Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Warren "will get a very high-profile role on Jan. 20, but have no meaningful influence...on Jan. 21"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 09:49 AM
Original message
Warren "will get a very high-profile role on Jan. 20, but have no meaningful influence...on Jan. 21"
Edited on Thu Dec-18-08 09:51 AM by ProSense
December 18, 2008

WARREN, REDUX....

After having had a chance to sleep on it, does Barack Obama's decision to invite Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his presidential inauguration look any better? Actually, no. I'm probably even more annoyed about it now than I was yesterday.

That said, I've been curious to see what others have come up with as a defense. I suppose, to borrow Rachel Maddow's phrase, I want someone to "talk me down."

Over at TNR, Damon Linker considers the invitation "shrewd."

Warren is beloved by mainstream evangelicals, who have helped him to sell millions of books extolling a fairly anodyne form of American Protestantism. (Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell he is not.) It is in Obama's interest (and the Democrats') to peel as many moderate evangelicals away from the GOP as he can. Giving Warren such a prominent (but purely symbolic) place in the inauguration is a politically cost-free way of furthering this partisan agenda.

That's not a bad pitch, but I'm not persuaded. Warren's theology is offered in soothing tones, but it's hardly "anodyne" -- Warren's worldview is very conservative on gay rights, reproductive rights, foreign policy, and modern science. He's not exactly of Dobson's ilk, but the difference is one of tenor and emphasis -- they agree on most issues.

The notion of peeling off moderate evangelicals from the GOP is compelling, but is there any evidence to suggest Warren's invocation is going to make a difference in that capacity? Obama did fairly well among moderate evangelicals, especially younger ones, on Election Day, and the courtship could have continued apace with an invocation from a religious leader who actually shares Obama's worldview.

Indeed, I wonder if Linker has this backwards. When Obama advances a progressive agenda on social issues, as he's certain to do, Warren will continue to speak out on the other side -- only now, he'll do so with the added authority that comes with being the president's hand-chosen pastor for the inauguration's invocation. Warren's status will soar, and his criticism of Obama's policies -- or Democrats' in general -- will resonate that much louder.

That's not "cost-free"; it's the opposite.

Linker noted that Warren's role is "purely symbolic," and this much is clearly true. Indeed, John Cole made a compelling case on this, arguing, "I would much rather have Warren given a few minutes to speak about religion at a time and manner appropriate for religious discussion than I would having Obama give a nod to the religious right by appointing the God squad to Justice, to the FDA, to NASA, and so on. When Rick Warren and folks like him are driving policy in an Obama administration, I will then muster the necessary outrage. So while not my first choice, not a big deal. Let him speak for a few minutes and be done with them."

Perhaps. If there was any reason at all to think Warren's invocation carried with it policy implications for the Obama administration, it would be far more serious. In fact, I suspect Warren will get a very high-profile role on Jan. 20, but have no meaningful influence at the White House on Jan. 21.

Nevertheless, even if it is symbolism, the Warren choice strikes me as Obama's biggest mistake since the election. He's elevating a conservative religious leader to new heights, giving him stature and credibility, and making his far-right message that much more meaningful when he challenges Obama administration policies in the future.

It's all risk, no reward.

(emphasis added)

It's not about the influence he will have in the WH. It's about the message he continues to deliver, and he will be doing so having been validated on Jan. 20.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. He doesn't beat you over the head with his bigotry like Robertson or Falwell
Edited on Thu Dec-18-08 09:51 AM by IWantAnyDem
He slips it into a cake he hands you.

The sugar covers up teh bitter pill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chascarrillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well then, that makes everything hunky dory, doesn't it?
It's a fuckin' load off my mind that giving a bigot a high profile role doesn't mean anything.

Question: If it doesn't mean anything, then why the fuck would you do it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. Since when does a Democratic president
have to kiss up to the religious right on his inauguration? Choosing Warren to give the invocation may be "symbolic" alright, but what kind of symbolism was Obama going after?

To many people it's a slap in the face to the the gay community that vastly supported him in the GE.

:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Guess you felt the same way when Bill Clinton invited anti-semitic, anti-gay Bill Graham?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pocoloco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Didn't you???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. I was too young to notice. This is something I learned later in history class.
How about you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Bill Graham has advised every president since the 50s
regardless of party affiliation. Due to his age, this is the first president in decades who he will not be advising, otherwise he probably would have been at Obama's inauguration too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. uh, so what? how does that make him any better?
your hypocrisy is showing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I'm no fan of Billy Graham,
but I can understand why Bill picked him at the time. There's no excuse for choosing Warren. Even politically, what's the immediate advantage? All of the sudden Christian evangelists are going to stop voting Republican? I think not.......

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
4. I don't give a shit.
Putting him up on that stand gives him more legitimacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
7. Picking Rick Warren Brilliant Because It Riles Up The Left?

Picking Rick Warren Brilliant Because It Riles Up The Left?

By Greg Sargent - December 18, 2008, 10:01AM

The gang of pundits at First Read says the decision to have Rick Warren deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration is brilliant politics, because it's getting the left to scream:

When Liberals Attack: Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning with the news that gay-rights groups are angry that Obama has announced that conservative evangelical Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Why are they smiling? Because it never hurts -- at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election -- when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party's interest groups...

...when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to.

What about the question of whether it was, you know, the right thing to do? The conventions of mainstream political reporting and punditry simply don't allow for such a question to be entertained.

That aside, I'm with Steve Benen: Whatever short term political benefit this gives Obama is transitory at best, and it's easily outweighed by the downside: It gives an enormous platform, and the appearance of moderation, to someone whose views are radically out of step with Obama's -- things that can only help Warren when he opposes Obama's agenda on social issues for the rest of his presidency.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillWilliam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. And if we've learnt anything over the last 30 years
it should have been that if you give the nutcase, snake-handling, pseudo-religious right just one millimeter, they'll grab and scorch the next 100 miles.

Apparently, we have such a short memory. At least Obama's team didn't screw around and wait until after the inauguration to burst the bubble. They were right up front with it. Glad to see the team has hit the ground running :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
13. Obama defends choice of pastor

Obama defends choice of pastor

CHICAGO – President-elect Barack Obama is defending his choice of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

The selection brought objections from gay rights advocates who say they're troubled by Warren's support for a California ballot initiative banning gay marriage. It was approved by voters last month.

Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to "come together," even when there's disagreement on social issues. He also said it's "no secret" that he's a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians — and he said that support will continue.

Obama pointed out that a couple of years ago, he was invited to Warren's church to speak, despite their disagreement on some issues.

The president-elect says a "wide range of viewpoints" will be presented during the inaugural festivities.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC