... on last night's Obama-and-Rick-Warren post. You can start a new comment on the comments thread here.
ADDED: And Jack Hawkins collects some leftosphere reactions to the Obama's choice.
১৮ ডিসেম্বর, ২০০৮
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৭৫টি মন্তব্য:
Enough about Rick Warren.
Let's talk about me.
I have so many parties to attend to over the next couple of days I don't know how I am going to manage.
I fly home to Wisconsin December 20 and back December 26. I have to leave the rare clumbers at doggy daycare and for that I feel really bad. I wish they could experience Christmas in Wisconsin. My mom tells me you are going to get a foot of snow tonight-lovely.
For New Years I am going to a small, exclusive out of the way B&B in Vermont with the rare clumbers as payment for not being around for Christmas.
Lastly, for some reason, I didn't have to pinch a morning loaf.
Did you see the pictures of Obama in Time from his years at Harvard smoking? He was smoking, smoking hot.
I'm with rhhardin -- I've never watched an inauguration. Further, I don't care who gives the invocation.
Bah Humbug!
Pace yourself, it'll be over in a week...then in a month...
I have to leave the rare clumbers at doggy daycare and for that I feel really bad.
Better hope they don't catch the eye of those big mean Dobermans. You know how those bastards are. Always making some poor clumber their prison bitch.
We already ran this drill. Remember the Reverend Donnie McClurkin" controversy?
In the other thread, Windbag said...
Warren is desperately trying to fill the void left by Jerry Falwell. He even looks like him. The difference is that Warren lacks the depth and conviction that Falwell had.
I think that Warren is hoping to take Billy Graham's mantle of "adviser to presidents."
Maybe if the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence gave the invocation the gays would be happy-the rest of the country probably not so much.
When I see the story condensed like this on Yahoo news, I'm thinking that Obama is playing this masterfully.
Yahoo: Obama choice angers gays
The president-elect draws fire after he asks a prominent evangelical minister to speak at his inauguration.
The Democrats, especially the special interest groups, always devour their own.
Obama must juggle dozens of special interest groups every day of his term, and be careful not to offend anyone for any reason.
I think right now the administration is short of gay Hispanic teaching activists from states in the Midwest. He must correct this soon.
He will hire some dyke or fag to try and resolve this I am sure-that should make the mos shut up.
The president-elect draws fire after he asks a prominent evangelical minister to speak at his inauguration.
The man hasn't even been sworn in and it's looking more and more like Bush's Third Term.
Smart move by Team Obama. I'm guessing Sarah Palin was their first choice. When she declined, they called Warren.
So what are we supposed to call Rick Warren?
Is he the Invocator-select?
Can you buy GStar jeans anywhere in Madison-that is a really pressing issue I need to resolve.
What will be interesting is if the gay community raises enough stink to have the invocation invitation (clumsy phrasing) withdrawn.
I don't think Obama will roll on this but you never know.
Uh Oh, I am crowning.
My morning loaf has arrived.
Earlier, michael farris said:
Host with the Most said:
"Here's one example of how:
A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8"
Color me unmoved. She basically told a significant part of her customer base that their deepest emotional attachments are evil and vile and worthy of legal repudiation. And she expects no one to notice or care?
Sorry michael, but your comments are extrapolations into bigotry, pure and simple.
The Democrats, especially the special interest groups, always devour their own.
There may have been a day when Republicans did not, but Rick Warren serves as a reminder that those days are past.
Forget being disappointed with Obama. This is just more of Obama being Obama ("I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother", and then for political expedience he promptly threw both of them under the bus). The one who deserves people being disappointed in him here is Warren. He's now lost whatever meager mojo he ever had with real Christians in one fell swoop. For what?
Earlier, michael farris said:
Host with the Most said:
"Here's one example of how:
A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8"
"Color me unmoved. She basically told a significant part of her customer base that their deepest emotional attachments are evil and vile and worthy of legal repudiation. And she expects no one to notice or care?
Sorry michael, but your comments are extrapolations into bigotry, pure and simple"
A sad story but don't the gays have the right to decide where they eat and not eat? Some gays won't have a problem with it and eat there, others may have a problem with it and not eat there. Personally, as a gay, I wouldn't patronize a business who's manager and "face of the business" supported Prop 8. It's called freedom of choice. Actions have consequences. Live with your decisions...and take nice health loaves.
Seems an intelligent thing for Obama to do. At the end of the day, would you rather gratify 12,000 militant, uncompromising gay activists - or get 9 million people that mostly agree with Democrat policy but reject them because Dems in the past bashed their religion coming back?
The working class, caring Christians whose ancestors had pictures of FDR and JFK on their mantlepieces?
On God, and on matters like patriotism, supporting the military, backing rights to gun ownership - there is a new generation of Democrats coming into their own. That are winning office in states like Virginia, N Carolina, Colorado and Alaska. Winning seats in Congress not just in mainly red states, but Blue Dogs taking more conservative Districts in narrowly Blue States making them more Democratic, and wiping out remaining bastions of Republicans in solid blue States.
(One of the younger NY Dems is Congress Rep Kirsten Gillibrand, who ran as a pro-gun, pro-God candidate and won in a solid Republican Upstate District..)
A new gen that rejects the ongoing 60s cultural wars against Middle America launched by WASP and Jewish Elites (and their media organs) and the old civil rights radicals.
Obama is looking at who put him in office. It wasn't the Queens of San Francisco. It was the people of Rudy's Queens. It wasn't the "ladies" of Code Pink, it was Joe the Plumber's Ohio neighborhood. It wasn't by angry black academics, but by blacks and whites of N Carolina - the former factory workers who are evangelicals that saw their jobs and much of their savings destroyed by untrammeled, unregulated Free Trade! and Free Markets!
Obama is tacking Centrist.
Lets hope he stays there and remains focused on the problems of the average American and the main overseas problems - putting activist pet causes way down on his "to do" list...something Clinton failed to do in his 1st 2 years and Bush II his 1st 6 years.
Titus - Personally, as a gay, I wouldn't patronize a business who's manager and "face of the business" supported Prop 8. It's called freedom of choice. Actions have consequences.
The sword cuts both ways. If gays begin boycotts or seek to damage the standing of Prop-8 supporters, look to payback by straight blacks, hispanics, whites that may seek to boycott open anti-Prop 8gay business owners and services people - and damage their standing in the community.
The difference is that a black minister that warns parishoners to stay clear of zealously anti-Prop 8 staff and owners at X, Y, and Z businesses or the gay staff of "Queeny" Mustafa Kenya's hair salon will be instantly condemned as "intolerant and homophobic" for doing just what you advocate, Titus.
Ben Smith summarizes:
Warren's own backlash
Gay leaders are outraged that Obama chose Rick Warren to deliver in the invocation, and now pro-lifers are mad at Warren for doing it.
The optics of which are probably more or less what Obama wants.
Cedarford, you mean like this?
Leaders of the Proposition 8 campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California made an offer to businesses that have given money to the state’s largest gay-rights group: Give us money or we’ll publicly identify you as opponents of traditional unions.
Back in the twenties Ireland boycotted products from Northern Ireland. The affected companies in Northern Ireland responded by firing their Catholic employees.
Why do gays persist in their belief that a Democrat president will give them what they want?
Do they not remember how hard they worked for Bill Clinton only to have hims sign Don't Ask Don't Tell into law?
Obama is no different than Clinton. Both ran as left-center candidates who shortly after being elected moved to the center on mainstream items because there are more votes in the center than anyplace else.
Equating campaign contributions with political hopes is a sucker bet.
I have always thought Obama to be a con artist. I honestly don't think Obama knows what he beleives other than it is good to be Obama.
That being said, has it ever occured to anyone that the guy went to church every Sunday for 20 years? I know he was half white guy in a black neighborhood and needed the Black Mojo from Reverend Wright but did he really need to go there for 20 years? Maybe the guy is you know an actual Christian? If you were an evangelical creating a Manchurian Candidate, it would sure look a lot like Obma; minority, Harvard Educated, articulate, a candidate who hits every liberal hot button and mastered the art of making vague look erudite.
I have a news flash for all of the liberal whites out there who don't actually know any black people. Black people are in general socially conservative as hell. They vote Democrat because they think the Republicans are racist not because they agree with the social policies of the Democrats.
As for all of the Progressives who are buying the line that Obama is really going to give them what they want in the end, they just have to wait while he placates the country with some symbolic centrist moves, Republicans have been telling small government conservatives and libertarians the same thing for the last 8 years. How is that working out for them?
IIRC, exit polls showed that while the majority of gays supported Obama, a smaller percentage of gays voted for Obama than voted for Kerry 4 years ago.
