As you may or may not know, Obama has chosen Rick Warren a pastor of an evangelical megachurch and author of “purpose driven” series of books. He’s also been a bit proponent of Proposition 8.
Now obviously a lot of people on the left are pissed off about this, but personally I think it’s just fine.
ugh, had a problem posting my OP, can you guys give me a sec to finish it in the next reply? Thanks
See this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=498005
Or is this to be a more general discussion around whether or not it is a good idea for Obama to reach out to the right-wing?
Wonderful…
So let me retype this for a third time.
Obama was clearly elected to be a conciliatory politician. I think that it’s very important that we don’t go back to the “for us or against us” mentality of the past eight years. And I think his inviting Rick Warren to his inauguration is a good sign. He’s willing to sacrifice his record with the left wing of his party in order to gain middle-ground support. It’s a pretty bold move.
There are those on the left that are very much opposed to the move. But I disagree. What Obama needs to do is to be the President we all needed for the past eight years. Obama is being the President we needed then and need now.
But on the other hand, they do have something of a point. I am worried that we as a nation, with a very conciliatory President are going to somehow gloss over what it was that made these past eight years so destructive to our national character, our reputation, our economy, just pick any way that we’ve been reduced in stature.
We really need to reflect on that and I’m afraid that nobody else but Obama, at this point, could get those ideas out there. But I don’t feel like it is his job at all to do it.
So I guess the topic for debate is what exactly we should do about this? Are we going to forget the lessons and not take steps to prevent things like this from happening again? Or are these years going to linger in the back of everyone’s mind like the 60’s and result in a different paradigm for our kids?
I think the 60’s is an apt comparison, because it was through the work of the baby boomers that we have society that is as “modern” as it is today. Most people don’t think smoking pot is mostly harmless, for example. In the 50’s this was clearly not the case. When looking at the culture wars of the 60’s it is clear to me that the hippies won, as society is much further to the left than it was back before then.
Will our future be shaped by the 2000’s and resulting in a more pragmatic-minded future? I would certainly hope so, but that’s why I’m starting the topic.
Let’s see if this one works…
ETA:
Yes, Euphonious Polemic, I mean this thread to be much less about Obama and more about how we are supposed to learn the lessons of this era with a non-accusative President. And how that will manifest itself, exactly. Sorry about the sloppy OP but when I hit enter, it triggered the “post” button :mad:
Frankly, I see this as yet another example of people seeing what they want when it comes to Obama. This event didn’t register on my radar screen at all, but it sure has the left wing divided - either in passionate opposition to the notion or seeing in it evidence (such as it is) of Obama’s desire to unite the country.
Frankly I think people are reading too much into it whichever way they go, unless they are seeing it as just a simple invocation and nothing more.
Maya Angelou delivered a poem at Clinton’s first inauguration - did she have much input into policy after that?
The thing is, Rick Warren isn’t even really “the Right”. He’s socially conservative, sure, but economically he’s pretty liberal.
I’m surprised you didn’t know that she was in charge of Central Bomber Command when we went into Bosnia.
Which somehow always seems to translate as “caves in to the right”. “Bipartisanship”, “reaching across the aisle” and similar platitudes always seem to boil down to “give the Right whatever it wants”.
The Right is the enemy of the Left, and will continue to be. The Left doesn’t have a choice in the matter; if one side doesn’t want to be friends, you can’t be friends. “Us versus them” is the proper attitude to take, because that’s the situation we are in. Instead, we are again seeing the Democrats suck up and cave in.
It’s a cowardly or bigoted attempt to suck up to the bigots. It’s disgusting, not “bold”.
I’d be disappointed, if I had ever expected anything better out of a Democrat. Welcome to 4-8 more years of de-facto Republican rule, with the Democrats cringing from the Republicans and handing them everything they desire. Who needs a majority, or even equal numbers when the opposition is spineless and submissive ?
I’m quite certain of it. No investigations, little if any criticism, and certainly no punishments.
Nothing. America is corrupt beyond repair. America will keep drifting towards fascism, with the psychotic Right driving the cowardly Left ahead of it.
We NEED an “accusative President”, someone who will dig out all the vileness Bush has committed. We won’t get one; we’ll just get a Democratic version of Ford pardoning Nixon instead.
How non-accusatory do you want to be?
This seems like a largely symbolic, not to say token, gesture on Obama’s part. Warren had no part in setting policy in the Bush administration that I know of. And Obama has picked Joe Lowery to do the benediction (cite) so it is not as if he is selling out altogether.
Maybe he should have picked Wright, and he could have delivered a rant just as ridiculous as Der Trihs did above.
If something as essentially meaningless as this gets the liberals’ panties in a twist, I rather doubt there is much hope for bipartisanship no matter what Obama says.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s how I see it, but if you go to some of the right wing websites, you’ll see that a lot of the Freeper types are outraged at Warren for standing with “an enemy of America.” Rick Warren is getting it even worse from his base than Obama’s getting it from his.
I think it will all be forgotten about an hour after it’s over, though.
But that’s not a policy position, so you’ve made my point. 
Since I expect that Obama will provide many, many reminders over the years, I doubt it.
Why is this even an issue? Who gives a shit who’s saying the prayer?
Is it also a huge deal that Aretha Franklin, Yo-Yo Ma and Ihtzak Perlman are performing the music? No, because on January 21st no one even remembers who the inaugural band was. And no one will equally give a crap about who the pastor was.
Unless he’s standing behind Obama in the Oval Office Darth Vader-style whispering “Let’s nuke the gays from orbit” into his ear, what difference does it make?
Obama didn’t get elected to fight the right, DT, I think most would agree with that sentiment. We’ll have to see the specifics of what he does. Obama is the best chance we had of not getting an establishment, DLC-type in the Oval office. I think he deserves a chance. The reason I don’t care about this stuff, is the same reason I don’t read blogs during non-election periods. The lack of debatable substance leads to people discussion stupid shit like this.
I believe that it is possible for Obama to win over the country to his ideology (at least parts of it obviously) by the strength of his message alone. I do wish sometimes that he would emphasize how he will be different and how doing things Bush’s way was a bad idea, but it’s not exactly the best way to run a Presidency. A perfect example would be our last President. He’s managed to polarize the Republican party by NOT being inclusive. The focus on the “purity of the base” has led to repeated purgings (not really but I’d say being less inclusive would be the point) of the party of its moderates.
It’s a very easy thing to get scared that we’ll head down the road of “third-way” politics again, but I think it’s also crucial to realize that ideological purity only leads to a very small group. The better strategy is to make his agenda and pragmatic ways a mainstream thing. If Obama should come out strong against anything it’s ideology over pragmatism.
ETA:
Justin Baliey, I think people get upset over this because they have a kneejerk reaction when they see a Democrat being the least-bit accomodating to the Republicans. Mainly because we have a history of doing that in the face of their complete and utter disrespect. I personally think he’s proved himself to be different in many ways along the way, so we should give him some breathing room. It’s also particularly alarming with Obama because he’s supposed to be the guy who actually has some sense of dignity
Not to mention the fact that, if Obama went off on Republicans the way those clowns at the Democratic Underground and at least one Doper would like, I would expect next day a tactfully worded press release saying that Joe Biden would be running things for a bit while the President underwent thirty days of treatment for “exhaustion”.
Regards,
Shodan
If he got elected to do anything but cave in to the Right, then he got elected to “fight the right”. You can’t “cooperate” and “reconcile” with people who look at any such attempt as simply a weakness. Cooperation requires two sides who are at least willing to settle for less than total domination. To the Right", “compromise” means “give us everything we want”.
I don’t know who Mr Warren is, but America’s in a mess and Obama’s principal job is going to be to inspire America to get out of that mess. If he’s hiring people who also inspire, then he’s starting on the right track.
Are you saying this is evidence that Obama is giving the right everything they want?
Not yet. He’s not in a position to yet. But it’s an indication that he will. Along with all his talk about compromise; with people like that, you “compromise” by giving in.
It’s one prayer. I ask again, does this mean Aretha Franklin will have a say in policy in the Obama administration?
Although Obama is looking for more R-E-S-P-E-C-T from the Republicans, so maybe she will.
No, but she’s not a religious figure. Religious figures are expected to have policy input in America; singers aren’t.