Disproving Douthat On The Right's "Moderation" On Choice

A few weeks ago I called Ross Douthat's claim of conservative moderation on the issue of choice disingenuous. Digby, in writing about her justified dismay (the dismay has been expressed across the Left blogosphere) that Rick Warren will be legitimized by President-Elect Obama's choice of Warren to give the inaugural invocation, provides me with the clinching argument on Douthat's disingenuousness:

“Of course I want to reduce the number of abortions,” Warren told Beliefnet Editor-in-Chief Steven Waldman[,] . . . “[b]ut to me it is kind of a charade in that people say ‘We believe abortions should be safe and rare,’” he added. “Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,’” Warren said. “I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”

Warren proves that Douthat's column was deeply disingenuous, if not outright dishonest.

Speaking for me only

< The AP Rewrites History On John Brennan | MN-Sen: Counting Votes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama hasn't done anything to rile (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:33:43 AM EST
    me until now.  WTF?  Women and gays across America thank him this morning for the cold slap in the face.  It is true though that Obama never called himself a compassionate liberal.

    Who would've thought (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:18:58 AM EST
    there'd be reason to boo at the inauguration of America's first black President??

    FISA? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:32:50 AM EST
    That was the first, this is the second.  Although he wasn't president-elect then...

    I was only talking (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:28:35 AM EST
    since becoming elect.  I have that pre-elect list and it isn't overly pretty.

    Not surprised (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:20:42 AM EST
    I don't think many in the gay community will be surprised at his pick. He has been luke warm at best in dealing with the gay community. He makes vague generalities about gay rights but then turns around and campaigns with gay bashers. I would be really amazed if there was any progress in gay rights under his administration.

    He's a very cautious politician (in spite of what many believe). Until he sees a definite polotical gain, he's going to straddle the fence and do nothing.


    Are we making a list? (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:43:35 AM EST
    I'll add the 'now now now' bailout.

    A Prop 8 supporter giving the invocation? (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by ericinatl on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:50:11 AM EST
    It took me a long time to reconcile myself to the Obama candidacy.  Yes, I wanted Hillary to win, but Obama's actions with respect to gays has always been suspect.  He reached out to conservative blacks early in his campaign by campaigning with Donny McClurkin (an -"ex-gay" AA minister).  But, I finally decided to vote for him.

    Now he invites Prop 8 supporter Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration.  It is a slap in the face to women and gays.

    I guess it was too much to ask (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:58:26 AM EST
    for him to wait until after the inauguration before he started running for re-election. Or maybe he truly does agree with Rick Warren.  Not sure which is worse.

    To clarify (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:41:44 AM EST
    I mean running to the right to get re-elected...of course I expect most of his term to be a bid for re-election. I just don't want him to start selling out immediately. but if he agrees with Warren, I guess it is not a sellout.

    So much for the secret (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:20:01 AM EST
    progressive who is just waiting until he's officially sworn into to reveal himself to be SuperLiberal!

    My biggest problem with Obama, (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    and the thing I knew would lead us to these kinds of moments, is that he never seemed to be able to establish a position and bring people to it, but instead seemed to survey the range of positions and attempt to give everyone the impression that he shared pieces and parts of people's beliefs and positions - enough to convince them he could be persuaded to come fully over to whatever position was at issue.

    Why, I used to wonder, couldn't he just take a position and fight for it?  One of the answers I kept hearing is that he first had to win, and then he could be the liberal, progressive president the country needs.  The grand plan, people insisted, was that he had to temper and moderate and hedge and shift in order to appeal to the broader electorate - but once elected, he would be all that we had hoped - and more.

    I don't think so - I think what we see here is going to happen again and again and again, and I see the marginalization of not just the issues that matter to so many, but of the people themselves, to whom these things really matter.  I see a rather condescending man choosing to lecture us on the unseemliness of not being willing to compromise our beliefs and positions for the greater good of "getting along;" he neatly shifts the accountability over to us, instead of being a real leader who is willing to fight for what is right.  We don't need a conciliator who will make sure the largest number of people do not get what they want.  

    Too many people already feel that there is no one to fight for them, and this seeming disregard for and disinterest in the anger and betrayal he engenders by not being that fighter is going to rip us even farther apart.

    Urgh.  I feel queasy.


    I think this puts it very nicely (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:10:29 AM EST
    If there's something you care about, Barack Obama is not likely to be your champion in the White House. At best, he'll be indifferent to you. At worst, he'll coddle your enemies and then blame you for their existence.

