Maddow: Obama Choosing Warren For Invocation Is The ‘First Big Mistake,’ A ‘Lose-Lose Proposition’
Maddow: Obama Choosing Warren For Invocation Is The ‘First Big Mistake,’ A ‘Lose-Lose Proposition’
Yesterday, President-elect Obama’s press conference on his new economic team quickly digressed into a discussion on Obama giving Pastor Rick Warren – who has a long record of anti-gay views — the privilege of delivering the inaugural invocation. Obama said he was reaching out to religious conservatives, showing that he could “disagree without being disagreeable.”
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who is openly gay, devoted an entire segment last night to the topic. Maddow noted that Obama has now sparked the ire of the LGBT community as well as the religious right, some of whom are even attacking Warren for accepting Obama’s invitation. She called it Obama’s “first big mistake”:
MADDOW: What are we left with here? We are left with the cold, hard political fact that this is a lose-lose proposition for Barack Obama, the first big mistake of his post-election politicking. The Christian Broadcasting Network folks are proverbially loaded for bear against him anyway. … And Obama’s supporters among centrists and progressives? Well, they just dumped a big bucket of tarnish all over Obama’s star power.
Watch it:
In his press conference, Obama stated, “A couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren’s church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.” Maddow countered that Obama had invited Warren to speak at the people’s house, not his own private domain:
MADDOW: The implication of Sen. Obama’s defense is that he is returning the favor. … But Obama is not inviting Rick warren to his church or to his campaign or something. He’s inviting him to the nation’s capital to convene the swearing in of the next president of the United States. The President-elect did not invite Warren to his home. He invited him, proverbially, to our’s, the nation’s.
Maddow concluded that in centuries, when human rights activists reflect on the inauguration of the first black president, they might also ask, “But what was that guy who compared homosexuality to incest doing there?”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Love Rachel dearly but the beginning of this segment was a little over the top.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:40 amWe can be pissed at Obama for this but I don’t see a lot of people not supporting him anymore.
But WTFDIK?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA The first glimpse at this wonderful perfect uhhhhhbama the pros thought they could completely control. Slight bit of voters remorse???
December 19th, 2008 at 11:41 amIf it’s all about political theater, how unfortunate James Brown couldn’t reprise his role a la the Blues Brothers.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:42 amRIP James Brown
ICEMAN Says:
Slight bit of voters remorse???
#####
No. None at all. There is NOTHING, NOTHING that Obama could do at all that would make me despise him as much as McCain.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:47 amWould we be debating, challenging, debunking, refuting, and otherwise rejecting Warren’s position as frequently or clearly if Obama had not made him so visible? I’m not sure, though I would not be surprised, if this was part of Team Obama’s strategy. Didn’t Obama say, and we agreed, that he would sit down with any leader, as an opportunity to dialogue (which is not appeasement)? Regardless, I welcome the opportunity to take on these issues in the open.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:47 amI can’t get too worked up about this. Obama is going to be president of all U.S. citizens — as opposed to GDumbya who has served only as an increasingly smaller percentage of the country. If you’re going to be inclusive, then you have to be inclusive.
After all, GDumbya and Darth Cheney are going to be at the inauguration as well. It gives me great glee to recognize that Obama is going to be their president as well.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:48 amI’ve had enough of hate-mongering, anti-choice Christian Fundamentalists being given public positions of prestige (sorry for the alliteration). In fact, we’ve had eight years of that.
Sure it’s good to reach out to Evangelicals (since we should), but does it have to be that guy? The one who likens choice with the Holocaust and gay marriage with incest and pedophilia?
I’m not gay, but I support full civil rights for everyone (and am very pro-choice) and I don’t support being tolerant of intolerance.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:48 amSaruhhhh needs you, iceman, go on up and help her make a clean sweep of the house to make sure her daughter’s baby’s daddy didn’t leave any baggies laying around the governors mansion.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:49 amChris LeJeune Says:
There is NOTHING, NOTHING that Obama could do at all that would make me despise him as much as McCain.
—————————————————————-
Completely and in spades . . .
December 19th, 2008 at 11:49 ambush squelched every point of view that differed from his own.
Obama allows all points of view…..with this opportunity to discuss the differences……
seems like change to me.
No discussions like this were allowed in public under bush. You only heard from the anti-gays…
It’s time Americans come to terms with this hatred of gays and an open, civil national discussion is exactly what is needed.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:50 amHis consciousness
Like the thick glue of molasses
It sticks
In full-bodied motion
Like the darkened depths of depression
Crying
In its forlorn immersion
Loudly
December 19th, 2008 at 11:51 amAs like a hungry child for its spiritual father
He entices new souls into his hell
Could this be his way of holding his friends close and his enemies closer? Or a way of reducing the influence of the worst of the hatemongers: Robertson, Hagee, Parsley, Dobson, et. al.?
