Friday, December 19, 2008

Warren and the Inauguration.

Obama claims that his bizarre invitation for Rick Warren take part in his inauguration will somehow help to make the whole event more "inclusive", as if all sides must necessarily be represented - including, I presume, Klu Klux Klan members - before any event can be labeled "inclusive". I personally feel that people who preach intolerance towards others are, by their very nature, not "inclusive" types, but perhaps that's just me.

Obama has defended his decision:

Asked about gay opposition to Pastor Warren, Mr Obama said: "There's going to be a wide range of viewpoints and that's how it should be. That's what America is about. We are diverse, noisy and opinionated. That's the spirit in which we have put together what I think will be a terrific inauguration."

He recalled that he was well received when he spoke at Pastor Warren's Saddleback Church in Southern California a few years ago, although he sharply disagrees with the celebrity pastor on such issues as abortion and gay rights.

"Dialogue is part of what my campaign was all about," Mr Obama said at a Chicago press conference. "We're not going to agree on every single issue but we have to create an atmosphere in which we can disagree."

I personally don't agree with Obama's decision to invite Warren to his inauguration and wish he had not done so, but perhaps finally the right wing loons who tried to imply that Obama must agree with every single word uttered by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright will at last concede that it is possible to have a relationship with a religious preacher without necessarily agreeing with everything that they believe in.


I'm with Rachel Maddow on this one in that I think this is simply dumb politically and that Obama has entered a "lose - lose" situation here. There is no political advantage which I can see to Warren's inclusion.


Cecilieaux said...

I disagree. This is a brilliant move to rebuild the famous and very successful FDR coalition to build irretrievably foundational institutions, such as social security. FDR, you will recall, coddled the despicable, racist "Dixiecrats" to get their votes for the socioeconomic legacies that still endure. FDR reached out to everyone who would take his hand.

theBhc said...

Yes, FDR did do that, but catering to Rick Warren is not what this is about. Obama certainly is not going to build an economic team for troubled times from the know-nothing wing of the GOP.

Further, if Obama thinks this is going to make Christian fundamentalists like him and Democrats more, he and you are sorely mistaken.

This faction of the GOP calls the Democrats the "Party of Death" for their antipathy toward criminalizing abortion, and that won't change just because Obama invites Rick Warren to the inauguration.

And how inclusive is inclusive, anyway? Where is the line? Is there a line. Well, actually there is obviously a line. But clearly Obama cannot go so far as to have some racist wacko in white hood swear him in. But that would be super inclusive, though.

Obama thinks he's being clever and cute here. And he is wrong. He is simply abetting the mainstreaming of bigotry. And that is not change I can believe in.

You might think jackasses like Rick Warren add something to society's dialogue. I do not, except perhcance that help us see just how ignorant we have been in the past. But they neither advocate nor demand progress. They are a regressive force in society, constantly resisting social justice and progress.

Eno' o' coddlin' these ignorant drips and drabs.

Kel said...

Cecilieaux, I'm sorry but I have to admit that I am with the BHC on this one.

Already many fundamentalists are complaining to Warren for daring to accept Obama's invitation. These folks are not going to won over simply because Warren speaks at Obama's inauguration.

And, once again, gay and lesbian Democrats feel as if they have been thrown under the bus.

Obama would not have invited racists or anti-Semites to talk at this event and I'm sure all of us would have been outraged if he had.

We should feel no less outraged that a man who compares gays to peadophiles should be given such a prominent role.

I think Obama will be a great president on gay issues, but I think, by trying to be clever here, that he is making a silly mistake.

Ingrid said...

The whole point is this; why pander to those intolerant, religiously rightwingers? "We've" have do put up with them for 8yrs, giving them the a great taste of power and they still feel entitled to it. It was an enormous slap in the face for all who voted for Obama BECAUSE of the likes of Warren who actively sought to undermine rights and freedoms in the name of ... . As for Warren accepting this, it tells you he enjoys the company of powerful people and if he really stuck to his principles, he should've declined. However, power corrupts and he's no different. A purpose driven life my purpose driven A...! (hehe)


Kel said...

The whole point is this; why pander to those intolerant, religiously rightwingers?

Ingrid, it's one of the problems I have with the whole notion of bipartisanship. I think Republicans think bipartisanship is when Democrats do what they want.

I think Obama is sincere in his determination to find a new way, as Clinton was with his triangulation, anxious to find "a middle way" that didn't alienate the right wing. What happened? They investigated him, hated him and hounded him.

What I love about Obama is the fact that he is not scared to articulate the progressive agenda.

Which is what puzzles me about him embracing this guy. He wouldn't invite a racist or an anti-Semite to speak at this event so why is this homophobe invited?