    You've turned the corner. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:16:10 AM EST

    Turned the corner? (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:17:27 AM EST
    I haven't ever had any illusions about Obama.

    I know. But you have (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:33:17 AM EST
    urged others to move on from the primaries, etc.  Not today, which is perfectly understandable.

    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:35:16 AM EST
    my fundamental analysis of him has ever changed. On the issues I care about, he was a better choice than John McCain, but that's about all.

    But I think what Anne (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:20:43 AM EST
    is pointing to is something more dangerous than your summary, Andgarden.  Not only will Obama not champion anything anyone really cares about, but his lack of leadership and lack of concern will likely have a divisive, destructive impact on the country.

    I hope not (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:23:09 AM EST
    But then again, hope is not a strategy. . .

    "Hope is not a strategy" (none / 0) (#79)
    by vml68 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:38:19 AM EST
    That's right. "Hope" is just a mantra to use to win an election.

    See Obama's landmark (none / 0) (#78)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:37:16 AM EST
    speech on race.

    "Okay.  I'm done.  It's up to all of you now.  Later."


    I Think (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:36:20 AM EST
    I'd rather even have Rev. Wright.  At least he'd be entertaining...

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    And I agree with Rev. Wright's analysis of our foreign policy.
    When all was said and done, it was a progressive posture.

    Warren, on the other hand, is a right-wing nut-case in the mold of Falwell and Robertson.


    With you there.... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    I can get into a Rev. Wright rabble-rousing invocation...that would be pretty cool.

    As an atheist, (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:59:48 AM EST
    I would personally take delicious joy in having a pastor shout out God D*mn America at a presidential inauguration.  I'd sit back and laugh at the firestorm.

    How about someday... (none / 0) (#74)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:34:37 AM EST
    a Rabbi?



    Not an Imam this time, I guess. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:39:37 AM EST
    How about a... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:37:49 PM EST
    Native American shaman trippin' on peyote?

    That would be must see tv.


    Transgendered. (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:38:52 PM EST
    I'll vote for that (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    That would be totally hilarious.  And what are they gonna do, impeach him?  He could be all like "Senator Obama?  No no no, PRESIDENT Obama!!!"  Come on, it wouldn't be nearly as controversial as Bill Ayers doing the 21-gun salute, right?

    At least he isn't a homophobe (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    he man woman hater.  He can go ahead and rip on some whitey for all I care if he takes the place of this YaHoo, my whitey butt is willing to suck that up!

    It would take real guts (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:42:02 AM EST
    to put up a Black Liberation Theology preacher with a controversial history....that would insult who exactly?

    Wait a sec.  He's putting up a minister who wants to deny women their reproductive freedom and insults gays.  

    So who is Obama afraid of upsetting?


    Straight white Christian global business men :) (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:44:08 AM EST
    Rick Warren? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    I wish Rick Warrens boyfriend would (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:47:59 AM EST
    just come forward!!!!

    Only a matter of time (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:55:27 AM EST
    but it would be more helpful sooner rather than later.

    Yuck (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:40:26 AM EST
    The choice of Warren, whom the Times refers to as our new "pre-eminent minister", is to me, sickening.

    Using the holocaust as an analogy to a woman's right to choose an abortion is an expression of a disturbed mind.

    I have more and more contempt for folks who kept telling us that Obama's rightward shifts and pandering to evangelicals during the campaign was just something that he had to do to get elected, but he'd be fine once he was in. Yeah, right.

    I feel this not only as an obvious slap in the face to people who want to honor the concept of separation of Church and State, but also as a warning signal that Obama has a Bush-like concept of foreign policy and of war.

    What Warren has had to say about the "evil" of Iran, and what we should do about it is chilling. For Obama to honor this guy makes me wonder about his own mental stability - and he hasn't even gotten his finger on the button yet.

    A person wrote an excellent letter to the Times today that further expresses my feelings. I have provided a link below.


    Right on to this (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:26:54 AM EST
    Using the holocaust as an analogy to a woman's right to choose an abortion is an expression of a disturbed mind.

    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:32:39 AM EST
    Has repeatedly critized the Democratic Party for not embracing God. He feels that it's cost them politically in the past. I think we're in for 4 years of more "God" than we even had under Bush.

    Who Obama prays to, or doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:45:56 AM EST
    is entirely up to him.  I don't care.

