It isn’t just a question of what Obama will do or won’t do and how we judge him for it. A democracy is a cooperative effort as as he reminded us several times during his campaign. What will we do to help and change the direction of this country?
The selection of Warren does have both sides discussing the issue again. Keep the issue alive is a good way to ensure eventual success.
He probably finds himself too attached to the seniority he has in Massachussetts. What benefits do your Minnesota seniority obtain for you?
I mean besides being able to post “Nipples” in your location field.
Which, I belatedly notice, you’re not doing anymore.
That’s a most generous interpretation of the events and equally likely. But I don’t buy it. The way he has acted in the campaign leaves me doubt as to whether he really is serious with gay rights. In fact, there is every reason to believe that he doesn’t care much about it (i.e. gay-bashing minister stumping for him). And does anyone really believe that having Rick Warren do the invocation will help push the gay rights issue forward? On the contrary, it sends a powerful signal to GLBT groups that he’s open to changing his position here too as he has done on other issues even without pressure from the right.
Sometimes I wonder whether people really see events for what they are or merely interpret them in light of Obama’s divinity. I see this a lot. A lot of his supporters are excusing his backing off from other promises with exhortations that Obama will “really” do the right thing all evidence to the contrary. Or else interpret it as some part of a strategy under the aegis of the mighty “change” rhetoric.
But geez, I’ve read SO many of these types of things in the past week. They all say pretty much the same thing. Some (not many) even acknowledge the hurt and feelings of betrayal millions of gays, lesbians and women feel, but shrug it off.
But ok, I read both of the Rabbi’s blogs. This was one of the harder ones to read, but I got past the “Rick Warren Selection is Great for Faith and is Obama at His Best” and “Whether one is a fan of the next President or not, any fan of faith should be cheered by President-elect Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to offer the inaugural invocation.” and made it all the way through. And, let’s just say I’m not impressed. I wonder if he’d write the same things if Warren were a minister who denied the Holocaust.
I’m sure you can. The American People[sub]tm[/sub]? Not really. They look at whatever shiny object is put in front of them. Very easily distracted by contentious issues. Like gay rights, say.
Of course they should, they’re less important. Perhaps if you didn’t have an imploding economy, an impending bankruptcy, an impending energy crisis, or any such trifles, you could place more importance on whether gay people can marry.
So push Obama to do something about it, as long as it doesn’t compromise more important issues.
I suppose you can see it as a slap in your face. Or you could see it as a meaningless sop to the right, that has made them happy whilst actually giving them fuck all. Perhaps they’ll give something nice in return, like not filibustering a bill you like.
Remember that whole “reaching out” and “bipartisan” talk? He actually meant it, you know. He’s a pragmatist. He’ll do what he can do, which is less than you would like it to be. Such is life. Better than an idealist who focuses on an issue that will never happen, and doesn’t get anything useful done.
Lastly,
Pretty sure I know more about racism than you ever will, so kindly go fuck yourself.
Fair enough.
And isn’t this peachy? Here we are, headed (probably) into some pretty rough weather. Gonna have the West Virginia rednecks squabbling with the East L.A. Latinos and the New Orleans Cajuns about infrastructure money and jobs, and all three of them are hearing whisperings in their hears: “You know, the reason you can’t have the money is that he’s given it all to the black welfare moms in New York and Chicago.”
Aah, what am I worried about? With allies like us, how can he fail?
PS to** Discordia**: I am absitively, posolutely sure he didn’t mean that in the way you seem to have taken it.
I’m not sure it says he’ll change his position. It may say that on the list of BFDs he has to deal with he may decide gay marriage can wait for his attention. That sucks, but it’s the reality of the difficult world we live in. OTOH people who are passionate about the issue can say “Not this time” and keep the issue in the public eye.
Obama was good at instilling hope in me and others but I still realize that it may turn out that he’s just another politician more interested in his own career and position than serving the GP. I said that repeatedly during the campaign. One thing the last eight years have helped me to understand is that much of this democracy is the responsibility of the citizens. If all we are willing to do is bitch and blame rather than give up our time and energy to pursue the goals we claim we care about then whatever leadership we get is our own fucking fault.
I’m not excusing Obama. I’m just trying to stay realistic and give him the benefit of the doubt because he’s NOT PRESIDENT YET.
That question would make more sense if you had asked “I wonder if he’d write the same things if Warren were a minister who called for the end of the Israeli occupation”
One can also interpret this to mean that he is not serious with gay rights and merely said so in the campaign so he can fool the far left into supporting him. He DID promise a repeal of DOMA which will NEVER happen. Unfortunately, the sops in the far left actually believed that, hence this sense of betrayal.
