If the Warren prayer gets 1 million evangelicals to think, "Oh, so he's not the anti-Christ" ...

then it's worth it. There is a good OP about how fundamentalists don't think particularly rationally. Or there is a rationality, but it's simple.

When the Clintons took office, they were instantly demonized. Not for their policies, but for crazy, counter-factual shit: The Clintons had Vince Foster killed; the Clintons stole billions from tax payers through Whitewater; Bill Clinton raped dozens of women and used the Arkansas State Troopers to intimidate victims; the Clintons were drug dealers through Mena; and on and on.

Well, they've already started doing that with Obama: He's a secret Muslim; he's a Manchurian candidate terrorist; he's the anti-Christ; and on and on.

That kind of unending, grinding, irrational opposition, based on irrational hatred can stop a progressive agenda dead in its tracks, even though it only represents a minority opinion. To get shit done in Washington, Obama needs a near super majority and at least the temporary disabling of some of the fundamentalist crazy noise. And he needs it for about two years -- until the congressional mid term elections, which is the most time most modern presidents have had to enact their agenda.

Well, according to evangelical logic, if "Pastor Rick" blesses the incoming Obama administration, then Obama can't be the anti-Christ, and can't be a secret Muslim. Does this mean that the evangelicals will come around to Obama's views on GLBT issues or abortion? Of course not. Who gives a shit? As long as they are not part of the noise machine for a year or two, that's enough to help get the agenda passed.

And oh yeah, if you want to analogize inviting Warren to inviting the KKK or some other racist dog whistle bullshit that so many DUers are so fond of, you will only be showing your abject ignorance of history.

As if! As if we African Americans have not had to see Democratic leaders make deals and photo ops with the devil.

How often do you think Democratic leaders shared photo ops with Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond or Trent Lott? Those guys were considered legitimate parts of the political spectrum. Lots of bad people are considered legitimate parts of the American political spectrum. Hell, we relied on a former segregationist, the man who killed civil rights legislation over and over in the Senate for decades (LBJ), to finally craft civil rights legislation.

<On edit:> We even had to tolerate that shit from the good guys. We supported Bill Clinton even after he with great fanfare ran home to Arkansas to kill a mentally disabled black man on death row, who by any constitutional standards should not have been executed, and our attitude was, oh well, that's just our "Pander Bear" Bill doing what he has to do for the right wingers. What do you think would be the reaction if Obama had to kill a gay or lesbian to pander? <end edit>

Grow up. Politics is not like "the movement." Movements are purity and goodness and light. Politics is holding your nose, ignoring the smell of sulfur and shaking hands with the devil to get shit done.

He didn't carry much weight with them, like Warren does.

:shrug:

Ummmmmmm....no.

JMHO

even pandering to wingnuts.

Take a look at the wingnut wish list:

No abortions
No gay marriages
Prayer in public schools

This is the shit that should get done.

Ummmmmm....no.

1. No abortions. The best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Therefore, Obama supports funding for Planned Parenthood and replacing the ridiculous "abstinence only" rules with comprehensive sex education. He can do that.

2. No gay marriage. Work more closely with states that allow Initiatives that give the majority the right to vote on minority rights. And getting more enlightened state legislatures voted into office. Sew it up.

3. Prayer in public schools. Re-issue the Clinton's Justice Dept. publication on what is constitutional around the issue of prayer in schools. Emphasize that children can and do now pray in public schools, particularly before math tests. Say " the prayer that takes place in the human heart is what matters." Let 'em try to argue on the other side of that!

My thoughts this Friday morning!

:hi:

Who else are you willing to insult, alienate, throw under the bus all to get votes? What policies and values are you willing to sacrifice in order to win?

Winning at any cost is a souless, and ultimately self defeating political strategy. If you don't stand for anything, then nobody wants to be on your side because you can't be trusted and you can't claim any sort of moral high ground. In addition, it is a travesty to take what was supposed to be the celebration of our party win, a celebration of our party and tarnish it with this pile of shit from Saddleback, all in the name of politics.

Furthermore, this move by Obama isn't going to get him a single vote among evangelicals. These people aren't going to look at Warren up there at the podium and have some sort of conversion to Obama. Instead, they will take a look at Warren at the side of Obama and toss Warren overboard, that is how deeply ingrained their beliefs and mindset are. All this does is elevates Warren's stature and make his hate and bigotry more mainstream with Obama's seal of approval.

:applause:

so I have a very pragmatic understanding of who you talk to and who you coopt for the larger good. In the early 90s, I watched ANC acquaintances invite the murderers and enforcers of apartheid into their unity government.

Call me all the names you want, but I know how politics works. This isn't about getting their votes; it's about neutralizing them for long enough to consolidate power.