Cedarford, all you are saying is the Dems figured out how to out-conservative moderate Republicans. And none of it will matter a whit anyhow. Give the Dems 4 years of running everything and the folks will be so outraged it'll be another sea change back to the Republicans. That's how it always goes. Since FDR anyway.
Hear that libtards? While you cannot see what we see; Obama is playing you! We only tell you this because we care so deeply about you.
A sad story but don't the gays have the right to decide where they eat and not eat? Some gays won't have a problem with it and eat there, others may have a problem with it and not eat there. Personally, as a gay, I wouldn't patronize a business who's manager and "face of the business" supported Prop 8. It's called freedom of choice. Actions have consequences.
I would agree with you on this if that were all it was. Gays deciding not to patronize an establishment for whatever reason. However, their actions have gone over the top.
"Hundreds of protesters converged on El Coyote on Beverly Boulevard on Wednesday night, and the picketing got so heated that LAPD officers in riot gear had to be called"
This is not just taking your business from the offending business. This is actively trying to destroy the business and prevent others who don't give a shit about their issues from patronizing the place.
The more the gays act this way, the less support they are going to be receiving, even from those who might have been sympathetic to their cause.
Hear that libtards? While you cannot see what we see; Obama is playing you! We only tell you this because we care so deeply about you.
Actually, we are telling you this because we are laughing our asses off about you and we realize that a lot of you are still willfully blind.
Schadenfreude is not only a cool sounding word, it is a wonderful feeling.
"The more the gays act this way, the less support they are going to be receiving, even from those who might have been sympathetic to their cause."
Duh. Would it be unreasonable to expect a precipitous decline in revenue at some gay-owned business as a result?
Duh. Would it be unreasonable to expect a precipitous decline in revenue at some gay-owned business as a result?
You're right. This could ruin Clay Aiken's career.
I think you have to be picking some nits to care about who gives the invocation. Unless you are incredibly bored, lacking in any kind of a real life (or job), or actualy think Obama is the Messiah, you won't be watching the inauguration.
I will maintain that generalization would not apply to blacks who would watch for good reason and who probably wouldn't object to Warren any more than most people wouldn't.
Actually, we are telling you this because we are laughing our asses off about you and we realize that a lot of you are still willfully blind.
Keep thinking that. Most people don't give a shit about lying douchebag Warren and never thought for a minute Obama was ever a leftist. But anything, literally any Democrat is better than the thought of McCain or Plain within a mile of the White House. I suspect conservatives aren't laughing and quite opposite, are worried this centrist schtick is appealing to, and adding to a whole next generation of Democrats. You think any of the millions of millennials that came out of Obama are ever going to vote Republican? I don't.
I suspect conservatives aren't laughing and quite opposite, are worried this centrist schtick is appealing to, and adding to a whole next generation of Democrats. You think any of the millions of millennials that came out of Obama are ever going to vote Republican? I don't.
Who gives a s**t? By the time all this happens I plan to be dead anyway. We are so screwed as a nation. It is too late to get the train back on the tracks and we are headed directly into the tunnel with socialism being the oncoming train at the other end. I see no way to recover short of a revolution.
I plan to enjoy the rest of what is left of my life, flaunt all political correct bs rules, and laugh at the people who think that they have the answers. Enjoy Big Brother. In 30 years all these "millennials" (whatever the eff that means) will have grown up and pulled their heads out of their nether regions and realize what a mess that they have made out of a once great country.
"I suspect conservatives aren't laughing and quite opposite, are worried this centrist schtick is appealing to, and adding to a whole next generation of Democrats. You think any of the millions of millennials that came out of Obama are ever going to vote Republican? I don't."
No conservatives actually care about principle and the country rather than looking at politics like some kind of sporting match.
Liberals just had their guy win the whitehouse and have control of both houses of Congress. What do you get? Hillary Clinton as SofS, a bunch of centrists in the national security spots, a commitment to stay in Iraq, and some anti-gay evangelical giving the invocation at the chosen one's inauguration. As a conservative it tickles me to death, that Obama seems to be telling people like you to fuck off and will do what is good for the country. Maybe you are happy about that, but that makes you a cheap date. But, most progressives don't really believe in much beyond gesters and look at politics as some kind of Yankees Red Sox death match where each side roots for laundry. Given that, it is not surprising you are willing to lay down for Obama and not even get a kiss in the morning.
