carolinuh? Will he filibuster?
dewberry
Where would it put me on the spectrum of left-nuttery if I questioned why we even have to have a religious aspect to a state event?
The great majority of all religions come down against gay marriage. Individual members (and sometimes individual churches and pastors) may support it, but church leaders? Not so much.
TheHatOnMyCat
Well, slap my face! No really, slap it!
This is what happens when people choose to fight over symbols. You’d think after all these years of watching Republicans pick fights over symbols, and trying to hijack government to help them do it, that people would learn?
Apparently not. Well, the margins of the right and left are being marginalized by a guy who has no use for ideological battles, and boy are they pissed! Hey wait a minute! What about my carefully contrived victimhood? I’m a Christian! I’m Tastes Great and I’m not taking it from that evil Less Filling any more!
We had eight years of one guy who claimed to be a Uniter. How did that work out? Did you like his approach? So here’s a new approach. Let’s invite people we might not agree with to the table. What a concept! Genius!
I can’t roll my eyes any more, they are all rolled out.
Napoleon
The Warren thing is much to do about nothing.
@bootlegger:
He will only do that if he is a complete moron. He does it as one of the first things right off the bat (before passing health care, an economic package, green energy and perhaps card check) he will sink himself like Clinton did. If he waits untill he gets the big stuff done (you know, the stuff that applies to around 100% of the voters instead of 2%) then when he gets around to the gay rights policy stuff no one will care what he does except those people it directly effects.
Comrade Stuck
The results would be that Rick Warren did not invent fuckshittery, but was himself invented by millions of Fuckshits who believe the Earth was created not that long ago and Fred Flintstone may have been related to Adam and Eve. They are not a majority these folks, but they are definitely a drag on the Constitution, that many of them believe is really the Devils Diary.
bootlegger
With me. If I had my druthers as a secularist it would be no god-talk at the Important Political Event.
No lie, speakin’ the truth brutha. Unfortunately human societies are full of symbols and in a pluralistic society there will multiple symbols and given human psychology (in-group/out-group) these conflicts seem almost pre-ordained. I’d love it if one of our political leaders had the courage to deemphasize it all. Obama started to by shirking the flag lapel pin, but he too caved to the hysterical shoe-throwers.
bootlegger
@Napoleon: Nonsense, there are plenty of very simple things that have majority public support which he could do right away. The majority of Americans oppose DADT, support civil unions and benefits for partners. He could very easily take on the first of those with a stroke of the pen and it would have no political cost at all.
John Cole
I suppose if that is your approach, it really doesn’t matter which one of priests from the temple of Syrinx goes up and does the mumbo jumbo.
Rick Taylor
I was aware back in the primaries that Obama stressed bipartisanship and unity and would occasionally take a potshot at the left. I even ended up voting for Hillary, though regretted that before the election was over. Obama is very much a politician. His decision here is no surprise, especially given this is purely symbolic ceremony; it’s an opportunity for him to strengthen is moderate creds, maybe even appeal to some people who wouldn’t normally be supportive of Democrats, at no cost as far as policies implemented (which is what he cares about most). I can’t bring myself to care, I’m much more concerned about the crashing economy, how are we going to close Guantanamo, etc. Six months from now this will be forgotten.
liberal
Warren speaking is a slap in the face to those of us who decry neocon influence on foreign policy.
Yeah, yeah, symbolic blah blah blah.
Xenos
If ‘slap in the face’ is thrown under the bus, does that mean that the terrorists win?
liberal
@Rick Taylor:
All it does is move the Overton window to the right by allowing people to refer to a thug (see my previous comment) like Warren as a "moderate".
r€nato
props for the Rush (the band) reference, John.
Obama is going to repeal the Bush regime’s fundie-pandering stem-cell research funding ban; I’m perfectly willing to trade that for a completely symbolic gesture towards one of the fundie right’s slightly more progressive god-botherers.
Incertus
@TheHatOnMyCat:
All we do is fight over symbols, for fuck’s sake. We think in symbols. We use symbols to justify every fucking action we take, whether we’re basing our decisions on religious belief or simple empathy. People who understand the power of symbols win fights, which is why this choice pisses off a lot of people–because the symbolism sucks for them.
r€nato
No, but it does mean it’s jumped the shark.
Zifnab
@proudprogressiveTG:
First off, Warren didn’t personally do anything to you as far as I can tell. He supported Prop 8, but so did about ten million other people. You might as well ban all Mormons from Obama’s inauguration and wouldn’t that just be a beautiful symbol of unity? ALL ARE WELCOME – EXCEPT FOR [LIST HERE].
Second off, I could argue that keeping Roberts on at Defense is an "insensitive choice", that nominating HRC to State is an "insensitive choice", and there is a line of GOoPers running out the door ready to slam Eric Holder at Justice as too "insensitive" for their tastes. The time for being sensitive has passed. When Warren starts writing US policy, we can talk about Obama’s decision making. But he’s a useful voice on evangelical issues and he’s not completely off the deep end like Dobson or the Falwell clan. If you’re going to make ground with a radical and fringe evangelical community, you’ve got to start farther to the right than Jim Wallace.
And finally, who the hell is Jim Wallace? Oooo. He wrote a book with a heavy liberal bent AND he’s religious. :-p In a sane and just world, it should be Reverend Wright giving the commencement, but he got politically raped (then bent over and asked for more) so he’s really just a political liability now. Strangely enough, Wright isn’t exactly a leading voice for the LGBT community. But at least everyone knows who he is.
Comrade Stuck
@Xenos:
Nope, just means we’ll need a bigger Funeral for late non-great cliches.
Xenos
Few. It is an invocation. If Warren invokes his christofascist god, but a liberal one shows up and blesses the nation, all the worse for Warren.
Betty Cracker
Well, me for one. And I’m not even gay, and I knew Obama didn’t support gay marriage but supported him anyway. I get the unity argument. I understand the pragmatism aspect. I hope whomever said this is a strategic shoe hurled at the heads of Dobson, et al, is correct.
However, I’d be a lot more confident about that theory if there were any real, material differences between Dobson and Warren. As far as I can tell, there aren’t. This pisses me off.
That said, I am totally down with jettisoning the "slap in the face" metaphor. The Hillary or Mass Cult Suicide people ruined it forever.
Shinobi
I seriously doubt the FSM will be properly honored in his invocation either. That’s a slap on the ass.
All hail his noodlyness!
Incertus
@John Cole: But it does matter, because even if I think organized religion is a bunch of (at times, dangerous) mumbo jumbo, most people don’t. And when you have a lot of people who are motivated, to a greater or lesser degree, by what their preachers are telling them their God wants them to do, you better believe I’m concerned about what the message is, because it’s going to affect me whether I want it to or not.
r€nato
thank you Carl Jung.
Symbolism matters but action on practical issues matters even more.
I don’t care for flag-burning but I care even less for a president who disregards the Constitution.
At the end of the day, desecrating a symbol of our country does far less to harm us than our government ignoring the 4th Amendment.
MR Bill
I understand (as a gay man, as a Liberal in a red red town, as a guy who’s business was threatened because I wrote a letter to the editor of our local rag in 2004 saying "George Bush is in fact not a cowboy, but in fact the Connecticut born son of President, grandson of a guy who traded with the Nazis, and former Andover cheerleader [not that there is anything wrong with that])", that some would like a homophobe like Warren to be marginalized. It would seem like justice, but..
Until Obama does something actually anti GLBT, I’m willing to suck it up in the interest of unity. If the symbol of Rick Warren saying a prayer (shouldn’t be over a minute)give O cover to do the right thing by gay folks (like getting rid of the worst parts of the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’, sections 2 and 3), and breaks the worst of Evangelical fear of the Democrats, I’ll have to handle it. You know, ‘Turn the other cheek’…
And maybe we can get Rick Warren to admit that if Prop Hate hadn’t passed, folks including pastors could still spew hate about teh Gay.
liberal
@Zifnab:
Yeah, he just goes on Hannity and agrees that we should assassinate Ahmadinejad.
Anon
I see this as shrewd. The Republicans have always run on identity-politics and culture wars. Acts like this mess up their game.
Their are some who think this legitimizes Warren and his views. But what about the legitimizing effect on Obama? How can Obama be some non-real-American out to destroy American society (the usual Republican arguments), when Warren essentially "blessed" his presidency?
Incertus
@Zifnab: Actually, Obama opposed Prop 8. He holds the one-man-one-woman position, but he didn’t support the revocation of marriage rights for same-sex couples.
sgwhiteinfla
I just tried to google Jim Wallace and I got nada
Napoleon
@bootlegger:
It will have a huge political cost to him. People like you just don’t get what has sunk the Dems all these years. Its because the first things they do when they get in office is stuff that is a play to a thin sliver of their coalition and they burn up political capital doing it, instead of burning it up on stuff that could solidify there stand with the middle class.
Clinton is the perfect example. Right of the bat he gets into the gays in the military issue setting the perception with the public that he is not a different type of Dem but your typical one that cares most (which is why he did it first) about his socially liberal base, then the first major piece of legislation he gets passed (NAFTA) reinforced that he didn’t give a hoot about the working class and in fact p—sed all over them. In the meantime Bill Kristol, who was truly smarted then Clinton during the first 2 years of Clintons presidency, is writing his famous memo that they had to sink healthcare. By the time Clinton got around to healthcare the Republicans could do just that.
Obama would be a complete moron if he does anything other then address economic concerns that effect most voters during the first year or so. If he does that he will buy so much good will with the American public he could likely have gay s-x on the mall in Washington and still get reelected.
Incertus
@r€nato: And you build support for those actions by talking to people in symbols. Religion’s power over people is based on the symbols the preachers use to capture the flock’s imagination and direct their energy. The same goes for our national mythologies and the way politicians try to invoke them when they want "the peepul" to do something.
r€nato
Betty Cracker, actually apart from the gay marriage issue, there is indeed a difference between Warren and Dobson. There is a growing strain of thought among evangelicals which is pro-environment and believes in such a thing as human-caused global climate change. These ‘new evangelicals’ are also less strident on the abortion issue and more likely to be sympathetic to helping the poor.
Yes, they are fucking neanderthals on the issue of homosexuality and they still believe in their primitive Jewish book of fairy tales. But otherwise these are important differences between them and the Dobson/Robertson/Hagee crowd of old-time paleo-fundies who line up pretty much 100% with hard-line right-wingers.
Obama is exploiting this split and as pointed out by others more articulate than I yesterday, he’s driving the wedge even further between Warren and the Dobson crowd.
If we get to keep our agenda while peeling off some votes from that crowd, I’m all for it. Think of the greater good – exiling the GOP for a generation or two. If you can actually shrink their base and take a chunk of its votes, that’s a monumental blow to them.
4tehlulz
I can’t take anyone’s anger about Prop. 8 seriously when they’re unwilling to boycott the state that actually voted for it.
Letting CA off the hook for passing this? Now that’s a slap in the face.
*OW*
Comrade Stuck
Some folks just cannot break away from the Us V Them political culture mentality that has consumed us all the past few decades — on both sides, though I would argue wingnuts started it. But no matter, If there was a theme to Obama’s campaign, it was to dissolve this death clutch of rivals, at least to a degree it loses it’s power. Only then can we get something done, IMO. Obama is showing his smarts by chipping away in small non-policy ways of symbolism that in the end gives moderates a much desired bone to excuse themselves from the circle of dogma on the right. As long as he does’nt give away the actual policies, then he has my support and admiration at consummate political skills. He ain’t perfect and will make mistakes, but hopefully not big ones.
sgwhiteinfla
BTW Ta Nehisi Coates over at the Atlantic brings up a good point. Obama is ALSO having pro gay marriage Pastor Joe Lowery deliver the benediction. But I guess Obama doesn’t get points for that huh?
jenniebee
@Incertus: Nyet. Fighting over symbols is what the hoi polloi do, draining their energy and attention away from things like, oidunno, getting fighting mad about the loophole in the restrictions on executive pay for companies that accept bailout dollars.
So I’m really quite sorry for all the people who don’t like the cast of the current Kabuki, but could we please shelve it to concentrate on, you know, something that has an actual, what’s the word, impact?
bootlegger
@Napoleon: "people like me"? You have no fucking idea who I am. I’m a registered independent, I vote for Republicans if I like their policies compared to others, I don’t think Bush is evil, just an idiot who followed evil people, and you are just plain wrong.
When Clinton did it there was a thin majority opposition to it, now 16 years later there is majority support for it, and, more importantly, the military is ready to do away with it after seeing good soldiers run off in the middle of a fucking war. This is an easy one and done with a stroke of pen. He can do it, claim its in the national interest, security, anti-terra, yada-yada-yada, and it will go over just fine.
Perhaps "people like you" should quit comparing the first months of Obama’s presidency to what happened 16 years ago when a sleeze-bag, southern governor won with less than a majority of the national vote.
shera
Seriously. Didn’t Obama just show us all that staying serene in the face of right-wing outrageousness gets tangible results? The problem with Democrats in the past 8 years hasn’t been their ability to be pissed off, it’s their inability to properly strategize and get what they want. Now, if I hear that Rick Warren wants to ban Battlestar Galactica, Gossip Girl, or Tetris because they are moral scourges upon the earth, I’ll…hold up a strongly worded sign during his invocation.
Grumpy Code Monkey
No, no, no, John, "slap in the face" needs to be thrown under the bus (after being kicked in the junk), at which point it will have jumped the shark.
r€nato
Comrade Stuck gets it.
And thanks for making sure to mention who it was who started it. If there’s one thing that drives me insane with anger, it’s this false equivalency bullshit that both sides are responsible for the deep partisanship in this country.
That’s bullshit. The Republicans started it on purpose. To the extent Democrats are returning the favor now, it’s only because we’re sick to death of being nice to bullies. Sooner or later you have to fight fire with fire.
Someday I’d like to return to the days when Republicans and Democrats could have reasoned debate with one another. I still want to beat Republican candidates in every election, but it sure would be nice to be able to discuss real ideas with the other side rather than wasting one’s time constantly refuting patently ridiculous Fox News propaganda.
Incertus
@jenniebee: Sorry, jenniebee, but if you think that this sort of message doesn’t have real world impact, then you’re just blind. What’s more important, we’re not talking about an either/or proposition here. Dealing with one issue does not preclude dealing with the other.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
@sgwhiteinfla: Jay Bakker
Doug H. (Comrade Fausto no more)
@4tehlulz:
Don’t you know it was all the fault of the eeeeevil Mormons and fundies? Its not as if our very own Ohio Gay Hate Amendment outpolled Bush by 500,000 votes…
Oh. Wait.
Punchy
They only win if they skull-fuck a kitten in the presence of Cindy Sheehan snorting willy pete, which is just like the worst WMD evah invented.
gbear
No, it’s only us imaginary marginalized people who are upset by this, you fucking asshole. Just ignore us and we won’t be there.
I agree with Betty C. above that, when it comes to gay issues, there’s no difference between Dobson and Warren. Warren supported Prop 8. He’s not a uniting force.
I missed the thread yesterday so I’m covering old territory by stating this now, but having Warren appear at the inaguration is a major major fuck up. It’s not like Obama had to limit his choices to the half-dozen most media-whoring religious ‘leaders’ available. Christ, given the number of thoughtful religious people he could have gone with, why did he have to pick the Wal-Mart of preachers? Really incredibly stupid choice on SO many levels.
MR Bill
I have no freaking idea what this means.
The Other Steve
I think I’m going to cry.
Montysano
@sgwhiteinfla:
You just beat me to it: one Joseph Lowery trumps one Rick Warren any day of the week. Lowery is a giant, and his presence = win.
bootlegger
@Cassidy the Racist White Man:
From the website:
"As Christians we’re sorry for being such self-righteous bastards."
FTW.
Joshua Norton
And "Thrown under the bus.."
AND "Pass the popcorn..". That one’s getting real tired.
Better cliches, damn it! !
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@Incertus:
Yeah, sure, but what is the message being sent? Too many are assuming that the message is "fuck the gays", when the message may be "let’s try to build some bridges".
Jennifer
If anyone’s getting slapped in the face, my thought was that it’s Rick Warren.
I’m just thinking back to the Saddlebrook or whatever-his-church’s-name-is event where both Obama and McCain were invited to speak; Warren made all these noises about being unbiased etc but didn’t really follow through re: the "cone of silence" for McCain, comments by Warren himself, etc.
And still yet, Obama comported himself well, rose above it all, and won the election. Warren tried to subtlety undermine Obama, and it didn’t work.
Now, Rick Warren is going to be his bitch and swear him in.
Shygetz
Of course he gets points for that. But letting one civil rights leader and one KKK Grand Wizard have positions of honor at your inauguration does not result in a net "pro-civil rights" gain.
To quote words from long ago of a man who I used to think was even-handed and reasonable:
"That isn’t fair- there are real reasons for people to be pissed about it."
If Obama thinks this will bring dead-ender evangelicals into the fold, he’s a moron plain and simple. If this is the first step towards bringing them into the fold, I fear what the next steps MUST be to do so. If this is a purely symbolic act, he screwed up the symbolism. If this is a pragmatic act to shore up his centrist creds, then my response is that telling the country that anti-contraception, anti-equal rights, anti-abortion access is "centrist" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Having Rick Warren give the invocation was a twist of the nipples to the equal rights community, plain and simple.
Dork
Proof positive we have a newbie on our hands.
John Cole
@MR Bill: That was a slap in the face directed at your host, who happens to have a few issues that send him over the edge. Surprised Punchy forgot Schiavo.
sgwhiteinfla
@ Cassidy
If Jay Bakker wasn’t the son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker nobody would have ever heard of him, and as it stands most people still have never heard of him. And if THATS the guy you wanted Obama to invite to give the invocation then I think you are going to be very dissappointed over the next 4 to hopefully 8 years.
Mrs. Peel
Oh lord, another cliche bunch of mumbo-jumbo. You don’t "build bridges" with these people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. Any conciliatory gesture just sends them the signal that they’re right and everyone else is wrong.
TheHatOnMyCat
I have too. I’ve decided that you don’t have to pay me for this week, John. This one is on me. Gratis. Save that money and buy some really expensive booze.
Watching "liberals" devolve into symbol-clutching emotional thugs just like their righty counterparts on cue, hit their marks and say their lines, is worth more than money to me.
Like the auto workers, I will go without a paycheck for Baby Jesus’ birthday. I have been rewarded enough, right here.
Hey, if you wonder what can be done even in a heavily Mormon and Catholic Red State area, to solve real problems and do real things for real people instead of fighting over who says a prayer …. my little home town done something good. Jesus is smiling today. NMYM.
Betty Cracker
Really? Warren recently compared it to the Holocaust, which strikes me as pretty strident. He also told Sean Hannity that God puts the government on earth to punish evil-doers.
If he doesn’t insist on calling dinosaurs "Jesus horses" or deny climate change, well, good for him. Let him give the invocation at a global warming summit.
But the fact is, he’s a right-wing bigot who cloaks his nutbaggery in a more pleasing form than Dobson but differs little on the issues, as he says himself. Obama didn’t have to elevate such a person to a prominent position; he chose to do so.
This doesn’t make me wish I’d written in Kucinich. I’m not an ideological purist. But it is deeply disappointing.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
@ bootlegger
Just remember, not all us Christians are bad. A lot of us support equal rights and vote Democratic.
Shygetz
@TheHatOnMyCat: We don’t all suffer from ADD like you; some of us can actually hold more than one thought in our head at a time. But keep practicing, and maybe one day you’ll join the ranks of the at-least-cognitively-functional.
TheHatOnMyCat
Yeah? How’s that been workin’ out?
Dork
Can we get a financial thread?
Napoleon
@bootlegger:
You apparently operate in a vacuum. How much a particular policy polls is irrelevant, how much it actually effects most people is. The order of what issues Obama addresses will have important consequences for what he can accomplish. Clinton wasn’t stupid for trying to lift the ban on gays in the military, and in fact I think he could have gotten it done, if he did it later. He was stupid for bringing it up before stuff like welfare reform and healthcare. The 1994 midterms were entirely caused by the order in which he addressed issues. By the time 1994 came around most voters didn’t see him as promoting policies that helped them, so they voted Republican.
If Obama gets into any hot button social issue early, before victories in healthcare, etc. the Right Wing Noise Machine will go into overdrive and cable news will talk about nothing else 24/7, and crowd out talk about Obama’s healthcare plan, economic rescue plan, green jobs economy and other things that directly effect 100% of the population, instead of the 2% that are directly effected by a gays in the military ban. If that happens it kills the Obama presidency. Obama would have to be a complete idiot to even think about anything other then the big middle class pocketbook issues before he gets those issues taken care of, let alone say something out loud about them. If it doesn’t and the light is shining on the issues of healthcare, et al when they come up for a vote, then he is likely to win, and solidify his position with the population that he cares about people like them. If that is how he is perceived he will have more political capital then he began his presidency and can do things that are even unpopular (and as you point out many gay issues likely wouldn’t be a drain on his popularity).
There is a reason that Republicans have made the label “party of special interest” stick so well to the Democratic Party, and that is because they have over and over run off on issues of importance to a small group while leaving big issues unaddressed.
TheHatOnMyCat
Sorry, I’ll need to see the data on that. The fact you assert is not in evidence.
Doug H. (Comrade Fausto no more)
@Shygetz:
I’ve seen this noted repeatedly, and it always makes me gut laugh to see Warren compared to a KKK grand wizard. Jesus wept, we really are going full-Malkin here.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
@ single guy in FL
I’m not distraught in the slightest. I think it would have been the essence of cool, but not my call.
OTOH, the Revolution Church is growing. AAMOF, one of the better TV crime dramas showcased a very positive character based heavily on Jay Bakker. His ministry is reaching people. Go check out the site, especially the forums. There are a lot of people hungry for real Christianity all over this country.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@Mrs. Peel:
Well then dear, you’re in for a very long 4-8 years, because Obama will be all about conciliatory gestures. And while other Dems haven’t had the necessary kung fu to pull it off, I’ll happily give him a chance to try.
Shygetz
I agree with Napoleon; if Obama pushes for legislative change in gay rights early in his presidency, he’s not being very bright and I’ll be mad. On the other hand, again, it’s not an either-or situation. He doesn’t have to either have Rick Warren give the invocation OR institute mandatory gay marriage for all pre-schoolers. He can do *gasp* neither!
Original Lee
I would be more comfortable with someone besides Rick Warren, but I think Obama had to look at a bunch of factors when making this choice, including the fact that Billy Graham wasn’t available. It would have been cool if he had picked the current pastor of his home church, but at least he balanced Rick Warren with Joseph Lowery.
While I’ve seen references to Warren’s homophobia and pro-environmentalist stances, I haven’t seen any references yet to his Dominionist position, which is just as worrisome to me as his homophobia. I’ve seen a few news stories over the years that seem to indicate that Warren and a few others are seeding select states with folk who are committed to his brand of Christianity and willing to run for office, with the goal of converting the entire country one state at a time. South Carolina is one of the first states in which they’re trying this.
BTW, lest anybody think Warren’s pro-environmentalist stance is evidence of him moving toward the left, this stance is a direct outgrowth of the belief that God assigned Adam to be the custodian and caretaker of the earth. In other words, man is on top and in charge, and we can’t exploit natural resources properly if we mess them up first. Not so much environmentalist as responsible tyrant.
Punchy
@John Cole: didn’t so much forget, as I just didn’t feel up to the old "Are vegetarians attracted to Teri Shiavo?" canards that brought the guffaws in years past….
Just Some Fuckhead
MSNBC just ran a blurb about the "outraged GLBT" community in regards to the Warren invocation. Score Obama.
bootlegger
@Cassidy the Racist White Man: Absolutely, and I thought I was given props to you folks. No snark intended. I’m an atheist but I take my family to the UU for the community stuff (for them) and the lively political and philosophical debates (for me). Lots of progressive Xtians hang out at UU with us atheists and the Pagans.
Shygetz
@TheHatOnMyCat: I think you’re an idiot AND that Rick Warren should not be giving the invocation. And I don’t even have a headache from it.
Really? The KKK Grand Wizard at least thinks blacks should be allowed to marry other blacks. How does Rick Warren stack up when it comes to homosexuals?
TheHatOnMyCat
According to the Dobsonites, that’s exactly how the gays intend to destroy America. Give them an inch … etc
I think what’s happened here is that the Dobsonites have learned to spoof and have invaded the lefty blogs.
Bring on the conciliatory gestures. Show these morons by example how to get along and solve real problems.
sgwhiteinfla
@shygetz
If Rick Warren is now considered
Then there are a lot of us black folks out here reading the books of a white supremecist.
Incertus
@TheHatOnMyCat: Considering we’ve been doing it for the entirety of human history, your question is pretty much irrelevant.
Shygetz
Yay! We’re winning over the people who think the key to good government is doing whatever pisses of liberals and fags. Long live progress!
TheHatOnMyCat
Yeah, I kind of picked up on that. Well, I think we disagree then.
You apparently think that Barack Obama is an idiot too.
Well, I happen to know that Jesus thinks you are a silly poopyhead.
kay
@Just Some Fuckhead:
The pundits on MSNBC think it’s a brilliant political move, marginalizing the Lefties.
They thought McCain’s "Celebrity" ad was great too, of course…
TheHatOnMyCat
I was right, you are a Dobsonite in sheep’s clothing.
What’s next, support for school prayer? Jesus is concerned.
bootlegger
@Napoleon: No sir, you operate in a vacuum if you think gays in the military only effects 2% of the population. It effects all of us because it is an expression of our values, not to mention the threat to our national security of running off qualified soldiers and sailors.
The right-wing noise machine is already going full throttle. Sean Vanity can’t stop himself from spanking his monkey over a non-existent connection to Blago, you think he’s gonna care what order Obama takes his policy changes in? You think Limbaugh and Colter are going to spoil his economic policies by whacking off over gays in the military? No sir, you’re the one in the goddamned vacuum.
Mrs. Peel
If he spends all his time trying to fill his big tent with "conciliatory gestures" to the detriment of actually doing anything effective, it’s going to be 4 years. And then it will be repug rule all over again.
You don’t win elections by running against your base of support.
Shygetz
@sgwhiteinfla:
Dear sgwhiteinfla:
An analogy is a comparison based on shared attributes. It is not saying "A is B", it’s saying "A shares certain attributes with B". In this case, it’s saying that Rick Warren is virulently against equal rights for homosexuals and has invested considerable time, effort, and money in leading the movement against equal rights for gays, while similarly a KKK Grand Wizard has invested considerable time, effort, and money in leading the movement against equal rights for blacks. So, there are a lot of "you black folks" out there reading the books of a hetero supremecist.
sgwhiteinfla
@ Cassidy
First let me say that my screenname reflects my initials and my last name. I get the single white woman/guy thing a lot. (I am a guy)
But to your point, I don’t doubt that Jay Bakker is building a big following and I have heard of him and his books because I am what I like to call a "face painter". I am a cable news/political blog/newspaper junkie. But I also realize that I am not the norm. Most people just aren’t into major issues like that for whatever reason. And if you say the name Jim Bakker most Americans will look at you cross eyed where as if you say Rick Warren or Purpose Driven Life most people have at least heard of him or the book.
MNPundit
I certainly think Obama has been an idiot several times since November 4.
Well whatever I guess. Hopefully we’ll get some decent protests out of it instead of the embarrassing shit that my fellow lefties usually put on.
TheHatOnMyCat
Well, they have it half right. It’s marginalizing the ideologues, right or left. That’s why it’s a good idea.
We elected a guy who spoke against ideological politics. Now he is walking the talk.
Life is good.
rachel
This is silly; everybody knows you fight fire best by pouring dirt or water on it. Fighting fire with fire is a last resort only.
Shygetz
You’re right, guilty as charged. I am an equal-rights ideologue. Please, distance yourself from me.
MR Bill
Thank you, Mr. Cole, for your kindness to a newbie…
sgwhiteinfla
@ shygetz
Not to start a pissing match but normally when people use analogies like yours they would word it thusly
Because the only grand wizards I am familiar with were all about persecuting black folks.
That might help to avoid any misunderstandings next time
;)
Just Some Fuckhead
@kay: I think it’s a brilliant move too and I’m a leftie. It’s drawing a clear bright line between those who are interested in moving forward together and those who want to pimp outrage over meaningless nonsense.
Shygetz
@sgwhiteinfla: You’re right; reading my post, one could easily think that my objections to Rick Warren were because he was racist, as opposed to anti-equal rights for homosexuals. My apologies for the confusion.
Conservatively Liberal
Gays are not Obama’s base and if they think they are then they don’t know who they voted for. If they don’t like Obama then let them sit out the next election and see what that gets them.
Jeez, this hyperventilation festival is sucking all of the oxygen out of the room, and I bet the wingnuts are just loving it. You morons are just slapping yourselves in the face, repeatedly, like some drunken verbal donnybrook, while the wingnuts watch in amusement.
How’s that working?
Just Some Fuckhead
@MNPundit:
Maybe the GLBTers could put on a freak parade??? Nothing wins hearts and minds like an in-yer-face freak parade!
Laura W
@Just Some Fuckhead: Snow dry?
Iola
I am pissed about Warren. I’m not gay and I don’t care if pastors don’t support gay marriage as long as they don’t try to use the church to forward their agenda. Warren is too divisive. He is perceived as a moderate because of his crappy books, but he is not at all a moderate.
He betrayed Obama at Saddleback by not enforcing the same rules for McCain as Obama, he then went on Fox News and made it pretty clear that he was supporting McCain. Warren has advocated political assassinations, ignored torture, and basically has a selective view of Christianity and no self-doubt. I get that Obama is having super liberal Lowery at the end, but Warren is a bad apple who should have no role in Obama’s life or his inauguration.
That being said, I think Obama made this decision out of personal affection for Warren and not as a stick in the eye to progressives. I’m not sure that makes it any better, and I do hope Obama gives Warren the boot. I think Warren needs to spend more time with his family.
annoying thread killah
Please don’t try this with sodium.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Laura W:
Not quite, and now there’s giant paw prints stretching the width of it. Fucking cats.
Shygetz
@Conservatively Liberal: I don’t run my life based on whatever will piss off the wingnuts. Obama pissed off PART of his base pandering in a symbolic gesture to people he will NEVER be able to win over without serious policy concessions. For eight years we wondered loudly why so few commenters on the right refused to question Dear Leader’s decisions when they were so clearly against the commenter’s opinion. So often, the responses we heard mirrored what you’re saying now–"don’t give Teh Left any ammo, we have to be united at all times on all things, and at least Gore/Kerry isn’t President, so quitcha bitchen." It was dumb when they did it, and guess what, it’s dumb now. I would still vote Obama if I had to do it again, and I will answer "approve" if polled on my opinion of his job performance thus far. But this particular decision was poor.
kay
@Just Some Fuckhead:
If it’s meaningless then why is it a brilliant political move?
It has the special power to reassure the political middle but is "nonsense" when operating anywhere else?
Just Some Fuckhead
@kay: Yes.
Laura W
@Just Some Fuckhead: I’m outraged!
John Cole
I should probably point out that I am more pissed off at Obama appointing ethanol loving Vilsack to the cabinet for four years than I am letting Rick Warren do his voodoo for 60 seconds at the inauguration.
But what do I know?
Shygetz
@Just Some Fuckhead: So the appointment is both meaningless and meaningful simultaneously?
Obama truly is the Chosen One.
Give me a break. Either the move is meaningless or it is meaningful. Either it has policy relevance or it does not. If it is meaningful to the political middle (which I don’t think it is) it’s only to tell the middle that, yes, Dominionism is a centrist position in America. Is that what Obama wants to say? Why not showcase a REAL centrist preacher?
Shygetz
@John Cole: I, too, am much more pissed off about Vilsack. But, if you had a thread on that I missed it, so I works with whats I gots.
Napoleon
While logically that makes a lot of sense, the fact is the vast majority of people don’t make up their minds on social issues that way. And by the way, you are simply trying to skirt the fact that it only directly effects 2% of the population. I can make the same argument that you just made regarding why it should be the highest priority to eliminate poverty in this country, yet to a degree no other advanced industrial nation does people in the US just don’t care because it directly effects so few of us.
It seems to me that using your logic that a president could most effectively govern by polling every position on every issue and starting with the most popular ones. Yet in reality people don’t vote for people who agree with them most on a large range of issues, because if they did it would be tough for Republicans to ever win, but they vote for those people most likely to benefit them. That is why Kristol in his famous Jan 1994 memo said it was vital to kill healthcare reform. Little did he know Clinton was willing to assist him with that by focusing not on an issue that would, in Kristol’s words "revive … the Democrats as the generous protector of middle-class interests” but instead an issue of direct impact to a small fraction of the population and another issue (NAFTA) that arguably was activily distructive to the wealfare of the Democratic base.
bootlegger
@John Cole: No doubt, especially after reading that link someone left yesterday on what Monsanto is doing to independent farmers.
El Tiburon
Let’s face it: gays and lesbians are the last group (this side of mooslims) who can openly be discriminated against in polite company.
If Rev. Warren had anything close to an anti-semitic list in his back pocket he would not be invited.
So to Cole and others who dismiss Warren as simply a purveyor of ‘mumbo-jumbo’ or another priest from the Temple of Syrinx are missing the goddamn point…again.
Obama is giving this man a national platform to cement his credibility. Obama is tacitly endorsing Warren’s gay bigotry.
Period.
Incertus
@TheHatOnMyCat: The more we learn about the brain, the more we discover that we’re basically programmable apes who think we’re more independent than we really are.
And watch who you’re calling a Dobsonite.
bootlegger
@Napoleon: Wow, you in the straw man construction business? My only claim was that it doesn’t affect 2% of the population and that the political costs would be low because most people support it (and thus no loss of votes). Moreover I never once said that Obama shouldn’t "focus on pocketbook" issues.
I think he can walk and chew gum a the same time. In fact I’ll even concede that a good play would be to first submit his economic and health care plan and then while the RWNM is flinging poo at each other he quietly signs the orders as CIC that does away with DADT. But to ask people to "wait for it" because there are "more important things to do" and it only effects "2%" is ridiculous.
John Cole
Oh, just go /wrist.
Obama just addressed this at his presser, stating, before he said anything else, “I DISAGREE STRONGLY WITH RICK WARREN ON THESE ISSUES.” He then went on to state that several years back, he was a guest of Warren’s to speak at his church, when Warren was well aware that Obama did not hold his views, and that this is a part of expanding the dialogue.
Christ, I am done with this thread. I understand why people don’t like the decision, but the emo is too thick for me to handle.
kay
@El Tiburon:
Plus. Warren is horrible. I skimmed his treatise on the "social gospel" Christians.
In it, he lectures them on why feeding the poor and caring for the sick is good, AS FAR AS IT GOES.
He delivers the lecture from Orange County, California, to those earnest religious Lefties who are tromping around in the mud in Central America, hand-cranking pumps for potable water and such.
bootlegger
Okay fainters, get ready for this "bitchin’ move."
"The Washington Times is reporting that Barack Obama is considering the appointment of an openly gay man, William White, currenty the COO of the Intrepid Museum Foundation, as Secretary of the Navy."
Napoleon
The second he does that news will run 24/7 focusing on that issue to the exclusion of the pocketbook issues and sink his presidency to a typical "he is just one of those special interest Democrats"
If he wants to do it "quitely" do it the day after a national healthcare plan is passed and it gets lost in the coverage over that.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Shygetz:
Firstly, it’s not an appointment. Your confusion on this key point goes a long way towards understanding your hysterics. Secondly, it would be completely meaningless except that by your actions you are giving it meaning and not in a way that advances your interests, IMHO. I could be wrong about that. America may look at the outrage and protests and think, wow, gay people are right, Rick Warren is a total douchenozzle and this reflects just terribly on Obama.
But the America I’m familiar with is one where a majority of folks think just like Rick Warren and another significant chunk disagrees with him on everything but understands a three minute invocation at one inauguration doesn’t actually advance Rick Warren’s agenda as much as it compromises it.
4tehlulz
Obligatory Village People Post.
Laura W
"Diverse, noisy and opinionated."
The man knows his peeps.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
@sgwhiteinfla:
I just thought it was funny. On a political site, trying to pick up chicks…cartoon theater.
@El Tiburon:
Apparently, you’re not a smoker.
@John Cole:
bootlegger
@Napoleon: Bullshit. The establishment media and RWNM switching to gays in the military only helps his health care plan or whatever else is on the table because they are now distracted by a new shiny object. Make up your mind, does media coverage improve the chances of something happening or harm it?
Conservatively Liberal
"/wrist"?
F’ing funny. I agree, the hyperventilating could fill a thousand hot air balloons. Obama is being the moderate he said he was and is bringing people ‘to the table’, faux crisis over. Put away the pearls and couches. ;)
Davebo
Obviously Obama is objectively pro Warren.
4jkb4ia
@Eric:
Yes. Read FDL. Jane has a cutting post near the top.
gil mann
Jesus, Cole, are you trying to turn this place into the Obama version of TheForce.net? This sucks, it sucks hard, and grasping at straws to prove how politically astute a move it is (i.e. the update on the last post) just insults everyone’s intelligence.
Granted, there are worse things to be than Corrente’s polar opposite, but that doesn’t mean it’s something to aspire to.
There are plenty of evangelicals out there who won’t scare the fundies yet aren’t on record as equating same-sex couplings with bestiality and pedophilia (due more to lack of media interest than their beliefs, maybe, but whatever). The Dems chose this guy. That’s a tacit endorsement of "love the sinner, hate the sin," an exquisite bit of bullshit if there ever was one.
I’m just fucking sick of seeing gays take it on the chin (is anything not a double entendre when gay rights comes up?). And for the record, when a guy who thinks Ts are weird and Bs don’t really exist* is offended on behalf of the GLBT community, the offense is probably legitimate.
*for illustrative purposes only; not looking to defend the position, so don’t bother challenging it
El Tiburon
True. Syam Babu the hairdresser and a two-pack a day habit can’t leave his home.
Face
I did not know that Vilsack was an alcoholic.
Tom
Man, this comments section is just dripping with privilege.
Perhaps if some of you had to spend your time worrying about your non-American spouse being deported you wouldn’t find the reactions quite so "emo." I’ve been with the same man for 12 years. I’ve pledged my life to him. Unfortunately for us, he wasn’t born in America and since his work visa expired, he’s unemployable and we live in fear of his deportation. If he had a vagina, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Ten minutes at city hall would be all it takes to get a green card.
For some of us, gay marriage isn’t some interesting philosophical point of discussion. It impacts our lives. The lack of it impacts our lives greatly. When a Democratic president invites someone who compared my long-term relationship to rape and incest to speak at his inauguration, pardon the fuck out of me for getting a little "emo" about it.
Shygetz
Give me a f*cking break. It was a mistype. I understand that it’s an invocation. I’ve mentioned it’s an invocation. I have repeatedly said that it’s a purely symbolic move that’s wrong because it’s the wrong symbolism.
Second, you’re equating bitching on a blog with protests, which is pretty pathetic. I haven’t even bought markers to make the picket sign, so opining about my inevitable riot and the potential backlash is a bit premature. My point is that giving Dominionism a prominent place on the stage is another tweak on the Overton window…in the wrong direction. Not just wrong for me and my vision for America, but wrong for Obama’s agenda. Obama will get NO juice from the Religious Right from this move, but the symbolism will make the Religious Right seem like they are STILL centrists, even in Obama’s America. It’s bad symbolism.
Now, if the Times report is prescient and William White is announced for Secretary of the Navy at around the time of the inauguration, then Obama may be able to turn the narrative on its head. Perhaps his political jujitsu is strong enough to give Warren a prominent position in his inauguration while still making Warren and his Dominionists look like loons that Obama is graciously tolerating, but I’m not sold.
But believe me, I’d really like to be sold.
Punchy
Obligatory "He’s in it for the seamen" joke.
4jkb4ia
@sgwhiteinfla:
I think the person means Jim Wallis. After pastordan has gone energetically after him over the years, I would not have him giving a speech at the inauguration either. But that’s just me.
gil mann
This dulls my outrage a little, but I still stand by my position that YARG BLARG FACE SLAP OBAMESSIAH KOOL AID.
John Cole
Rick Warren speaking for a minute is not going to deport your spouse. In fact, this sort of reaching out makes it easier for Obama to support the policies you want, because it neutralizes the wingnut screeching. What part of respectfully disagreeing with people (Obama’s entire schtick) does not have respectful in it?
I hate being a Democrat. Just absolutely hate it. Most short-sighted fucking people on the planet. While the Repulicans have essentially accomplished every goal they wanted over the past thirty years by slowly plodding forward (check out the shifts in income, check out the shifts in the center of our politics, check out the fact that beligerence towards other nations is the status quo and the “moderate” position), some WATB democrats are ready to impeach because Obama is having a wingnut give a 1 minute prayer.
Fuck me.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Shygetz:
This conversation we are having right now descended directly from my observation that outrage in the GLBT community is now getting national news coverage, so no, not actually pathetically equating.
Tom
I never said it would. What it does do – and this was obvious in my comment – is provide an international platform to a man who not only supports my spouse’s deportation for having the wrong genitalia, but compared my relationship to rape.
You don’t strike me as particularly naive. Do you really think this bone being thrown to the Christian right is going to get them to line up behind Obama’s policies?
You can respectfully disagree with someone without offering them such a huge platform.
Who the hell said anything about impeachment? We’re the emo ones? We can’t even express any disappointment about this?
And you know how Republicans accomplished all those goals you listed? By appealing to their base. They didn’t spend their time reaching across the aisle or even "respectfully disagreeing." They treated politics like war and fought hard for every single thing they got, steamrolling the opposition along the way. I’m not arguing that Dems should do the same, but your comparison is seriously lacking.
bootlegger
@John Cole: Herding cats doesn’t do it justice, more akin to gathering fog in a bottle.
TenguPhule
In other news, Goldman Sach kicks taxpayers in the nads by funding their Christmas bonuses with bailout money and saying "Thanks, suckers!"
Comrade Dread
Because every coronation needs a bishop or archbishop to set the crown on the king’s head. Duh.
A better question is, why does America get all a-twitter and make a holiday, spectacle and veneration out of the installment of what was supposed to be a public servant?
“jumped the shark” has jumped the shark. I believe the preferred term now is “nuking the fridge”.
And I think you seriously overestimate the importance of politics to a lot of Christians.
Most of the Christians that I’m aware of are busy trying to live good lives while dealing with the same problems everyone else has and don’t have the time or energy to run about fretting about teh gays (though they’re generally social conservatives).
slag
If Warren had actively campaigned to make sci-fi movies illegal, then yes, this move would have been a light saber to the right arm.
theturtlemoves
Well, in Warren’s favor, he seems to piss off the Jack Chick crowd. Apparently he’s not quite wingnutty enough for some folks.
El Tiburon
Cole has a history of histrionics when faced with the duality of his new "democrat" lease on life. Kind of like the alleged ‘self-loathing jew’ as best I can figure.
He equates with being upset with Obama picking a bigoted individual with short-sightedness. I mean, Trent Lott felt the same way with those pesky anti-segregationists.
So, all you gays, stop feeling like you’ve been ‘slapped in the face’, let the Pastor who thinks you are an abomination have his one-minute on the Biggest Stage on Earth, sit down and shut the fuck up already.
Reminds of the Ashcroft fellow, something about "perceived threats to liberty" or some such tripe.
Len
You, Mr. Cole, are a raging homophobe. You are lucky in that you will never understand what it is like to be stripped of your rights as a United States citizen. You will never know what it is like to be a second class citizen in your own country. Why? Because you were born straight. Lucky you.
This, sir, is my last visit to your blog. I know I will be missed. (HA!) Have a good life.
Conservatively Liberal
Pass.
I really think those that are outraged are not helping their cause one bit. Intolerance by the fundies, I expect. But intolerance from gay people, I don’t. As long as both sides can point at the other and say they are intolerant, I just don’t see this going anywhere soon.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Let the fundies be intolerant, they are much better at it and if handled right it can be used to marginalize them. But drawing up battle lines and shooting at each other is not going to get the job done.
From another Rick Warren rant diary at Kos:
This is not the way to win friends and influence people. Obama is a hell of a lot smarter than that. Maybe he knows something you don’t? ;)
Sister Machine Gun of Mild Harmony
It’s drawing a clear bright line between those who are interested in moving forward together and those who want to pimp outrage over meaningless nonsense.
Exactly! I am gay and an atheist, and I think this was absolutely brilliant. This is the problem I have always had with activists (even while I was one of them). They fixate on their single issues and on the equally inflexible opposition, and completely ignore the middle. You can’t win that way.
I want Obama to have a successful presidency. I want him to get us out of Iraq. I want sensible environmental policy. I want a reasonable and workable approach to healthcare. I want to get out of the recession. I want legal gay marraige and an end to DADT, too. However, I am able to be patient about that.
While some of you fixate on what the Rick Warren pick ‘says’ to activists and religious fanatics, I am paying attention to what it says to ordinary people who go to church semi-regularly, don’t know much about his political views, have read his book, and found value in it. What it says to them is that Obama is a reasonable guy, who probably really is a Christian and actually does want to be their president, too. It also make all the screeching hysterics (He’s a liberal fascist! He’s a mooslim! He’s a communist! Be very afraid!) on the right look really stupid to those ordinary folks. That saps their righty power, which is exactly what I want.
Despite the rhetoric on the left and right, Obama is and has always been a moderate. Moderate democrats are not and have never been the BFF of gay atheists. They will seldom, if ever, fight to expand our rights. However, unlike Republicans, they won’t restrict our rights, and will actively obstruct efforts to restrict our rights. Until more of the people in the middle change, that is good enough for me. I will continue to work on changing the people in the middle.
Conservatively Liberal
And look what it got them (and us). Sheesh! Talk about tone deaf.
bootlegger
@Len: One right, marriage, and we’re working on it. But go ahead and piss off your allies, good move.
Tom
It got them everything they wanted. That’s kind of the point.
Conservatively Liberal
Chris Matthews, is that you?
@Sister Machine Gun of Mild Harmony:
Well said, very well said.
So damn the cost, eh? And you wonder why people might not like or agree with what you say? I sure don’t.
Tom
And spare me the conservative canard that speaking out against bigotry is somehow "intolerant." That would make MLK one of the most "intolerant" people in American history.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
Seriously? STFU. Like your "plight" is any more important than middle class spouses wondering how to buy groceries when the husband is laid off, or military spouses who watch their husbands and wives go to war over and over again.
Jesus Christ, I swear the GLBT community is some of the most pedantic and selfish fuckers on the damn planet. If we aren’t hopping to address you (minority) needs, then the rest of us are such fucking oppressors.
Hey, novel concept, if you love him so gotdamn much, maybe it’s your turn to apply for a fucking visa after 12 years!
Damn, I hate purity politics.
jenniebee
@Incertus: I may be blind (that is possible), but no, I don’t see the negative impact of some asshole giving a speech on topics that do not touch on his assholery. If the speech was announcing a new policy of rolling back protections for GLBT, then that would be something, but as it is, it’s just Kabuki.
And frankly, I’m tired of getting played by this. The – I don’t even want to call them Republicans, because it’s really the neo-colonialist/neoliberal/neoconservative/Milt Friedmanite, whatever else you call them, economic policy technocrats, who have been using this symbol shit to pull stuff on everybody else for decades. They get people worked up and focused on things that seem to have meaning but really don’t have any lasting effect, and then use that as distraction while they rob everybody blind.
So it’s beyond that this one guy is an asshat who doesn’t like GLBT, the question is whether we are going to accept some kind of Derridist idea where reality is only a construction of perceptions and symbols therefore have the power to transform reality, or if we say that reality is, in fact, very real, and the only power that symbols have is that if they are accurate reflections of that reality, they form excellent communications tools. I’m in full sympathy with GLBT, but dudes, do you really think that this guy’s speech is going to suddenly communicate to homophobes that they too can participate in public life (provided they don’t talk about their homophobia in public)? Srsly?
Tom
And who the fuck said it was?
I reiterate: who the fuck said that?
Oh, boy. You’re doing a great job proving my point.
jenniebee
@John Cole: in all fairness, the Republican coalition does occasionally throw a snit fit and demand its own Terri Schaivo-esque symbolic pandering, etc. And the effectiveness of the constant rhetoric about four-square family values while their policies decimate those families, it’s really quite astonishing to watch.
Not that I think that’s going to increase your sympathy with the symbolic pandering or anything…
Face
Shorter Cole — why don’t Democrats just blindly follow whatever their leader does, no questions asked? Seems to have worked for the Republicans the last 8 years, no? With all their electoral victories, a great economy, well-supported occupations and high-morale military, etc.?
It’s amazing how Cole can out-whine his own posse, while complaining about their whining. Probably breaking laws of physics. Like if M.C. Esher were a blogger.
theturtlemoves
Did this just become a lit-crit blog, then? If anyone starts mentioning Foucault or linking this controversy to Queer Theory, the flashbacks to grad school may ruin my whole morning.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
That you guys will whine about anything? 165 comments later…
Comrade Dread
For God’s sake, this isn’t like signing off on FISA (though Obama did do that), starting an immoral war, transferring trillions of dollars to the well-connected who bad choices, or saying "YEA!" to torture.
This is inviting a guy to pray at your inauguration. That’s it.
It’s not giving the finger to gays, it’s not saying "Hooray!" to jackasses that beat gay people. It’s not saying "I never want teh gays to see each other in the hospitals.
Perspective, people, get some.
peach flavored shampoo
You guys all bitch about Warren, but imagine the pearl clutching if he instead tabs Jerry Wright to give the talk.
Anyone ask the Log Cabin Republicans how they feel about this?
liberal
Hmm…no one bit on my point that Warren agreed with Hannity that we should "take out" Ahmadinajad.
Now it turns out he doesn’t believe in evolution.
wingnuts to iraq
you’ll get over it.
gex
There’s not much more to do but sigh. I mean, no one else in the coalition seems to upset that a homophobe is being courted. There’s more important issues, and us gays are being asked again to just shut up and take it. And really, what other choice do we have? When normally staunch defenders like Cole see no reason to reject this guy from this stage, what else is there to do but duck and cover?
Ezra Klein stated it best:
wingnuts to iraq
@liberal: you’ll get over it too.
Face
@Comrade Dread: My point is much larger and more general than this Warren crap. Dems want a "big tent"? They’d better be ready for 8 years of this discontent. The Warren thing is immaterial, IMO. But the mere fact it’s happening is a sign of party health, not party disarray.
Bitching is what Dems do. It’s what they know. It’s their attempt at making the party better. B/c history has shown that when no one seriously questions a retarded president’s myriad bad actions, the place goes to shit.
wingnuts to iraq
@gex: you and Ezra will get over it too.
wingnuts to iraq
apparently my vote for Obama was supposed to signify gays get everything in the world. I didn’t know.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Oh lord, we agree. I think one of us has been slapped in the face … but which one?
Obama isn’t president yet and already he has destroyed everything.
bootlegger
@Face: Word.
jenniebee
@liberal: when Obama taps him for the Department of Education or any other post where his lack of scientific acumen is an actual, you know, threat, I’ll be screaming bloody murder.
But to offer a prayer? Do you think that there’s a God up there who will shower our country with peace and prosperity and no hurricanes hitting PBS, but only if the guy/gal who prays is right with Jeebus and the FSM or something?
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Wait … that’s NOT how it works?
Cassidy the Racist White Man
Jesus…are you all drama queens?
liberal
@Comrade Dread:
It’s true, there’s no direct consequence of Warren speaking.
Here’s why I’m concerned:
(1) Moving the Overton window to the right.
(2) Raises questions as to Obama’s political tactics.
Re (2), if Obama really is going to just throw meaningless bones at the right in an attempt to coopt them, then fine. I’m disconcerted because of (a) a general willingness of the Dems to play nice with the Right (and a history of repeated failure of that tactic), and (b) disturbing signs in Obama’s appointments (e.g., retaining Gates as SecDef, bringing on board economics folks who agreed with the policies that set the stage for the bubble).
Maybe Obama really is the master poker player that a lot of folks claim he is. Hopefully so. Me, I’m inclined to distrust politicians until they’ve earned my respect. (I say that having given Obama lots of $$.)
liberal
@jenniebee:
Yes, meaningless in and of itself. But see my other comment; I detect a disturbing trend. And also see the point about the Overton window.
Tom
You’re the guy who responded with a "STFU." How is it being a drama queen by pointing that out?
liberal
@wingnuts to iraq:
Well, there’s also the bit that Warren doesn’t believe in evolution and thinks we should try to assassinate Ahmadinejad.
liberal
@Face:
After years of the Dems being kicked in the balls by Republican thugs and responding with "more, please," I don’t take it as a sign of party health.
Yeah, yeah, Obama might turn out to be a masterful tactician. I know, it’s possible. IMHO however all Dems, including Obama, must earn trust on this and not have it handed to them.
wingnuts to iraq
As if anyone of you will care Jan 21?!??!
People care about jobs, health care, not losing their house, not that some guy holding a Bible doesn’t like TEH GHEY.
wingnuts to iraq
@liberal:
Good thing I didn’t vote for Warren for President!
Phew!
John Cole
And you know what turned me from someone who, fifteen years ago was against gay marriage to 7-8 to someone who simply felt civil unions were a fair compromise to someone who, today, thinks civil unions are a crock and either gay marriage should be legal or government should get completely out of the marriage business? Engagement with those who disagreed with me. Christ on a crutch, you know how I went from Republican to Democrat in 7 years (apart from the Bush disaster)- listening folks who disagreed with me in the comments. Reading blogs written by people who held different opinions.
Which is precisely what Obama is doing. This notion that this legitimizes Warren’s cro-magnon beliefs is nonsense, as at every opportunity, Obama is pointing out he disagrees with those stances. What he is doing is engaging the people who can be engaged, trying to move people towards him by being non-threatening and inclusive. No, James Dobson will not be persuaded. On the other hand, a lot of the less rigid evangelicals might.
And just to finish- you know what would have probably kept me in the anti-gay marriage mindset of 15 years ago? A bunch of assholes deciding they won an election and that they should ram shit down everyone’s throats via brute force. Seriously- that mindset was unappealing during the Bush years, I have no idea why you think folks on the right would react to similar behavior from Democrats.
What a wankfest this has turned into. Obligatory Your Mumia Sweatshirt Won’t Get You Into Heaven Anymore link.
bago
This has been another episode of "Hillz and teh Bitterz".
demimondian
@jenniebee: I think that Josh Marshall put it right. This gives cover to two people, folks — one, Obama, who won’t actually benefit from it, since the haters will stay haters no matter what. The other, though, is Rick Warren, whose intolerance will now be blessed by Obama.
demimondian
@wingnuts to iraq:
But that’s exactly what gay men and lesbians *do* care about.
They care about losing their house when their partner gets sick — because their partner is not their "spouse", and, as a result, can’t get health care. They care about a partner losing his or her job, because there’s no protection for them as a suspect class. They care about not being eligible for survivors benefits. They care about not getting child support when a partnership breaks up.
This isn’t just a discrimination issue — it’s a real-life, economic, can-I-pay-the-bills economic issue.
liberal
@John Cole:
As a matter of logic, you’re absolutely right. As a matter of human political behavior, I think you’re wrong. Giving people this kind of visibility signals that the recipient is worthy of respect, trust; that his views out to be listened to; etc.
Agreed, but IMHO given Warren’s comments on Ahmadinejad, his asshattery about McCain’s "cone of silence," etc, etc, he’s not one of those evangelicals.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Holy shit, we almost agree to the letter.
The fly in this ointment is that the dysfunctional velcro that keeps marriage embedded in the law, as opposed to family rights and family protections, which is what this is really all about … that velcro is superglued onto mindsets both on the right, and the left.
The idea that people should be able to form a legal family, just by declaration (having met the qualifications for doing so) is so obviously the right way to do it, but the maudlin pearl clutchers will NEVER let go of their church-controlled "marriage." It tells you something about the modern idea of marriage that it’s so unworkable a concept that you have to get God Himself to bless the fucking thing before it will work. But hey, that’s another subject.
What percentage of marriages is considered successful these days?
Why is government propping up this institution, again?
I think lawyers invented this.
jenniebee
@liberal: the Overton window only applies if he spends his 60 seconds discussing the evils of blowjobs. Which would make for some interesting television.
I can understand fixating on the culture wars, because we’re winning them and the other side is throwing all their rhetoric that way, and the things we haven’t won yet are annoying and frustrating and evil and bad and I’m on that. But I just don’t think that in a climate that has both gay marriage starting to expand through New England on the one side and Fred Phelps doing his shtick on the other, that Warren is really in a position to move the Overton window one way or the other. Let’s be realistic here.
Human attention being what it is, there’s only so much of it to go around, and I’d just like to suggest that there’s another Overton window that needs moving, and that is the one that is accepting Friedmanite economics as the norm and explaining to the public that the reason for skyrocketing inequality and a crashing world economy isn’t because the economic ideology that’s been allowed to run rampant around the world was basically "state chicken coops would be run more efficiently if we sold them to foxes at a discount," no, it’s just because some bad apples got greedy. So if we can just fix that old human nature thing, everything will be just hunky-dory. You want an Overton window to fret about, I nominate that one.
Don K
Well, you’re half right about that. Once the big stuff is done, the answer will be it’s too close to the mid-term elections, then once the mid-terms are over it will be it’s too close to the next presidential election (BTW, I’m not disagreeing with the strategy – I agree that if they want to get the big stuff done it had better be done early). I don’t anticipate the Obama administration to actively undermine LGBT rights the way the Clintons did, but I’m under no illusion that there will be any improvement as a result of federal legislation anytime soon.
Do I sound cynical? I suppose I am. Look, I understand the Dems aren’t actively hostile to me the way the Reps are, but in terms of what actually affects my (or any other LGBT voter’s) life from day to day there’s not a whole lot of difference. The problem is that the Reps are so odious that the Dems figure they can do nothing and collect 75-80% of the LGBT vote, and they’re probably right.
liberal
@demimondian:
(Again, it’s broader than just hatred of teh gay. It’s the absolutist stances on abortion; the neocon attitude about foreign policy; etc etc.)
I agree—I don’t see what the upside is for Obama, and the notion that the evangelical right (which IMHO Warren belongs to, even if he’s not as far right as Dobson) are going to start to play nice seems silly. It’s as if those who think these appeasement tactics might work haven’t been paying attention to the last 20 to 30 years.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Sigh.
The upside is this: If you have a bunch of people who are getting attention by pretending to be victims and oppressed, and you invite them in for dinner and treat them like equals, all of a sudden their whole phony act is disempowered and they have no soapbox to climb up on.
It’s pretty hard to claim that the Obama administration is a bunch of "godless liberals" when your own god-certified preachers are giving the invocations at their big fucntions.
Now the maroons will have to find something else to bitch about. We just stole their biggest thunder away from them.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Is it really? Then maybe the stakeholders should act like it is, instead of acting like its a pissing contest over words, and who gets invited to say a prayer at what event?
John Cole
What- nipping the “OMG OBAMA IS A LIBERAL RADICAL WHO HATES ALL CHRISTIANS” in the bud isn’t enough? How bout the fact that he might persuade some people. How bout the notion that he has now given himself a platform to publicly state his opposition to Warren’s beliefs? How about the opportunity to pass progressive legislation in the future because some of the persuadables on the right will be of the mindset that “Hey- I don’t agree with him on these issues, but he is trying to work with us.” How about the fact that on some issues where there is emerging evangelical support (poverty, the environment), Obama will have created an opportunity to work with the christian right because he has not been an in your face prick.
This isn’t about the hard right talibangelicals. Fred Phelps is and will always be a scumbag. James Dobson won’t flinch. Joseph Farah will probably still be found dead in a wetsuit in a few years. This is about reaching out to those who you disagree with to pull them towards your position, not move towards theirs. Go google “latitudes of acceptance and rejection.” Google “ego involvment.”
And at what opportunity cost? Some wingnut speaks for a minute at his inauguration. The gay lobby is acting like this is a slap in the face, a rejection of their values. It is not. Obama is on their side.
The funniest thing in all this is that many of the people here wailing about this probably can’t figure out why the Israeli’s and Palestinians just can’t give an inch in the middle east peace process.
John Cole
This, too.
liberal
@jenniebee:
It’s not a matter of Warren directly moving the Overton window. It’s a matter of Obama conferring his imprimatur on Warren—saying, in essence, "this person is respectable—in fact, he has my own personal respect." It’s not just teh gay, but also science (Warren doesn’t believe in evolution) and neocon foreign policy (Warren agrees with Hannity that we should perhaps assassinate Ahmadinejad).
The fact is, contrary to everyone who thinks these things are harmless, that this kind of silent signaling does have an impact. No single such act does, of course. But in sum they certainly do. It’s why people are marginalized: the tactic works.
But this is exactly the point. It would be one thing if Obama’s choosing Warren occured in isolation. It didn’t. It occurred against a backdrop of appointing Gates SecDef (which reinforces the idea that "Democrats and liberals can’t do defense"), and appointing a bunch of people to economic policy positions who either don’t agree with your sentiment on economic ideology, or are themselves one of your foxes.
TenguPhule
So you noticed that too?
theturtlemoves
I guess I’m unclear on how giving this guy a minute or two on stage to offer a prayer gives him some sort of national attention that he wouldn’t have had otherwise. He’s sold, what, 50, 60 million books worldwide? Like it or not, this is one of the most famous Christian ministers in the world and that, based on past deliverers of the invocation, seems to be the prime requisite. Billy Graham wasn’t chosen for his biting theological insights, he was chosen because everybody had heard of him. I think there’s some of that going on with this pick. He’s pretty inoffensive to the majority of Americans. Yeah, I know he’s super-offensive to some, but to the majoriy he’s just that dude who wrote that inspirational book their religious friends keep telling them to read.
liberal
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
It’s not hard to claim. The Right makes preposterous claims all the time.
What’s hard to claim is that the Right will be easily co-opted. Now, it’s possible Obama can do it. I myself doubt it, and I don’t see much data in the past few decades contradicting that.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
We covered that a couple years ago. It’s because God instructed them not to.
That’s not my opinion, that’s what they said when asked.
"God intended for us to be here."
How can you argue with logic like that?
bootlegger
Something else occurred to me. Now that Obama is fielding so many questions about Warren he’s had the opportunity to say how much he disagrees with what Warren believes in. Seems to me the symbolism of this is defining what he (Obama) believes in and gaining a chance to repeat over and over that Warren et al. are wrong.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Yes, but you see, we take away their audience.
That’s the upside. It’s demagogue-tao-fu.
It’s win.
TenguPhule
Bush about to dump the auto mess on Obama
And that guarantees the ‘orderly’ bankruptcies are going to be dumped on Obama.
We’re all fucked now.
Cain
@Tom:
Tom, I understand the thought, but really this is a political move to silence the right wing noise machine. You cannot move ahead with a progressive agenda without silencing and making impotent its opponents and this is part of that political theater. While it has some emotional impact to you, it also has some affects against forces that are conspiring against gay marriage.
Symbolism is meaningless if there is no policy agenda behind it. You want to push back against your opponents by using symbolism. But the idea is to concede the symbolism which costs us nothing legislatively but move forward with a progressive agenda. Build a force because working social change is the hardest thing you can do. It takes an enormous amount of build up in order to enact those things. Action is always preferable to symbolic. You will note that Bill Clinton did plenty of symbolic things but never moved the gay movement forward did he? Let’s not make the same mistake.
That said, I hope your spouse will be able to find work and doesn’t get deported. I know how scary that is having gone through some issues with the local law enforcement with my wife, and we should be inacting civilian laws protecting you and your spouse. For that, the gay community should be hitting up Pelosi and Reid. They need to make those laws for Obama to sign it. Make them show some leadership in this.
cain
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Another plus. It’s media-fu. When did Rahm Emanuel talk to Warren, and was there a pay-to-pray?
All of a sudden, nobody is talking about Blagojewhatshisname.
Tom
I’m kind of curious as to what the cutoff point is for some people. Clearly, the gays are expendable. What about the middle class? African-Americans? Jews? Women? The war in Iraq? The Constitution?
Now before anyone accuses me once again of being a drama queen or a WATB, I’m not suggesting that all issues are equal. I’m just curious as to which issues are worthy of being defended and which issues can be thrown out for the good of "reaching across the aisle."
At what point do we go from being whiny to defending our core beliefs?
Cain
wtf, commentis awaiting moderation.. my comment was perfectly reasonable!
cain
liberal
@John Cole:
I agree, that’s all reasonable and plausible.
I just think that, as a matter of empirical politics, it isn’t going to work. Maybe in a decade or two, when (as is my impression) demgraphics work to our advantage (meaning, younger evangelicals are apparently more liberal on average). Not now.
OK—on what issue should we "compromise" with the evangelical right? What inch should we give?
Atrios has pointed out repeatedly—and correctly IMHO—that the mainstream faction of those of us who are pro-choice are quite happy to try to reduce the number of abortions through non-coercive means, and it hasn’t done jack $hit towards appeasing the right on that issue.
Duke of Earl
@Conservatively Liberal:
The right almost entirely supports stupid policies, which is why when they got everything they wanted then everything went to shit.
The left does have a few stupid ideas but nowhere near the level of outright cretinism on the right.
Obama honoring and listenening to his base would make America a better place on the whole, Bush honoring and listening to his base made America a much worse place.
I’ve honestly been trying to think of something about which the "far left" has been as disastrously wrong as the "pragmatic centrists" were about invading Iraq or deregulating the financial industry, I can’t come up with a damn thing.
liberal
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
Yeah, sure, that might be one data point.
Against decades of data of Democrats playing nice with the Right.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
For me, when you stop pretending that civil unions are not okay because they are not "real marriages" and focus on the really important things. All the rights and protections are there for the taking, until you inflame your opposition by calling it a "marriage."
Marriage is a fucked and dysfunctional institution whose main value today is to be used as a political football.
When you focus on the practical things that matter, then you can talk to me about "core beliefs." My core beliefs don’t go up in smoke because you call them "Apples" instead of "Oranges."
Cain
@Tom:
It’s a goddam invocation not a platform. He’s not giving a sermon.
Everybody wants to fucking symbolism because they want to continually feel hopeful about the future. Symbolism is all good but without action that’s all it is. It’s like what all these conservatives are doing. They continually believe what their politicians say about gay marriage, abortion, etc etc but it’s all belligerence, they don’t do shit. But garsh, they sure love them politicians don’t they?
Gays First
cain
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Truly, you don’t get this. At all. Sorry. Check back in four years and let’s see where we are.
I am going to wager that you are going to see an Obama reelection by landslide, and a lot of people saying they are better off.
John Cole
When they come for the morons, you better duck and cover.
Christ- if anything, everyone on this thread agrees on the issue of gay rights. What we disagree with is how to fucking get there, and you running around acting like Obama is pinning pink triangles on your chest wondering aloud “Who is next” just makes you look like a total god damned idiot.
bootlegger
@Tom: That’s a straw man, nobody is saying that we should ignore these issues. Inviting Warren does not signify that Gay rights are expendable.
Cain
@Len:
uh.. Cole is no homophobe. Nothing in his comments can be related to homophobia. We don’t suffer fools, so don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
cain
Tom
And if instead of comnparing gay relationships to rape, he had a history of calling Jews Christ-killers or saying Blacks were genetically inferior, would it be just as okay for him to give the invocation?
ThymeZoneThePlumber
No, just the Phules.
bago
@John Cole: This too? How dare you use teh english grammarz. We all know it’s "This. Also." If you’re a part of the America loving part of America that is.
Also.
bootlegger
@liberal: You want to reduce the number of abortions because you believe it is the right thing to do, not because it appeases the right. You surmise, correctly, that the dead-enders will not be appeased, but I know people (like my mom who is Right to Lifer) who are willing to go with abortion reduction for the sake of improving other things. So no, you don’t convert everyone, but there are people on that side who will work with us.
Tom
"When they come for the morons, you better duck and cover.
Christ- if anything, everyone on this thread agrees on the issue of gay rights. What we disagree with is how to fucking get there, and you running around acting like Obama is pinning pink triangles on your chest wondering aloud “Who is next” just makes you look like a total god damned idiot."
Let’s see…I’m a moron, an idiot, a WATB and a drama queen. Pardon me for not seeing the inclusiveness here.
And once again, John: I’m not "running around acting like Obama is pinning pink triangles" on my chest, nor am I "calling for impeachment." I guess it helps your point if you mischaracterize mine constantly.
You didn’t answer the question, John: What’s the cutoff point? What are the core Democratic principles worth defending?
Cassidy the Racist White Man
Oh we’ll cross that bridge when we get their. The only problem is you all keep martyring yourself, so the end is coming faster. You should have seen the fight over whether to start loading you into the ovens! Serious shenanigans, I tell you.
/ mock
Tom
Actually, yes they are. I was told to STFU and that my problems weren’t as important as middle class military families.
Shygetz
Okay, we have two choices here. Either there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between marriage and civil unions with the same legal force, or there is a difference.
If there is a difference, then we have a "separate but equal" problem. If there is no difference, then there would be no argument from either side, and we would either have all marriages or all civil unions with no debate. Yet, there is a debate, so there must be a difference. The fact that you happen to find the difference inconsequential has no bearing because many other people obviously DO find the difference consequential; there is a difference, so it is inherently unequal.
I would have no problem giving heteros and homos equal rights, whether we both had civil unions or we both had marriages. And, I fully realize that as a practical matter, we will probably have unequal civil unions before we have equal rights, just like we had segregation before integration. Doesn’t mean I have to say segregation is fine as long as the Negros have equally good schools and the homos get equally short lines for civil union licenses.
jenniebee
So now, it’s not the Overton window, it’s that somehow now, anybody Obama works with in any capacity is now endorsed by Obama in toto. Paging Bill Ayers, anyone? I suppose we should also be wringing our hands about Larry Summers’ participation in the Obama administration not because his previous actions within his field of responsibility were to further disastrous economic policies and he’s not on any record I know of as changing his mind about those policies, but rather because he said that girls aren’t good at math. Sure, the policies have impoverished millions of people, and there have been epidemics of selling girls into sex slavery that are directly attributable to them, and he’s now in a position to do the same thing over again, but what really counts is the signal this sends to people everywhere that Obama really doesn’t think girls are smart.
A fuzzy, non-quantifiable impact – wait, scratch that, I stand corrected, we can actually count panty twists. Quick, let’s do some Malkinesque investigative journalism through people’s laundry!
Seriously, name the tangible impact here. What is it?
And no, people aren’t marginalized because some decidedly non-perfect people get 15 minutes of fame. People are marginalized because economic hardship makes for some strident scapegoating. There are exceptions, but that’s a pretty solid general rule.
1. the idea that Gates as SecDef reinforces the idea that Dems can’t do defense is, imho, wrong. If you thought Gates was an example of good defense, then now you see an administration that takes defense seriously. If on the other hand, you’re liberal, you probably thought that Dems do ok on defense, so there’s no idea to reinforce.
2. and yes, that’s a big deal. Warren is fucking window dressing, but hey, as long as we’re getting worked up about the "signal he sends", we aren’t paying attention to the IMF men behind the curtain.
John Cole
I will use all caps so this hopefully sinks in:
OBAMA DID NOT ABANDON GAYS AND HE DID NOT ABANDON ANY DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.
In fact, the opposite is true. He is openly defending these values at press conferences. He just again stated he is an advocate for gay equality and that Warren is wrong.
What has people upset is that he is not acting like the Republicans did the last eight years- with brute force politics, dividing the nation in the most acrimonious manner possible.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
Oh, so I’m assuming you’re black…or a woman…or a Mexican…or Irish…or Jewish…or Italian…or Native American…or Muslim…or poor…or homeless (and not a four legged creature)…or
Get over yourself.
bootlegger
@Tom: Actually, you were told that your problems are as bad as others and to quit whining over something symbolic. But whatever gets your knickers up.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
@Tom: No, you were told to STFU, because you were acting as if you’re "plight" is the only one that is so important. And it’s middle class and military families.
Tom
Well then, so will I:
I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT "ABANDONING" DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES. I ASKED WHICH ONES WERE WORTH DEFENDING.
I don’t know which "people" you’re referring to. I don’t want Dems to act like Republicans, but I don’t want them kow-towing to them either. There are plenty of religious leaders worthy of giving the invocation who don’t compare gay relationships to rape.
Punchy
I find it bullshit that Obama hasn’t invited a Palestinian suicide bomber and Orthy Jew to read from the Koran and have sex thru bedsheets, respectively, during his inauguration as well.
Big tent my ass.
maryQ
You rock. You just do.
My daily dose of sanity.
Thank you.
Tom
No, I wasn’t. I never once even intimated that my problems were worse than anyone else’s. That’s all on you.
bootlegger
@John Cole:
No shit. I don’t know how many times I’ve endured this argument since Obama won. "Now its our turn to kick ’em in the nutz!" No, now is the time to act like a grownup and show why we’re different than the other side.
John Cole
@Tom: By openly stating Warren is wrong and he disagrees with him, Obama IS defending those principles, and in a manner more public than I have ever seen from a Democratic President. The last Democrat passed DOMA and DADT. Thus, your question:
Is based on a flawed premise, as Obama IS defending gay rights. Clearly, to Obama, gay rights is a principle worth defending.
How about you list all the Democratic principles you think Obama is not defending, since you are clearly wrong about gay rights?
demimondian
There’s a very simple reason that requiring civil unions replace marriage in all instances is not a workable solution. You know all those homophobes who say that "gay marriage is a threat to breeder marriage"? Their marriages would actually all be delegitimized. (Ironically, mine would be, too, since FDDD and I were married by a Methodist minister…yes, folks, I’m straight.)
What are you going to say to them? You will have created exactly the thing they feared, and you will have shown that you have no understanding of them, just as you have no understanding of gay couples and their desire to, you know, actually be married?
bootlegger
@Tom: Sigh. I’m not the one that told you that, it was someone else and for the record I thought it was pretty lame to compare your loss of rights to other marital problems caused by Republican policies. My point is that you weren’t told that other problems were worse than yours, that fool told you you had problems and so did others so stop whining. I disagree with the fool, but agree that we have lots of problems that need dealing with. If you think complaining about the symbolism of who is leading the prayer will produce substantive change then by all means, screech yourself horse. Just don’t ask me to join you tilting at that particular windmill.
Edit: shit never mind, my narcissism got the better of me and I thought you were replying to me. My bad.
harlana pepper
mebbe it’s time for another puppy vid, perhaps? furry, butterball cuteness heals all
jenniebee
@Tom:
No, the one minute "symbols" and "signals" that require high to super-high levels of political involvement to get anyway are expendable. Gays are not. When the likes of Warren get nominated for a judge’s or justice’s bench, then the difference of opinion here will range somewhere between "no way" and "no fucking way." This isn’t about gay rights, it’s about whether this invitation is something worth pitching a fit about.
So reasons that it might be worth pitching a fit:
1. the guy’s an asshat
and reasons that it might not:
1. pitching a fit is unlikely to get him uninvited
2. it’s unlikely to achieve any other goal either
3. there are lots of other things that have bigger impacts, like say, getting gay marriage on the ballot in every state every year until it passes everywhere, about which pitching a fit is more likely to affect positively that you could be pitching a fit about instead.
just a thought.
Tom
Jesus, John. You write every day so I assumed your reading comprehension was up to par. I am not accusing Obama of not defending gay rights. I am not saying that my problems are worse than anyone else’s. I am not calling for impeachment, nor am I "wailing" that I’m going to get shoved into an oven any time soon.
What I AM pointing out, is that for many people on this thread, yourself included, it’s clearly okay for Obama to make overtures to the evangelicals by using someone with a history of virulently anti-gay politics and commentary. You seem to think it’s a net gain because Obama gets to point out how he differs on the matter. Fine. Would that be true if he put an unrepentant racist up there on inauguration day? An anti-semite? At what point does it become a problem?
Shygetz
True and true, but you know what? While I was happy to comment here during your Republican phase, I would never have asked you to give a political speech on my behalf, because I knew damn well that I wouldn’t agree with your position and I wouldn’t want to hold you up as a standard of political opinion. Talk to Warren, yes. Hell, even invite him to dinner one night. But don’t have him front-and-center as the religious face of your presidency during your inauguration because you don’t agree with his religious opinions!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I swear, is false equivocation the identifying feature of centrism? "Fundies hate gays, and gays don’t like that fundies hate them, so they’re both intolerant"!?! I swear, it’s like a sophisticated spoof of a wingnut–"Liberals are hypocrites because they do not tolerate my intolerance and are bigoted against my bigotry!"
Balls to that.
It’s not that it gives him exposure to a new audience. It’s that it implies that even Democrats admit that Dominionism is representative of centrist religious thought in America. It’s really not centrist at all, but hell if you’d know that from watching American politics, and Obama just bought into that narrative.
Are you f*cking kidding me? They had 6 years of uncontested control of all three branches of the Federal government, and yet they STILL managed to keep up the Charade of Perpetual Persecution without the entire sane world bursting into laughter. You think inviting Warren to give an invocation is suddenly going to make them say "Hey, wait a second, we’re not being persecuted at all!" You think the press is going to see Warren giving his invocation and suddenly say "You know, maybe this whole War on Christmas thing is bullshit"?
I KNOW you guys have been paying attention the past few years. I’m tellin’ ya…drunk or high. Only explanation.
Punchy
Gotta give Tom some props. He has a point. I believe it’s this:
If this guy had made comments about how inferior Scary Negroes were, he’d never had been invited. If he had trashed working mothers, called for the mass deportation of Hispanics, or openly supported polygamy, there’s zero chance he’s in DC in January. But for reasons Tom cant understand, he’s allowed to bash gays and still be given a chance to share the stage with a Most Parful Man Inna World. I can see why he’s a little peeved.
OTOH, I agree with whoever said that maybe, just maybe, this was designed on purpose to be controversial, to get Blagalphabet outtie the newz. Who the hell knows.
Why the fuck wont my Cubs sign Mark Fucking Teixeria (sp?)
Cain
@Tom:
Shorter Tom: "What if Hitler gave the invocation?"
Great Tom, you’re basically saying that symbolism matters. I get it. If Obama manages to get pro-legislation passed you’ll forget who the hell did the 60 second invocation.
BTW I would have asked for a prize for invoking Godwin’s Law, but I was afraid it would have been a slap in the face or a kick in the ass.
cain
John Cole
Because we have a bunch of people in this country who believe in a bunch of fiction written in the desert a while back, and an entire industry is based around using whatever was in that book to maintain power and authority over what their congregations do. Right now, one of the ways they keep those people in line is by attacking teh gay. I think it is craziness, myself.
I can, too, and have said as much.
What I can’t understand is why he thinks this will impact policy, why he thinks Obama has suddenly abandoned equality for gays, and why he thinks that Obama is simply cutting and running from defending Democratic principles.
Sister Machine Gun of Mild Harmony
You know, people, if Obama is going to get the big stuff done, like healthcare, he needs cooperation from people none of us agree with. That is absolutely necessary. Further, among those people, it is Warren who is giving Obama credibility, NOT the other way around.
By the way, it isn’t necessary to lecture about the importance of gay marraige here. There is a fairly large gay contengent here (including me, who illegally married my partner of 8 years), and the vast majority feel that gay marraige should be allowed.
I don’t like Warren. I would never attend his church. But I’m not stupid enough to think that his giving a blessing is the equivalent of endorsing all his views. Obama said he was going to be president for all Americans, that he was going to be a uniter. Did you not understand what that meant? Seriously? If you want to ever ACTUALLY accomplish anything, you are going to have to work with bigots. That is how things are in the real world.
Just Some Fuckhead
@John Cole: lmfao
liberal
@jenniebee:
I said "directly" moving the Overton window—by, say, espousing views during his 2 minutes.
The Overton window can be moved by more than just direct discussion of policy, etc—it can also be moved by conferring legitimacy on people.
Furthermore, "who we work with" does tend to confer legitimacy.
If Obama works with right-wing thugs in the Senate, say, it doesn’t confer so much legitimacy, because those people are elected and Obama might have to work with them in order to pass legislation.
But that doesn’t apply to the situation with Warren. In that case, choosing to work with Warren confers much more of a sense of legitimacy than working with a Republican in Congress.
wagonjak
I do think you missed the boat on this one John…whatever phrase you want to use, this was a mortal insult to those of us in Obama’s base, straight or gay, who believe in the separation of Church and State!
Rick Warren is just a kinder, gentler version of a Dobson or a Robertson, and you just made yourself look clueless on this issue…
Big BOOOOOOS for Rick when he stands to deliver the Invocation…that’s what I would do if I were there…in as loud a voice as possible…
And screw the concern trolls who say this is rude…I hope the crowd there is as RUDE as possible to Warren!
wagonjak
shygetz #241…here’s a wonderful comment I picked up from another thread that I think sums the whole thing up well…
"The tolerance Obama is asking for, in other words, is not from Warren. It’s from the LGBT community, and women. He is asking them to be tolerant of Warren’s intolerance. It’s a cruel play, framed to marginalize the legitimate anger of those who Warren harms and discriminates against."
gil mann
Wrong, including about what a "concern troll" is. Backs turned to the speaker’s the way to go here; otherwise it’s just the same old flailing impotence that’s defined leftist activism for as long as most of us have been alive. One guy throwing his shoes is iconography; a coalition of shoe-throwers carries all the mythic weight of Code Pink street theatre.
It’s a shame nobody learned from Malcolm X’s example (I blame the poster with the Uzi). Show up better-dressed than your oppressors, stand still, and don’t run your yap. You win by turning their faces red, not your own.
liberal
@jenniebee:
Ayers actually makes my case. You’ll notice Ayers didn’t say anything about the election until it was over. You’ll also notice that Obama had nothing to do with him after he started running for election, and continues to have nothing to do with him.
Strawman. I agree that the former is a very good reason for keeping Summers out of the administration.
No, but there is most definitely a signal that someone who is complicit in the crimes against the economy is a better choice than someone who was not complicit, warned against the housing bubble, but isn’t a member of the club of economists accepted and tolerated by the elite.
There’s nothing fuzzy about it. People who are marginalized have less of an impact, garner less attention, etc.
There is a tangible impact: the signaling I mentioned above.
It’s admittedly quite small. The more important issue is what it says about Obama’s future path of decisions.
One regretable course of action Clinton took is appointing pretty staid, centrists judges to the Federal bench. When Bush 43 took over, he (by and large) appointed unapologetic Federalist Society members. IMHO, the Warren pick is cut from the same cloth and says (to me) that Obama is going to do the same thing Clinton did. Of course it’s not 100% evidence, but it’s still there.
What? It has absolutely nothing to do with, say, the marginalization of people critical of the Drug War, or (say) Noam Chomsky on middle east issues.
The notion that everything reduces to economics is primitive Marxism at its worst.
I think you’re wrong. Clinton did the same thing; when was the last time a Republican nominated a Democrat for SecDef?
They’re part and parcel of the same thing. I agree that the Summers/Rubin/etc issue is much bigger, but they send very similar signals as the Warren choice.
liberal
@John Cole:
There’s a huge gulf between acting like complete insufferable pr!cks like the Republicans do, and bending over backwards to appease someone who’s been kicking you in the balls (by appointing a Republican as SecDef, etc).
liberal
@bootlegger:
Yeah, sure, but as an empirical matter, there’s a definite limit to "working with the other side".
I submit it ends well before bestowing respectability on someone who (a) is a bigot, (b) doesn’t believe in evolution, (c) agrees with Hannity that we should assassinate Ahmadinejad.
liberal
@gil mann:
Totally agree with you there.
liberal
@Shygetz:
Agreed.
Hyperion
@John Cole:
isn’t that what’s happening here?
and yet you are complaining about folks who disagree with you.
maybe i don’t understand what you mean by "engagement".
Grendel72
Honestly, I voted for Obama, and I’m glad I did. I’d vote for him again. I’m sure the vast majority of us who are pissed off at his choice of this fucking bigoted moron are in agreement on this.
That doesn’t change the fact that it is fucking disgusting and insulting, and it doesn’t change the fact that every single one of you motherfuckers telling us to "get over it" are assholes.
The very fact that you can say a bigoted moron like Rick Warren is "moderate" demonstrates that the religious right are to be dismissed rather than pandered to. This is how it started for the Republican party, and the cancer of religious ignorance has completely destroyed them from the inside out now.
Just Some Fuckhead
Shorter gay leftie blogosphere: waaaaaah, someone did something I don’t like, die, stab
Tom
I never said any of those things, John. Not one of them.
John Cole
@Tom: Yes, you did.
Tom
Uh…no I didn’t John. I never said that this would impact policy, I never said that Obama has abandoned equality for gays and I never said that Obama is cutting and running from defending Democratic principles. I don’t know how you got that from that quote.
jenniebee
@liberal:
Don’t see how. He’s an associate of Obama’s who Obama has said he doesn’t totally agree with, same as Warren. If you want to say that it is a legitimate outrage for Warren to be one member of a rather large ensemble cast who will be participating in the inauguration because of ideas of his that you have no doubt that Obama doesn’t share, then a comparison between your outrage over Warren and the wingnuts’ outrage over Ayers is approaching a distinction without a difference. (The biggest difference actually might be that theirs is probably largely fauxtrage).
It’s not a strawman, it’s an analogy. There is a difference between symbolism and reality and the former is politics while the latter is policy. And all politics is misdirection, and if you don’t get that you are just going to be amazed over and over again by the way pols keep pulling fuck-you-up-the-ass-(and-not-in-a-good-way) policies out of a hat.
…
Tell you what, why don’t I "signal" by asking RuPaul to give the invocation instead, and then hand another trillion out to Goldman Sachs. Then you can feel all good and fuzzy while you stand on a soup line, and everything will be ok.
We’ve had a pretty good tutorial in the last twenty years that the idea of government separated from economics is an government of sound and fury, signifying nothing. If you run the economics of a country, whether it’s from the capital or from a currency trading desk in Manhattan, you control the country.
And anybody who can reject offhand the concept that a population under economic pressure becomes more hostile to any element they deem marginal could use another semester or twelve of World History. People get more tolerant of others when they aren’t worried about money, always has been, always will be. You want to move gay rights forward, it is never, but never, going to happen during a time of economic duress.
Oh, are they only going to be around for two minutes, too? And they’re never going to get their hands near anything that actually, you know, matters? Whew! Thank the FSM, I thought there might actually be something to worry about!
jenniebee
@Hyperion: this is why Obama is president and John Cole runs an entertaining blog. Different skillsets, donchaknow.
Chris Andersen
I suggest "knee to the groin" as the new phrase of the moment.