Bottom Line on the Warren Selection: Morally Wrong and Politically Stupid

The selection of Warren to give the opening prayer at the inauguration is morally wrong simply because Warren is a bigot. It's similar to Lyndon Johnson inviting George Wallace to speak at his inauguration in 1965. You don't give bigots a stage. It's that simple.

Politically, the Obama camp is thinking that by giving Warren this stage, they can make in-roads into the Christian fundie right which will help them in the remaining red states. Also, by pissing off one their core constiuencies, it shows that they're not beholden to special interest groups and that will please the moderates.

It's this kind of political thinking that has haunted and doomed the Dems. Dems are more concerned about winning elections and forming long-term coalitions than they are about actually laying down and fighting for a political philosophy. The way to win over red states and Christian fundies is to address their economic anxieties and woes, not pander to their religious bigotry.

That is all.

I can start as many threads as I want.

:hi:

I still have plenty of outrage and head-shaking left in me as well.

Didn't you get the We-Heart-Warren memo?

In the age I grew up in, the Dems were all for civil rights.
And the Democratic party paid a heavy political price for those policies and actions.
Guess you missed all that, eh?

Since the Civil Rights Act, the Dems get almost 90% support from the African American community. In addition, they get a majority of all other racial and ethnic minorities in America, and given America's demos, the trends are in the Dems favor.

It is just now starting to pay off. That's because the Dems never backed down.
Well, mostly never backed down.

The south was once solidly Dem... after the CRA, it went pub. Price paid.

In fact, most pubbies are pubbies because of the Dems support for equal rights.
And most Dems are Dems because of the support the party hass nearly always had for equal rights.

I became a Dem forever the day LBJ signed the CRA.

Oh, wait, I get it now, you're just attacking me.
Well, better me than someone else, eh?

...and some were screaming. Just like what we see going on here, today, on DU.
Lots of kicking and screaming.

They were a minority of the party, tho. And most of them became pubbies, left the party, went raygun on us.
We are better off without them, don't you think?

Then, as today, the minorities knew which party was for them. We Dems.

which they needed to win elections. The Kennedys, Johnson, the party leadership did not want to go there. JFK wanted everyone to wait until his second term.

That doesn't make them bad people. That makes them politicians who needed to win elections somehow. We're just now recovering from that upheaval.

And that was a heavy political price to pay. But worth every bit.
It's what politicians do: weigh the costs. Much easier for us to just say: do the right thing.

Politicians represent many diverse people, whereas we just represent ourselves.
And because of that I'd never make it as a politician.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You'd think.

K/R

The talking points appear to be:

There are many good-hearted Christian souls in these fundie churches.
They were just waiting for an Obama to make their bigoted feelings go away.

Apparently Jesus didn't make the cut.

Had we sat back quietly - then, no one would know.

Tonight I'm amused (in cynical way) by the threads extolling Obama for inviting the Tuskegee Airmen and the Little Rock Nine to the inauguration. Certainly, these two groups should be there but I don't understand why so many can't see the irony in it. And I wonder if Obama has given any thought to what Rick Warren would have said about integrating Central High had he been around 50+ years ago. (Not too mention how he looks his daughters in the eye after endorsing someone as sexist as Warren). I really thought Obama was too intelligent to be this irony deficient...

Thank you for your post.

QFT:


Yes it is.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

politically stupid at all.

This move has helped bring more goodwill from the other side, and has likely opened more than a few minds to Obama's upcoming presidency. This, in combination with the massive capital he has from the election will be needed right out the gate with his stimulus package and other big initiatives.

There is also the potential for a split in the evangelical community. Granted, the majority will likely continue to vote Republican, but the younger generations seem open to change.

The younger generation is more open to change.
The old farts are pretty much goners, but the youngsters....

... due to the parallel universe created by FOX, talk radio homeschooling.

There's a lot of things these kids have never been exposed to because of the fringe things they've been taught.

I have hope, but I am also skeptical.

Are not nearly as bigoted as my generation. They accept people as people.
They don't stereotype nearly as much, nor are they caught up in the old religions.

And I think that the internet has joined them with the world in ways we could have never imagined.
But Al Gore sure did!

I was just shocked by the prevalence of "Monica Goodlings" in the Justice Department and fear that there are more and they're getting better with their stealth bigotry.

Show me how this move has helped bring more goodwill towards Democrats from the other side?

The problem is that people are being manipulated by the leaders of the religious right. The solution is to expose the lying and deceitful leaders, so that people think for themselves and are open to hearing the truth.

Boosting those leaders of the religious right does not bring any of the flock over to us, it cements the control those leader have over people. It does not split the evangelical community.

Far from splitting followers off from Warren, what this has done is given an opening for bigoted ideas to run rampant in our community.

if I wear that.
It wont go with my Chuck Taylor high-tops

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/on-transition-website-obama-promises.html

>>One consequence of the Rick Warren controversy is that Obama may now be under a greater amount of pressure from Democrats to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to pass ENDA, and to expand hate crimes statutes, and to do all of the above relatively quickly. As we have pointed out before, large majorities of the public are in line with the Obama position on all three issues. If Obama is not willing to expend the relatively modest amount of political capital required on those, then one can reasonably anticipate that he won't be willing to touch more controversial subject areas like adoption or civil unions.<<

I'd say they have gotten the message, loud and clear.

It is appreciated and will be remembered.

:pals:

Obama made major inroads into the evangelical community this election season. He did much better with the demographic than Gore or Kerry. So he'll likely gain votes out of this.

And, as you've shown in your subject line, after Clinton "reached out" to Graham, the Evangelicals fell in love with him and voted in overwhelming numbers to get him re-elected in 1996.

Obviously it's a lot more complicated than just a single invocation.

And you know full well what the GOP does with wedges.

It's not like Obama is going to lose any votes over it.

Of course Obama won't lose any votes, it's not about just the Presidency.

This empowers the GOP in the smaller races, where the GOP will run stealth Dominionists like Palin.

While Obama's office is safe, the local races are not.