What happens after Jan. 20 if Obama doesn't reverse his decision on Warren?

[ProSense]

What if Obama has a reason for his choice that is being lost in the discussion?

Warren's motivation seems to be to reestablish the political independence of conservative evangelicals. Best I can tell, he dislikes the "marriage" between his religious flock and the secular-conservative GOP because (a) he is a more thoroughgoing fundamentalist than others, and takes seriously biblical injunctions like "creation care" and anti-poverty efforts, along with the usual social-conservative agenda, and (b) he thinks the Christian Right hasn't gotten much from its relationship with the GOP, and needs to regain some leverage.

If Alan Wolfe is right, and Obama is trying to split the conservative coalition, and perhaps tempt its membership into a more moderate position, then both Warren and Obama have very similar motives: cooperating with the enemy of their enemy for purely tactical purposes.

That's important to understand. Maybe Barack Obama is the United States of the 1970s, Rick Warren is Red China, and James Dobson is the Soviet Union. Obama and Warren have lots of reasons to make nice with each other, with an eye towards the maddening effect it's having on Dobson. But let's don't confuse this with some real convergence of views, actual or probably even potential. Obama's and Warren's views on some very fundamental aspects of moral and political life are irreconcilable. They are seeking to use each other. And that, not some imaginary surrender by either man to the other's position on abortion or gay marriage or anything else, is what we need to consider in assessing Warren's presence on the inaugural podium.

link

Doesn't anyone wonder why he appears unwilling to withdraw the choice of Warren?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Personally? For me? He will have shown me that he doesn't give a sh*t and that

he played a good and clever game to get us to campaign for him.

[GarbagemanLB]

2. Oh, what is that saying? Obama is playing chess, while many DUers are playing checkers..

[AllentownJake]

50. Moderating our position on

gay rights is not the moves some want. People know he's playing a game. They just don't like the moves.

[Clio the Leo]

3. Dobson is the rain dude right?

In that case I'm all for it ..... cannot STAND that guy. DESTROY HIM!!!! GRRRRR!

[sniffa]

4. Abraham: Isaac, trust me. This is going to work out in your favor.

[Rowdyboy]

5. Rick Warren assumes the mantle of "America's Pastor", heir to Billy Graham...Obama plots

a centrist course that leaves many (though by no means most) of DU angry but the rest of the country can live with. Then he gets re-elected despite Sarah Palin and the Freepers.

Nothing much changes except that Rick Warren makes more money, writes more books and assumes more legitimacy and gays are increasingly marginalized. Same song, different verse...

[ProSense]

8. Or not. Newsweek's Dec 6 cover story

COVER STORY: GAY MARRIAGE

[Rowdyboy]

17. A president who feels the need for Rick Warrens support will never dare take leadership

on the issue and without presidential leadership gay rights will go nowhere. I'm sorry Obama feels so weak when he's just gotten a strong mandate from 69 million Americans including millions of GLBT who thought he had our backs. He has the potential for greatness but also the potential for mediocrity. He gets the choice and the Warren pick really makes me question his judgment.

[ProSense]

18. " He has the potential for greatness but also the potential for mediocrity. "

Built into the Presidency at this time is a huge potential for greatness, it could be defined by action on one or any number of issues.

Obama may surprise you, and disappoint the hell out of those who believe he's not up to the challenge.

[Rowdyboy]

23. I truly think he'll be counted among the great American presidents on many issues....

But perhaps worrying about basic civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans is too much to expect. We are the most hated and despised subculture in American and Obama is a very cautious man. Very little to gain in defending the despised.

Most all great men and women have some weak points. I'm starting to see what Obamas weak spots will be and, unfortunately it hits a little close to home. I don't think he'll be "bad" for gay rights, just totally unconcerned and unwilling to risk taking any chances that could damage his political capital. I hope I'm wrong but right now I'm smelling another Bill Clinton and that is not what I voted for.

Then again, Bill Clinton in 1994 wasn't the Bill Clinton I voted for in 1992. Nothing ever changes really....

[ProSense]

24. "But perhaps worrying about basic civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans is too much to expect."

What are basic civil rights? And are you saying Obama isn't concerned with them?

[Rowdyboy]

27. Rick Warren compared my 20 year relationship with my partner to incest and paedolphilia....

Barack Obama has chosen to honor Rick Warren above all other American clergy. I find that sickening and offensive.

Basic civil rights include the right to marry, the right to inheritance, the right to make basic medical decisions for your partner. I am denied those rights today. Even if I have a will or medical power of attorney it can be challenged in court. A straight marriage cannot. My community, along with women, Hispanics, blacks, and many others busted our asses and won a tremendous victory for Barack early in November. A month later President elect Obama threw me and my people under the bus-just basic triangulation.

Some where Bill Clinton is smiling and saying "I told you so". Wish I had listened back in March when I had a chance to vote in the primaries.

[ProSense]

30. We know what Rick Warren did. I asked you about Obama.

I still say you knew what Obama's position was before this situation arose, before the general election, before the primary. In fact, it was the position of every Democratic candidate, except Kucinich. So it's not new. There are straight couples who are not married who are denied those rights in some states. Sure straight people have the legal right to marry, but there are many reasons why people choose not to or cannot marry. This isn't to say it's at the same level as gay couples, but it is relevant.

[Rowdyboy]

31. Certainly, I fully understood that Obama did not support gay marriage and I still voted for him

Many of us, of all the Democratic parties constituent groups worked our asses off and bled our pocketbooks dry trying to elect this man to change the direction of the country. Then, at his inaugural, Barack Obama chooses to honor, above all other religious leaders in America, a man who condemns me and my partner as immoral and compares us to paedophiles. He high-lites and honors this disgusting freak who represents EVERYTHING we all have hated and fought against for 8 years.

I still support the president-elect (though with absolutely no enthusiasm). I'm still glad he beat John McCain. I'm just very sorry he doesn't seem to realize he won a mandate of nearly 9 million votes. If he's this eager to "compromise" (capitulate) just think what a team he'll make with spineless Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Its starting to look like a Bush 3rd term.

[ProSense]

45. Sometimes nothing can stop

progress.

[ProSense]

46. Really surprised at how the information at the link provided is being ignored.

Guess only a handful of people see this as really good news.

[CarbonDate]

47. What, that the religious right is trying to co-opt the Democratic party....

...like they did the Republican party?

[Blarch]

51. It's over your head.

It's very likely you will never understand.

[truedelphi]

35. Or continuing his move towards the right -

He runs with her in 2012, thus shocking the Mayan gods to such an extent that the ancient prophecies regarding 2012 come to pass.

[IndianaGreen]

6. When Warren invariably turns on Obama, LGBT community won't be there to defend him

We have been thrown under the bus once too often.

[Metric System]

7. Warren sure didn't seem to mind the relationship with the GOP during this last election. Or did I

imagine his pro-Rethug tendencies?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. he is not going to reverse his decision on warren. we gays, dont really have much of a choice when

it comes to 2012. the evangelicals do. it would be politically insane for him to rescind the warren decision

doesn't make him right on the issue though. doesnt make it right for other supposed progressive to pretend it isnt a slap in the face to gays

[ProSense]

12. It was a slap in the face to many people on many levels, but

it isn't the first time Obama appeared with Warren. This is a slap in the face, the outrage should be at the symbolism. In fact, all the Democrats coddled him, Hillary in person, in 2007. Warren wasn't a different person then. The Saddleback forum during the campaign was also a high-profile appearance.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. i think given that this is literally one of the most historical moment in presidential history

it is a bigger slap in the face. i dont think warren has had quite this large arena before

keep excusing him. its what you excel at.

didnt you vote him because you dont like the clinton? so why compare him to clinton? dont you expect him to be better?

[ProSense]

15. Which is exactly what I said: Symbolism.

Excusing him? That's a cop out. Who should I expect him to be better than? Himself? I knew his position when I voted for him. It's the position held by a significant majority of Democrats. His position isn't a surprise. Appearing with Warren isn't a surprise. What I object to is giving him this symbolic platform at this inaurguration. It is becoming clear that Obama is set in his decision. What I'm trying to understand is why?








edited for clarity.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. he is pandering. its what politicians do. nt

[ProSense]

20. If it's pandering and is expected

why seven days of outrage, name calling and people withdrawing support for Obama?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. this level of pandering is not expected and had it been any other politician i would have done the

same.

:eyes: but you knew that

[NWHarkness]

10. Here is the problem with the Nixon In China analogy

Part of the dealmaking between Nixon and China was the tacit agreement that neither party cared if a couple million more Vietnamese were slaughtered, as long as they could work together in matters of mutual benefit.

So, in the analogy, who gets to be the Vietnamese? I think we've already figured that part out.

[AntiFascist]

11. Warren was being hyped as "America's People's Pastor" back in 2005...

the successor to Billy Graham (that's how powerful he is). I think Obama is just acknowledging that, and popularity trumps equal protection.

[boppers]

14. What Happens?

Oh, I'm sure people fighting for civil rights will just, ya know, STFU and go away?

Or maybe not.

[Danger Mouse]

19. People continue the fight against discrimination...

while we also fight to rebuild our country one piece at a time.

[polichick]

21. Let's hope Warren's secret sinful life has been exposed by then.

[zulchzulu]

25. Warren's every word in his 1:23 prayer is dissected more than the Zapruder film

If Obama withdraws Warren at this point, it creates EVEN MORE SHIT and is thus EXACTLY what Warren would want... more free press, a complete distraction from the Obama speech and would show that the assholes that want to keep giving Warren even more attention are exactly the SAME kind of assholes that are on the Religious Right, who want to censor, demonize and foam at the mouth with anyone who doesn't follow their idiotic, selfish and whining view of an issue.

Of course, mentioning that Reverend Lowery, a civil rights advocate and believer in gay marriage, is COMPLETELY LEFT OUT of the discussion... why is that? Because then the fucking assholes who are acting EXACTLY like the Religious Right assholes would lose ground in their whining and self-aggrandized victimhood.

[emilyg]

32. Lowery does not

SHUSTER: Fair enough. But is it incumbent upon you then, at that program, or at least elsewhere, to make those sharp differences clear? To say, you know what: I took a very different view on Proposition 8. I support gay marriage. Others do not, but it's important that my voice be heard.

LOWERY: Well, I've never said I support gay marriage. I support gay rights and I support civil unions. Like a whole lot of people, I have some difficulty with the term gay marriage. Because deep in my heart, deeply rooted in my heart and mind, marriage is associated with man and woman. So I have a little cultural shock with that. But I certainly support civil unions, and that gay partners ought to have all the rights that any other citizens have in this country.

Whoops!

[boppers]

34. Lowrey doesn't believe in gay marriage.

Sorry to burst that bubble.

[marimour]

39. actually he hasnt said one way or the other.

He goes out of his way not to say that he doesnt believe in gay marriage and also goes out of his way not to say he does. Based on being around him in Atlanta I think his private views are actually closer to pro gary marriage.

[davidpdx]

26. People on DU will call for his head on a platter as usual.

[AtomicKitten]

28. We could guess or wait and see.

The guessing is causing a negative reactivity. Since I've come to the conclusion I am not the master of time and space, I favor wait and see.

[ShadowLiberal]

29. He's not uninviting Warren because it would cause just as many problems for him

If Obama disinvited Warren he'd be opening up probably an even bigger can of worms then he's in now for inviting him in the first place. Among things that seem likely if Obama ditched Warren.

-The right would raise a fuss about it and Obama only having ultra leftist preachers at his inauguration.

-The media would say Obama is caving into the left's demands, which would hurt the image of himself Obama built up when running for president in the first place.

-He'd probably piss enough some republicans and moderates, enough so to burn some political capital he's hoping to use to get a bunch of things done right away when he takes office (and it's clear with some moves like keeping Gates that he wants as much political capital as possible when he takes office).