The number of people living on less than $1 a day has doubled, from 2 million to 4 million. Of S. Africa's 35 million black citizens, only five thousand earn more than $60,000 per year. The number of whites earning that much or more is twenty times higher. One million people have been evicted from farms in the since the ANC took power.

What happened is the ANC was willing to sit down with anyone and everyone, including the corporatists, the IMF and the World Bank. In the process of consolidating power, they sold out their people, who transitioned from apartheid to economic slavery. Hell of a trade off there, so much for upholding the Freedom Charter.

Thanks for proving my point with your S. Africa example, though somehow I have to doubt that you were ever in S. Africa, especially given the ludicrousness of your past claims concerning your "vast experience":eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not kidding - I told another poster that Warren is like a Joe Lieberman but honestly I think he's more like a John McCain. The far right never liked McCain (but grudgingly voted for him in the general election) because from time to time McCain has been known to go against the republicans to vote for issues not very republican like.

Warren is NOT a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Oral Roberts or James Dobson or Fred Phelps or other hateful ilk like these people.

I think Rick Warren's greatest appeal, ie those who bought his book that sold a bajillion copies, are more along the line of the middle-of-the-road church going folks out there.

Evangelicals think Warren is a sell-out because Warren has done a few things considered progressive like AIDs fundraising and fighting global warming (and yes, Hitler loved puppies too - no need to repost that analogy).

If Obama is targeting anyone with this pick it's not the fundies but that middle-of-the-road crowd who probably doesn't know a whole lot about Warren's ideologies but thinks that damn book is something of value.

But what do I know except not a whole lot

It's all just sad. Obama wouldn't have put him there unless these is some sort of alternative purpose but none of us have a clue and alot of feelings are being hurt in the process too.

The Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reily types are so terribly frustrated. It's a pleasure to watch!

:)

Agreed!

:rofl:

The more divisive and polarized this country is the more likely there will be attacks.

That's not hard to see.

The excuses for this are ridiculous ~ why not just call Obama on a hurtful mistake?

I still believe he has a logical reason for doing this.

I already demolished this argument before, and I'll do so again, these people don't think rationally, so they cannot be won over to Obama, even with Warren's help, and Warren may not decide to help, why should he? The guy is an egotistical asshole, and is only doing this to be in the spotlight.

That's the other factor we didn't consider, Warren himself may exploit this to his own advantage, to advance his own agenda with his followers. This is already a festering controversy for Obama, it could blow up in his face quite easily.

the stimulus package and the Iraq pullout and perhaps some other major agenda items are passed. And the point isn't to "win them over". It's to neutralize the crazy shit until after the agenda is set in motion.

Even if he didn't advance any bills and such, he's been quite outspoken for both views. He's not going to keep silent on them after the election, or at least I hope not.

IMO, why in the hell should the Dems pander to the RW homophobic assholes who have NO respect for anyone or anything?

They are in the WRONG...is there any doubt about that? They do NOT need to be included, i.e., given a road to the power in D.C., they need to be shut out from such power. It should be made clear to them that their anti-gay and anti-women's rights agenda is NOT something to which the Dems will pander.

JMHO

for two years! That's fucking crazy, he'll most likely mention both in his Inauguration speech, for crying out loud!

He's putting himself in a position where ignorant, hateful made up bullshit won't be able to touch him. He's disabling the demagogues and forcing them to come up to his level in the conversation.

Heh. Disabling Demagoguery, I like that.

just perhaps, they're not worth having on our side. Maybe it's time to give up on batshit-crazy people. I know it's a radical notion and all....

You're talking about making the tent smaller. Having less support by excluding those who you deem unworthy. This is a democracy. Majority rules. Not having "them" on our side is planning to fail.

And if they're not on our side, we lose?

:rofl:

Did you read the OP?

Thanks for the clarification.

:rofl:

for TWO YEARS! :rofl:

He knows the history of the Clintons and he's not stupid.

And I'm talking about the Evangelicals that Obama can't reach, the ones who won't mind Warren's complete views on these subjects. If Obama says ANYTHING positive about Gay people or about being Pro-Choice, that will be enough for them to abandon him, and start calling him the anti-Christ all over again. You seem to forget that these people DISAGREE with Obama on some rather key issues, and I'm not talking about the ones who already voted for him, I'm talking about the extremely conservative ones, who, at best, stayed home on election day rather than vote McCain.

Right now we need to neutralize their crazy interests and help them with their material interests which right now are the same as ours. I don't give a shit about their agenda (denying marriage, abortion), but care about our agenda which is also in their real interests.

If we can get them to stop thinking about the anti-Christ, secret Muslim shit for a year or two, then we can get our agenda passed. It's not about recruiting them to vote for our side (although after health care and stimulus they might); it's about neutralizing the crazy shit for a while.