Oh sure, Althouse, start a new thread as soon as I post on the previous one... think you're gonna get my vote for Conservative Blogress Diva 2009???
To me the real problem with all of this the fact there is an inaugural invocation at all.
Are my federal tax dollars being used to fly in a religious guy and give him a stage at a state event? I don't care what religion he is, whether pro-gay or anti-gay, it is wrong to use state resources to support religion.
No conservatives actually care about principle and the country rather than looking at politics like some kind of sporting match.
As a conservative it tickles me to death, that Obama seems to be telling people like you to fuck off and will do what is good for the country
Hahaha. Good one! Have fun in the wilderness. Do check in with us once in a while won't you?
The sword cuts both ways. If gays begin boycotts or seek to damage the standing of Prop-8 supporters, look to payback by straight blacks, hispanics, whites that may seek to boycott open anti-Prop 8gay business owners and services people - and damage their standing in the community.
Yes, far better for Gays to just sit down and shut up. Keep paying your taxes, and being entrepreneurial and everything, you know, creating jobs and all that, but other than that, STFU.
One word of advice to Obama... when you're giving your inauguration speech, be prepared to duck!
peter hoh (quoting the GLT) said...
"'Leaders of the Proposition 8 campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California made an offer to businesses that have given money to the state’s largest gay-rights group: Give us money or we’ll publicly identify you as opponents of traditional unions.'"
That's a somewhat loaded summary of what the letter said, which is to be expected considering the source. The letter notes that a recipient business has made a donation in opposition to Prop. 8, and calls on them to effectively nullify that donation by making an equal donation in support of Prop. 8 (we needn't get into questions about whether the same amount of money at a different time and with different motivations actually balances the scale). It goes on to say that if the recipient fails to do so, the implication must be that the recipient opposes Pro. 8 (a fair inference to draw). And it announces that those who take public actions in support of public matters ipso facto take public positions for which they should receive public attention.
The letter doesn't single out the recipient, or threaten public retribution for private conduct; it notes that entities who take a position on a particular public issue (a ballot initiative) through public conduct (monetary donations) should be responsible for such positions. One might think that this isn't so much extortion as an offer of atonement.
And, by the way: every time Obama pisses off the left, the chances of a Bush prosecution increases, because he will need to buy back their affection in advance of his reelection bid.
And Jack Hawkins collects some leftosphere reactions to the Obama's choice.
At least they can't blame the Mormons this time.
Are my federal tax dollars being used to fly in a religious guy and give him a stage at a state event?
No they separated all the questionable campaign contributions from "A. Hitler" in Berlin, "H. Assad" in Damascus, etc. into a different account and that will be used to pay for the ceremony. In addition to corpoarte sponsorships, I think Oscar Meyer paid one million dollares to put a weinnie on the podium.
Zeb Quinn said...
Cedarford, all you are saying is the Dems figured out how to out-conservative moderate Republicans. And none of it will matter a whit anyhow. Give the Dems 4 years of running everything and the folks will be so outraged it'll be another sea change back to the Republicans. That's how it always goes. Since FDR anyway..
Hi Zeb! You are generally right in normal times..but many that study history and politics are coming to believe we are looking at one of those "inflection points" where - like with the post-Civil war Republicans, FDR, the Nixon-Reagan "Silent Majority" (Watergate was a temp setback) - you have a political majority forming that will last 30-40 years.
The key is that Republicans have lost any shot in a dozen states that were competive for them or leaned to them from 1968 to 2000 (NH, Iowa, NM, Maine, Illinois,etc.) while Democrats have begun building permanent majorities in states burned by Free Trade, in demographic groups that see their future diminished by Republicans when they are in charge of the economy and overseas wars..(Obama came very close to winning Indiana, once the most solid Republican State of all.)
The children of Reagan Democrats are now solid majority Democrat.
And most importantly, Democrats are attacking the Republican SW and Southern bastions hard since they have the luxury of not having to spend any money defending the
Blue States on the Coasts and Midwest they now control. And it's not a trend aimed only at Presidential elections but turning the Republican bastions Democrat from school boards to the Governor to the whole Congressional delegation:
In Virginia, which Barack Obama won by 6 points, Democrats now control the governor's mansion, both Senate seats and six of 11 House seats. In the House, Democrats will begin the 111th Congress with a 257-178 seat majority.