I, for one, believe he is a pragmatist and that he is merely a few points left of center when it comes to gay rights. And as a pragmatist, he would have no problem putting the GLBT under the bus. He had no problem asking a gay-bashing minister to stump for him - unfortunately, the GLBT community held him on a pedestal back then and didn’t even bother to check.
With Rick Warren doing the invocation, they are now questioning their judgment and looking back at Obama’s record and his penchant for backing off controversial issues with nary any pressure from the right and realizing that they really do not KNOW where Obama stands on this. For those who are so sure of his stand on this, without looking at his campaign promises (which he disregards when necessary), what makes you say that he will be fighting for gay rights? What makes you say that he will not concede this issue to the republicans?
I read it as equating me with racists who excused the treatment of Japanese Americans (a quite absurd comparison, but anyway).
How do you think it was meant?
So, the left is supposed to keep as quiet as the Republicans did the last 8 years, assuming any were upset at anything Bush did, right? All I’m really complaining about now is the lack of common courtesy and sensitivity Obama showed to a group of people who were already hurting (and, ok, I complained about Eric Holder a couple of times). Give me a break.
Those two sentences don’t go together. Bush got us into deep shit in part because the people on his side were in complete lockstep with everything he did. They took seriously, and took up the calls of their own, the “either you’re with us or against us” rhetoric. Bush literally got away with murder because people who might have mattered to him didn’t see what was going on, or if they did, didn’t speak up because he was a Republican.
Is this regarding the “go fuck yourself” line? First, I’m a woman. Second, someone telling me to go fuck myself for equating the actions against Japanese-Americans and gay rights isn’t going to make me stop doing it. It’s another perfect example of a group of people who were targeted for hatred and prejudice because of their birthright. Americans love to target groups that are “other” to them, that’s for sure, and they keep running out of groups that are socially ok to target. GLBTs are just about the last ones. At least here they never had to wear pink triangles or get put in camps, though you know that many right wingers would love to see that happen. They have been killed though. Matthew Shepherd may be the only name a lot of people know, but there are tons of them. I just found out myself about the Jimani murders.
Sad enough for people to die in a fire. Horrific that it was deliberately caused by a hateful homophobe.
I was afraid my edit time would run out. I think we misunderstood each other Discordia. I thought you disliked my equating the two, but now I read your reply.
No, I didn’t mean it that way at all! I wasn’t even thinking of you. I was thinking of people who, at the time it was happening, weren’t concerned of what was going on with the Japanese-Americans because 1) we were in a war, and 2) they weren’t Japanese-Americans, so what did they care. It’s the same sort of thing…ah, I have to find it. “First they came for the…but since I wasn’t a …, then they came for, but I wasn’t…and when they came for me, there was nobody left to speak on my behalf” thing. I have to find the exact wording.
Anyway, it wasn’t targeted at you. I apologise if you thought it was.
Fair enough. That accusation is one of the few things that can genuinely make me angry, so I can overreact.
Yes, I quite like that one.
Don’t misunderstand me, I’m just a pragmatist who can seem rather detached. We don’t disagree in our goals at all.
Perhaps it’s more at my despair at the shit the world is in that such things seem so trifling in comparison.
You mean in a “good news, bad news” way? Like the good news, gays can marry, bad news, neither will have a job?
Yeah, that might be the least bit relevant if those of us who are trying to display the same tolerance we’re demanding of the evangelicals weren’t also SPEAKING UP at the same time.
You wonder what?
Speaking up about what?
Well now I wonder whether you read the link I posted.
Is this a real question?
You fling around accusations that those of us who aren’t as outraged as you are about this, are of the same character as those who didn’t speak out against the treatment of the Japanese in the U.S. or the Jews in Germany during WWII. Frankly, I find that comparison insulting and offensive. But most of all, it’s flat out wrong. Many of us who support Obama’s inclusion of Warren in his inauguration, are speaking out against the underlying cause you think is being “slapped in the face” – gay rights. Or have you forgotten that I, for instance, campaigned against Prop 8, posted signs in my yard and windows and made monetary donations to Equality California in an effort to defeat it? What do we have to do, place ourselves up on a cross before you believe that we can feel just as strongly about equal rights as you?
Hardly. We hear instead demands that those who are offended and discriminated against should shut up and submit. To stop complaining and slink off into the civil union ghetto. While their enemy is given the Presidential stamp of approval.
And we don’t hear you people “demanding tolerance” of the evangelicals; instead, we hear demands for tolerance of the bigotry of those evangelicals.