tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post8617883599619517921..comments2023-10-10T05:07:13.577-07:00Comments on En Tequila Es Verdad: Pastor Warren Earns Obama a Trip to the WoodshedDana Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00890312745525306991noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-71195289086047569882008-12-25T13:48:00.000-08:002008-12-25T13:48:00.000-08:00Actually, discussion at the Change.gov forum has b...Actually, discussion at the Change.gov forum has been less clear on this; the consensus appears to be that it's a reasonable compromise <I>for now</I>, as long as it's a step towards full gay marriage <I>or</I> getting government out of the marriage business altogether.<BR/><BR/>I agree with that consensus, and correspondingly find Obama's support for taking that step forward to be sufficient... for now.<BR/><BR/>In any case (to get back to the original point) you can't possibly equate Obama's position on this with Warren's. They are polar opposites; Warren wants to move us <I>further away</I> from equal rights.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-14970338324270577492008-12-19T13:40:00.000-08:002008-12-19T13:40:00.000-08:00Mike, dude -- which record are you looking at?"Bar...Mike, dude -- <A HREF="http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/" REL="nofollow">which record are you looking at</A>?<BR/><BR/><I>"Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give <B>same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples</B>. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that <B>the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions</B>."</I> (emphasis mine)Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-28818051063032711682008-12-19T10:49:00.000-08:002008-12-19T10:49:00.000-08:00Woozle, Obama is on record as opposing gay marriag...Woozle, Obama is on record as opposing gay marriage. What more evidence do you need?Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-28240699178791661302008-12-19T09:02:00.000-08:002008-12-19T09:02:00.000-08:00Mike, on what basis do you say that Obama and Warr...Mike, on what basis do you say that Obama and Warren are fairly close on the gay issue? I thought we had pretty much established that they are not.<BR/><BR/>(And: "...also thought they would well more on abortion." <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Equilateral_(collection)" REL="nofollow">QRM Interblogatory</A>, signal not coming through; please repeat...)<BR/><BR/>If gay rights are low on Obama's priority list, it's only because Bush and his followers have left Obama with so much more urgent crap to clean up. I believe Obama to be (unlike Bush) someone with principles, and not someone who would "throw gays under the bus" in pursuit of popularity or power.<BR/><BR/>That said, I would much rather have seen Obama take a firmer stand against anti-gay rhetoric; inviting Warren to the party without at least some kind of apology for his fact-abuse does cross a line, and the outrage against it is justified. I do hope the ends -- which <I>must include</I> forward progress for gay rights, or there's no excuse -- ultimately justify the means.<BR/><BR/>Obama <I>is</I> taking a risk, and I'm only waiting to see how the situation unfolds before condemning his decision because I recognize that he has access to far greater analytical resources than I, and therefore might possibly know better than I how to advance (what appear to be) our mutual goals.<BR/><BR/>But I don't blame anyone for criticizing his choice in this matter, and I may end up agreeing with them wholeheartedly.<BR/><BR/>(Have I babbled enough today? Maybe Dana needs to take away my keyboard before something unfortunate happens...)Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-45250284803708864002008-12-19T08:28:00.000-08:002008-12-19T08:28:00.000-08:00It seems that the only objection to Waren we are h...It seems that the only objection to Waren we are hearing from the Left is on the gay issue. I'm kind of surprised because I thought they would realize that he and Obama were fairly close on that one and I also thought they would well more on abortion. <BR/><BR/>If Obama wants evangelicals he has to throw them some socially conservative meat and for him, gays are an easy choice because they are waaaaay down his priority list.Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-88615237513789355332008-12-19T08:21:00.000-08:002008-12-19T08:21:00.000-08:00P.S. D'oh, the link about Religious Righteous obje...P.S. D'oh, the link about Religious Righteous objections to Warren was in your actual post... [facepalms]<BR/><BR/>P.P.S. And yeah, Obama is taking a risk here.<BR/><BR/>P.P.P.S. On further thought: Warren can (a) stay neutral and not say anything much, (b) say negative stuff (e.g. repeating the claim that Prop. 8 goes against freedom of speech), and/or (c) say positive stuff.<BR/><BR/>In the event of either (b) or (c), we have a win, because Obama can then go on to refute the faulty facts and logic behind (b), and Warren's evangelical followers will listen to <I>him</I> saying (c) where they might not have listened to Obama saying it.<BR/><BR/>Option (a) would be the most likely to result in liberal backlash, but I also don't see what Warren would get from it -- so it seems less likely.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-17261049124105643902008-12-19T08:13:00.000-08:002008-12-19T08:13:00.000-08:00OK - Warren is an ass munch. But as disgusting as...OK - Warren is an ass munch. But as disgusting as this may sound, he is only articulating the views of millions of evangelicals. If Obama is ever going to include these people in building a genuine and durable consensus, he is going to have to open doors. And how refreshing it is to see a president with the courage to make decisions on something other than blind ideology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-82402078484225889382008-12-19T06:46:00.000-08:002008-12-19T06:46:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-4855992153685236822008-12-19T05:11:00.000-08:002008-12-19T05:11:00.000-08:00I know Obama's playing a longer game. I'm just of...I know Obama's playing a longer game. I'm just of the opinion that this particular ball could end up exploding in his face. Sigh. Ah, well, hopefully Rev. Lowery will give such a stirring benediction at the end that Rick Warren will end up looking like a big fat lame ol' loser. <BR/><BR/>Hmm. Wonder if that's actually where this is headed... ;-PDana Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00890312745525306991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-9314245983700622372008-12-19T04:59:00.000-08:002008-12-19T04:59:00.000-08:00Ok... saw a related blog entry, had to comment fur...Ok... saw a related blog entry, had to comment further -- arguing in favor of the Warren thing, even though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth too:<BR/><BR/>1. Obama has <A HREF="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/obamas-talking-points-on_n_152056.html" REL="nofollow">circulated talking points to his staff</A> emphasizing that he disagrees with Warren (<A HREF="http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/12/18/one-step-back/" REL="nofollow">hat tip</A>)<BR/><BR/>2. You know how the Religious Right is always claiming (mainly to their ever-gullible followers) that Christians are a persecuted minority, that the liberals have taken everything over now and conservatives dare not speak "the truth", that Obama is a Muslim and will help suppress righteous Christian ideas, et cetera ad frickin' nauseam? This will be a <B>very public display</B> of how liberals do things: we can disagree with you, vehemently, but we will always let you speak.<BR/><BR/>3. The evangelicals are upset about this (had a link - can't find it - ack!), arguing that Warren is compromising his morals (ha!). If the evangelicals are upset, Obama must be doing <I>something</I> right? Perhaps they fear item #2: he is calling their bluff, in a very big way.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/><BR/>Overall, the impression I get is not of someone unknowingly (or even complicitly) inviting the devil to dinner, but carefully and methodically opening channels of communication with a force which will only become more hostile the more we ignore it.<BR/><BR/>I hope that impression is right; it sure as hell would be the diametric opposite of what we've become used to for the past 8 years -- and possibly on a level of depth beyond anything we've seen in politics within <I>my</I> memory.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-28621464167675630472008-12-19T04:31:00.000-08:002008-12-19T04:31:00.000-08:00I'm still hoping that Obama's playing a larger gam...I'm still hoping that Obama's playing a larger game here. Remember, he's not as simple-minded as his predecessor (the one we're currently shoeing out of office). I want to see what he says after Pastor Reek is done speaking; that should at least be a signal as to whether this is part of a plan or just pandering.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.com