Remember, during his election night speech, about his being president for all, that he would listen to those who didn’t vote for him. I will be more focused on Rev. Lowrey’s benediction message.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:55 amIf I could be just a bit picky here, I think it’s not entirely accurate to report this as “Obama chose”. Warren was chosen by a committee. Even though Obama accepted the choice and is defending it (which admittedly amounts to pretty much the same result), it’s not exactly the same picture that “Obama chose” paints — a picture of Obama passionately arguing that Warren is the best guy for this job.
My personal feeling is that much more is being made of this invocation than it deserves. I don’t agree with much of what Warren stands for. I doubt I would ever attend his church, read his books, or listen to his sermons. But let’s get real here — Warren isn’t being tapped by Obama to be part of his cabinet, be in any kind of policy-making role, be one of his advisors, or even deliver a sermon. Having Warren rattle off a fairly generic invocation isn’t really going to affect my life that much.
I don’t expect that I will agree with everything Obama and/or his administration says or does in the next four years. But I’m saving my righteous outrage for REAL slip-ups — not the ceremonial ones.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:56 amFrankly, I’m more concerned that the separation of church and state is NOT part of the inauguration of the POTUS. Why the need for a religious act anyway?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pmWarren’s invocation (meaning “voicing”)
Lowrey’s benediction (meaning “speaking good”)
Nice contrast.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:02 pmVery good point, misshusseinmolly, much the same as Bush being credited and/or blamed for all of his choices….
At least with Obama we can imagine he has some comprehension of the decisions being made.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:03 pmYou’re right, MissMolly – of course! ;o)
But the thing is, I’m so very, very, very sick and tired of these ugly bigoted frothing fundies and the hatred they spread…
And having one of them (no matter that soft-bigot Warren is the classic “lesser of X evils”) polluting the celebration of what we have all worked so hard to achieve for eight interminable years is just a slap in the face.
Perhaps I’m being hard-nosed, but I’d be happy if we just dispensed with this whole stupid invoking (the non-existent) God business and had someone read from the CONSTITUTION.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:04 pmI Think is was poor choice from Obama. I also think Obama is not above criticism. We had enough of Bush/Chenney team being above criticism. I’ll be as critical of Obama’s presidency as I am of the current ilegal immoral one.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:06 pmI have hopes for this new president, but I’ll not follow it as a religious blind faith.
There seem to be a lot of people gunning for Obama. Even here on a “progressive” blog it seems many have been waiting patiently for even the tinyest bit of evidence that Obama is not perfect so they can bash him.
Where is the anger at the right and bush who brought the religious right to the table and gave them supper. Who drew them into his war mongering and gay bashing efforts with support from our government?
Is that anger now directed at Obama over one speaker? Does it really represent his direction for America, I think not.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:06 pmICEMAN Says
December 19th, 2008 at 11:41 am
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA The first glimpse at this wonderful perfect uhhhhhbama the pros thought they could completely control. Slight bit of voters remorse???
____________________________________________________________
You really don’t get it, do you? We’re not kool-aid drinkers here, and this appears to be creating some sort of cognitive dissonance in your brain.
The wingnuts have steadfastly defended Bush for the past eight years, no matter what Bush did. To say a word against this president was tantamount to treason, in their view.
We don’t operate that way. We aren’t going to blindly support ANYONE — not even Obama — just for the sake of supporting them. When Obama (or any other elected or appointed goverment official) does something we object to, we’re going to object. You might as well get used to it.
This doesn’t mean we are sorry that he was elected. It doesn’t mean we wish McCain and Palin had been elected. And it certainly doesn’t mean we long for the days of Bushco. It just means we disapprove of his acceptance of Warren giving the invocation at his inauguration, in this case.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pmActually, you’re wrong. He was the pick of the Obama team, as widely reported, and if you think any president-elect would just settle for whoever a committee gave him and leave the decision to them, you don’t understand politics.
I admire Obama, supported him through most of the primary cycle, gave more money than I could afford when he was the nominee, think he can be a great president, but agree with Maddow. This is a huge blunder. He wants to demonstrate inclusion? How about a woman pastor for the invocation? Or a rabbi, an imam, or Buddhist monk? We have had nothing but homophobia emanating from this administration for eight long years. It’s time to turn the page.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pmRahm Emmanuel was the FIRST big mistake…this is just a continuance…
December 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pmI wonder if President-elect Obama’s Big Tent/Open Arms approach to Warren and his ilk would have still applied had Warren been openly opposed to civil rights for people of color?
No, I don’t think so. That would have been socially unacceptable. But stigmatizing gays? Still okay, it appears.
