Warren the Whipping Boy
WOW! The tomatoes are flying! Eggs, cabbages, apples and pears! They are being hurled at the stage on which Obama has placed Rick Warren. An interesting way for Obama to return the favor. First, Warren invited Obama onto his stage at his pathetic little Saddleback megachurch. Obama was expected to fail. He had all those liberal talking points to defend. It was John McCain's turn to shine. He was bringing the fight from the Right! The questions were not anything original. They were the classic issues that have given the Right purpose all these years. But Obama did not fail and McCain did not shine. Now it's Rick Warren answering the invitation by Obama to the White House and his inauguration. The tables are turned.
I have asked myself, "Why is it that the supposedly intelligent people here cannot see the brilliance of this maneuver?" My answer is rage. It so infuriates many people on the Left that Warren is going up on the stage after the Left has been so completely snubbed by the Right. They are incredulous. What has happened? The Left should return the favor and snub the Right.
What is happening is that the Right will now have to defend itself against all comers. The Right basked in its own glory and its own delusion for a short time while declaring themselves supreme, yet unable to face any criticism. They portrayed themselves as superior but there was no counter or contrast to show whether they were better. It is the argument of Good requiring Evil to prove it's worth, only it was live and on TV.
When a position cannot face criticism, it is because it has no true merit. Obama will have Warren on stage and the contrast of Warren against the others on the stage will reveal the absence of merit in Warren's positions on gays and lesbians. Prior to the debate, Warren was simply this author/pastor whose life had a purpose and he was this voice crying in the wilderness. But if a tree falls in the wilderness does it make a sound? For most, they can only believe it made a sound. Now Warren is in public, and we can question the sounds he is making. With all the talk about the noise he is making, his merit is called into question. Warren is losing his shine same as McCain and he is doing it on stage in front of the world. For that, the Left can thank Obama because without it, Americans from the Middle might have thought Warren was someone worth reading. Now we can question his purpose.
geez.. this is the kind of logic that palin followers would embrace.
December 30, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you get to the last two paragraphs?
December 30, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama will have Warren on stage and the contrast of Warren against the others on the stage will reveal the absence of merit in Warren's positions on gays and lesbians."
-and-
"Now Warren is in public, and we can question the sounds he is making. With all the talk about the noise he is making, his merit is called into question. Warren is losing his shine same as McCain and he is doing it on stage in front of the world."
You made these two statements but you provided no reasoning for your position. How does Warren getting to conduct the swearing in impeach his positions on GLBT civil rights? From where I sit it appears to validate them, not diminish them.
December 30, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's giving the invocation. Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts will conduct the swearing in.
December 30, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, you are correct, sir. My bad...
January 2, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Father OKC! Your blessings are sought!
If you are determined to see the act alone, in a vacuum, then I can agree it does harm. But in the grand scheme of things, I see the decision as the opportunity to discuss the issues of the GLBT community out in the open. We have weeks to make challenges to Warren's philosophy. It is not Warren making headlines. It is Warren vs. the GLBT making headlines. Now is the time for GLBT to make their case across the nation. Despite the economy being in the toilet, the GLBT issues leads in the news.
Faux news is going to spew its filth, and the MSM will have their spin and agendas as well, but there have been some strong voices out there challenging Warren, i.e. Melissa Etheridge, for one. Warren has already done some back pedaling. So the GLBT community is gaining ground while this "champion" of the Right is triping over himself. I think all this publicity of the issues is great. Prop. 8 will rise agasin and it will fall the other way eventually. Probably sooner then later.
December 30, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where am I? This place looks awfully unfamiliar.
December 30, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most won't be surprised by my approval of this blog as it articulates many of the same positions I have taken on this issue these past few weeks since the announcement. The only way to stop stereotypes and prejudice is to begin a conversation.
Warren is already starting to soften his position, most likely in response to his own parishioners changing ideals.
Until we walk the more religious among us away from the edge, we won't be able to get anything done. As much as many on the far left of the democratic party may hate to admit it, Warren (and pastors like Warren) represent a huge swath of the American electorate.
What this has to do with Palin is beyond me. Seems to be the same sort of strange non-sequiter connections that we were used to hearing from the far right.
December 30, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It might be time to consider whether Warren still represents a "huge swath of the American electorate". From what I have been hearing, Big Box religion is taking a hit after Dubya. I question whether they are right now the "huge swath" they were 4-6 years ago.
December 30, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mainly meant Warren and other evangelical pastors have represented (and perhaps even manipulated) the views many Christians in America until very recently.
December 30, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second JadeZ. The only reason the tarnish is even off Warren and it has been brought to the public's attention is due to the due diligence of the Left in all our "rage" over this pick. Oh, and it's not "rage", disappointment is a better choice of words. No, this rage or disappointment (take your pick) is not interfering with our rational thinking either- though thanks for painting us on "the Left" as irrational, rage-filled extremists- I bet that characterization came easy.
You do not see our logic, we certainly do not see yours. To me, imho, many who think this choice is great come across as triangulating centrists, DLC-style, throw our civil liberties away while we run-to-the-middlers- the same group that has chapped the ass of the left for a long time. I'm willing to acknowledge that is more than likely as accurate as your characterization of "the left" aka not accurate at all. Never the less, there the characterizations remain.
Quite simply this choice was a fuck up. Someone giving the prayer at the inaugural should be inconsequential, this pick is not, it's extremist, and it's causing an uproar as it should. Second, the inaugural should be a happy experience for the whole country- now gays, their friends, and their family (many of whom worked their ass off for Obama) are now left with a less than stellar election day. That's a fuck up and a travesty too. The inaugural should be an occassion for everyone to celebrate fully.
I intend to celebrate that day, unfortunately, there is also a large gray cloud involved in what could have otherwise been a bright, sunny inaugural.
December 30, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said Joseph. Those supporting Obama's choice must indeed find an enemy to attack. Even if they have to make one up. "The raging far left!" Heh.
Like you, I will watch and be proud and celebratory about a truly historic day. I would love for it to be unmarred, but that's no longer in the cards. Ah well.
Here's to happier more enlightened days.
Cheers!
December 30, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that why you happily keep company with the far right as part of the 21% of Americans who disapprove of Obama's choices so far? It's not just Warren. You have blowing this horn the entire election.
December 30, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly which choices of Obama's do I disapprove of?
December 30, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose I could back through all of your comments with a fine-toothed comb and pick choice quotes to illustrate my point, but we have been playing this back-and-forth game for much longer than this current Warren kerfuffle.
December 30, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No seriously... You said I'm keeping company with the far right as part of the 21% of Americans who disapprove of Obama's choices so far.
Which choices, so far, do I disagree with? No need to go combing through tons of old comments. You clearly know I disagree with his choices--me and the 21% of the far right--you've got to have at least a couple in mind.
December 30, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assumed the 21% number was evenly divided between the far right and the far left, with those 79% of us in the middle, left and right, being mostly happy with the Obama's choices so far.
I remember you going ballistic over Gates and now Warren. Maybe you just enjoy going ballistic and it only sounds like ideological nonsense that you really don't buy at a fundamental level. All I have to do on is your commentary on this pages.
This idea that compromise equals capitulation is not a new point of disagreement between us.
December 30, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, when and where did I go ballistic over Gates?
December 30, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Splitting hairs again. It is so hard to remember all your ballistic rants. My apologies. You may not have gone ballistic over Gates. Perhaps it is only religion that brings out the worst in you. Here is a link to just a taste of your previously unassailable angst over Obama and his "unhinged" supporters.
I find it highly ironic that a person who was so behind the uber-pragmatic, DLC-trooper Hillary Clinton would now have a problem with Obama making political calculations to achieve progressive ends via untried means. Based on your earlier blogs and consistent defense of Hillary (which actually helped change my opinion of her and Bill, by the way) I would have thought Obama's choice of Warren would appeal to your chaotic nature.
I guess you are only a pragmatist if it involves a choice you agree with.
December 30, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not "slpitting hairs." It is untrue!
December 30, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I apologize. I have actually come much closer to your thoughts on pragmatic politics this last year than you might think.
December 30, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason,
You accused me of being a part of the 21%. The 21% of Americans "who disapprove of Obama's choices so far."
Nothing could be further from the truth. You've allowed our little dust-ups to cloud your thinking.
Let me help you here. I disagreed with his FISA stand. I did not enjoy what I condidered his pandering top the religious right during the primaries. I am unhappy about Warren.
I am perfectly happy with all of his appointments so far. Even Gates. I think he could have done better than Gates, but I understand and accept his choice.. no problem. Far from going "ballistic."
In the past, I always made it clear my problem was with Obama supporters... like you... not the man himself. I think this exchange speaks to that a bit.
You were simply wrong to say I'm part of the 21%. I realize it might be too much to expect anything in the way of an apology, but...
December 30, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posted at the same time.
December 30, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would try to keep a running log of all the various and sundry ad hominem swipes you take at those who don't agree with you, but there are so many that it would be a full-time gig. I don't have the time for that. I did apologize for getting confused on the Gates thing, but stand-by my position that you are more bluster than common sense sometimes, usually if the topic at hand has anything to do with religion. Obviously a pet peeve of yours.
December 30, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting confused about the Gates statement? Confused? Ha!
And man if you call that an apology... I don't know what. You said I was splitting hairs. After which you offered what I can only assume was a totally sarcastic "yeah, sure! I'm sooo sorry." kind of apology. And that wasn't for the 21% bit... which you were also wrong about.
But hey, like I said, I wasn't expecting much from you. Thanks for nuthin!
December 30, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. You have been totally on-board with Obama's pragmatism all along. Look at all the comments to prove it!
December 30, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether I was a part of the group that was totally against him. I am not. Never have been.
I have praised and rebuked. I have treated him like the human being he is. I'm not always right, I'm not always wrong. Despite your comments, I am not an ideologue. I am able to criticize people I respect and even care about. Just like my country. I think my posts and my comments thoroughly reflect this, despite my sometimes obnoxious ways.
And sorry for that.
December 30, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto. As I mentioned, I am actually much more practical and pragmatic because of our sparing during the primary.
If your comments sometime appear to be those an ideologue, I will try to remember in the future that they aren't. As long as you remember that I am far from a dogmatic cultists, even if I mostly agree with Obama's moves so far.
That said, we can still trade blows on the issues for the entertainment of all around us.
December 30, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Entertainment for others... hmmm. I kinda like that!
Cheers.
December 30, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers it is!
December 30, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So a disappointed person says the decision was a fuck up? How does an angry person describe it. really, you sound like a Republican saying "We're not stealing!" as they give $700 billion dollars to Wall Street no strings attached.
Yes, you are angry. Your second paragraph is rageful to me. So what! Bring it on! Seriously, I commend your rage. I want to hear it. I think the country needs to hear it. I commend Obama for giving us the opportunity to discuss these important issues. Dubya never did. No President has ever declared themselves a fierce advocate for gays and lesbians. But maybe, like Warren, Obama will have to defend his remarks. I suspect Obama will come a lot closer to making it an honest representation of his beliefs then Warren will have of trying to explain how discrimination represents love.
January 1, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I keep asking myself why I continue to get sucked into these discussions about Warren and the GLBT, and I think I finally have an answer.
Gay rights is a huge, emotional, polarizing issue, and it is SOLVABLE. I believe that if we can come together and work out this issue, it lays the groundwork for working out all the other issues we. as a nation, face.
I refuse to believe that we cannot come up with a solution that works for everyone, or at least the vast majority of people. Jason is absolutely correct about changing parishioners views. I know the the gay community is waaaaay beyond tired of being patient, and justifiably so. This is so doable, but it will require more patience. Things are changing. I can feel it.
December 30, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am with you on this. See, I am getting a headache just logging in here. As Chief Inspector Clouseau says:
"I will stay on the case until the case is
solv-ed."
December 30, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what is most damaging to your assertion that Rick Warren is being damaged by this whole debate? It's that democratic Obama supporters are actively telling the folks and progressives on the left to be quiet, to simmer down, they have no right to be angry. The idea that just being angry or disappointed in Rick Warren giving the invocation makes one part of the "Angry Left" or "Raging Liberal" is what is ceding territory to Rick Warren and the like.
I agree with this statement 100%... which is why people should accept the fact that others will be critical of Obama's positions or choices when they disagree with him vehemently about something.
December 30, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
a very interesting point, dijamo. logical.
December 30, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn well said dijamo!
December 30, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree with this, in essence, but how do you square the seeming hypocrisy?
Those of us who agree with his tactics (on Warren or cabinet choices or whatever) are called appeasers and cultists and centrists and all sorts of crazy shit that is totally off base. There is a certain number of folks on the democratic side of the house who have said over and over that agreeing with Obama on this is the same as having no moral or ethical center.
That sounds like a Raging Left mentality to me, one mirrored in tone if not content by the Raging Right these many years.
December 30, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The idea that just being angry or disappointed in Rick Warren giving the invocation makes one part of the "Angry Left" or "Raging Liberal" is what is ceding territory to Rick Warren and the like."
That's not what I am saying. People have a right to be angry. But hot heads are seldom heard by anyone except those who share their anger. Have the anger! Own it, for crying out loud. But then move past that anger and return to where a reasonable voice can explain, [I know, for the millionth time probably] why they are angry, and people will hear it. There are a lot more spectators and listeners to the debate now then ever.
My intent is to encourage people to discuss this issue in a manner where it will be effective. Not in a way where their compatriots are slapping them on the back saying, "You tell them!" That is not the point. I want the compatriots to be whispering in the ears of the Voice, "I think they heard you. They are beginning to understand." The GLBT needs that Voice, and now would be a great time to hear it. Right now, I don't think you can hear me, but perhaps it is just because I am expressing myself poorly...but perhaps not.
January 1, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink