Sure, we could tell everyone else in the country to go away, their opinion's not wanted.

We could do the same thing the Republicans did for 8 years, ignore anything approaching dissent or other opinions. Marginalize anyone who we disagreed with as being somehow personally corrupt, undesirable, and offensive.

And then, we'd be guilty of all the same things as they have been, and we'd be just as rightously hated by the American public.

Instead, Obama shows that he can deal with people who he agrees with on some things and disagrees with on others. Whether that's by appointing a socially conservative Democrat as Secretary of the Interior, or giving two minutes to one of the more open high-profile preachers.

So if you voted for Obama thinking that he was going to be some kind of Democratic George Bush, then you were badly mistaken, and we should all be glad that you were. Because if there's anything that America doesn't need right now, it's another Bush.

But I'm tired tonight.

And this shit is getting old.

If you all are so in love with Rick Warren, or even so unfeeling to your fellow Dems who happen to take exception to having a bigot take the stage with our President-Elect, that you HAVE to post about it... then I'm really sad for you.

Did you think that your post was original tonight? Nobody else ever thought of this?

Give me a break.

The republicans actively went after every thing and every one who was a "fringe leftist", even to the point of probably reading this board and possibly wire taping some of our more outrageous (but harmless) posters. They wire taped and spied on quite a number of anti-war activists. Including one group of quakers. They also pulled such shenanigans as putting Democratic (minority) hearings in a basement, turning out the power to the lights and mics. Holding votes in the early morning hours that only Republican members were called to. Etc. Etc.

You are equating NOT inviting one of their most rabid fellow travelers to give an invocation with that behavior and then claiming that Democrats are NOT LIKE THAT. Please.

A better analogy would be if Obama had the IRS revoke the tax exempt status of the Saddle back church for their support of Prop 8. THEN we would be acting like the Republicans of George W. Bush.

But not inviting a very controversial and divisive figure to the inauguration?

I haven't seen a single word from any anti Rick Warren poster tonight who has suggested that he be on a no-fly list or that he be removed to a "free speech zone". No, the only thing I've heard from most here is that he NOT be invited to give the invocation. How AWFUL! :sarcasm:

We really ARE different than they are. I don't think anyone would object if Rick Warren was invited to the first Obama Prayer Breakfast... or even a private meeting. But Obama didn't need to shove him in our face.

And that's not the same as the last eight years under Bush. Not by a long shot.

False analogy.

Perhaps you can find one or two.

If you can't, why should I?

Go ahead and read it.

And tell me again how NOT INVITING a bigot to an event (an important event) and giving him a place on the stage is equivalent to what the repukes did to us as the minority party (or even us as "radical leftists") over the last 8 years.

It's a false analogy. A wrong comparison.

It's a false analogy, three false premises and a big fat strawman.

lol

:)

n/t

who could think for themselves. There was a lot of cross over vote because of Palin and because Obama is pratical and reasonable.

Warren is a nut case for sure but Obama picked him for a reason, could it be that he knows that Warren is incapable of rising above his hatred and he will show what fringe lunatic he is on a national stage?

I don't think it is as simple as it appears.

If it's all about exposing fringe loons to the nation.

You can't be serious

We all know that Obama and his team are calculating and smart, they did this for a reason. Now the reason may be a strategy or it may be stupid who knows.


I just find it interesting that before he gets into office everyone is ready to throw him under the bus. He has picked more openly gay professionals than any President elect in history. But that's not good enough....

I hate Warren and his ilk, I don't agree with the choice. I do believe they know how toxic this choice can be so why would they do it? There's more to it......

Brilliant strategy!

:eyes:

As he has stated in his book.

And he didn't think that it would be all that controversial.

It was said that Tip O'Neil was a very good personal friend to one Ronald Raygun.

However, Obama, by shoving his friend Rick Warren into a front and center role in the inauguration, is also saying a big FU to not only the GLBT community, but anyone that cares about justice and civil rights and a woman's right to choose.

He can invite Rick over for lunch the next day. Have him at the national Prayer breakfast. But up on stage for the inauguration? Not only NO, but HELL NO.

What he does in a public venue and in an official capacity is something else.

This Warren person makes his living by creating antagonism among our people. That's wrong and can't be construed to be in our better interests in any way. He has no business in our national celebration.

Bush was a bigot who appointed bigots. If Bush appointed gays and atheists, his base would have considered that a 'slap in the face'.

So here we have a guy who isn't necessarily a bigot inviting a jerk to give a speech... and the base is reacting just as Bush's base would have under the reverse circumstances.

That was the OP's point, even though bigotry should be universally appalling.

you know, the very sorts who've put us all into this huge mess (actually- sets of messes) in the first place.

Come to think of it, maybe we should have listened to the segragationists in the 1950's and 60's.

After all, they were people with opinions too.

lol

It won't get you any points with the fundies, & pisses off your base.

Stupid politics.

IMO, this pastor and his ideological bretheren have no intention of compromising their beliefs. What's to discuss with him? Why appease him with such a high-profile appearance?

Obama might be overusing this Team of Rivals concept, even though Warren has no long-term position in the Administration. I'm not sure the payoff, whatever it might be, is worth the heat on this decision - if Obama does indeed have a say in it.

it really is that simple. Obama has screwed up here.

Reach out to everybody!