Same pattern as NM, Colorado, N Carolina.
And recent evidence is Arizona, Texas, Mississippi and Georgia are slowly trending Democratic.
And voters give Democrats the edge on 8 of 10 issues that concern them, losing only on crime and national security..
The "fix" for Republicans is not to get so out of tune they reject most non-Democrats and turn them into Democrats in the process of creating "pure, good old ideas conservatism" that still flies in only 5-7 Deep South states and a few outliers like Alaska.
(The recent emphasis by the Religious Right that Mormons are heretics and hispanic catholics and pentacostals are "deluded"? Brilliant, just brilliant!)
(The self-destructive urge to "be more conservative and pure than Reagan"? To say not only is government the problem but we will prove how awful it is if you elect us and we let the Corporatists and Wall Street run wild? And that we seek to make the agencies we are in charge of, dysfunctional, simply to prove our ideological point? Brilliant, just brilliant!)
And we saw the sunset of the Republican strategy of cultural warfare taking the place of new ideas and solid policy. Palin's 30-year old talking points still appealed to 25% of the populace - but she was rejected by the other 75%. John McCain was reduced to trying cultural war when the economy imploded in a particularly erratic and incoherent way.
1. Stock market loses 1500 points in a week? There's McCain talking about a 20-year old minor association of Obama with Bill Ayers as people were screaming about Wall Street and Main Street becoming economic rubble.
2. As America waited for new policy and new direction, McCain was out with Joe the Plumber saying that even with McCain voting for 2 trillion in new spending under Bush...he thought Joe the Plumber should have to pay for Bush's wars, Fed Gov't enlargement of 40%, the 9-trillion dollar prescription drug plan.
(McCain lost Ohio, and Joe, a regular Republican who like most Americans wants a free ride on taxes - revealed that the more he saw McCain, the more he detested him.)
"Hahaha. Good one! Have fun in the wilderness. Do check in with us once in a while won't you?"
Thank you for proving my point that liberals don't care about principle and just look at politics as some kind of sporting event. If Obama does what is right for the country and things I agree with, I will have lots of fun in the wilderness. How much fun are you going to have watching your candidate sell you out? Since you don't believe in anything, probably a lot sadly. But at least we both will be happy.
You're right. This could ruin Clay Aiken's career.
Webster prefers Gayken.
Cederford,
You assume that all trends happening now will continue to do so indefinitely. To the extent that younger people are solid Democrat, it is because their only experience with Democratic leadership was Clinton, who was economically at least a Republican anyway. They are not old enough to remember Carter or the really crazy economic policies of the 1970s. Give them a dose of that and they won't be so solidly Democratic anymore. If they don't get a dose of that and Obama acts like Clinton and lowers taxes, has a sane trade policy and balances the budget, then why should I care if the Dems do win?
You can't get around the hard cold reality that big government old time socialism doesn't work. If Obama wants to succeed as a President, his options are pretty limited. Those options don't include much if anything his liberal supporters hold dear. How exactly does he plan to raise taxes in the middle of a nasty recession? Where is he going to get the money for socialized healthcare when we are running a trillion dollar deficit? How does he plan to cut defense and get a peace bonus when he has already said he will not pull out of Iraq too quickly and will surge troops into Afghanistan?
People need to stop looking at politics like sports and stop rooting for laundry. Instead, we need to think about what the real options are and what any President actually can and will do. When you look at it that way, the President, be he R or D, really doesn't have a lot of options. That fact is going to come as a big disapointment to a lot of Obama supporters. But, that is probably the best thing to come out of this election. It will force a lot of twits like Garage Mahal to grow up and face reality.
How much fun are you going to have watching your candidate sell you out?
Like I said, I don't give a shit about Warren, so he's not selling me out. I'm not gay, and I don't really give a shit about gay marriage one way or the other.
I suspect conservatives aren't laughing and quite opposite, are worried this centrist schtick is appealing to, and adding to a whole next generation of Democrats.
Have you been paying any attention? It's not exactly news that most conservatives have been pleased so far with Obama. He moves farther to the right every day! His cabinet appointments, his stance on the Iraq War, tax cuts, etc. have been a pleasant surprise to us. It's looking quite like Bush Term 3. Sorry, I know that was below the belt.
It will force a lot of twits like Garage Mahal to grow up and face reality.
Your concern is appreciated. I think I'll be okay.
"It will force a lot of twits like Garage Mahal to grow up and face reality.
Your concern is appreciated. I think I'll be okay."
My concern has nothing to do with any concern over you personally. The sad fact is that I have to live in the same country with people like you. The quicker more of you grow up and face reality, the better off we will all be. As it is, the rattle banging temper fits of the last 8 years have gotten pretty old.
Garage, my memory may be faulty here, but I seem to recall your having written about opposing the marriage amendment in Wisconsin. If I'm remembering right, how do you square that against what I take to be your comment above claiming disinterest in the issue? (I realize that there are various reasons why one might oppose such an amendment that have nothing to do with the merits of same-sex marriage, so I'm not trying to prejudge the answer in phrasing the question this way.)
Ken Stalter - read Marsh v. Chambers.
I'm still stuck on the idea that Rick Warren is a "Christianist." If Andrew Sullivan limited that word to the very bigoted, extreme types who rationalize things like murdering abortion doctors, he'd have a minor point. But basically, he's applying that term to everyone who disagrees with him who happens to be a Christian. Assuming he has fans out there, I think the term itself, used the way Sullivan uses it, is sheer bigotry. And given Obama's stated beliefs on gay marriage, it is intellectually dishonest for Sullivan not to apply it to the president-elect. In fact, given his slavish Bush-love turned into hate over the same exact issue, I expect Sullivan will soon be calling for the prosecution of Obama and Biden for war crimes.
John, I tend to start with a rebuttable presumption that people like Sullivan who habitually use the term "Christianist" are too stupid to be worth the attempt to carry on a conversation with. In Sully's case, the presumption is confirmed by his claim to be a Catholic (he isn't). He's an idiot, and been brain dead since this whole gay marriage issue consumed him.
"And given Obama's stated beliefs on gay marriage, it is intellectually dishonest for Sullivan not to apply it to the president-elect."
Sullivan has made a lucrative career out of intellectual dishonesty.
Much as I'd like to, I can't dismiss Sullivan so easily. The Atlantic and various talking head shows give him intellectual respectability. He wrote Atlantic's cover story on Obama, for example. He uses his own hawkish past to give his current views credibility. His invention of the term "Christianist" as a parallel to "Islamist," both of which are parallels to "racist," was a political act, designed to reinforce this country's social divisions between the religious and the secular -- divisions that already exist, so his play is redundant at best, a formalization of secular intolerance of religious people at worst. That, I suspect, is his hope: To foster intolerance of the religious among the non-religious, to take them detached, uncomprehending tolerance to all-out culture war. It is not benign, and I say that as a secular type person who rarely attends church.
Hear that libtards? While you cannot see what we see; Obama is playing you!
Agreed. All those upset about it are exactly the people he takes for granted. You were going to vote for McCain? Again, McCardle’s first rule in politiccs.
Warren here is a symbol - and not an actual endorsement of anything. Chill…
He will hire some dyke or fag to try and resolve this I am sure-that should make the mos shut up.
Good call - the Washington Times is reporting that Barack Obama is considering the appointment of an openly gay man, William White, currenty the COO of the Intrepid Museum Foundation, as Secretary of the Navy.
OBAMA RESPONDS - TODAY'S PRESS CONFERENCE:
"Well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.
"What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.
"Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialog, I think, is a part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're never going to agree on every single issue. But what we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery -- who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren on a whole host of issues -- is also speaking.
"During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented -- and that how it should be, because that's what America's about, that's a part of the magic of this country is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated. So, that's the spirit in which we have put together what I think will be a terrific inauguration, and that's hopefully going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration."
This certainly sounds reasonable.
John, as usual, your comments are well stated and I basically agree. I've chided our host for citing AS too much because he's never shown me anything worth the attention he gets (yet I'm doing it). I think he writes to aggravate anyone who likes being aggravated or who likes writing about aggravating writers.
Very well said, John Stodder. And thank you for saying it.
The sad fact is that I have to live in the same country with people like you. The quicker more of you grow up and face reality, the better off we will all be. As it is, the rattle banging temper fits of the last 8 years have gotten pretty old.
WTF are you talking about? I said I don't care about Warren, or Obama inviting him to speak for 2 minutes. Reality is I do not care.
Simon:
Garage, my memory may be faulty here, but I seem to recall your having written about opposing the marriage amendment in Wisconsin.
