2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread 13: Victory Lap

[BVS]

You people really, really crack me up.

Smoking is good now, all of a sudden?

You aren't being serious, are you?

 

[U2isthebest]

^I am! I'm going to start smoking now because Obama did. Cigarettes and pot. I'm so badass.

 

[anitram]

Cocaine is to lawyers as steroids are to bodybuilders.

And the highest alcoholism rates too!

 

[joyfulgirl]

Anti-gay bigot religious leader to give invocation.

politcs, as usual

( I guess it is a good move )

Ugh is right.

Ugh

Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won't be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen. More evidence that a civil rights movement needs to realize that no politician can deliver for us what we have to deliver on our own. - Andrew Sullivan

 

[anitram]

I don't care for Rick Warren either and I've said so here before.

I also couldn't give two shits about the fact that Bono pals around with him.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I was just hoping to enjoy the inauguration.

I guess I've never really watched one. I didn't know it required a sermon.

 

[diamond]

I just think it's hilarious that you're setting up the law degree as some paragon of virtue. As if law students don't do drugs, don't cheat on exams, don't hand in plagiarized papers, don't apply for jobs with fake grades and degrees, etc?

If Obama is making a mockery of his law degree, then he's fitting right in with how things have always been. And I bet you anything that I still know more lawyers of his era than you do and I don't think he's unique among them either.

But I suppose it's nice that suddenly the law degree seems to imply some kind of special morality that the public has NEVER afforded the profession, LOL!

and therein lies one symptom of a sick society.

<>

 

[diamond]

. I didn't know it required a sermon.

Mitt was busy.



<>

 

[Irvine511]

Ugh is right.

Ugh

Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won't be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen. More evidence that a civil rights movement needs to realize that no politician can deliver for us what we have to deliver on our own. - Andrew Sullivan

i am displeased with this.

very displeased.

 

[Irvine511]

You people really, really crack me up.

Smoking is good now, all of a sudden?

no, silly.

it's just funny to see a POTUS smoking and looking "cool" for a camera.

 

[martha]

i am displeased with this.

very displeased.

This is from cnn.com:

"The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues," Douglass said.

If you say so.

 

[Popmartijn]

Electoral-vote.com: President, Senate, House Updated Daily has an interesting analysis on this choice:

Obama has chosen pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inaugural. Liberal groups are already up in arms over this choice. It was a brilliant move on Obama's part. By reaching out to a relatively moderate evangelical who has focused on AIDS and world poverty and getting liberals to react angrily (because Warren is antichoice and antigay) Obama has accomplished two things. First, a lot of evangelicals will come to require Obama as not so bad after all, which will surely help him when he actually starts to govern. Second, by getting liberals visibly furious with him before he is even inaugurated, he will be much better able to defend himself against right-wing cries that he is a "liberal" (a pejorative in some circles). The move costs him no political capital at all. Warren gets a few minutes to speak on national TV. He's not going to use it to bash gays if he has any expectation of becoming the new Billy Graham. But later when Obama does controversial things--like pushing for some kind of national health insurance--he can claim to be balanced by saying: "I am a centrist, look, I let Warren speak and I support national health insurance, something for everyone." That is hardly an even trade but it will get him a lot of mileage in the media. Despite what some people may think, Obama is a very clever politician and fully understands that making small gestures to the right, however meaningless, generate good will he will need later. The incident brings to mind Richard Nixon's famous comment: "Watch what we do, not what we say."

 

[Irvine511]

If you say so.

it's too bad that Obama may prove to be just like the Democratic Party and, of course, The Clintons, when it comes to understanding gays as people. he personally is probably for full marriage equality, but would never say so were it to cost him even a sliver of political capital. one thing we're going to learn is that Obama is very, very clever. lethal. he destroyed the Clintons, and then rebuilt them. who else could have done that?

of course, he could probably easily get a federal civil unions bill passed, and easily remove the military ban. so we'll see about that.

there's no question that the Warren pick is an olive branch to young evangelicals, and there's also no question that Warren is not a hateful, spiteful Dobson-type.

Warren has done good work on AIDS, for example.

granted, heterosexual AIDS. but, still, AIDS nonetheless.

it seems that Bono has made it cool for Christianists to care about blameless, heterosexual Africans (in amildly racist, patronizing way).

but no one seems to care about gay Americans with AIDS. because this is just retribution for their wicked lifestyle?

 

[anitram]

there's also no question that Warren is not a hateful, spiteful Dobson-type.

Oh there's a lot of question. I don't think he's that much better than Dobson, based on everything I've heard from him (including likening gay marriage to incest, polygamy and child abuse), he could actually be worse. Nobody with a brain gives credence to Dobson; Warren on the other hand is treated with kid gloves which makes him all the more dangerous.

Totally backwards to include him and 150% wrong.

 

[Irvine511]

Oh there's a lot of question. I don't think he's that much better than Dobson, based on everything I've heard from him (including likening gay marriage to incest, polygamy and child abuse).

we can agree that his views on gay people belong in the 13th century.

however, he doesn't seem to be as intentionally divisive as past Christianist evangelicals.

 

[anitram]

we can agree that his views on gay people belong in the 13th century.

however, he doesn't seem to be as intentionally divisive as past Christianist evangelicals.

That matters very little since the end result is the same. And the fact that you have a lot of people legitimizing him in a way that they would NEVER legitimize past Christian evangelicals for saying the exact same thing (!!) is what makes him so much more dangerous.

 

[joyfulgirl]

A bigot is a bigot is a bigot... It's too bad Obama decided it was a smart political move to legitimize a bigot.

 

[BEAL]

Wow, change we can believe in right?

Obama is a douche. Politics as usual. Stand up for what you believe in, and I don't believe Obama believes a single word this guy says.

Sure, it might win him a few more battles down the road with the liberals or GOP, but really, why? This man has no business even being there, and I'd say that about any religious person had he chosen differently.

 

[Irvine511]

That matters very little since the end result is the same. And the fact that you have a lot of people legitimizing him in a way that they would NEVER legitimize past Christian evangelicals for saying the exact same thing (!!) is what makes him so much more dangerous.

i think it's important not to do what they do, which is to think that everyone who disagrees with us are all exactly the same.

i find many of Warren's views reprehensible. i think he's a homophobic bigot. i am very disappointed in Obama.

i do think that there are worse people out there than Warren, and i do think we do ourselves a disservice to lump everyone together (like how Christians do to Muslims).

 

[anitram]

i do think that there are worse people out there than Warren

That's really not a very comforting thought.

I think this is 100% wrong as a decision and I couldn't care less that there may be 500 men who are a level up on the disgusting scale as compared to this guy.

 

[martha]

but no one seems to care about gay Americans with AIDS. because this is just retribution for their wicked lifestyle?

The Africans didn't choose to be African.

 

[anitram]

Also, let's not forget Warren's views on women either, which are also a historical relic.

 

[Irvine511]

The Africans didn't choose to be African.

they don't know any better, either.

plus, caring about them makes a white American officially not-racist.

 

[Irvine511]

That's really not a very comforting thought.

I think this is 100% wrong as a decision and I couldn't care less that there may be 500 men who are a level up on the disgusting scale as compared to this guy.

i am not in any way defending Obama's decision.

however, what are we to do with these people? we've had exhaustive thread where we have posters who are in excellent command of the english language and of sound mind offer up completely insane rationalizations and justifications for their bigotry. there isn't a single rational argument that can be made against gay civil marriage. not even one. it's painful watching the contortions and distortions that they put themselves through in order to justify the indefensible.

so how do we deal? do we call them bigots and leave it at that, or do we try to bring them into the fold and show them, through living, breathing examples, that they are 100% wrong?

the one thing i took from the Prop 8 protests after the vote was that it is incumbent upon gay people to be Out. whenever and wherever you can, be out. if someone says, "ooh, i have a niece about your age, i can give you her number," i should say, "do you have any cute nephews?" or, "no thanks, my boyfriend and i have been together for over 3 years."

and that is how you destroy not just homophobia, but the protective cocoon that people build around themselves that let's them say, "i'm not a bigot, it's just my freedom of religious expression!"

so i suppose, when it comes to a man like Warren who obviously is cut from a different cloth than the Christianist warriors who already have one foot in the grave, it's better to engage them than spit on them. they can be redeemed. change is possible.

after all, that is the Christian thing to do.

 

[A_Wanderer]

How does it feel to be under the bus?

Do you actually think you will get any favours playing meek and mild simply because its your man in charge? It was alright when he opposed gay marriage in the election because it was about electability, do you feel its alright to have him bend over for Christians now he has been elected?

I have to reiterate again, allowing religious groups influence over your political discourse is dangerous. Look at the election, the worst parts were driven by religion being injected into the game, from Obama enjoying support from racist preachers to Palin getting exorcised. By giving evangelicals a helping hand with the expectation they will help out with the political job you are legitimising religious interference in politics, making it a bipartisan position, this will definitely hurt America. You may think that it is alright to co-opt a devout base in the short term, but you are giving the GOP a free pass the next time they get elected; you loose the moral high ground to say a Republic president is too closely aligned with right-wing evangelicals.

Your statements about consciousness raising as a means of getting gay rights are dead on, having more exposure and developing an environment where your average person knows that they have gay family members is a way forward; which isn't served by finding a consensus position with theocrats, and pretending to think its alright. That position is worse than a step backwards.

 

[A_Wanderer]

That matters very little since the end result is the same. And the fact that you have a lot of people legitimizing him in a way that they would NEVER legitimize past Christian evangelicals for saying the exact same thing (!!) is what makes him so much more dangerous.

Thankyou for repeating a principled position.

 

[A_Wanderer]

YouTube - Beliefnet Interviews Rick Warren on Gay Marriage

Feel the love; but remember to abuse Diamond and Nathan for holding identical positions.

He rattles off the same arguments
- Redefinition of marriage
- A 5000 year old institution across all cultures
- Support proposition 8 as a free speech issue: pastors would be locked up for hate-speech
- I have plenty of gay friends
- Saddleback has done a lot for AIDS
- I'm not a homophobe, I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage

 

[Irvine511]

How does it feel to be under the bus?

it's a familiar feeling.

Do you actually think you will get any favours playing meek and mild simply because its your man in charge? It was alright when he opposed gay marriage in the election because it was about electability, do you feel its alright to have him bend over for Christians now he has been elected?

what would you have me do? it was never alright. am i going to vote for McCain? what else do you expect the gay community to do other than support politicians who at least mouth support? are we to support Republicans who sleep with the very people who'd cheer our social death? are we to support Republicans who've made their opposition to gay people the very center of their social policy?

it seems to me that the positions you've outlined above are easy to say when you, yourself, don't have to actually live them out. in the real world, we have to make choices. and we also know that we're going to get thrown under the bus because more work remains, and because unthinking religion holds a preposterously central place in the lives of many Americans.

so we deal with it. the best we can.

I have to reiterate again, allowing religious groups influence over your political discourse is dangerous. Look at the election, the worst parts were driven by religion being injected into the game, from Obama enjoying support from racist preachers to Palin getting exorcised. By giving evangelicals a helping hand with the expectation they will help out with the political job you are legitimising religious interference in politics, making it a bipartisan position, this will definitely hurt America. You may think that it is alright to co-opt a devout base in the short term, but you are giving the GOP a free pass the next time they get elected; you loose the moral high ground to say a Republic president is too closely aligned with right-wing evangelicals.

i agree with you here -- you're preaching to the choir. simply because i know why Obama chose Warren (it was shrewd and calculating) doesn't mean i support the decision. it means i'm able to hold more than one thought in my head at one time. i have never been comfortable with Obama's religiosity, but i also have to accept that a president has to have some pretense of religiosity to be elected. for chrissakes, go back and look at how much i mocked the Democratic "Faith Forum" silliness. but what else are we going to do? at least Obama's religious leanings are inclusive and empowering and generally non-exclusionary, and not the spiteful, hateful, white evangelical protestantism of GWB. though each man claims a strong spirituality and professes Christ as his savior, there are world's of difference between the kids of Christianity each practices.

i'm every bit the secularist you are.

but, again, as i said earlier, "they" are not all the same.

i don't think this paragraph was aimed directly at me. but if it was, it missed the mark.

Your statements about consciousness raising as a means of getting gay rights are dead on, having more exposure and developing an environment where your average person knows that they have gay family members is a way forward; which isn't served by finding a consensus position with theocrats, and pretending to think its alright. That position is worse than a step backwards.

what consensus position have i argued? i've said that i'm not interested in simply labeling people a bigot and that's that. that isn't productive. it's not consensus building -- that's the GCU position, one i am very clearly against. i just don't think we're well served by provoking people in the middle, and i think we are well served by engaging, say, a nathan1977, where as a diamond is probably best left to humor.

and the more we argue with those who are equipped with actual skills, and the more we watch them twist their arguments and strain for something resembling coherence and consistency, the more discredited they are to the mainstream.

that's always been the point.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Some common sense on cheap hucksterism

YouTube - Dan Dennett talks about "The Purpose Driven Life"

 

[Irvine511]

Feel the love; but remember to abuse Diamond and Nathan for holding identical positions.

do you read the gay marriage threads? who spends hours dealing with the opposition?

you're so eager to try to find elements of "the Left" excusing Obama's shortcomings -- in the same way in which "the Right" apologized for George Bush running the country into the ground, and they still do, "he kept us safe" revisionism and whatnot -- that it's clouding your ability to actually see what's going on in here.

are you now the new Deep? is now your mission to antagonize the Obama folk in here without actually closely reading what they post and going by media stereotypes and using what you wish they said because it better fits whatever zingers you've been plotting?