Rick Warren to Speak at Inauguration

[The Romulan Republic]

It just seems more like the people crying foul over Obama having Warren at inauguration are just worried they may actually have a president who will, you know, WORK with the people he disagrees with instead of doing as some people seem to want to do and jeering them from the soapbox. If Obama can get the evangelical Christians on his side, that's more votes for him in 2012 if and when he decides to run again.

So ? If he gets more votes by caving in to bigots and fanatics, then how is he any different than the Republicans who have been doing the same thing for decades ? You can't "work with" people who aren't interested in compromise. I remember what happened right after 9-11; the Democrats all went "Let's be bipartisan and compromise for the good of the country", and the Republicans ran right over them.

Isn't Warren known for working with people who disagree with him? I don't know how open he is to compromise, but Obama clearly knows better than to shun someone because he disagrees with them on some issues. In fact, I think CNN just showed Obama talking about how Warren once invited him to speak even though the disagreed on things (I've got the TV playing in the background, and they are covering this heavilly). I'm not saying Obama should cave on his principles, or that they should have something this religious at the innauguration anyways, but this is not a huge deal, and it is not proof that Obama is selling out the gay rights movement.

If he gets the Republicans to do anything other than oppose him at every turn, it'll be by giving them everything they demand, minority status or not. And even then they'll probably take it and and go against him anyway.

You know, their are moderate Republicans. Not many in the top leadership, perhaps, but they do exist, and pulling some over in the Senate on key legislation could get a filibuster-proof majority when Obama really needs it. You are painting a very large group of people with one brush, and it is not justified.

If working with the GOP without handing them the country was impossible, then the only choices would be to a) compromise one's principles and give in, b) do nothing and get kicked out in four years, or c) fight a civil war. I'm not willing to accept that those are the only choices, and hopefully niether is Obama.

And as for the Left being willing to accuse him of caving in to the Republicans before he's taken office; after so many years of watching the Democrats do just that, it's what I've come to expect from them. I was one of the few who had no good expectations from Obama, despite voting for him, because caving in is exactly what I expect from him. He's a Democrat. And I'm damned tired of voting for Democrats and watching them act like Republicans. So when he starts following the same old pattern, it's a reasonable worry that he'll keep on doing so.

A Democrat who was smeared for having the most liberal voting record in the Senate? Who ran a far more succesful campaign than other recent Democrats? Why don't you wait 'till he's been in office a while before writing him off as "just another Democrat"?

[General Zod]

A Democrat who was smeared for having the most liberal voting record in the Senate? Who ran a far more succesful campaign than other recent Democrats? Why don't you wait 'till he's been in office a while before writing him off as "just another Democrat"?

The "most liberal voting record" schtick was not only a smear but a flat out lie. If anything Obama's voting record is fairly centrist, and people who tend to label people "most liberal" seem to suspiciously change their lists according to who's running for office.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Why don't you wait 'till he's been in office a while before writing him off as "just another Democrat"?

I wrote him off as "just another Democrat" before I voted for him, much less before his inauguration. It's just that the Republicans are so much worse.

[The Romulan Republic]

A Democrat who was smeared for having the most liberal voting record in the Senate? Who ran a far more succesful campaign than other recent Democrats? Why don't you wait 'till he's been in office a while before writing him off as "just another Democrat"?

The "most liberal voting record" schtick was not only a smear but a flat out lie. If anything Obama's voting record is fairly centrist, and people who tend to label people "most liberal" seem to suspiciously change their lists according to who's running for office.

The basic point remains the same: it is not warrented to condemn Obama or to say he's "just another Democrat" based on one symbollic gesture from a man known for wanting to work with the other side until we see what he does in office.

(Note: working with the other side does not equate to caving or pandering).

[The Original Nex]

I love how people are acting like he's breaking some sort of promise by working with/talking with/praying with Republicans. He declared THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN that he would "reach across the isle." Emphasized the "spirit of bipartisanship" to "overcome the gridlock in Washington." He's following through on that. Whether you agree this is the correct approach or not, you can't criticize him for betrayal because he didn't run as a liberal progressive. That was a Republican talking point that it seems many on the left came to believe. Obama is a centrist slightly to the left of Bill Clinton. He always has been. Anyone who thought or thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

[Darth Fanboy]

This is extremely disappointing.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

In regards to same-sex marriage, Obama's promises and rhetoric are incredibly contradictory. His plan to repeal DOMA is another way of saying "I support same-sex marriage" since that is exactly what repealing DOMA will legalize nationwide. I'm not acting like he's going to break that promise. I EXPECT him to break that promise. It's the most realistic assessment of the political situation.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Yeah - Obama is the black George W. Bush. Completely identical...

Fuck off, this is exactly the same sort of call Bush would have made. Take off your ideological blinders and call a screw up a screw up when it happens. Or justify how Rick Warren is not the kind of religious fascist he brags about being.

Warren is apparently good on global poverty, helping AIDS victims in Africa, and actually recognizing global warming. Also, fundies hate him.

[KrauserKrauser]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the GLBTQ people are throwing a hissy fit, don't shatter their view that people can be acknowledged and recognized for more than their stance on one issue.

Obama is a politician, not a saint, of course he is going to reach out to the other side if he wants to actually accomplish something. Having this guy give a prayer and a supporter of gay rights give another prayer should cancel out right? He's trying to have his cake and eat it too? What politician doesn't do exactly that all the fucking time?

[LMSx]

I wonder if there are any religious conservative pastors out there who don't think that child rape is equivalent to gay marriage, or advocate the assassination of Iranian foreign leaders?

Obama didn't have to pick Rick Warren for an outreach to religious conservatives. But he did.

[Fire Fly]

You guys are kind of missing the point why what would seem to be such a small thing as letting Warren give an invocation at the inauguration would piss off so many people in the LGBT community: Warren was one of the active people involved with the Prop 8 movement. People are still seriously pissed off about Prop 8 and for him to be given a national platform, it is adding salt and acid to a fresh wound. Not to mention that Obama has never been a strong public supporter of gay rights, people are using this moment as an opportunity to express their discomfort and anger on his soft peddling on the issue. He's wants to repeal DOMA but he only supports civil unions; that's a little contradictory.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

You guys are kind of missing the point why what would seem to be such a small thing as letting Warren give an invocation at the inauguration would piss off so many people in the LGBT community: Warren was one of the active people involved with the Prop 8 movement. People are still seriously pissed off about Prop 8 and for him to be given a national platform, it is adding salt and acid to a fresh wound. Not to mention that Obama has never been a strong public supporter of gay rights, people are using this moment as an opportunity to express their discomfort and anger on his soft peddling on the issue. He's wants to repeal DOMA but he only supports civil unions; that's a little contradictory.

Warren's involvement with Prop 8 is precisely why the LGBT community is pissed off. If KrauserKrauser's civil rights were taken away just a month ago, how much do you want to bet that he'd be pissed off too?

[KrauserKrauser]

Yeah, I admit I didn't know he was that big of a proponent for Prop 8, not much I can say beyond that.

Maybe not the best choice if there exist and equally prominent conservative religious figure that would not generate the same uproar.

[Elfdart]

Give Obama a break. He picked Warren only because Fred Phelps was all booked up next month.

[Pablo Sanchez]

This is extremely disappointing.

You should only be "extremely" disappointed by this if your expectations were too high. I read this as a calculation by Obama and his team to convince some number of religious conservatives to lay aside their suspicions of him. Rick Warren is the most famous preacher in America right now, and he has a lot of influence and clout with the people who still think that Obama is a secret Muslim. By having Warren do the invocation he can get a tacit endorsement without giving anything back (since he has explicitly and publicly disagreed with Warren on the very issues that offend people about Warren) except for publicity--which is why Warren, a tireless, shameless, highly ambitious self-promoter, is doing it.

From my reading most of the moves that Obama has been making since he got elected have been designed to create a governing majority, that is, his whole design is a repudiation of the Rove 51% doctrine. I am also disappointed that he is having a piece of dogshit like Warren do the invocation. But for that matter I am disappointed that there is going to be an invocation at all; who the fuck needs one, no matter who it's given by?

But look: you guys ought to have paid more attention to what Obama said and did during the campaign. He came off, to me, as a skilled operator, someone who could knife fight as well as have good ideas. The Warren announcement doesn't surprise me. It's sad to say, but expressing shock and dismay about this event kind of proves those Hannity-esque pundits who joked about Obama being a Christ-figure right. I voted for Obama. I even wept a little when the election was called--but not because I had any fool ideas about the first black president being so historic, and not because I thought he was going to sweep Washington with the broom of progressivism. It was my relief that for the first time in exactly eight years I could think about our national leadership and feel that the future might be better than the past. And I still feel that way.

Despite this, please do not get discouraged or shut up about how pissed you are. Obama owes a great deal to progressives because without their support he'd never have beaten Hillary Clinton in the primaries. This is an early signal that Obama is not intrinsically one of ours, and that we will have to make our presence and feelings known. The reason that Rick Warren is being courted in this way is he represents an obnoxious and vociferous minority of Americans. So go on and get abrasive. Send a letter to Obama's transition office about how the choice of Rick Warren pisses you off, and explain why. But don't be fucking babies about it. Politics is rough; learn to tumble.

[FSTargetDrone]

I don't think this will be especially indicitave of Obama's policies as president but it is disappointing and a very poor choice to have a bigoted "Reverend" give this invocation. Somehow, there is this perception he is somehow moderate, which he is clearly not. He's a younger version of Falwell, essentially the same in substance but not style. And there's nothing good about Falwell, other than that he is rotting in his gilded coffin.

As someone pointed out on Countdown w/Keith Olbermann tonight, if he was a anti-semite, he'd not be given even a first look as a possible choice to speak.

I think Obama has good intentions to have people from different philosphical viewpoints participate, but I see nothing beneficial about letting this particular homophobe be part of the inauguration.

Despite this, please do not get discouraged or shut up about how pissed you are. Obama owes a great deal to progressives because without their support he'd never have beaten Hillary Clinton in the primaries. This is an early signal that Obama is not intrinsically one of ours, and that we will have to make our presence and feelings known. The reason that Rick Warren is being courted in this way is he represents an obnoxious and vociferous minority of Americans. So go on and get abrasive. Send a letter to Obama's transition office about how the choice of Rick Warren pisses you off, and explain why. But don't be fucking babies about it. Politics is rough; learn to tumble.

Agreed.

[Yogi]

So what did people think "coming together" and "bipartisan" meant? I've been unhappy with Obama's "let's compromise" stance from the beginning (and was, of course, ridiculed by the Obama-drones). Well, this is what you get. Just remember, it's still better than McCain.

The same thing happened two years ago. We elected Democrats to Congress, they did some things, but proceeded to cave in again and again. Now we have a Democratic President . . . . who's big on "compromise." What do you THINK is going to happen?

[General Zod]

So what did people think "coming together" and "bipartisan" meant? I've been unhappy with Obama's "let's compromise" stance from the beginning (and was, of course, ridiculed by the Obama-drones). Well, this is what you get. Just remember, it's still better than McCain.

Some things should not be compromised on. Human rights is one of those, which is why people are more upset about this than about Obama reaching across the isle for matters regarding energy, the economy or foreign relations. I agree he's better than McCain, but it's not hard to see why people would be upset at allowing an admitted bigot to speak at his inauguration.

[Big Phil]

So what did people think "coming together" and "bipartisan" meant? I've been unhappy with Obama's "let's compromise" stance from the beginning (and was, of course, ridiculed by the Obama-drones). Well, this is what you get. Just remember, it's still better than McCain.

Some things should not be compromised on. Human rights is one of those, which is why people are more upset about this than about Obama reaching across the isle for matters regarding energy, the economy or foreign relations. I agree he's better than McCain, but it's not hard to see why people would be upset at allowing an admitted bigot to speak at his inauguration.

There's a difference between being upset that Obama is having this guy give the invocation, and "OBAMA IS NO DIFFERENT THAN BUSH!" which is the tantrum some people are throwing.

[General Zod]

So what did people think "coming together" and "bipartisan" meant? I've been unhappy with Obama's "let's compromise" stance from the beginning (and was, of course, ridiculed by the Obama-drones). Well, this is what you get. Just remember, it's still better than McCain.

Some things should not be compromised on. Human rights is one of those, which is why people are more upset about this than about Obama reaching across the isle for matters regarding energy, the economy or foreign relations. I agree he's better than McCain, but it's not hard to see why people would be upset at allowing an admitted bigot to speak at his inauguration.

There's a difference between being upset that Obama is having this guy give the invocation, and "OBAMA IS NO DIFFERENT THAN BUSH!" which is the tantrum some people are throwing.

I've only seen one post whining that Obama is no different than Bush, which my point wasn't even addressing.

[Medic]

Some things should not be compromised on. Human rights is one of those, which is why people are more upset about this than about Obama reaching across the isle for matters regarding energy, the economy or foreign relations. I agree he's better than McCain, but it's not hard to see why people would be upset at allowing an admitted bigot to speak at his inauguration.

There's a difference between being upset that Obama is having this guy give the invocation, and "OBAMA IS NO DIFFERENT THAN BUSH!" which is the tantrum some people are throwing.

I've only seen one post whining that Obama is no different than Bush, which my point wasn't even addressing.

Regardless, keep in mind the news cycle is simply faster than the governing cycle -- Congress takes breaks and there are months between election and inauguration. (for that matter, the board is too faster than the governing cycle) It's ONLY an invocation and the man has not presided over a damned thing Presidential, yet, even if, as it's been suggested by many talking heads, we have now two half-Presidents, one lame-duck IN office and one mandate-empowered Presidential-elect. Pablo put it better than I could: it's calculated in short. He may get something for nothing (some good words from a leading figurehead of the the huge, largely Republican Christian voting bloc) and pisses off only the base of the left-wing base who, sorry to break it to you or anyone, don't matter as much now that he's actually been elected. I reiterate his closing line too: grow some skin or toughen what little you have.

I suppose I'm a centrist too of a different flavor than Obama (I break with him, or at least his stated campaign positions, on missile defense and some other security items, but agree with many other) and am merely content to judge him by his effectiveness, and not politically-calculated gestures. "It's the economy, stupid" came true again this election and it's his handling of that which will cement his legacy, at least as far as we know now. He'll deal with some other crisis probably but this is precisely where his judgment and intelligence should buoy your spirits. I'm content to adopt a "wait-and-see" approach, since at least half of Obama's job will seemingly amount to unfucking Bush's mistakes.

[General Zod]

Regardless, keep in mind the news cycle is simply faster than the governing cycle -- Congress takes breaks and there are months between election and inauguration. (for that matter, the board is too faster than the governing cycle) It's ONLY an invocation and the man has not presided over a damned thing Presidential, yet, even if, as it's been suggested by many talking heads, we have now two half-Presidents, one lame-duck IN office and one mandate-empowered Presidential-elect. Pablo put it better than I could: it's calculated in short. He may get something for nothing (some good words from a leading figurehead of the the huge, largely Republican Christian voting bloc) and pisses off only the base of the left-wing base who, sorry to break it to you or anyone, don't matter as much now that he's actually been elected. I reiterate his closing line too: grow some skin or toughen what little you have.

I don't recall actually disputing any of this anywhere. Only saying that it's easy to see why some people would be upset, which certain posters seem to be completely flummoxed about for some reason as though they can't possibly see things from more than one point of view.

[Darth Fanboy]

This is extremely disappointing.

You should only be "extremely" disappointed by this if your expectations were too high. I read this as a calculation by Obama and his team to convince some number of religious conservatives to lay aside their suspicions of him. Rick Warren is the most famous preacher in America right now, and he has a lot of influence and clout with the people who still think that Obama is a secret Muslim.

It has nothing to do with my expectations for Obama, and everything to do with the fact that it is depressing to me that a jackass like Rick Warren who just won a campaign for civil inequality is considered important enough to be invited to one of the most important inaugurations in US History. It's disappointing that now he can go back to his church (which I live down the street from practically) and use this to reinforce his beliefs for his followers.

I also don't believe that this will have any effect on Obama's perception amongst a significant number of Warren's followers for this to be justifiable. These are the same people that set their children out on sidewalks, including some young enough that they were probably not even toilet trained yet, and had them hold up Prop 8 signs. My disappointment not only stems from the previously discussed bigotry, it comes from the fact that I believe Obama is pandering to deaf ears. When re-election comes up they'll go right back to voting Conservative.

[Darth Fanboy]

Some things should not be compromised on. Human rights is one of those, which is why people are more upset about this than about Obama reaching across the isle for matters regarding energy, the economy or foreign relations. I agree he's better than McCain, but it's not hard to see why people would be upset at allowing an admitted bigot to speak at his inauguration.

I'll freely admit that (and I know at least one person is probably tired of me repeating this) but living less than five minutes away from his Church and being saturated with the fucking nonsense that comes out of his parishoners drives me nuts.

[SirNitram]

I find Warren offensive, not because of any silly notion that Obama is 'betraying the LBGTs'(He's never so much as wavered in support for them, even in Prop 8), or such. I find it offensive because it continues to normalize the presense of extreme right wing Christians in political affairs being treated as worthy of such time. It also offends me that his PR machine pretending he's a moderate when he's a big Prop 8 supporter, compares same-sex relationships to pedophilia and incest, calls abortion merely continuing to exist equal to the holocaust, and supports foreign heads of state being assassinated. This should never have become acceptable discourse.

All this being said, I will note a few things:

1) It's walking straight up and cock-slapping the Religious Right's old guard in the face. I think we can all agree that shutting out the old names and leaving them to stir so angrily is a positive move. They're quite upset at this, because Warren isn't like them.

2) It's only an invocation. Yes, it's a powerful platform for your rhetoric. But it's got precisely dick to do with policies, enaction of laws, and so forth. Given the rumors about selecting the current chief operating officer of the Intrepid museum as SecNav, I'm not worried(Why? He's gay and out).