Now Obama Slaps the Gay Community with Rick Warren

[BlackAsCoal]

The problem is, even though the more far left people supported him, they aren't sufficient to give him a win anymore than just the right-wing is sufficient to give a Republican a win. To win, you've got to have good moderate support, and those people like to see a more reasoned approach to appointments and not a catering to the extreme wing.

One of the biggest mistakes the GOP made over the years was catering to the religious right.

One of the biggest mistakes the Dems made was having nuts like Michael Moore as part of the public face of their party and prominently positioned at their convention. They stopped doing that, and it has led to victory.

I don't disagree with you my wise friend on many points of what you've said. However, one thing is sure, he cannot win without the left .. and many who make up the antiwar movement, which was the force that drove him to the nomination over Clinton, are not made up of "far-left" voters.

Centrist politics is one of the biggest reasons why democrats have only occupied the White House for a grand total of 3 terms in the last 40 years. Centrist politics is for losers and republicans don't play that .. In fact, their problem was they had so much power they got drunk with it. The decline of the republicans had little to do with the successes of the Democratic Party and everything to do with them getting drunk with power and overplaying their hand.

Even in the two terms Clinton had, he couldn't keep Congress in democratic hands ... even though he went into office with about the exact same advantage Obama now has ... and guess what, I predict Obama will not be able to keep Congress in democratic hands either .. WHY?

It will be for the same reasons Clinton could not .. centrist politics are for losers.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Maybe Obama chose Rev. Warren because they have the same view of homosexual marriage?

Could someone show me Obama's view on homosexual marriage. I know Rev. Warren is against it, I would assume Obamas' is the same. I'm not talking just about gay rights in general, I mean homosexual marriage.

Hint: I already know the answer! Haha!

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Maybe Obama chose Rev. Warren because they have the same view of homosexual marriage?

Could someone show me Obama's view on homosexual marriage. I know Rev. Warren is against it, I would assume Obamas' is the same. I'm not talking just about gay rights in general, I mean homosexual marriage.

Hint: I already know the answer! Haha!

Now you've uncovered the trick of the Svengali Mindfuck.

Make it appear as if it's an opposing view, when in fact, it's your own.

 

[Esta_PG]

Well, there are two things about this that strike me. Firstly, yes Obama is trying to accommodate many different views by having Rick Warren AND this other guy (Joseph Lowery, right?) have roles at his inauguration. That kind of pandering, though, isn't necessarily admirable. It's a good idea politically, but it's hard to know what he really means or believes.

Secondly, who is he kidding when he says he's "a fierce advocate for, uh, gay and lesbian rights"? Has he EVER authored legislation promoting LGBT equality? Basically, he supports LGBT rights when it's politically viable to do so. Sponsoring and running on a "40 Days of Faith and Family" tour in South Carolina with anti-gay singing groups to gain social clout in the south while promoting the 'No on 8' campaign in California to shore up support there? You can't have it both ways; you're either for gay rights (which he claims) or you're not.

Fact is, there's a big difference from being "a fierce advocate" and simply not opposing pro-LGBT (which sounds like a sandwich to me, even after all these years) legislation. So don't bullshit anyone into saying you're pro-LGBT when you're simply no better than not-anti-LGBT. How many high-profile politicians really are pro-LGBT? Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer are the only two jumping immediately to mind, although Nancy Pelosi probably is as well.

 

[Chris]

As Bill Maher said, the great thing about America is that we don't listen to our religious leaders.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Well, there are two things about this that strike me. Firstly, yes Obama is trying to accommodate many different views by having Rick Warren AND this other guy (Joseph Lowery, right?) have roles at his inauguration. That kind of pandering, though, isn't necessarily admirable. It's a good idea politically, but it's hard to know what he really means or believes.

Secondly, who is he kidding when he says he's "a fierce advocate for, uh, gay and lesbian rights"? Has he EVER authored legislation promoting LGBT equality? Basically, he supports LGBT rights when it's politically viable to do so. Sponsoring and running on a "40 Days of Faith and Family" tour in South Carolina with anti-gay singing groups to gain social clout in the south while promoting the 'No on 8' campaign in California to shore up support there? You can't have it both ways; you're either for gay rights (which he claims) or you're not.

Fact is, there's a big difference from being "a fierce advocate" and simply not opposing pro-LGBT (which sounds like a sandwich to me, even after all these years) legislation. So don't bullshit anyone into saying you're pro-LGBT when you're simply no better than not-anti-LGBT. How many high-profile politicians really are pro-LGBT? Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer are the only two jumping immediately to mind, although Nancy Pelosi probably is as well.

Welcome aboard.

The Svengali Mindfuck Master gets to have it both ways because most who support him are still transfixed by his powers of smoke and mirrors and deception.

They've been programmed with a 1000 excuses for him speaking out of both sides of his head.

Obama chose Warren for a good reason .. he agrees with him.

Sticking Lowery at the end is all part of the illusion. Lowery has far more gravitas and significant history than Warren, but Lowery is the OPPOSING view, not Warren.

 

[jillian]

Welcome aboard.

The Svengali Mindfuck Master gets to have it both ways because most who support him are still transfixed by his powers of smoke and mirrors and deception.

They've been programmed with a 1000 excuses for him speaking out of both sides of his head.

Obama chose Warren for a good reason .. he agrees with him.

Sticking Lowery at the end is all part of the illusion. Lowery has far more gravitas and significant history than Warren, but Lowery is the OPPOSING view, not Warren.

Good day, BAC. I don't know that I'd call Obama a SMM, but I do think he's a brilliant politician. Personally, I HATE everything that Warren stands for. But it quiets a huge, loud, opposition. Basically, he diffuses the use of stupid wedge issues against him and other Dems. He won't get rid of it, but it does take away a lot of arguments and fervor.

Realistically, Lowery should have had the place of honor, IMO. He has much more of a history and deserved the honor.

But on the other hand, Obama made it look like he's being blessed by the radical religious right. I'm amazed Warren is even doing it.

Brilliant political move, even though I don't like the symbolism... or Warren.

 

[Ravi]

BAC, I think you should calm down and look at Obama's voting history on anything to do with gays.

And when's the last time a president said on national tv that he's a fierce supporter of gay rights? Oh yeah, never.

 

[matty]

Gays get emotional about everything. Just send them free tickets to a Barbra Streisand concert and they'll be fine.

Now that is progressive thinking.

 

[matty]

This guy is doing the invocation, and a pastor with opposing views is doing the benediction. Sounds to me like Obama chose two religious figures who span a good part of the landscape of religious views. That sounds to me more or less like the sort of thing Obama said he would do in terms of being a President for 'everyone,' as opposed to much of what we've seen over the past administration.

neat to find you on first thread I pop up this morning. Git 'em.

 

[matty]

Please tell me you didn't mean that the way that I meant that.

...maybe he missed it.

 

[editec]

Obama is setting out, I hope, with the understanding that this nation is torn asunder.

We will not solve this problem until we recognize that fact and accept that good men can disagree honestly

I've been thinking about his selection of speakers and I feel that his choices were wise.

He is the POTUS of one nation and his choice to give his detractors a place in the ceremony of his assumption of power was, I think, rather brilliant.

We are not going to heal American until we recognize the humanity of those who we currently think of as our enemies.

They are not our enemies, they are our neighbors.

We have been manipulated by hatred that hatred was fueled by devious men who have set out to turn us one upon the other.

It is time that we wake up and realize that fact.

This is, I think, lesson one of the Obama lectures

 

[matty]

If it were just pandering, it would bug me. I don't think it is for two reasons:

1. Apparently Obama and Warren are friends, or at least acquaintances, and Obama refers to the guy in one of his books in friendly manner; and

2. I think Obama really does want to try to pull together, to the extent it is possible, people who disagree with him on issues. One way to do that is to be respectful about differing views. And one way to do that is to bring a guy like Warren in to do something like give a prayer. It's not substantive policy, but it's at least a tacit acknowledgment of a different viewpoint and a way to show respect for the differing views.

Unlike, for example, this site, I don't see any reason that the vast majority of liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, etc. can't be respectful of one another's viewpoints even while opposing them as policy.

I bet said folks love a guy like you around here, *snicker*.--Kinda blows that shit right outta the water...*sigh*, see, now I remember why I get bored and come back here so quick...

 

[matty]

What will be interesting to see is if pandering to those who didn't vote for you while ignoring those who did equates to successful politics. I don't think there are any examples of that being true .. but perhaps Ibama is indeed the messiah and can make it happen.

Doubt it.

..nothing to counter that then? Ok, just checking.

 

[matty]

The problem is, even though the more far left people supported him, they aren't sufficient to give him a win anymore than just the right-wing is sufficient to give a Republican a win. To win, you've got to have good moderate support, and those people like to see a more reasoned approach to appointments and not a catering to the extreme wing.

One of the biggest mistakes the GOP made over the years was catering to the religious right.

One of the biggest mistakes the Dems made was having nuts like Michael Moore as part of the public face of their party and prominently positioned at their convention. They stopped doing that, and it has led to victory.

...how watching you even on nuance of things I already have a sense of helps me get things into focus, shew.

 

[matty]

I don't disagree with you my wise friend on many points of what you've said. However, one thing is sure, he cannot win without the left .. and many who make up the antiwar movement, which was the force that drove him to the nomination over Clinton, are not made up of "far-left" voters.

Centrist politics is one of the biggest reasons why democrats have only occupied the White House for a grand total of 3 terms in the last 40 years. Centrist politics is for losers and republicans don't play that .. In fact, their problem was they had so much power they got drunk with it. The decline of the republicans had little to do with the successes of the Democratic Party and everything to do with them getting drunk with power and overplaying their hand.

Even in the two terms Clinton had, he couldn't keep Congress in democratic hands ... even though he went into office with about the exact same advantage Obama now has ... and guess what, I predict Obama will not be able to keep Congress in democratic hands either .. WHY?

It will be for the same reasons Clinton could not .. centrist politics are for losers.

You keep making it sound like gays and their rights advocates make up the left...and he already won, just waiting to see what he'll do with it.

 

[matty]

Well, there are two things about this that strike me. Firstly, yes Obama is trying to accommodate many different views by having Rick Warren AND this other guy (Joseph Lowery, right?) have roles at his inauguration. That kind of pandering, though, isn't necessarily admirable. It's a good idea politically, but it's hard to know what he really means or believes.

Secondly, who is he kidding when he says he's "a fierce advocate for, uh, gay and lesbian rights"? Has he EVER authored legislation promoting LGBT equality? Basically, he supports LGBT rights when it's politically viable to do so. Sponsoring and running on a "40 Days of Faith and Family" tour in South Carolina with anti-gay singing groups to gain social clout in the south while promoting the 'No on 8' campaign in California to shore up support there? You can't have it both ways; you're either for gay rights (which he claims) or you're not.

Fact is, there's a big difference from being "a fierce advocate" and simply not opposing pro-LGBT (which sounds like a sandwich to me, even after all these years) legislation. So don't bullshit anyone into saying you're pro-LGBT when you're simply no better than not-anti-LGBT. How many high-profile politicians really are pro-LGBT? Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer are the only two jumping immediately to mind, although Nancy Pelosi probably is as well.

How's it pandering to give front seat to opposing views, to both sides of the coin? Thought that was balance.--Funny how a guy can't even do right doing that, but that's as historical as the fact it's always difficult to decipher what any politician truly 'stands for' & if this's any indication, then I suppose he's trying to stand for balance and equal air-time--least thus far--to either mainstream view, between which you'll always find plenty of gray area.

 

[matty]

BAC, I think you should calm down and look at Obama's voting history on anything to do with gays.

And when's the last time a president said on national tv that he's a fierce supporter of gay rights? Oh yeah, never.

He sure didn't say that.

 

[jillian]

He sure didn't say that.

yes. he did. maybe you weren't watching TV last night or this a.m.?

 

[Red Dawn]

BAC, I think you should calm down and look at Obama's voting history on anything to do with gays.

And when's the last time a president said on national tv that he's a fierce supporter of gay rights? Oh yeah, never.

Excellent point.

I think its appalling that Obama is giving this guy a national platform.

But, I think its a political calculation.

Obama is probably the most pro-gay president we've ever elected, for what it's worth. Will that translate into policy changes? Who knows? I hope Obama repeals the don't ask don't tell policy.

The bottom line, is that Obama is not standing there agreeing with this asswipe on a range of issues, unlike Sarah Palin and GOP bigwigs who profess to agree with Tim Hagee and Pat Robertson.