Bad Timing, Joe

Comments

1. A big amen—what were they thinking?

   Posted by Shelley on Dec. 19, 2008 at 6:16 AM [#]

2. I’m at a loss. I don’t see how this move is going to earn him any credit with either side.

   Posted by Evan on Dec. 19, 2008 at 7:26 AM [#]

3. They were thinking that it’s a freebie that they can point to later, when campaigning for actual progressive POLICY, to say, “See, we’re not scary liberals, in fact, we pissed off the liberal base and treated evangelicals with respect!”

   Posted by R.M. 'Auros' Harman on Dec. 19, 2008 at 11:53 AM [#]

4. See also the last news item here: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Dec19.html

   Posted by R.M. 'Auros' Harman on Dec. 19, 2008 at 12:50 PM [#]

5. Incidentally, if you want to be upset over something, I’d focus on the appointment of a current SEC Commissioner to head the SEC. I would’ve been a lot happier if they’d brought in somebody from outside. If I were in charge, I might even check with prosecutors to see whether Eliot Spitzer is going to be charged with solicitation, and if not, give him the job; he’d be good at it.

   Posted by R.M. 'Auros' Harman on Dec. 19, 2008 at 1:34 PM [#]

6. It turns out that many far right types are ticked off about this too — they’re mad at Rick Warren for accepting. Maybe this is all a Machiavellian plot by Obama to destroy Warren as the next media-friendly “America’s Pastor” and trick the Right into settling on a leader who’s more obviously bug-eyed crazy.

   Posted by Evan on Dec. 19, 2008 at 3:33 PM [#]

7. Also it should be noted that there are many conservative pastors who manage to be against gay marriage without calling it incest. There are also many conservative pastors who have thus far avoided calling for us to assassinate particular elected foreign leaders.

   Posted by Evan on Dec. 19, 2008 at 3:45 PM [#]

8. “There are also many conservative pastors who have thus far avoided calling for us to assassinate particular elected foreign leaders.”

   AFAIK, Warren has never advocated assassination. That was Jerry Falwell.

   Regarding the right-wingers angry at Falwell, I think this blog post put it eloquently: “Don’t you know that there are right-to-lifers and anti-gay bigots right now who are just as furious at Warren as we are at Obama that Warren has even accepted this inaugural invitation. After all, he will be giving his blessing, in front of a national audience, to a pro-choice, pro-civil-union president.”

   Posted by R.M. 'Auros' Harman on Dec. 20, 2008 at 10:02 PM [#]

9. Oh, and there’s a post a bit higher up (relayed from Hanna Rosin on vacation) that’s also on-point:

   Posted by R.M. 'Auros' Harman on Dec. 20, 2008 at 10:06 PM [#]

10. | AFAIK, Warren has never advocated assassination. That was Jerry Falwell.

    Nope. Rick Warren too.

    As for Hanna Rosin:

    | “Our standards for hearing out a religious leader should not be: Does he believe everything we believe?” It should be: Is he willing to talk to the other side?

    Umm, Obama isn’t just “hearing out” Warren. Rosin must have an awfully low opinion of her readers to deliberately try to slip that language in.

    Posted by Evan on Dec. 20, 2008 at 10:41 PM [#]

11. Hadn’t heard those comments from Warren; very unfortunate. (Though I’d guess that somewhere around half the country actually feels that we’re entitled to “take out” the “bad guys”. Maybe more. Sigh.) In any case, I still think this is a purely symbolic, close to zero-cost way of making good on promises to be post-partisan and open to listening to people who disagree. And Rosin wasn’t referring to OBAMA hearing Warren out — she was saying that WE as liberals who favored Obama, should not be unwilling to listen to what he has to say and look for areas of constructive engagement (e.g. dealing with hunger and poverty). He represents a sizable segment of the population (in our state, no less).

    There’s been a bunch of good discussion on the XX Factor blog about the topic.

    Posted by R.M. 'Auros' Harman on Dec. 22, 2008 at 4:24 PM [#]

12. Before the election, I was using Public Radio’s online candidate selection tool. Obama was listed as not supporting gay marriage. He supports civil unions with full benefits. The reaction to Warren makes me wonder whether a lot of his supporters knew that.

    As for assassination, Warren wasn’t calling for the assassination of a foreign head of state just because he didn’t like him. He was agreeing with the idea that killing in self-defense is morally justifiable, and that the principle extends to governments. This is not a crazy idea, but something genuinely discussed in mainstream religion. I don’t know if I agree with the word “justified” - maybe “necessary but still sinful”. It’s been a long time since I read my Bonhoeffer, but it made a big impact.

    Posted by Rachel on Dec. 23, 2008 at 8:01 AM [#]

13. Rosin WAS referring to Obama hearing Warren out, else she wouldn’t have mentioned it in the context of the Warren invocation. I don’t object to Obama or you or anyone else inviting Warren over for tea and a frank exchange of views. There is a world of difference between that and giving him the plum religious role at the inauguration of the first black president. Rosin understands this distinction and tries to slip it by us anyway. This is why Rosin is a shitty writer. (We can all thank Michael Kinsley for training his staff to write this way. He’s gone, but the damage to Slate is done.)

    In any case, saying Obama’s actions are purely symbolic is just another way of saying to minority groups, “you don’t matter.” Warren sure wasn’t spending his time symbolically when he spent last summer and fall spending his non-symbolic time and his non-symbolic money to destroy civil rights in California.

    But I do have an alternative proposal for Obama, straight from Planet Vulcan. How about we have Obama cancel all White House Christmas festivities? After all, that would free up many valuable hours of the president’s time so that he could work on much more important things like economy and health care. Let’s see how far the “it’s just symbolism” argument goes when that particular symbol actually bites “a sizable segment of the population” in the ass.

    Posted by Evan on Dec. 23, 2008 at 8:06 AM [#]

14. Hi Rachel — you’re probably right that many of Obama’s supporters falsely assumed he supported gay marriage. It’s safe to say that many of the people who voted against him assumed that as well.

    As for assassinating foreign heads of state, long decades of foreign policy experience has taught us that this is an approach that works out way better in techno-thrillers and role playing games than it does in real life.

    Posted by Evan on Dec. 23, 2008 at 8:21 AM [#]