[babylonsister]

33. Jan. 20th can't get here soon enough. nt

[Jim Lane]

36. Small correction: January 21st can't get here soon enough.

That's the date on which the Warren ruckus will begin to fade. Obama will be evaluated, with respect to LGBT issues, on more consequential criteria, such as what he does about Don't Ask Don't Tell in the armed forces, and whether he invests any political capital in pressing Congress to enact protection against job discrimination (, preferably including protection for transgendered people).

If Obama stands up for civil rights on substantive issues like those, then everyone except a handful of diehards will stop worrying about who gave the invocation. On the other hand, if Obama drops the ball on those issues, then plenty of people who gave him a pass on Warren will become vocal critics.

[alwysdrunk]

37. Not a damn thing

Why would he change his decision just because some people are unhappy. There will always be people unhappy.

[starroute]

38. And what will you say if all this works out for the best?

At this point, I don't know if Obama is thinking three chess moves ahead of the rest of us, or if he overreached in his community-organizer instinct to try to bring together warring groups. I certainly don't believe he intends to throw anyone under the bus.

But leaving Obama out of it for the moment, what I do see is that for the first time gay marriage has become *the* overriding issue here at DU -- and is becoming an increasingly pivotal issue even in the country at large.

Have any of you stopped to think what that means?

I'm old enough to remember the period in the early 1960's when civil rights stopped being just one more thing that was going on and became the defining issue of the era. When segregation was no longer something that people could disagree about politely, when you were defined not only by which side you were on but by the nuances of your exact position.

I'd date that change in consciousness to around 1963 -- the year of the March on Washington, and also the year when Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind" asked the nation, "How many years can some people exist before they're allowed to be free, and how many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see?"

It's been clear for a good while that gay rights are the equivalent now of civil rights back then -- that gay activists are more radical, more willing to get in people's faces and shake up the established order, than anybody else. And also that gay rights ultimately aren't just about gay people -- that like civil rights in the 60's, they will open the way for people to demand a whole lot of other fundamental human rights that we aren't even thinking about yet.

On the other hand, right now we're still at a point that looks less like the 60's than like the late 50's, when civil rights were an issue for blacks and a matter for sympathy by white liberals, but nothing larger. I think that's in the course of changing though -- and I think this Rick Warren flap is a major catalyst for the change.

Essentially, I believe gay rights is going to stop being a gay issue and become a defining issue. It's going to become something that everybody has to take a position on -- and accept being defined in the eyes of that world by that position. It's going to be something that straights can no longer waffle on -- not because of political pressure but because it will be universally seen as tying in with every other important issue of the moment, from the need for everyone to work together to repair our economy and our planet, to the central role played by creative people in a new economic order that runs on ideas and not on makingthings.

And right now is exactly when all that is happening.

So keep your cool and try to enjoy it. This is history.

[BeFree]

52. Merry Christmas, starroute

I hope everyone reads your post because it is indeed a present to all of us.

You've laid out well the history and the best possible future for the progressive movement as concerns this matter, and folks need to read and comprehend just what you've written.

And I suggest you OP it as soon as possible to increase the readership numbers.

Peace to all, and Mele Kalikimaka!!

[marimour]

40. it makes no sense for him to withdraw it.

I doubt the GBLT will go back to loving him (if they ever really did) just because the invitation has been rescinded. The damage has already been done and i bet on DU we would still have the same amount of "Obama doesnt care about gay people" threads no matter what.

[LaydeeBug]

41. Oh yeah riiiiiiight. Because pandering like this is "hope and change" nt

[SKKY]

42. Here's what will happen...

We will have had a month of serious discussion about gay marriage, and the gay agenda will feature prominently in every new cycle until then. For the life of me, I can see how that's a bad thing.

[Hanse]

43. Then God will hear Warren's prayer, and the rapture will happen.

SUVs will be driving around unmanned.

Dogs and cats will be living together.

White men will be dancing.

Oh, it'll be the apocalypse.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

48. That's why we can't let it happen - keep the heat on until he gets it.

[AllentownJake]

49. Obama himself may think he made a mistake

but if he bends it encourages the progressive base to make noise everytime he makes a decision we don't like.

[Condem]

53. Warren?

I thought Chief Justice Earl Warren was dead.