a bit hard to marginalize popular extremists, when you give them a spotlight...
Posted by Turkana at December 17, 2008 11:59 AMBush44?
Posted by m at December 17, 2008 12:42 PMWhy is there a god damn "invocation" in the first place? It's a sop to the very people who someone like Warren appeals to. That's why. He's gonna say his little thing and then it'll be over and no one's gonna remember a word he said 30 minutes later.
Posted by snark at December 17, 2008 12:43 PMno one will remember a word he said, but they will remember that he was there. and that obama conferred legitimacy on him.
Posted by Turkana at December 17, 2008 12:54 PMI think we're gonna have to get used to these "Lincolnesque" gestures and symbols of "reconcilation"---at least until Obama has been hit in the mouth by so many Right wing 2x4s that he can see the futility of his efforts.
Posted by euzoius at December 17, 2008 12:59 PMturkana you nailed it with your first comment..I was going to make that very point. Apparently Pres Elect Obama who strongly believes in tolerance of all individuals and beliefs, in so doing then allows a person who strongly preaches/practices non tolerance of certain individuals and beliefs in the spot light. Talk about muting and speaking over your message.
Posted by emal at December 17, 2008 01:12 PM...but they will remember that he was there. and that obama conferred legitimacy on him.
You'll remember. The rest of the country? Not so much.
Of course if you stamp your feet enough, raise a big stink about it and get the media's attention Mr. Warren will get a whole bigger portion of "legitimacy" heaped on him than if you just let him offer his prayer disguised as an "invocation" and be done with it. Because the left has such a great track record of not conferring legitimacy on these religious blowhards by making a big stink about them.
Posted by snark at December 17, 2008 01:13 PMApparently Pres Elect Obama who strongly believes in tolerance of all individuals and beliefs, in so doing then allows a person who strongly preaches/practices non tolerance of certain individuals and beliefs in the spot light.
Yeah, what a shitty example to set.
Talk about muting and speaking over your message.
But that IS his message. Were you guys not listening to him the whole campaign?
Posted by at December 17, 2008 01:17 PMSorry, that was me above.
Posted by snark at December 17, 2008 01:18 PMOf course I was listening to President Elect Obama before the election (I had my qualms and differences about him but he was better than the other guy). That said Warren is the antithesis of the message that Obama believes and practices himself. Imo sorry, he doesn't have to give an intolerant and hate filled person the spotlight in order to prove his own bona fides as a tolerant loving person. All I'm saying (just like others here and Deacon Blue said) is that one can still be tolerant but you don't necessarily need to give this intolerant antagonistic person the spotlight and bully pulpit.
Posted by emal at December 17, 2008 01:51 PM...one can still be tolerant but you don't necessarily need to give this intolerant antagonistic person the spotlight and bully pulpit.
In otherwords be tolerant but not inclusive?
"I'll tolerate you, but not associate with you."
Sorta like seperate but equal?
Got it.
Posted by snark at December 17, 2008 01:56 PMI dunno, I kind of find it ironic... when in a few days or months after he has Rick "reproductive choice, and stem cell research were 'non-negotiable' issues" Warren giving the invocation, Obama will work to give more credence to these same "issues". Being a direct shot back into the right's and Warren's face.
Posted by Seven of Six at December 17, 2008 02:01 PMWhy are you surprised? Obama sat in a controversial church for TWENTY years. Did you think he was sleeping in the pew? Did you miss his present votes in the Illinois state senate (many on women's issues).
He's promised to continue Bush's faith-based initiative program - nothing to do with church, abortion, or gay-rights should come as a surprise.
Posted by jmac at December 17, 2008 02:12 PMI guess Rev. Wright was busy that day.
Posted by T2 at December 17, 2008 02:15 PMWarren was invited to give the invocation. He could have turned down the invitation if he regarded Obama as an unacceptable, evil dude.
Inaugural invocations are brief affairs. They're not sermons. They're not revival meetings. Yep, it'll probably include some reference to Christ, as have past inaugural invocations for both Republicans and Democrats.
A few days after the inauguration, few people will remember who the invocation or who delivered it, but many, many people will be paying close attention to the Obama Administration's policy proposals.
Warren is being denounced as unacceptable, and Obama as an appeaser, by the same folks who denounced Obama as a pussy-footing appeaser for his decision not to generically attack the Republican Party during the campaign. I guess the leopard doesn't change its spots, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I'm no Christian, but it may be worth considering the possibility that Obama's choice of Warren in fact says something important about Obama's personal Christianity. Just food for thought.
Posted by joel dan walls at December 17, 2008 02:30 PM"...at least until Obama has been hit in the mouth by so many Right wing 2x4s that he can see the futility of his efforts."
euzoius, Obama evidently suffers from the same disease that Ried and Pelosi have been diagnoised with. It's called DD for Denial Disease with the major symptom being the urge to reach across an aisle to your enemies, and a secondary symptom of believing your enemies are not going to bury you, if given half a chance.
It's all good. Obama will learn his lesson, but unfortunately, it will be the hard way.
Turkana is right, never ever confer legitimacy to your enemies. NEVER!
Posted by Judith at December 17, 2008 02:49 PMshorter joel (on any given issue, on any given day):
leave baracky alooooooooone!
snark,
just watch what the corporate media make of it...
Posted by Turkana at December 17, 2008 02:50 PMFunny but the comments about this seem to be the same as others I can remember saying that by meeting with Iran we are conferring legitimacy... Guess what? This is the same thing, we are confronting extreamists in this country. If you exclude them that will give them even more power.
Posted by Chris at December 17, 2008 03:10 PMsnark nice job of putting words in my mouth with the "separate but equal" commentary.
But speaking of equal, Warren certainly doesn't even come close to thinking all people are equal. I just want to know why does this spotlight grubbing bigoted believer that all people are not equal "preacher" even have the honor of given the invocation? Warren's already got a huge spotlight and bully pulpit and his message is certainly not a unifying one.
Why couldn't some obscure everyday in the trenches loving individual give the invocation instead. There are thousands of people out there that fit that description and would be far more worthy of the honor and the message that I think would exemplify Obama's message. That's what I'd appreciate.
I'm saying my worry is that if president elect Obama can give such an honor and privilege to those who openly promote and practice divisive intolerance, bigotry, and hatred then Obama's message gets muted. For example one might say, hey Obama thinks this guy isn't so bad after all because he gave him this honor, maybe Warren's message (of inequality, bigotry and intolerance) isn't that bad after all. I mean just how how divisive and hate filled can this guy's opinions really be after all...maybe Warren's extreme views aren't so extreme after all. That's what I'm worried about.
Why even give the appearance that you yourself condone this guy's message and divisiveness. Why take that chance. That's my worry.
But hey that's just me and I'm not the president elect.
Posted by emal at December 17, 2008 03:13 PMGawd how I love to see all you lefties with your panties in a wad cuz Obama disappoints you.
Posted by rockabilly at December 17, 2008 03:22 PMI must say I am surprised by Obama's choice, but I think the real thing to watch here is what Warren does with this opportunity to address people. If he chooses to be un-ecumenical, I think Obama will be done with appeasing his ilk. This could be as much of a challenge as it is an invitation.
Posted by gtash at December 17, 2008 03:28 PMChris, I'm Sorry but I think there's no comparison with the meeting with Iran issue. This isn't a meeting (heck maybe he should have a meeting at some point in the future with all groups I'd be for that if he felt the need to bridge the gaps and divide)...this is huge state affair with all the formal state affair traditional pomp and circumstances and bells and whistles event. It was an honor that was given to him at a very historical and prestigious event.
Posted by emal at December 17, 2008 03:31 PMI cringed when I heard the prayer at Bush's inauguration - in Jesus' name. . . .
Will Rich Warren include all of us in his prayers? Very doubtful - he doesn't think those who don't believe in God should run for office.
But not surprising. Obama only quit his church when forced to by the Rules Committee. Nothing will surprise me on the issue of gays, abortion, or separation of church and state when it comes to Obama.
Posted by jmac at December 17, 2008 03:44 PMEmal,
I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. I'm not sure how else I was to interpret your words other than as "I'll tolerate you, but at arms length"? You were concerned with not conferring legitimacy on people like Warren. That's the very same intolerent excuse that people who favor calling same sex marriage "civil union" use. They're tolerent but the don't want to convey the sense of legitimacy on gay relationships. They don't really want to recognize gays as equals. You're making the same argument in the opposite direction. Sorry if that being pointed out causes you some discomfort. Hate to tell you but Warren is just as legitimate an American as you or I.
snark--interpret what I write as you wish, wtf. Barack Obama can defend himself; it's not my job.
Again, I do wonder if having Warren giving the invocation is a statement about Obama's personal brand of Christianity rather than a statement about politics at all. I put the question out there without offering an answer at all, because I'm not a Christian and don't know enough about Christian thought in general or Obama's brand thereof in particular. And yes, although I certainly do know Democrats who take their Christianity seriously, and blogs where such people are likely to comment, I realize that I should not expect my question to be given a congenial reception here.
I know the mantra about the personal being political, but sorry, some things are simply personal and not political at all. If you were to ask Obama about Warren's planned invocation, he might tell you that it's not a political statement. I don't know, and you're going to make you own interpretation anyway.
Posted by joel dan walls at December 17, 2008 04:29 PMsnark,
I'm making no argument in the opposite direction and you keep putting words in my mouth and frankly you seem to read way too much into my words and do a good job of going off on tangents. Now you've somehow compared (imo wrongly) my argument with those that agree with civil unions versus gay marriage. Oh puhleeze. (an aside but not relevant here, I'm for gay marriage- and I've witnessed the havoc it hasn't wreaked on traditional marriage firsthand living with it here in Massachusetts for the past few years).
The issue as plainly as I see it and can explain it (and I realize I'm not the most succinct or a great writer/commenter here by a long shot) is whether or not I believe Obama should give such an honor at such a prestigious state affair to such a bigoted, intolerant,inflammatory and divisive figure all in the name of tolerance.
Now, I disagree and stated some of my reasons why I disagree with Obama's choice here. Maybe my reasoning doesn't fly with your intepretations of them ...and well that's just the way it goes sometimes here. But, by my reasoning this pick not only sends mixed messages to people but it represents little change from the past. Obama ran on a platform saying he would bring change. Voices like Warren and his hate filled bigoted ilk friends like Dobson have been in the spotlight for the past 8 years. There are thousands of others out there who have been virtually shut out from any voice or seat at the table in our country for many years. Let's bring them into the process too. We've not had much of an opportunity to see or hear from those people with alternative points and it'd be a change to finally see/hear from them. Many of those voices are also far more exemplary of Mr. Obama's platform and should receive such an honor on this historical occasion. (It'd be a welcome face that I would want to give if it were my inauguration). If Obama wants a divisive bigoted individual to be a part of this special occasion and representative of any message or image this sends to the people...go for it. I personally think it's very divisive and not helpful in bringing forth any real change, ending intolerance or divisiveness...it's the same ole same ole.
We'll have to agree to disagree here and sorry my arguments are not debate worthy of your standards and/or interpretations. I'm not trying to convince you of why I think it's a bad choice... trust me, I just know a bad choice when I see it ;-P
Hmm, it definitely looks like I'm in the minority on this one. Not on disliking Warren, but my objections are on Warren's emphasis of church growth and marketing over theology.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Strategy for church growth splits congregants
This not a politically ideological signal Obama is sending; this is a managerial signal. I think comparing Obama's professed beliefs in government and how it operates to Warren's ideas on how to change Christian churches points out their similarities - and it's not going to be missed by the young evangelical Christian vote, even if they differ on social stands like abortion.
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 17, 2008 05:54 PMIt's funny to read the Obama-bots crying about his Republican appointees and reaching out to the most hateful and vile people in America for some bullshit unity. The only unity those assholes want is everyone living their fantasy of Ward and June Cleaver while anyone not married, white, straight and Christian can go to hell.
It's times like these I'm glad my state went red. I'm not responsible for this fuck-stain, even if he was the better of two bad choices.
Posted by Moses at December 17, 2008 06:30 PM...is whether or not I believe Obama should give such an honor at such a prestigious state affair to such a bigoted, intolerant,inflammatory and divisive figure all in the name of tolerance.
What better opportunity? 'Lead by example' ain't big with the crowd here today I see.
I personally think it's very divisive and not helpful in bringing forth any real change, ending intolerance or divisiveness...it's the same ole same ole.
Right, so you think a show of intolerance and division from Obama is the right way to usher in a new age of tolerance and inclusion? I mean, what you're saying seems to be, imo, that you want more tolerance and togetherness, just not with the people you don't want to tolerate and be together with. Imo.
Posted by snark at December 17, 2008 06:55 PMI think seven of six has it almost right, as does snark. I can think of no one I'd rather have on the dais than Warren if Obama uses his speech to make a plain and human case for tolerance and contrast it with the likes of Warren - to whom he is extending a great honor as perhaps a lesson in tolerance.
Obama has the skills to pull it off with such subtlety the MSM will miss it, but Warren's head will explode and he'll be forced to maintain his composure.
If that's not his plan, well, I go with the Marketing angle...
Posted by wilson at December 17, 2008 07:37 PM"...but Warren's head will explode and he'll be forced to maintain his composure."
Maybe
Well, from what I am reading, it would have been okay for Pastor Wright to deliver the invocation too. Afterall, people preaching divisiveness is evidently okay.
Posted by Judith at December 17, 2008 08:07 PMWell, from what I am reading, it would have been okay for Pastor Wright to deliver the invocation too.
Would you be complaining on the basis of his being divisive if Obama had announced that Wright would be doing the invocation Judith?
Afterall, people preaching divisiveness is evidently okay.
Did anyone here say it was okay in any way that implies agreement with any "divisiveness" that Warren may preach? Personally, my position is that reaching out to those one disagrees with is in fact a change from the past 8 years. It is an act of inclusiveness that is in direct opposition to the past we all complain about so much.
Do you really think Mr. Warren is going to use his opportunity to preach "divisiveness"?
Posted by snark at December 17, 2008 08:28 PMSuck it down folks - this little shew ain't for yew. Obama's courting the soon-to-be middlin' moderate Evangelicals whom are spearheading contemporary and other forms of 'new' worship.
In the words of Ronnie Raygun, with their concern for the poor and environment, these kids and young adults are liberal - they just don't know it yet.
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 17, 2008 09:48 PMOk, so this story is now the lead on CNN.com. Big picture of Obama and big picture of Warren. And what's the headline? Obama inaugural choice sparks outrage
First line;
Prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents criticized President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday for choosing evengelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the presidential inauguration next month.
The story continues;
"By inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table," [said Joe] Solmonese [president of the Human Rights Campaign].
So groups who want to be included with a "place at the table" want Obama to exclude others from the table.
And that's how the media is playing it. Rick Warren may have beliefs that many find distasteful and antiquated, but it's the liberal and gay groups that want people (ie. Rick Warren) excluded. Rick Warren isn't demanding that anyone be excluded from the inaugural festivities.
It's stunning to me that so many people fail to see the irony here.
Check out the other preacher doing the closing benediction.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 18, 2008 06:13 AMI'm sure the conservatives will be up in arms and full of outrage that someone who supports GLBT rights is going to participate in the inauguration, coyote! Dontcha think?
Posted by snark at December 18, 2008 06:22 AMPlease direct your comments on the Warren selection to Sen. Diane Feinstein, chair of the Joint Inaugural Committee of the House and Senate. They are the group responsible for the inauguration program, including the selection of Warren, Rev. Lowery, and Aretha Franklin. Obama did not have a direct say in any of this. To the degree that he agreed with the selection, that's where the criticism should be directed in his case.
Posted by Heath at December 18, 2008 07:19 AMI dunno, snark. I think the conservatives might be having way more fun watching the anger on the left. That's pretty much what they live for, I think. Of course, if we didn't protest Warren's invitation to the ceremony, we'd be giving our tacit approval of the choice, so I think it's right to expose some of Warren's less well known beliefs, and let the people decide for themselves whether it's something to get hot and bothered about. I don't think they will, since Warren's a bestselling author of upbeat books as far as the masses are concerned. Getting upset over a pastor, especially at xmas time, especially when people tend to lean more on their beliefs during turbulent times, might not be the best idea in the macro sense. I can see O'reilly turning this into another battle in the ongoing "War on Christmas!"
Also, the media's looking for little shit stories like "Liberals outraged!" so they can perpetuate the meme that libbies are always comically outraged about sumpin' and they're turning on Obama. Is there or isn't there a honeymoon? The meme's carried them pretty far with Obama's cabinet picks, hasn't it? It's filler so they don't have to talk about the real issue everyone wants to hear about: the economy.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 18, 2008 07:25 AMDeeds speak louder than words. Let's see if a hate crimes law and anti-discrimination law passes over the next year.
Posted by gay veteran at December 18, 2008 12:30 PMGawd how I love to see all you lefties with your panties in a wad cuz Obama disappoints you.
Ahhh yes, here it comes. I've just been sitting around waiting for this.
During the campaign the right runs around screaming "Obama is a Liberal! He's a Marxist! A socialist!"
We've said time and time again. No, he's not. He's a pragmatic centrist with some left leaning social policies. I've said personally I'm going to have many issues with him and his choices.
Now, once again the right is proven wrong, they find it funny because he is not meeting our expectations?
Rockabilly, you and your ilk are so fucking pathetic is laughable.
Posted by at December 18, 2008 12:31 PMIn a way, I think it's Warren who's facing a problem here. Since the sky-pilots of his type in the USA generally deliver a message with lots of political content, as opposed to the sort of mild vapourings you'd have got from a nice old English vicar about 70 years ago, what is Warren actually going to say? If a really right-wing president had been elected,surely Warren would have got some political content into his speech, with at least coded references to such things as abortion and gay rights. But after all, the people pushing the Warren agenda have lost at the ballot box, haven't they? If Warren even hints at hoping for the sort of future he wants,then he's the one who will be seen as divisive. If a substantial majority of Americans had wanted what Warren wants, Obama wouldn't have been elected.
Posted by Colin at December 18, 2008 02:34 PMOBAMA TEAM TO INCLUDE KLANSMEN AT INAUGURATION
by Scarlet O'Butler - NYT 18 Dec 2008
In a surprising move, surrounded by much secrecy, Sen. Diane Feinstein [D-Ca] (who is in charge of a $1.24 million budget for the 56th quadrennial presidential inauguration) announced today that President-elect Obama would host the Grand Wizard of the KKK at the inauguration.
When asked about the mixed messages such a gesture might send, the Senior Senator said "it's sends a message of inclusion that even the dimmest bulb will understand" she went on to say "we want to reach out to all the cracks and crevices in America, even if means looking under slimy rocks". While the Senior Senator distanced herself from the outreach search committee due to her aversion to manual labor, she did offer up "that whatever the search committee found, ought to be included".
When asked what Obama and a head Klansman might do together, she offered that while the two originally planned to drink beer and shoot some hoops, the plan was changed when the Wizard complained that being seen on a basketball court might send the "wrong" message to the KKK members. Instead, the two will sit around and practice knots and finish with a bonfire specifically built by the Grand wizard for the ceremony.
While this meeting might seem alienating to one of President-elect Obama's biggest support groups, it is thought that the political jujitsu of this move should leave Gays who complained about the President-elect including a Preacher who insults gays and wants to deny equal rights...absolutely speechless. So far, the Washington consensus seems to support view, "this as a very clever move that should be seen as "real change" by the American public" a well respected Washington insider close to the administration was quoted as saying.
Also appearing by special invitation to the presidential inauguration will be the Hell's Angels from California, along with assorted Somali Warlords and representatives of the Sudanese Government. For the record Sen. Diane Feinstein [D-Ca] was asked if she had personally extended a warm welcome to the Brown Shirt Organization of Greater America, but she declined comment specifically on that saying that "it's a real mixed bag" and "including everybody, regardless of their background had left a lot on her plate...and she wasn't sure if it would come clean in time for the big event"
Ed. note, special thanks to Washington freelance writer John Aravosis who provided background for this story.
Posted by S Brennan at December 18, 2008 03:25 PMObama is a punk. He says vote for me and change and then he pulls this republican shit. Obanabot can go to hell. He is a pig and and a punk deal with it.
Posted by PadrePio at December 18, 2008 08:04 PMThere is a lot of hate on this thread. I can't tell whether it's Republicans, racists, or just unhinged folks - but it ain't coming across well. I see people calling Obama a fuckstain; I see people telling him to go to hell.
Grow up. You convince no one to do anything but tune you out with garbage like that.
Posted by Marc at December 18, 2008 10:12 PM"It's stunning to me that so many people fail to see the irony here."
Snark, I think there are an awfully lot of smart people here who get it. They just don't agree with you, that's all.
Bad choice, but my take is that the wingnuts on the committee had some input on this:
"WASHINGTON, DC - Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, today announced the program for the 56th Presidential Inauguration, which will take place on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2009.
"I am delighted to announce this superb line-up of participants in the 2009 inaugural ceremonies," said Senator Feinstein. "The inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama will be an event of historic proportion. It is appropriate that the program will include some of the world's most gifted artists from a wide range of backgrounds and genres."
The program participants were invited by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and chosen by the Chairman, the Presidential-elect and the Vice President-elect. In addition to Senator Feinstein, the members of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies include: Senator Bob Bennett, Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer; and House Republican Leader John Boehner.
The order of the program will be as follows:
Musical Selections
The United States Marine Band
Musical Selections
The San Francisco Boys Chorus and the San Francisco Girls Chorus
Call to Order and Welcoming Remarks
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Invocation
Dr. Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, CA
Musical Selection
Aretha Franklin"
...Think Aretha following "Dr" Rick will show him some R-E-S-P-E-C-T?
Posted by TIKI AL at December 19, 2008 09:10 PM