    Faith should be private.  Politics is a big enough mess without bringing organized religion into it.  


    I agree completely (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    I'm totally with you on that. And as the leader of a country as diverse as the US, Obama. or any politician, should keep religion out of it.

    I don't care if he wants to worship the sun god, just don't impose your beliefs on the rest of us.


    Ah yes, Obama words come back to me now (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    1. Abortion is always a tragedy

    2. Abortion decisions should be between a woman and her preacher

    In which case, the choice of Warren is not exactly a surprise, but still deserving of my overflowing derision and disgust.

    WSJ article on the transition (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:41:48 AM EST
    team's "considering" changing Bush-imposed rules and regs. on abortion and birth control.  Not too encouraging, in my view:  WSJ

    Not entirely honest (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    "considering how and when" is different from "considering" which implies a "whether".

    If you read the entire article, (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    it seems to me there is waffling.  Lots of hopes expressed by others as to what the Obama administration will do.  And this:

    Messrs. Clinton and Bush took action on those two issues in the opening days of their administrations. It isn't clear whether Mr. Obama will follow suit. He has suggested that he wants to find middle ground on abortion-related issues, and some Democrats worry about the politics of making abortion policy one of his opening moves.

    Whoa! (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    That sounds bad.  VERY bad.  I sure wish we could find out exactly who "some Democrats" are.

    It would be depressing (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    to see the President "biding his time" to address an issue that even Mr. Triangulation dealt with on day one.  I mean, I expect caution from Democratic politicians, but I wish they wouldn't be constantly trying to outdo one another on that measure.

    The appearance of bipartisanship (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:34:41 PM EST
    is like crack to them.

    That (none / 0) (#61)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:12:34 AM EST
    Is a reference to the global gag rule.  Which I agree is problematic if true, but there are lots of indications in the article they are planning on over-turning Bush rules and regulations in the U.S, and have indicated that if his latest "rule" passes they will pursue legislative action to overturn it.

    I sincerely hope your (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:19:21 AM EST
    optimism is justified.

    Me too (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:22:43 AM EST
    I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I do think there is some silver lining in there.

    I really don't see why how they couldn't act on the global gag rule though.


    Barack's "response" comes down to (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:42:17 AM EST

    we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable

    Yes Mr. President-elect. If we could all stop being so mean to the hate mongers, they wouldn't hate us anymore.

    And what a load of codswollop (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:51:13 AM EST
    that whole discourse was this morning, all delivered with that insufferable tone of moral superiority.  You can "disagree without being disagreeable" on the finer points of, say, ag policy maybe, but you can't "disagree without being disagreeable" on basic human rights, period.

    I didn't watch (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:56:28 AM EST
    but that absolutely comes through in the transcript. It's as if he doesn't understand what the big deal is.

    More likely, I think he just doesn't care. (Change we can believe in. . .)


    And hey, Warren invited me to speak (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:26:08 PM EST
    in his church, so what's the big deal? I legitimize him, he legitimizes me.

    i suppose (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by cpinva on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:52:38 AM EST
    "i told you so" would be considered an unseemly piling on.

    i do not now, nor have i ever trusted obama. i voted for him for the same reason i had a root canal, the alternative was worse. i don't want a bi-partisan president, reaching out to the other side, especially a side so hell bent to pull us all down to their 12th century level.

    sen. clinton must be enjoying the show.

    I doubt Sen. Clinton is (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:21:49 AM EST
    enjoying "the show," unless she seriously misled us  

    A little Tracy ranting vent as well (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:21:39 AM EST
    As a woman who came of age when women could choose I have experienced a huge gamut of scenarios where women had to choose.  Women seek each other and need each other when they make these choices so I know that many many other women on here who have a listening ear and a few years to them are exactly in my shoes.  It is a deeply personal choice, and not everyone who has confided in me chose to have an abortion either.  As a woman though I have studied this issue deeply, going back to other cultures as well and how women did not remain pregnant when a pregnancy was not desireable or even feasible, which beats the heck out of placing babies on floating ice or disguarding them in garbage heaps where they quickly die from exposure.  From a sociological perspective this debate infuriates me.  Never before have we needed family planning more as our globe becomes ever increasingly over populated, yet these whack jobs want every fetus to have more rights than the mother that must care for it and then they begin to work their way to ridding us of birth control as well as their little debate continues.  They'd rather withhold birth control and watch children starve to death in third world countries, I guess that is God's will verses humans actually taking action using the many ways that GOD REVEALED  to them to avoid causing other human beings pain and suffering.  As this terrible financial crisis deepens though you just watch this G*D D*MNED current debate evaporate as every single person living in the fata$$ed United States has to deal with the lower echelons of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.  Since Grandpa Kit lived through the Great Depression and has been right about money and markets so far........let's just see if he is right about this rights of abortion issue as well because he talked about this too and he had five granddaughters he talked to about it. People who saw children starve during the beginning of the depression and saw overstuffed to brimming orphanages and young woman die needlessly didn't challenge abortion rights much and wouldn't dream of challenging any form of birth control deemed safe enough for the user because they lived through a time and a certain hell without those things.  This whole thing just makes me furious!