I did vote against it, and I'm happy states get to vote on it. If gay liberals are upset about it they can get in line. Of the top ten pet issues of mine, gay marriage isn't in it. The things that really irk me are always civil liberties related like I think pot should be decriminalized, and the fact so many are sitting in jail from smoking or growing it is absurd. If Obama would take a real stand on issues like search and seizure, surveillance, etc I could really get behind him, but I'm not holding my breath. The 14th Amendment just went out the window with barely a whimper, and I think that's fucking sad. Where the hell were conservatives on this?
I tend to assume he's like all the liberal lawprofs I know, but I concede that these people may be chameleons. They are seeking power and prestige in their domain. (Why won't I say "our domain"?) But you have a point.
Could be. But I think that you're right that liberal lawprofs may be chameleons, or not so much chameleons as regular people who generally reflect the concerns of their surroundings. I would bet that in law school, gay marriage is a hot topic.
But I don't think that Obama's primary environment is law school. I think he's more likely to be almost totally ambivalent about gay issues because of the following:
(1) He's a straight man, and most straight men aren't into gay issues. That's not to say that they're against things like gay marriage, but that those issues don't resonate with them. They just don't really care. Sure, there are exceptions, but I think they are few. People who are deeply concerned with gay issues tend to be gay people and young women.
(2) I don't think that gay issues are a big concern in South Chicago, especially within the black community there. Thus, I don't think that much interest in gay issues would be generated by that environment.
(3) We hear about Obama's various friends and associates all the time now. Any of them gay? I haven't heard of one. Any of them gay activists? I haven't heard of one.
(4) The above taken along with the fact that Obama is showing no interest in tackling gay issues as an elected official leads me to believe that his personal interest in gay issues just isn't there.
John, some good points in your rebuttal, but I disagree (obviously) with other points:
Agree - People need to stop looking at politics like sports and stop rooting for laundry. Instead, we need to think about what the real options are and what any President actually can and will do.
Agree very much!
You assume that all trends happening now will continue to do so indefinitely.
Obviously, trends used to make projections in any analysis could stop or reverse from factors the analysts haven't considered. At the same time, it is more realistic to go on solid trends than on the emotional hope that "Our Goddess Sarah Palin" will save us!
They are not old enough to remember Carter or the really crazy economic policies of the 1970s.
True, but they won't be adding any numbers to those that were around back in Jimmy's day. Or Eisenhowers..Obama himself was just in high school when the failed Presidency of Carter happened. I was in junior high..Only if Obama becomes another Jimmy will oldsters try and make Jimmy Carter relevant to Obama's leadership.
You can't get around the hard cold reality that big government old time socialism doesn't work.
Disagree. Ever since Bismarck proved it worked, various welfare state socialist governments have formed in advanced countries. Most prosperous and in power since WWII ended. 3rd world failures aside, advanced nations like Japan, Germany, Canada, Chile, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Israel have substantial socialist elements to their life and do well.
I am not a fan of every socialist solution over any capitalist one. But we have to acknowledge that "unfettered, unregulated" free markets have singularly failed the American worker on health care, reliable financial institutions, and CEOs out to destroy US jobs and national prosperity for their short-term personal gain.
Where is he going to get the money for socialized healthcare when we are running a trillion dollar deficit?
From the simple fact that we pay 50% more per capita in healthcare costs under the present system than nations with longer life expectancies, like France, Japan, Israel do. Business and tax groups agree the present US system cripples us economically and is unsustainable. They do by using advanced IT, eliminating much of the admin, insurance, legal bureaucracy the US has...and tough negotiations for prices caregivers, nursing home operators, and drug makers charge.
How does he plan to cut defense and get a peace bonus when he has already said he will not pull out of Iraq too quickly and will surge troops into Afghanistan?
The days of 200 billion a year Bush expenses on military occupation & "whatever the noble freedom-loving democratic people of Iraq demand"
is basically over.
I doubt Obama can make significant cuts given Iran, China's exploding military budget and Russia's revanchism, and plans for more attention on the Afghan situation (which is now basically lost by Bush's neglect for 6 years and toleration of corrupt Pak and Afghan leaders.)
If they don't get a dose of that (Carterism) and Obama acts like Clinton and lowers taxes, has a sane trade policy and balances the budget, then why should I care if the Dems do win?
I agree with that! We can hope. Of course, the people that worship old Reagan economic ideology that failed to work as advertised, and worship the Goddess Palin will be upset.