And things will have to get a hell of a lot worse before they even think of voting or supporting their own best interest. For almost 30 years, they haven't been voting their own best interest, what makes you think they will all of the sudden change now?

so that's a sign that the evangelicals, republicans and conservatives are at least willing to give him a shot. Of course, the purist fringe of DU isn't.

There is a severe, severe, economic crisis in Jesusland, and if Obama delivers health care and the New New Deal, just as in the 1930s, some (not all, some) of those people will become supporters.

As for their agenda, frankly they're suckers. The Republicans have held out overturning Roe for almost 30 years, and of course didn't actually want Roe overturned because that would mean the fundies go back to sleep for 30 years.

Barack had to disown two personal friends in the clergy over thier supposed exteremist views when in reality their views was poor people are getting fucked by this country, however Warren is somehow acceptable.

I want to fucking know how that is Change I can Believe in.

never did understand the controversy there, I thought it was the media stirring up trouble.

and embrace flat out bigots is disgusting but, hey its politics who cares if we trash the progressive Christian movement and people of faith who are liberal...the other guys might think we are the anti-christ so we better be nice to them.

the Rich White Male power structure in this country, and you are vilified for life. Being pro-Gay rights just adds to the controversy!

so NO Warren WON'T get them to think this. All that will happen is that they will be pissed at HIM for showing up to speak the same way we are pissed at Obama for inviting him.

Doug D.

Makes sense to me.

Recced and kicked.

What better time than this to send to the whole world that message...that "religion" should be first and foremost about bringing people together (respecting their diversity) instead of building dogmatic barriers and erecting walls between them. Pres-elect Obama has missed a great chance, seems to me, to make that statement. I agree with those here who recently suggested the Baptist minister Dr. Welton Gaddy, head of the Interfaith Alliance and host of progressive-radio show "State of Belief." Or, what about "Bishop" Carlton Pearson, as a living testiment to the possibility of change and growth, even in religion? Again, if not now, when...to strike that chord for diversity and progressive movement...for "change we can believe in," extended even to religion?

the shit they have been getting done is exactly that the past several years. Why can't they just be ignored like us?

STFU." He's not running anymore.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Unless, of course, Obama starts pandering even more to the Warren crowd at the expense of those who elected Obama to office. I consider that a very real possibility.

... maybe he should woo racists by choosing someone who favors separate but equal to play a prominent role in his inauguration?

If you are going to court crazies there are cheaper, more direct, yet still quite political ways to do it without risking your own base.

What's the point of bringing new people into the tent if just as many leave? How is that growing a coalition, or achieving an inclusive result? It only "works" if you are gaining more powerful and losing powerless supporters, quite the chessboard move but please don't call it post-partisan.

How many enthusiastic, hard-working supporters from "The Left" is he throwing away by romancing the Bigots?


"Centrism"!....because it's so EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING, and get to insult those who do! :)

Bush was incapable of admitting he made a mistake, let's hope that Obama doesn't follow suit.



Thanks to RKM for the above!

What then?

African Americans have been in this position with the party for 40 years. Bill could have his Sista Soulja moments, but at the end of the day, what's the alternative? The Republicans?

Welcome to realistic coalition politics. Starting up anti-Democratic Party websites, which some DUers have done, is not a solution and should be a tombstoneable offense here.

any more than your million evangelical converts pipe dream is political reality.

You do have a way with words.

:thumbsup:

The point is not converting them; it's neutralizing some of the more bizarre noise for a year or two.

Can you address the pragmatism of the African American community tolerating Dixiecrats or of the Latino community tolerating anti-immigrant Democrats for decades and why that pragmatism is suddenly inapplicable to other Democratic constituencies?

Or is this just the typical drive by?

There is nothing wrong with the goal of shutting up the nutcases. The problem is your rationalization of other people's oppression and I think you know that.

It's like trying to appeal to the birth-certificate nuts -- does not compute.

That Obama DID convince to vote for him - they respond positively to things like this.

The extreme nuts are only a fraction of the population.

"As if! As if we African Americans have not had to see Democratic leaders make deals and photo ops with the devil."

And, African Americans have been fucking royally screwed over by the dems who have not represented them. Just look at African American poverty and the off the chart African American population in the prison systems. Where are the dems on that? Where are they on challenging draconian detention and drug laws?

It IS deals with the devil that have created the current political disaster. Compromising with the devil DOESN'T work. Our current political fiasco is proof. The dems are ALWAYS appeasing the devil, and it NEVER EVER works.

This move is not only a slap in the face to every person who thought they were voting for change; it is a politically stupid move.

This is just like all the criticisms during the election campaign. Well, Obama WON. That is what matters. Ideologically pure on the left equals defeat, because this country is not there, and that means more than the wingnuts.

And the way to convince them is not to scream about this sort of thing. Obama managed to convince them and get elected.