Do you remember that Brokeback Forum or whatever it was called during the election? The one where the preacher asked first Obama then McCain a bunch of questions? The one where Obama gave the “above my pay grade” answer about when a fetus deserves civil rights? He’s that guy.
Generally speaking, it is exactly the wrong thing for him to do, as I’ve argued previously. Letting Rick Warren do his inaugural invocation, however, is a mostly harmless symbolic gesture.
Says who? You? Obama is a religious man, but who’s to say this one is going to have any say in his administration? Only nutjobs and crazies looking for a fight, that’s who.
I’m with Merkwurdigliebe, anything relating to “politics” that isn’t an election is not a pissing match worth entering. While some Democrats are concerned about who Obama picked to say the opening prayer, the rest of us have more important things to worry about. This is a non-issue.
Well just look at it this way if, according to what has been mentioned above, Rick Warren is actually pretty liberal on all non-social issues, why would he not be a valuable ally? Getting Rick Warren to go along with you on healthcare and any other non-social political issue then yeah it seems like a win.
Obama reaching out to center-ish Republicans on issues they agree on isn’t “caving in to the right.” You act like Obama was elected by people who are all pro-choice, prop-8 denying, dyed in the wool liberals. Obama won CA and prop 8 won too. There must have been pro-Obama, pro-8 voters.
The problem that Obama realizes, is that he didn’t win because he was liberal. He won because he espoused pragmatism and offered the best, common-sense solutions to our problems. Obviously Rick Warren better not think about talking about their differences (other than in a cursory manner to brush them aside), but I imagine that he’ll give a positive mention to Obama colored from his perspective.
Look, Der Trihs, I’m with you on the fear that Obama will somehow cave in to the Republicans as our elected officials are so fond of doing. But I don’t think it’s time to start sounding the alarm bells just yet. But you’re acting just like the Republicans do when you say that all Republicans have no other goal but their way or the high-way. This has clearly been true in the past, but things will change now. As long as Obama remains popular, he can apply pressure. He can maintain popularity by careful expenditure of political capital for very good reasons. All it takes is a little threat by Obama to campaign for moderate Republican Senator X’s opponent in the coming mid-term elections and he’s going to make them fall in line.
I’m fine with Rick Warren. It doesn’t matter much at all to me, really. Yes, Rick and I disagree on some things, but we would also see eye-to-eye on a lot of other things, too. Besides, it’s just the incantation. It’s not like Rick Warren is putting spices into the mainline of policy feeding into the new White House.
The ebony fighter awakens, dabbled with the dewy beads of morn. It is a mach-5 child, forever bound to suckle from the shriveled breast of congress.
Rick Warren represents a much more modern, progressive aspect of Christianity. It seems to me that what Obama is try to do is what Reagan did - split the opposition. In Reagan’s case, he created ‘Reagan Democrats’ - those who traditionally voted for Democrats even though they were socially conservative and fiscally conservative, simply because they were blue-collar working class types, and the Democrats owned that particular demographic cohort. Reagan cracked that nut, and peeled off a large swath of voters from the Democratic party, and built a governing coalition that lasted until this last election, when the Reagan Democrats broke for Obama.
Now Obama’s returning the favor. Among people who primarily define themselves by their Christianity, the vast majority vote Republican, mainly because the Democrats have heaped scorn on them and supported some very hot-button issues such as gay rights. Obama sees an opportunity - the crop of younger Christians are less conservative than their parents, and are ripe for plucking and pulling into the Democratic party. Obama is actually one of them - he’s opposed to gay marriage, but supports abortion. He’s apparently deeply religious. So he’s going to pander to them, and try to convince them that Democrats are not the enemy. If he can do that, he can crack the Christian coalition and build a lasting Democratic majority.
But that’s going to really stick in the craw of the netroots bunch. Expect Obama to wear his religion on his sleeve at least as much, if not more so, than Bush did. Expect him to oppose the left-wing base of the Democratic party on a number of issues related to religion.
Oh, please. The Democrats haven’t heaped scorn on Christians. The majority of Democrats are Christians.
If anyone in this thread can think of a way to reach out to people who make arguments like this, I’d like to know.
We see it in the same way. It’s a political and possibly conciliatory move. That’s all.
I mostly hate the liberal left so I’m glad that he is at least trying to reach out to the right. Even Republicans such as myself are tired of the Bush Administration. There is no way that he can do worse than Bush, so all is good.
This post proves my point. You’ve acknowledged that Obama is trying to reach out to the right. And yet, instead of trying to reach out back to the left, you inform us that you mostly hate them.
I’m willing to adjust my attitude if the left is as well.
Let’s clarify here. Who do you define as left, and what is the attitude adjustment they need to make?