    Meanwhile, huge red headline (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:25:54 AM EST
    on Huff. Post shouting Bill Clinton's foundation garnered megabucks from foreigners.  And what did he do with that money?  Help poor, sick people in foreign countries.  

    God forbid he gave some third world (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:27:09 AM EST
    nation that the Bush administration was stiffing some birth control!

    small donors (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by jedimom on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:57:16 AM EST
    the irony is the Big Dawg foundation appears to have more actual small donors than the Obama campaign did, based on the AP piece....

    and that Politico hit piece on their front page, the 'dump'. Mike Allen is Offended he has to 'search for the information

    you mean you know do some actual reading to do some journalism? shocking!

    apparently Big Dawg wasnt suppose to give us everything when they said give us everything. Mike Allen wanted Bill to go thru and select controversial names and give him that as a kind of crib sheet I guess

    what a bunch of maroons

    as an aside I recvd 2 nice letters form Big Dawg ion re the donations explaining how he needs to publish the Db to be transparent so Hill can serve as SoS, it was very nicely done..

    I want to go look for my name but the site is crashing form all the CDS filled morons looking for something evil...


    I was amazed (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:36:49 AM EST
    at the recent flap over that Planned Parenthood chapter offering gift cards.  Oh, heaven forfend.  Even the Daily Show cracked jokes about it.

    I'm told 3-5% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion-related services.  Big whoop.  Apparently because of that, it would be horribly offensive if someone could pass out gift cards at the women's shelter to help women get their gynecological exams and such.  Strange world we live in.


    and on a related note (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:48:23 AM EST
    wtf holy crapballs wtf????

    The Bush administration today issued a sweeping new regulation that protects a broad range of health care workers -- from doctors to janitors -- who refuse to participate in providing services that they believe violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

    The controversial rule empowers federal health officials to cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, clinic, health plan, doctors' office or other entity if they do not accommodate employees who exercise their "right of conscience." It would apply to more than 584,000 health care facilities.

    h/t SusanG...


    PEBO.. (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by jedimom on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    PEBO better address this out of the gate, Congress can;t fix it can they?

     I dont care how unpopular PEBO thinks it will be with his nonexistent Obamicans in 12...

    this is the idiotic crxp Hillary was fighting against..arrrgggle...

    but the tools are all continuing to dig into the CGI donations,...good grief....


    From today's word-a-day e-mail: (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    In politics, absurdity is not a handicap. -Napoleon Bonaparte, general and politician (1769-1821)

    I see you and raise you... (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:48:04 PM EST
    "There is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is not capable; for in politics there is no honour."
    --Benjamin Disraeli

    To quote Barack Obama (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:06:34 PM EST
    And I think that it's absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I'm ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I've shown leadership.

    Funny guy!!

    No one has done more... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:09:49 PM EST
    Stepping out on the wrong foot (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    Hate and bigotry being rewarded.

    Nice start for an administration that most progressive's drooled over. I would have expected Warren to address a McCain inauguration rather than an Obama one.

    I'd debate (none / 0) (#96)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:36:30 PM EST
    the "most progressives" part.  Democrats?  Possibly.  Ex-Republicans?  Probably.  Actual issues oriented progressives?  I don't see it.

    President-elect Obama (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:09:47 PM EST
    to ya'all re Warren:  chill out.

    Detroit Free Press

    "fierce advocate"? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:28:06 PM EST
    Saying it doesn't make it so, Joe.

    I think that the GLBTs might have slightly different opinions.


    Well, unfortunately, (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:38:47 PM EST
    I think a lot of the GLBT establishment leadership pretended, during the general election, that Obama was a "fierce advocate."  So, when HRC and other organizations cry crocodile tears now, I'm not sure I have much sympathy for them.

    However, I don't think that most of Joe and Jane GLBTers out there were ever hoodwinked.


    Most of us thought, probably correctly, (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:06:07 PM EST
    that Obama would be better than McCain. That was the choice.

    I never really thought he was going to be a fierce advocate, but it sure would have been nice.


    Is it outside the realm of possibility... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:16:26 AM EST
    that Obama is extending an olive branch to Warren in an effort to get him see the light on abortion and gay rights issues?

    I'm torn on this...I've got no patience for bigots and holy rollers, but it is their country too.  And we secular, pro-choice, equal rights people didn't like it when Bush all but shut us out of anything to do with the executive branch.  Better or worse, we're all Americans and we gotta live together. Warren, McClurkin, and the like may well be beyond help...but ya never know until you try.

    Not saying this is Obama's reasoning...he may well just be playing more political games, trying to curry favor with the holy roller set.

    Well, then, I'm sure (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:20:14 AM EST
    you can name the outspoken racist and the outspoken anti-semite who were given high profile speaking positions at the inauguration.  I mean, isn't it their country too?

    Unfortunately it is.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:26:01 AM EST
    and the constitution guarantees them representation.

    But there are only so many speaking spots...and only one religous invocation or whatever you call it.  And what major religion doesn't have hang-ups about homosexuality and abortion?

    I'm more bothered by the fact there is a religous invocation at the inauguration to begin with than the choice of who will deliver it...what about seperation of church and state?


    I'm sure Obama could (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:28:06 AM EST
    have found a sexist homophobic bigot pastor who also has made pointedly racist and anti-semitic comments.  Do you doubt that he could have?  Seems to me he picked his favorite bigotries to legitimize.

    kdog, come on (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Teresa on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:56:44 AM EST
    and the constitution guarantees them representation

    Sure it does...but at the inauguration?


    No... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:13:50 AM EST
    not at the inauguration.  Point taken.

    You know me T...I think the guys nuts.  But you can't deny he's hugely popular, which is a whole different sad state of affairs, but true none the less.

    And I won't go so far as to call him unredeemable.  Once you deem your adversary unredeemable, there is nowhere to go.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by talesoftwokitties on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    Is it outside the realm of possibility... that Obama is extending an olive branch to Warren in an effort to get him see the light on abortion and gay rights issues?

    Simple answers....


    Ok... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:44:11 AM EST
    My realm of the possible is perhaps greater than yours.

    I will grant you its a longshot...but I can't see in Obama's heart...he's a pol, so I assume it is a crazen and self-serving act, but thats my prejudice talking.


    No, that's your inner pol talking. (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:23:59 AM EST
    Obama is a Pol's Pol.  The man hasn't shown any real ideology of his own outside of Getting Elected.

    Will any elected Dem say anything about Warren or will it just be the lowly rabble making noise?


    No (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:39:07 AM EST
    It is not outside the realm of possbility that Obama would use this to try to change Warren's views.  But it is way outside the realm of possiblity that he will succeed. About as likely to work as any of his Unity Schtick gambits to reach out to Congressional Republicans.

    Miracles happen.... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:47:14 AM EST
    even Barry Goldwater eventually saw the light on gays in the military.

    One thing for sure...labeling the Warrens of the world evil and unredeemable never works.  When these churches label gays unredeemable and doomed to eternal damnation, that ain't causing any gays to change who they are, right?


    So, again, where are the racists (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:51:47 AM EST
    on the inaugural stage.  Where are the anti-semites?  I'm sure some neo-Nazis would be thrilled to read a prayer on the inaugural stage.

    You still have said nothing to convince that he isn't targeting certain bigotries here.  Your attempts to portray this as that Obama wants ALL points of view to be given equal legitimacy on his inaugural stage doesn't hold up.


    I'm not portraying anything... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:04:41 AM EST
    for sure, just playing devils advocate.  If there was an anti-gay, anti-semite, anti-woman, anti-druggie, anti-immigrant, anti-take your pick with a following larger than Warrens they may well be the one giving the invocation.

    By all means voice your gripes...I sure as hell got no love for the guy, I didn't vote for him.  


    Devil's advocate? BS. (4.00 / 3) (#26)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:11:41 AM EST
    You just get your kicks by poking with a stick.

    Bullsh*t... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:16:33 AM EST
    I get my kicks thinking about things and sharing those thoughts with others.

    Not everybody can be a know-it-all without any doubts andgarden.  Meh.


    validation (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by jedimom on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    I think this is the same problem with sitting down for one on one talks with A-jad out of the gate, PEBO didnt see an issue there either so maybe kdog is right about how he is thinking

    I disagree with it, I think it validates the views of people to give them your seal of approval by having them perform sich a hugely visible and promoted event..I felt the same way about McClurkin and A-jad

    he validates them by accepting their views as reasonable IMO....


    Thanks for trying... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    to see my point jedimom.  I disagree with you...I'd talk to A-jad without preconditions and invite a crazy preacher to my inauguration.  Doesn't mean I agree with them, and I don't see it as a vaidation of their views.  Views don't need validations in order to be held.  We have to share space with the reasonable and the unreasonable alike.  Stick to your guns if you are convinced you are right, of course...but at least talk and even break bread with yuour adversaries.  I honestly don't see the harm, but I do see a potential for gain.

    And who knows...maybe you'll learn something as well.


    But calling them/him out (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by talesoftwokitties on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:12:58 AM EST
    for their bigotry certainly does work.  Just look at the attention/discussion this is drawing.  That's a good thing. Obama is supposed to be a Democrat - Warren does not represent Democratic principles.  Warren has no place at the swearing in of a Democrat.  

    I don't use language like (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:29:34 PM EST
    'evil' and 'unredeemable' to label anyone. I do not have a religious worldview.  

    I wasn't invited (none / 0) (#41)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:37:42 AM EST
    to speak at the inauguration.  In fact, I haven't been invited to the inauguration at all.

    Does that mean Barack Obama considers me evil and unredeemable?  Or does it just mean, you know, he didn't invite me?


    I was referring.... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:43:41 AM EST
    to those in the comments who seem to think Warren is unredeemable.

    And if you had a sell-out crowd every Sunday to hear you preach in an church the size of an arena and weren't invited Steve, you probably should wonder why Obama snubbed you.


    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:49:46 AM EST
    So every preacher who has a huge audience is going to be speaking?  This is going to be one long-ass inauguration.

    If Obama disagrees with people who consider Warren unredeemable, that's great, but he doesn't need to give him a speaking slot at the inauguration to make the point.  I think "unredeemable" is a bit of a strawman anyway.  It's not an issue of whether Warren might change his mind about gays someday, it's that nobody believes inviting him to speak at the inauguration is going to help change his mind.

    This invitation is very clearly happening for political reasons on both sides, and not because Obama thinks his inauguration is the perfect opportunity to soften Pharaoh's heart.  I honestly don't know who you're kidding with that theory.


    Only one can speak... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:31:16 PM EST
    are you denying Warren is one of the most popular and recognizable preachers in the US?  The guy hosted a presidential debate for christs sake....he's a player.  That's kinda sad...sad but true.

    Whats the best way to achieve our common goals?  I used to feel like a lot of people...I hated the Robertsons and the Falwells and the Warrens with a passion, though of them as evil human beings who should be exiled to a deserted island somewhere.  Then it dawned on me...I sounded as hateful and closeminded as they do...we gotta try something else to come together in peace than harmony other than demonizing and ostracizing...that just hardens hearts and closes minds even more.

    Granted...some people are beyond help, and Warren may be one of those people.  I just don't know that for sure.  


    You're a bigger person than I am (none / 0) (#113)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned, Warren, and preachers like him, can go f*** themselves. When their preaching becomes centered around violating and denying ANYONE's civil rights they don't deserve to be coddled by ANYONE, least of all the current president-elect.

    There is no silver lining to including Warren in the inauguration. None.


    Thank you... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    but I doubt I am...I've still got a very closed mind when it comes to who I view as my oppressors...cops, prosecutors, and lawmakers....but I'm workin' on it.  Tougher nut to crack for me:)

    I didn't hire Obama (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:24:12 AM EST
    to change Warren's views.  I hired him to run this country while the problems we face are profound, and now this is the idiot who will give the inaugural invocation?

    "In Jesus' name we pray. Amen." (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:27:11 AM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:45:43 AM EST
    It is outside the realm of possibility.

    Do you really feel that your eyes and ears are deceiving you?


    Most of the Democratic party (though Obama (none / 0) (#29)
    by tigercourse on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    has lead the way) has been sucking up to Warren for years now. He's our "in" with the Evangelicals. I don't see how anyone can be surprised by his being included in the inauguration. I'm frankly surprised he or one of his people isn't running the "Office of Faith based whatever it's called now".