When you look at it that way, the President, be he R or D, really doesn't have a lot of options. That fact is going to come as a big disapointment to a lot of Obama supporters. But, that is probably the best thing to come out of this election. It will force a lot of twits like Garage Mahal to grow up and face reality.
Disagree in that in really bad times of us facing catastrophe, Presidents like Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, Reagan could get a lot done.. Agree that Garage Mahal is a twit, but when he sets his mind to be serious rather than regurgitate Lefty talking points, he can make some pretty good posts.
DBQ said:
Schadenfreude is not only a cool sounding word, it is a wonderful feeling.
I'd hold off on basking in the warm glow of schadenfreude just yet. Obama is not even at the end of the beginning. He may be tossing the cultural center a sop while diverting the media in useless speculation and reportage; i.e. "Look! Over there! A bright shiny outrage of the day!!"
It would be far more pragmatic to delay symbolic victories for huge substantive wins once he assumes power.
Obama is now fully briefed, he is forced to reassess as there are realities he cannot change, events that dictate a narrow set of options, many will not jibe with Obama's philosophy or political ends.
I expect Obama to proceed as he has; moving past those/that cannot be changed and/or damage his political position and present a new agenda as nuanced positions of his campaign platform.
I also think Obama is too savvy to repeat Clinton's early mistakes of wading into cultural mind fields.
While the media focuses on the left's big ticket wish list, scandal and the usual hot button issues, a small play of many acts will be running "off Broadway".
Obama will wield considerable unchecked executive power and as a small "l" libertarian that worries me most.
Ironically, the Left will soon come to appreciate Bush's strengthening of executive powers.
garage mahal said...
"The 14th Amendment just went out the window with barely a whimper, and I think that's fucking sad. Where the hell were conservatives on this?"
Sorry, I don't understand. What are you talking about? I know I've been rather out of the loop this week, but what's happened regarding the Fourteenth Amendment?
BJM said...
"Ironically, the Left will soon come to appreciate Bush's strengthening of executive powers."
Dick Cheney, Jack Balkin and Eric Posner agree, as do I.
Simon
Make that the 4th Amendment. In regards to the phoney FISA "compromise" which made warrantless wiretaps on anyone legal now.
I'm touched by the concern that some conservatives are showing for Obama's supposed selling out of liberal values. Considering it's coming from a demographic that spent most of the past year talking about what a horrible socialist, terrorist-loving monster Obama is, but now is changing its tune when it's obvious they have to live with him for four to eight years, I can't say there's much credibility there. And as a former Hillary supporter, it's particularly amusing to see her choice as Secretary of State brought out as an example of Obama's supposed conservatism, when she was considered to be the focus of all liberal evil not so long ago.
I guess the new conservative slogan for Obama is a variation of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em", with the variation being "if you can't beat 'em, claim they joined you" or "if you can't beat 'em, claim they aren't really with the people that beat us".
And as far as Warren is concerned, as a gay marriage supporting straight (and I actually do give a damn about the issue, sorry garage), I can't say I'm too worked up about it. It's an olive branch to more liberal evangelicals, and I leave it for others to decide whether it's sincere or not. I'm more interested in seeing who Obama appoints to his administration and the policies he pursues than who prays for him on Inauguration Day. My only gripe is that if Obama was going to put up a socially conservative / economically somewhat liberal clergyman up there, I wish he put up an intellectually serious Catholic priest on the podium (were there no Jesuits available from Georgetown University?), rather than a purveyor of Prosperity Gospel schlock. But, I guess you go hunting where the ducks are.
Garage - ah, I get you now. Well, I'm not a Fourth Amendment guy, I don't know the doctrine around it. But I don't think that most of the doomsayers are Fourth Amendment experts, either, and my instinct is that the lion's share of the concern about the imminent demise of the Fourth Amendment is overwrought (my recollection is that folks who are Fourth Amendment experts, Orin Kerr springs to mind, are not alarmed, and that too pacifies me).
One other thing to note is that in Katz, Justice Black argued that wiretaps were beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment anyway. Now, I'm not saying that I'd overrule Katz. Black's argument, however, is at least strong enough to limit my concern that expanding wiretaps would hollow out the Fourth Amendment even if the doomsayers are right aobut the extent that wiretapping has been authorized.
Heh - by sheer coincidence, today is the 41st anniversay of the Katz decision!
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন