"Greasy-faced, poorly dressed, ill-groomed religious huckster to give inaugural benediction"
Prop 8 Homophobe Rick Warren to Deliver Inaugural Benediction
That's how Teddy Partridge at FireDogLake described him.
Barack Obama is too accommodating and making even more bad choices. I am becoming more bummed by the hour. Aretha Franklin is on the celebratory menu too. During Bill Clinton's Inauguration she wore about ten different fur coats. Imagine how many animals it takes to cover that whale-sized body.
Christopher Hitchens' outrage over choice of Rick Warren here.
Read Wally's comment in Comments. It makes it all seem reasonable, and not Obama's fault.
4 comments:
Actually, The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, run by the House and Senate, is reponsible for the inaugural program and its guest speakers.
Congress - and not Obama - chose Rick Warren.
But it's a common misconception... and one that is getting Obama a lot of flack in the Liberal Media.
Having clarified (I think) the point on the Warren pick, let me make a related point:
I think it would have been a howl if Obama had personally chosen Warren for the invocation. Warren will end up being eaten by his own hate-filled flock.
(Liberals are forgiving)
For agreeing to aid and abet our President-Elect's ascendancy to power, Warren will probably be skewered by his own, anyway - no matter who initiated the invitation.
W
Here's Electoral-Vote.com's take on the Warren choice:
"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.""
Thanks for this information. I know Obama is a brilliant politician but I did not know Congress chose Rick Warren. I am upset though over the Secretary of the Interior but I did read a comment on Huffpo saying Obama was keeping his enemies close and a possible vote in the Senate that votes with the Blue Dogs. Also, Tom Vilsack is in cahoots with Monsanto and their
genetically engineered seeds which has killed the bees and butterflies. The seeds blow around to farms that did not sign up with Monsanto and then they come in and sue the farmers. A good friend of my worked on a big case against them on this issue. Also the crops grown from the GMO seeds to not regenerate new seeds so the farmers have to keep buying Monsanto's poisonous seeds again. It is not healthy and I bet it could affect all kinds of new cancers
Be well.
I think I could have cat scratch fever instead of Lyme Disease according to my doc. So I will be on a wider spectrum antibiotic next month.
Bonnie
Here's my letter to Rachel Maddow. Rachel was pissed at Obama for his collusion in the choice of Warren. My take is part Devil's Advocate, but also reflects my belief that Obama is too good a pol not to have a lot up his sleeve:
Dear Rachel,
Electoral-Vote.com had an interesting take this morning on Obama’s pick of Warren for the Inaugural invocation:
“Gay and lesbian groups fiercely denounced Obama for letting Warren play a role in his inauguration, but Obama emphasized yesterday his support for equality for gays and lesbians. He also said he wants diverse voices to be present at his inauguration and that includes Warren. Finally, he noted that Rev. Joseph Lowery, a civil rights icon who found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, will give the closing benediction. Warren and Lowery don't agree on much and Obama pointed out that the magic of America is that it is a diverse country where multiple opinions are tolerated. The choice of Warren was no accident. Obama knew exactly what he was doing: trying to get evangelicals who voted against him to take a fresh look. Unlike many evangelical preachers who talk only about the hot-button issues, Warren is well known for saying that Christians have a duty to address world poverty and social injustice. By picking Warren, he is giving Warren (and his expanded agenda) a huge amount of credibility in the evangelical community. If Obama can get the evangelical leadership to stop focusing entirely on abortion and gay marriage and start addressing AIDS and poverty as issues, he will ultimately benefit immensely from giving Warren valuable exposure.”
In the long run (accent on long), E-V may be right.
Hopefully all this will happen sometime before history elevates Bush to Greatest President Ever status.
(every time I have to land at Reagan Airport I get air sick... reading the welcome sign)
Still, I do see reasonable logic in E-V’s hypothesis.
Obviously, homophobics are tougher to cure than hemophiliacs,
but the only way to cure them is to desensitize them, first.
You have to get close enough to them for their fear to enter retrograde.
As much of a nut as Warren is, he’s a 17th century nut, and not a 7th century nut.
In other words, he’d have his minions stone you and burn you at the stake, but he wouldn’t skin you, first.
Now that’s Intelligent Design working hand-in-hand with Evolution.
Which brings me to my point:
Think of Rick Warren this way...
Warren is to other Super Church Preachers what Pat Buchanan is to other Wingnuts.
Both have been guilty of making profoundly ignorant and intolerant public statements.
Both are largely unrepentant for their past (or present) anti-humanity comments.
But my guess is that Pat likes you (and vice versa), and those folks (all 10 of them) who agree with Pat’s Right wing bombast AND watch your show may believe your contrary political positions are wrong – but are less frightened by you than other Liberal commentators. That affords you an opportunity to break the fear cycle – or at least put a dent in it.
If Maddow and Buchanan can knock a few down together, well... anything’s possible.
I hate Buchanan far less when he’s paired with you.
Hopefully, I’ll be able to regain my burning hatred of Pat at some later date.
In the meantime, you’re teaching me to coexist with the man.
In that spirit, I honestly believe Barack Obama has an opportunity to do something positive for Liberals, the LGBTC and the Country by “Palling around” with Warren.
If the President-Elect goes all Lloyd George on us and declares Rick Warren “the greatest living Christian...” well then we have a problem.
While discussing his personal Warren Commission, Obama was quick to reaffirm his support for the Gay & Lesbian community.
In a less hate-charged atmosphere, perhaps he’ll have a better chance to show some tangible signs of that support.
As a straight man, I realize it’s a lot easier to summon patience with pricks like Warren. On the other hand, he would probably deny me a pew in his church because I’m an unrepentant, lapsed-Jew with a capital Atheist.
Fundamentalist Christianity makes me pine for the days of the Calvinist monolith.
Almost.
Best,
Wally Hayman
Post a Comment