    Anyway, this is a bunch of steps up from what happened in South Carolina.

    "not-McClurkin"? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    Is that all you have?  At least he's not Donnie McClurkin?  

    Yeah. Not a ringing endorsement. (none / 0) (#86)
    by tigercourse on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:01:50 PM EST
    Why is it always our gay Americans... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:44:49 AM EST
    ...who seem to get thrown under the bus first and fastes?  Imagine being a gay black woman, wow, you'd be so far under the bus you'd be part of the suspension.  Seriously, Clinton caved on gays in the military almost before he took office, Obama sends the symbolic message that "unity" means marginalizing and insulting a certain significant portion of the country.  Personally, I don't believe Obama when he talks about gay marriage.  I think he's fine with it, spends no time worrying about it, but simply can't bring himself to face the temporary unpopularity that would come with being honest.

    Now I REALLY won't be watching the inauguration.

    Let's be real here (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:57:22 PM EST
    Clinton may have "caved" on gays in the military (it's a matter of opinion) but he hardly did so "almost before he took office."  In fact, he spent an awful lot of political capital making the issue a top priority, and yes, he got badly burned on it.  He stuck his neck out and it was chopped off.  But let's not rewrite history to make it sound like he just couldn't wait to cave in.  If he truly didn't want to confront that difficult issue, he wouldn't have brought it up during his first 100 days at all.

    So true (none / 0) (#112)
    by talesoftwokitties on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:36:04 PM EST
    and I'm glad you made the point.  The revisionists are tiresome.

    Clinton still changed things in the military (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:06:40 PM EST
    for gays serving much to the chagrin of all those superduper straight soldiers who "worry" about other soldiers' gayness.  You could no longer have a soldier questioned about being gay if you suspected they were.

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#84)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    why anyone should be surprised by this. It's not like Obama has shown any signs otherwise, you know, that he's actually the super-king of all things atheist/feminist/gay-rights-activist.

    Since he hasn't, this doesn't come as a surprise to me. With that said, let the jerk say the prayer and let him be done with it. The end.

    He is what he is - a Pol. (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:08:44 PM EST
    I'm not sure what Obama is supposed to be a symbol of except how money wins elections.  

    (and the rampant misogyny of the media and America in general.  Those are the two things I remember best about this election year.  Jillions of dollars spent on campaigns and that it is still okay to bash women in public.)


    You really think (none / 0) (#92)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:14:31 PM EST
    that Obama is the epitome of all American misogyny?

    No. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:34:25 PM EST
    Not Obama.  This year in political campaigns and campaign coverage.  Twelve months of finding out what really matters.

    Obama?  Women's Rights?  They probably rank somewhere after getting re-elected in 2012.

    The man is just a pol.  He's got no taste for fighting for the sake of principle if it means being seen as unpopular.  If we are lucky, he'll appoint people who aren't afraid to take the heat in order to get something done.  But I don't expect Obama himself to lead the charge on anything too unpopular.


    Well, with that (none / 0) (#99)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM EST
    I don't disagree (which is pretty sad, but reality none-the-less).

    If it were Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:25:28 PM EST
    I wouldn't expect the sun, moon, and stars from her, but she's not afraid to fight when she thinks she's got a chance.  So I'd definitely expect some results on women's issues, health care, GLBT rights.

    But Obama?  No more than seems prudent for the current political climate.  He doesn't try to reframe issues completely, he just tries to nudge them a little here or there.  Better than a Republican, but that's faint praise.


    Is there some issue with the site right now? (none / 0) (#106)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:26:27 PM EST

    Yes. Not everyone agrees with me. (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:32:53 PM EST
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    Seriously, though, unless I post a comment, everything seems frozen in time.

    Obama can include any idiot he wants at (none / 0) (#118)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:27:19 AM EST
    at the table; that's his prerogative, and maybe that attitude will result in more buy in and better solutions to our problems.  But to invite/allow Rick Warren to present the invocation at the inauguration is like honoring a KKK leader.  Rick Warren compares reproductive choice to the Holocaust and same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia.  He's mean and divisive and promotes bigotry and hatred.  

    Go here to sign a petition and let Obama know what a bad decision he made honoring this jerk and giving his meanness even more of a public voice than he has preaching to bigots.