Mr. Obama, this is not why you were elected. Phuck Warren, and phuck you, too, for giving him a worldwide platform for his bigotry.
PEACE
December 19th, 2008 at 12:09 pmSee, some people are here just to make sure Obama doesn’t succeed. They will find a few things they personally don’t like(or hope others don’t) and condemn him for everything using these examples as ammo.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:13 pmThom Hartmann has an interesting take on this decision by Obama. I’m not 100% convinced he’s correct, but I’m willing to see how it plays out.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:14 pmSo, you think his speech at the inauguration will include his gay bashing rhetoric? You don’t think it will be vetted before he speaks?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pmI assumce ICEMAN is spelled with caps in an effort to draw attention which seems to be what they seeks. Now as to the endless HAHAing is that just to be annoying? It is sort of third gradish…
December 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pmSo, if he got the Jews for Jesus guy to say the invocation and a rabbi to do the benediction, do you really believe the Jews wouldn’t raise holy hell and the invitation immediately rescinded? The talk of “inclusiveness” would go right out the window. But, of course, it’s okay if it has do with the gays.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pmSeems to me that the best way to combat the hateful rhetoric of the homophobes is to put their hateful rhetoric right out front for everyone to see/hear.
Sort of like when trolls come here and demonstrate the shallowness and ignorance of the right wing ideology.
Maybe this is a good way to drag the hateful rhetoric out into the sunlight where it can be exposed.
Just a thought
———————————————
December 19th, 2008 at 12:19 pm‘ere – Atlanta’s Progressive Jazz
(yes that’s me on the piano)
Find us at ReverbNation.com/ere
———————————————
Fred Says:
So, you think his speech at the inauguration will include his gay bashing rhetoric? You don’t think it will be vetted before he speaks?
Fred, even if it did, Obama’s response would be, “Well, that’s his opinion and I disagree. We can disagree without being disagreeable.”
December 19th, 2008 at 12:19 pmFred Says:
spencers mom Says:
Mr. Obama, this is not why you were elected. Phuck Warren, and phuck you, too, for giving him a worldwide platform for his bigotry.
So, you think his speech at the inauguration will include his gay bashing rhetoric? You don’t think it will be vetted before he speaks?
Fred, that’s not the point. I’m sure even Adolph Hitler made public speeches where he didn’t bash the Jews, gypsies, gays, etc. but it didn’t make the racist hatred he supported any less a part of his character, and it certainly wouldn’t have changed the hearts and minds of his minions.
It really doesn’t matter what Warren says, its the fact that he will be standing on the platform on Obama’s day, on our day, that makes it a travesty.
There is just no way I can see this as okay. No way at all.
PEACE
December 19th, 2008 at 12:22 pmRanting Tommy, I agree. At first, I simply did not like the idea of Warren giving the invocation (frankly, because of separation of church and state I don’t like the idea of a public invocation as part of the inauguration, period). Then, I began to wonder if Team Obama, which had to know that this would be controversial, wanted to make it abundantly clear that inclusion and interaction are necessary for change. I still don’t like the choice, but I don’t think it’s a deal buster for supporting Obama.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:24 pmWhy hasn’t the media or anyone here mentioned the Reverend Lowrey? He’s a lefty and he preaches inclusion for gays. He’s also giving a benediction or an invocation – one of the two. Like the Blago non-scandal, this is a tempest in a teapot. This is not about policy. This is about the show. I’ve been a liberal all my life and I really don’t understand why it is an outrage for a moderate politician who has been talking inclusion and reconciliation to include both a lefty and a righty for religious pronouncements.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:24 pmWarren seems to have some disagreements with the Ten Commandments. He has advocated the assassination of foreign heads of state. He lied about McCain’s “cone of silence” and providing questions in advance for his religio-political forum. Now he says he wants to have sex with every beautiful woman. How long before this guy goes down in flames like so many other phony-baloney preachers?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:26 pmSpencers Mom: “It really doesn’t matter what Warren says, its the fact that he will be standing on the platform on Obama’s day, on our day, that makes it a travesty.”
What do you mean “our day”? The fact that our guy won is irrelevant. The inaugeration of the President is everyone’s day. What in the hell is the matter with you people? This thing is about symbolism. It is NOT about policy. Nobody is in any danger of their rights being taken away with an Obama administration. Get a grip!
December 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pmThe President-elect did not invite Warren to his home. He invited him, proverbially, to our’s, the nation’s.
***** Rachel is dead on.Comparing Warren’s church event to the invocation of a new Prez is just ludricous.But moreover,O bama has got to be embarrassed with such “flimsy” reasoning.Maybe Obama was beginning to believe the hype that he can walk on water say anything & still have folks genuflect to him.Well,let’s hope he sure does get the message.No more go along to get along BS,it has ruined our country big time.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pmLet’s get one thing straight. I don’t like Rick Warren either. I agree with PLC that it’s lamentable that we’re even mixing religion with this historical secular, civic event.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:30 pmDutch Henry: “Maybe Obama was beginning to believe the hype that he can walk on water say anything & still have folks genuflect to him.”
Nonsense. Pure nonsense.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:31 pmThis seems to be a difficult issue. The inclusiveness is what we need. However, I think that I agree with some posters wo have stated that Warren is simply MORE of the same hateful fundy bigotry that has been eating at the big table for 8 years. The fundamentalists HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. How about someone different? How about a less politically recognized religion?
In truth, this should not have any sort of religious ceremony attatched to it at all: it is a PURELY SECULAR EVENT. Should the attendees want their religion to offer its blessings on the proceedings, they should go to a nearby church either before or after the ceremony. This is not ascention by divine right.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:31 pmspenser’s mom, I hope when you write that the inauguration will be “our day” that you mean all of America. And, I think, this is the point that Obama is symbolically making. If we are truly going to turn this country around, we need the cooperation of all Americans. We especially need to move the fundamentalist Christians politically, while still respecting their right to their own religious values. Ostracizing would be a form of martyrdom and that will work against the overall vision that we as progressives seek.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:31 pmTo make your point you invoke hitlers name?
Look I know quite a few gays and they are not nearly as upset about this as you guys. They see this as an opportunity to get this discussion out in the open.
Warren spouts his bs in the privacy of his church. If he tries it in the open then it will cause him many problems. That is the whole point.
Those of you who view this as a betrayal are basically looking for something to feel betrayed over.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:32 pmMind you all, I am actually not criticising Obama or ANYONE for making the choice. I don’t think religion should be there at all, but it unfortuantely will be. What I don’t like is Warren himslef, and those he represents (who, as I said, have already been at the big table for 8 years — let them sit back with the rest and LEARN how to be inclusive by sharing with some OTHER religion — a buddhist invocation would be way cool, hindu might be nice. How about native American (WAY COOL)(gee – talk about screwed AND under represented)).
December 19th, 2008 at 12:37 pmMaddow is so worried about offending the gay and lesbian community, how about the non-evangelical community? Or the non-religious community? I find it personally offensive to have any kind of religious service at a politcal event. Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State?
President-Elect Obama chose a public figure, well liked in certain circles, with whom he openly disagrees with on major issues. The way I see it, Obama is publicly opening a dialogue with someone who has major influence over a lot of people. If Obama can change Warren’s mind…
December 19th, 2008 at 12:40 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
-Ostracizing would be a form of martyrdom and that will work against the overall vision that we as progressives seek.
Fair point in general, however, you know that these types live for martyrdom — in fact, no matter what it is THEY who are being oppressed (and they are not happy unless they think they are being oppressed). Many christians, and practically all fundies, will always manufacture (false) martyrdom situations: it’s always a “oh, woe is me…” Jesus Christ pose. I suppose it makes them think they are “the meek”, or “righteous”.
In other words, they WILL claim oppression, unless they get every single thing they want (like spoiled little children) — and even then they would still cry. It’s a sick need, and probably (if a study were done) is a mental illness.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:42 pmI try posting a note thanking gummitch for his link and mention Hartmann and Alexander Hamilton and my post is “awaiting moderation?”
What?
?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pmI agree, this is the first big mistake Obama has made. But if this is the biggest mistake he ever makes, we’re in for a good administration. On all policy matters, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and not criticize him until such time as he makes policy I disagree with.
But, I do think this choice was a huge mistake. He has greatly offended way more people than he has encouraged through his so-called “inclusiveness”. I know exactly what he is doing here. He is trying to bring the young evangelicals into the fold. I’m sure he never expected the older evangelicals to approve of his choice. So, he encourage a few young evangelicals while offending the entire LBGT community and most progressives.
Unfortunately he is in a very bad position with this. If he changes his mind he looks weak and if he goes through with it, there will be a lasting resentment with many Obama supporters.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pmDisenfranchised Americans; left-leaning, moderate, and even some on the center-right, watch in disappointing horror as their hope and hero, Barak Obama, plays “Step-and-fetch-it” to the religious right! Change at the superficial level of symbolism is traded for the dignity, respect, and rights of an American minority, by Her first African American President-Elect. I fear our gay friends are only the first of us to be thrown, not to the back of the bus, but under it. It sounds like “Yes We Can” is becoming simply “Yesir Masta”!
For those who said “I told you so”, you’re coming in 5X5!!
December 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pmIf Obama can change Warren’s mind…
NOT.GOING.TO.HAPPEN
December 19th, 2008 at 12:46 pmBilbo:
I couldn’t agree more. Hence Rachel’s “lose-lose” . . .
December 19th, 2008 at 12:47 pmlm945 Says:
If Obama can change Warren’s mind…
I agree with you on all points… except that last. Fundamentalist ministers don’t change their minds. They have predetermined ideas of reality, based on their faith, and nothing will shake that. Exceptions exist, but from what I see of Warren, he a man who stands pretty firmly in his convictions.
Still, open discourse is necessary.
Even more necessary is justice, the rule of law and accountability. Without those, it doesn’t matter what anyone does anywhere. Period.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:47 pmIf Obama’s purpose was “inclusiveness”, why didn’t he appoint two pastors to do the invocation, one progressive and then Warren. By his giving Warren the honored position, he has thumbed his nose in our faces.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pmWinter Cupcake Says:
I try posting a note thanking gummitch for his link and mention Hartmann and Alexander Hamilton and my post is “awaiting moderation?”
Check to be sure you didn’t use one of the dreaded nasty dirty words: A n a l y s i s or A n a l y s t (or variations). No matter how often we ask TP to boot out this stupid automatic filter on a common word, there has been no action.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pmMaddow concluded that in centuries, when human rights activists reflect on the inauguration of the first black president, they might also ask, “But what was that guy who compared homosexuality to incest doing there?”
exactly.
rachel maddow is the smartest person on television. …imo.
and i do remember that barack obama said that he could and would admit to a mistake and rectify that mistake.
this is it. HUGE mistake.
i hope that he will CHANGE his mind and CHANGE the program.
it can’t be a bigot. not THAT day.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:49 pm.
Yeah, I guess Obama is officially a failure now!!!! WTF people?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:50 pmQuizmos Says
“I am a concern troll. I pretend to not be a repug/con/neocon, but I am truly a troll filled with concern.”
Go home and tell your mother she wants you.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:50 pmgummitch:
Bingo! Thanks. Yes, I used that two cent word a n a l o g y.
As in “I like Thom Hartmann, but think his a n a l o g y is entirely off the mark on this one.
(Really liked his piece on Alexander Hamilton the other day, though.)”
December 19th, 2008 at 12:51 pmGood Morning camper’s..The gay’s I know clearly are not the one’s you know Dear Fred but I will pass on their disgust and disbelief that Obama’s team picked this miserable man…Most have the same thinking I do and that is forget all the church crap and make all public official’s swear on the constitution that they are suposto protect…And when they go against the constitution, Impeach and Jail them all..
I’m with #’s 22 and 23..Rahm was his first mistake after the FISA deal and a few other’s..Yes I voted for him and I will be patient, with out blind allegence…Do I trust him, not in my life time..Is he better than mcinsane, yes, and that’s the only reason I did finelly vote for him….Let me add most loudly so far he is showing just what I thought before the election he is a centerest with right leaning’s..
Each and every one of us has a right, infact duty to express our thought’s, like or dislike what our elected official’s do…Being silent in the past is how we got to this horrible mess and million’s killed “here and over there’….
Rachel has great thought’s on this matter and I agree…You all have fun posting today..I’m otta here and trying to stay war in 10 degree weather and a foot of snow…Blessings All
December 19th, 2008 at 12:52 pmI’ve been having this same discussion with some other friends of mine; one of the arguments that they’ve made is that Warren is not as outrageously bigoted as others like Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, etc. So we should be tolerant of having him participate in Obama’s inauguration, “He’s not as bad as the others.”
As far as I’m concerned, being “a little bit bigoted” is the same as being “a little bit pregnant” or “a little bit dead”.
I’m sure Adolph Hitler was a nice guy who adored cute little daschunds – you know, when he wasn’t gassing Jews and all… And that the Grand Wizard of the KKK is a nice fellow – when he’s not spouting racist crap.
We should not have to tolerate this kind of bigotry AT ALL. I don’t care that Warren serves ‘teh gays’ “water and donuts.” He’s still a bigot, and we should kick his fat ass to the curb.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pmObama will always be ten thousand times better than Bushco and an unknown quantity-times better than a President McCain would have been.
The difference, Concern Trolls, is that unlike you 28% dead-enders we are free to support our choice and still disagree with him from time to time.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pmWell, there is also to consider that inclusiveness is not an easy thing. that is why the repugs/cons/neocons cannot handle it. Same with the fundies (like Warren). It is too difficult to include others (which requires REAL compromise: give and get, and REQUIRES that one listen to the other person).
Still, the issue here is that Warren and his followers had their 8 years. They didn’t get everything they wanted (well, blame your repug politicians who were in COMPLETE controll for 6 years. Maybe they don’t REALLY represent you or your one or two voting issues). If religion is going to be represented, it should be much broader, include more than christianity, and avoid ANYONE who is an extremist.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pmI agree that this is a controversial choice……and conclusions vary….
I will agree wholeheartedly with you on the part that we shouldn’t even be having religion involved in the process…..
Have a great day Witch.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:56 pmAlthough I agree with the first part of your statement, the last paragraph doesn’t do justice to this blog. These people are not trolls. I know most of thier opinions on issues intimatly and they are progressives.
The main point you make that is valid is that we do have this blog to discuss our different opinions on issues of the day. Events unfolding before our eyes and not days after the fact or with bogus facts provided by the msm.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pmBack at ya Dear Fred…Blessings
December 19th, 2008 at 1:02 pmAnd on the “he’s not as bad as some“, I’m with leftside Annie on this. How inclusive are we talking here? Why NOT invite the KKK Grand Wizard to give a speech. He DOES have the right to SAY pretty much what he wants. He is an opposing view, and at this point he CERTAINLY HAS a strongly opposing view. And maybe one could argue that HE is not as bad as some others.
It just seems that the argument to pander to the fundies is perpetuating a whole “they need to be coddled and handles with kid gloves”. I don’t get that. They can do their thing inside their churches. They can watch like the rest of us, but I have yet to see most other religions, many practiced here in America (most are) represented. How about a wiccan? More of them around than most realize. Taoist? Representation from the Church of the Subgenius? (it’s a recognized religion — really). Got slack?
December 19th, 2008 at 1:05 pmGood day, all.
I got some slack! :)
December 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pmBig mistake PR wise and politically crass, yet an invocation of an inauguration has no bearing on actual governance. Giant leaps of logic about how this decision will effect Obama’s presidency have been made and will be made, but can anyone name the people who delivered the invocation’s of Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton (x2), or W. Bush (x)?
December 19th, 2008 at 1:08 pmGood call, Rachel. Now turn that blazing, insightful clarity on yourself and see how your show can feature more progressive viewpoints – even though you’re the best of the lot.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:10 pmLiberal lions like Maddow are going to have to get used to it.
Obama never was as liberal as the GOP made him seem. And he is determined to not be the idealogical mirror opposite of Bush.
Instead, he wants to be post-partisan and president of all the American people.
You can still fight against hatred and be mad at Obama for being inclusive, that is fine.
But this is EXACTLY what *I* voted for.
Kudos to Obama for showing some B*LLS. Perhaps Maddow and the rest of the left are just too used to the Dems representing them in Congress and never showing that kind of gumption before in their lives.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:12 pmI’m over sixty years old and gay–been with my partner for 26 years. We actually believed that equality was going to finally appear on a President’s desk. We donated what money we could to Obama under very trying financial circumstances. We’ve had to endure discrimination all our lives–we’ve been spit at, had beer cans thrown at us, we’ve been chased by a group carrying a baseball bat (and the police shrugged it off and did nothing). I’ve never been able to put my partner on my health plan or me on his. We pay our taxes. And we felt that finally, finally, our second-class citizenship was going to be addressed and put great hope in Obama.
The more things change–the more they remain the same. With Obama’s choice of Warren to “bless his Presidency,” I realize now that I won’t see equality in my lifetime. I hope that someday, for the sake of the next generation of gay people, they will see their lives–and their love–affirmed in full equality. We have no choice at this point but to divorce ourselves from the political process. We’re just not going to set ourselves up for further disappointments. We’ve just had too many.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:18 pmI’m all about spirituality of any kind. But I’m very much against the hypocrisy exhibited by those who holler “Praise Jesus” and then divvy up their fellow human beings into groups that do and do not deserve respect, civil rights, Heaven…
Bottom line: The moments before his inauguration are awfully early in his presidency for Barack Obama to be pandering to the Jesus freaks.*
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
*If Jesus came back today, he might consider these folks freaks too.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:23 pmJust because someone speaks hardly means anyone is listening. I am not thrilled with this jackass but I think you all might be going off the deepend with all of this. I good strategy for actually uniting and not dividing is to let the oddballs feel they have a voice. Look for anything they might have to offer and ignore the rest. For real can you name one line or even the name of your college commencement speaker.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:23 pmHello Fred. I am the poster aka Frosty Cupcake. Though I’ve spent most of the past semester studying and not posting here, I do still lurk. I recognize most of the posters here (you, Witch, Zooey, Bilbo, Spencer’s Mom, katy, missmolly, etc), know which ones are progressives and where they generally stand, and the ones I don’t (ICEMAN, Quizmos)* seem to be Republican trolls to me.
*The latest incarnations of gigi, Mr. P, John Kerry, Captain Mantastic, perhaps? Who knows?
December 19th, 2008 at 1:23 pmBlancement, Thank you for posting…..Blessings to you and your partner.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:23 pmFred:
PS. It turns out you and my husband were right. Obama *was* on the right course during the primaries and I was nervous about his “nice guy, laid back” campaign strategy for nothing.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pmHi Frosty, I didn’t recognize you……sorry if I was out of line. You are of course right about iceboy, etc.
I just don’t want us to attack each other, even if we disagree. We should be capable of that.
peace
December 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pmDo I like Warren? No, not really. Do I like him meddling politically? No.
Do I have a problem with Church and State being kept separate, and contributing to a fracturing of the evangelicals from their recent exploiters? Absolutely not.
Serious question: Are there any national Christian leaders with the power and organizational sway to improve our communities independent of federal assistance who DO fully approve of Gays in every way?
While this is not a *good* option, I believe it will lead to those options presenting themselves when mainstream America finally learns to put up or shut up when it comes to loving others.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:30 pmFred:
I had massive computer failure and have somehow done something with my Frosty Cupcake password. (I am absolutely technically incompetent.) I thought I’d go with Winter Cupcake until I can get my computer back and hopefully resurrect Frosty. I hate giving up a net name!
No worries about anything else. ;)
December 19th, 2008 at 1:31 pmCageyCretin Says:
“I am a concern troll. I pretend to not be a repug/con/neocon, but I am truly a troll filled with concern.”
Go home and tell your mother she wants you.
I’ll speak for myself, and you speak for you. It is dishonest and cowardly to falsely quote someone for your own distorted purposes.
By the way, my mother is dead. My father, however, would like to be remembered by your mother. He sends his best!
December 19th, 2008 at 1:36 pmInaugural Invocations Reagan – W. Bush
Reagan (1981) – Rev. Donn D. Moomaw
Reagan (1985) – Rev. Donn D. Moomaw
H.W. Bush – Rev. Billy Graham
Clinton – Rev. Billy Graham
Bush (2001) – Franklin Graham
Bush (2005) – Rev. Dr. Luis Leon
The impact that these people had on the subsequent administration’s policies still reverberates today.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:39 pmEspecially in the case of Moomaw – UCLA’s football program has been overrated in the Pac10 since that fateful day in 1981 when he recited the opening prayer at Reagan’s inauguration. Odds-makers knew that the acceptance of a former UCLA offensive lineman meant that ‘house was in favor of the Bruins.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:44 pmRev Dr Luis Leon?
December 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pmTell the truth, you made that one up!
#76..I think the UU’s have all inclusive of all faith’s and gay’s…Universal Unatarians have embrased the gay communety and all faith’s or non relegion for as long as I can remember…A great fellowship in most state’s and many celebrate all sort’s of holiday belief’s in the form of study, discussion and celebration with out dogma or any of the church trapping’s…I was a member of a small one in Montana many year’s ago (15) we were the first welcoming of the gay communety and had several gay and lesbian couple’s in the group…The best bunch of well educated, no judgment loving people I have ever met…Non better in my book and I have seen many…..Blessings
December 19th, 2008 at 1:47 pmdbassadd
It was all I could find after a couple of searches…if it isn’t true, please correct me, but the point is, no “master list” of who delivered invocations is readily available on the internets…leading me to conclude it is a relatively minor ceremonial role.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:49 pmIt’s hard to tell someone not to talk with their mouth full if they don’t have a seat at the table.
In this case, Warren’s mouth is definitely full of sh*t, but as it is, this move seems to be designed to (somewhat) placate the evangelical crowd and diffuses any future “he’s anti-Christian” memes…although, that crapola prolly won’t go away, it’ll just be easier to refute by having to deal with the idiot Warren for a few minutes before he officially is sworn in to office.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pmTweedster:
December 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pmIt was a joke on a goofy name. I agree 100% with your point which seems to parallel mine at 71. I sort of feel bad for anyone willing to assume the presidency. They are asked to bring a diverse populaution together despite the fact that the diverse population that claims to want to be brought together only wishes to be brought together by doing it the way they want it done. It is sort of a sucky job…
Balancement Says:
I’m over sixty years old and gay–been with my partner for 26 years. We actually believed that equality was going to finally appear on a President’s desk. We donated what money we could to Obama under very trying financial circumstances. We’ve had to endure discrimination all our lives–we’ve been spit at, had beer cans thrown at us, we’ve been chased by a group carrying a baseball bat (and the police shrugged it off and did nothing).
Balancement, thanks for your post. Don’t give up hope of seeing equality in your lifetime because there are still millions of people wanting to do whatever is possible to make that a reality.
And the point I have been trying to make here is that if Warren was on the side of discrimination against Blacks, or Jews, or any other group that has spurred racism and hatred, the bigotry he supports would make him ineligible to speak on the same stage as Barack.
And if I’m wrong in that assumption, then I’ll retract what I’ve said here after I see President Obama sharing a stage with, and giving worldwide voice to, the leaders of the KKK and NeoNazi/White Supremacy groups. Which I know will never happen.
PEACE
December 19th, 2008 at 2:11 pmThank you Spencers mom for your post’s..I agree…Blessings
December 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pmI wonder if Ms. Maddow regrets not taking Gov. Huckabee on about his views of homosexuality?
December 19th, 2008 at 2:33 pm#86 Spencer’s mom – that’s exactly the point I was making.
Rick Warren may be a big, soft teddy bear – BUT HE’S STILL A BIGOT. And soft bigotry is STILL bigotry.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pmI don’t recall who said it. W.C. Fields perhaps?
“Being President is like being in prison but, in prison one meets a better class of people“.
And I am still FAR more disgusted that religion is part of the inauguration than anyone who could be chosen for the invocation. That being said, I wonder how many will leave Warren’s flock because he chose to accept the invite from the “godless Muslim”?
December 19th, 2008 at 3:03 pmIn defense of bigotry. When I look at and judge those dumbass Budweiser drinking, F150 driving, never left the county, Applebee’s eating and calling it cuisine, no idea that a caesar salad has anchovies and coddled egg and not dried out chicken and stale bread chunks idiots, I am a bigot. So maybe we are all bigots when it is all said and done… Just saying…
December 19th, 2008 at 3:07 pmYeah Maddow was over the top calling it President-ELECT Obama first misstep.
This isn’t the first time Maddow stance comes up shaky. Maybe this is her second misstep.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:35 pmObviously not the best decision Obama ever made, but he will make mistakes, just like anyone. The difference is that even this mistake, came from good intentions. He really believe that he can fix the huge rift in America. Naive? Probably, but i’ll take his naivety over the alternative.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:51 pmFirst mistake?
Try continued funding for Iraq, supporting Patriot Act, FISA,
December 19th, 2008 at 4:16 pmVP choice and most of the cabinet.
Oh give it a rest why don’t ya…
December 19th, 2008 at 4:21 pmThe choice of Warren is a classic political compromise. Choose a flaming bigot for the opening prayer and then a gay marriage supporter for the benediction. Everyone will be happy! In reality, nobody is happy.
And, why the hell do we have a prayer before our President is inaugurated?
December 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pmFebruary 1, 2009 – President Barack Obama appoints Rush Limbaugh as the First Secretary of the newly formed U.S. Department of Propaganda
December 19th, 2008 at 5:17 pmAttention LGBT community: Obama is not smacking you down here. This is a small olive branch to the “conservative christian” segment, a message that open discourse is going to be the rule under his administration (as well it should be), and that even though we don’t agree on the issues, we will at least discuss the situation. The better ideas will win out in the end, but I will at least listen to your opinions, even if I don’t agree with them.
It is NOT a deliberate insult from Obama, nor is he spitting on the LGBT community.
There are three people in my life that belong to this community (my mother and two of my good friends) and when this came up in our conversations, all of them were irked at this “Make a mountain out of a mole hole” reaction. It was completely understood where the motivation for this came from, and no insult was taken.
Please folks, let’s all realize that almost any decision made by a politician of Obama’s position and stature is going to have a ripple effect across multiple groups of people. Not everyone is going to be happy with every decision he makes, but do try to keep in mind that he’s actually trying to help as many people as he can with an interest in promoting the common good, unlike another president I could mention.
LGBTs: you may feel slighted by this decision, but in the big scheme of things, it’s an incredibly minor detail. This president’s on your side… give him a chance to prove it on something that will make an impact.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:25 pmRachel is right on. I don’t think this is his first mistake, but it is his first major blunder since winning the election, especially on the heels of Prop 8 passing in CA where Warren was a huge contributer. To me, this shows that it’s still ok to act as though predjudice against gays is acceptable. I’m liberal and I get the whole “we have to work together” principle and I don’t want to cause any anger, but think about what the reaction would’ve been had he named someone such as David Duke to speak. Would anybody be saying, good political strategy? No they wouldn’t nor should they. It would be reprehensible. I’m sorry to anyone that felt offended by that comparison, but Warren’s stance on gay people is frightening. It empowers those who hate what they don’t understand and are being taught that gay=evil. It’s clear that Obama doesn’t get it either.
December 20th, 2008 at 12:59 pmIf Obama really felt the need to name an evangelical leader for his invocation, wouldn’t Rev. Jim Wallis have been less controversial?
You really don’t get it, do you?Obama is not a sohbetbad guy,cet but he’s a guy that is somewhat delusional in his belief that radical conservatives are Bedava mp3 indir‘reachable’ with this sort of stupid approach
February 28th, 2009 at 10:51 am