NEWS: Digging A Deep Warren Hole

POLITICS: Digging A Deep Warren Hole

For those of you who haven’t been following, Obama chose shocking asshole and homophobe Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Many have explained to those who are offended that they have no right to be upset because this is a move of inclusion. They say Obama is reaching across the aisle. It’s about bipartisanship. It’s about him being a president to everybody. Uh, yeah. If you believe that you are one stupid motherfucker.

Obama, of course, gave his usual response. We’ve really all got to work together and come to an understanding and agree to disagree. Yes. Also, bigots are fine. The one problem with Obama’s comments Ñ aside from the shocking hypocrisy Ñ is that they can’t stand up to one simple argument: Would he invite a racist to give the invocation? No? Why not? They’re many racists in this country who deserve to be included in this administration. They are, after all, Americans. We really should reach out to the racists. How will we come together as a country if we don’t?

But he would do no such thing, because racists are bad, while gay haters are okey-dokey. That’s the message Obama has sent with this decision. And they just won’t shut the fuck up about it. Biden opened his clam hole yesterday.

Anyone think he meant homophobes? Really? Did you think he meant racists? No, of course not. Just homophones. Got it.

And he divided us further. It only serves to remind one group of people Ñ the ones who were left out of the victory on November 4th, the ones who were told they were less than by more than one state, the ones who are simmering with anger that they really don’t matter, that they are not part of the equation. Obama doesn’t have to reach over to that side of the aisle because he’s sitting there.

Let’s not pretend like Barack Obama supports gay marriage. He does not. That’s why proponents of Prop 8 were able to use his words in ads supporting the ban. Many seem to think Obama is for gay marriage but can’t say so because of the political climate. Bullshit. He has said he is not and that is where the truth lies.

And I get the inclusion thing. Look, Barack wants to work with all people. He wants to bring us together. Why, just take a look at these inclusive words.

Oops, my bad. He was talking about Reverend Wright. Sorry, I get confused when figuring out which religious guy is bad and which is good. Comparing gays to pedophiles is not using “words that degrade individuals” and obviously has a “place in our public dialogue.”

Obviously, he is a horrible man. Rick Warren, on the other hand, is fine. All he does is stuff like urge the assassination of foreign leaders and compare gay marriage to incest. No wait, this speech was given during the election, so it doesn't count, right? That was only for political reasons, but now he's being himself. Is that it?

Obama has picked someone George W. Bush would have picked. This is no different; this is not change in any way shape or form. There are a shitload of pastors who make respectful, civil arguments against gay marriage and abortion and a litany of other fucked up views. I disagree with them, but at least their opinions are not disgusting. Obama didn’t go that way. He went with a guy who couldn’t be more of a hateful fuck when it comes to gays. He picked a guy, who up until yesterday had a web page up that said gays were not welcome at his church. That’s how we disagree without being disagreeable Ñ by finding the guy who uses the most disagreeable language possible. A guy whose views are simply heinous.

But, yeah, America needs this kind of asshole to feel like he is a part of things because guys like him have been feeling so powerless for so long. Oh, woes the mega church pastor. Gay people, on the other hand, have been experiencing WAY too much inclusion and power for too long. Oh, wait; Obama let them have a marching band at the inauguration. Guys like Warren used the exact same type of language when they made arguments against interracial marriage and they didn’t stop because they were included. They stopped because they were shamed, as God intended.

Obama’s “inclusiveness” is no different than the Congressional Democrats “compromises.” It is never to the left, only to the right. I had a very tiny bit of hope that Obama would be a better president than Clinton, but that hope is dying as I watch his administration take shape and the choices he makes. I'm not surprised, given Obama's FISA vote, which was an ugly indicator of things to come. Clinton courted the right on matters of business and America paid the price with deregulation and cuts to social services. Now Obama looks to pick up the torch, but with one difference, he’s going to court the right on social issues.

And that is where the danger lies. Because by including these bigots from the right in this government, you are leaving out a large group of people. The religious fanatics do not do inclusion. They do exclusion.

Obama is courting “Non-negotiable” Warren. There are those you work with to get things done and those you don’t. These are the people you don’t, unless of course, you have an entirely different agenda. Maybe you just want to stay in power, so giving in to the evangelicals makes sense. Maybe next time around Obama can have Pat Robertson give the invocation.

And make no mistake about it; this is a very important honor. This ups Warren’s profile and nudges him towards becoming America’s new spiritual leader. Many have made an argument that some evangelicals do not like Warren because he invited Obama into his church. No, shit, dumbfuck. Obama’s not trying to peel off the very right evangelicals, he’s going for the young ones who follow Warren. And in doing so, he is tossing gay Americans off the boat. It is a shockingly divisive move.

This is another sign of the end for liberals having any sort of say in this government. This is marginalization. It’s been going on for some time, especially with our current Congress, but now Democrats have an Obama to go along with their Reid and Pelosi party. The religious right took over the Republican Party and now they have their sights on the Democratic Party and Obama is going to open the door wide.


FearTheReaper is a writer, actor and stand up comedian. Check back each Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday for more from FearTheReaper and read his blog, Stop All Monsters.

Obama has made the following things part of his platform, and/or has supported them from time to time:
-Repealing DADT
-Repealing DOMA
-A national civil unions law
That's the most aggressive and inclusive gay rights policy in our nation's history, even as thin as it is.

Now, I'm disappointed in Warren's inclusion as well and my foremost reservation about Obama has always been his namby-pamby stance on gay marriage. It's silly and a cop out and he should know better. However, I'm going to wait until I see him fail to live up to those stated policy goals before I say that he is "tossing gay Americans off the boat." Those are the things that are important to me, not some token speaking slot at a party.

And again, you say it better than I ever would.

What Subrosa said.

Oh, and since I'm in a nit-picky mood:

"Homophones" are words that sound alike.

"Homophobes" are assholes.

Wow, that's more ambitious than I thought.

As for Warren, I think it's somewhat unfortunate, but perfectly understandable. Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with policy needs their head examined.

Or, y'know, is a fascist.

So what you're all trying to say is Obama invited Warren so the Religious Right doesn't get suspicious? The Religious Right doesn't trust him at all.

No. For now I take Obama at his word that he is trying to be "post-partisan" or whatever. I think it's reasonable for us to take him at that word, though I understand the folks who don't.

Whether Obama's gesture here will be effective in "building bridges" is clearly a matter for debate and I am skeptical about that myself, but I don't think we have to look at this through our most cynical lenses. It's an inauguration, not an administration platform. If he's EVER going to be "inclusive" and try to reach out in symbolic ways to the other side, January 20th is absolutely positively the time to do it. Nothing done on that day will have any effect on law or policy whatsoever. If Rick Warren has truck with this Administration on gay rights on January 21st, that's when we should begin sharpening our pitchforks.

Speaking of inclusive gestures of unity that may mean absolutely nothing when it comes to policy but are sure going to annoy some Obama supporters if not the folks on the religious right, this is the same inauguration that'll feature an openly LGBT marching band in the Inauguration Parade.

Some interesting commentary from Andrew Sullivan:

Sullivan, for those who don't know, is a gay Catholic.

That's wonderful, to be sure, but I doubt they'll receive much airtime.

I know there's not much you can say about a marching band, besides where they're from, but what I mean is that footage of them might not be included on the live-broadcast, so, effectively, it's like they weren't there at all.

Rick Warren, on the other hand, gets to be in front of all the cameras, which irks me. Of course, I do look forward to the news the next day, when Rick Warren is scolded by the Right-Wing Bloggers and Talking heads for not taking the opportunity to tell the "Demoncrats" they're all going to hell, so there's a silver-lining after all.

Anyway, I expect very little of Obama's administration, if he can so much as halt the collapse of the country, I'll consider it Herculean and praise him for that.

Once again, I agree. Damn those of you who are better at wording, and know certain issues, better than myself!

It's worth reading what Melissa Etheridge has to say about Warren.

Relax, everybody. The man hasn't even taken the oath yet. He'll have plenty of time to prove that he's just a politician and not the answer everyone is looking for...

That makes me feel all warm and squishy inside. (Sniff, brushes an imaginary tear away from an imaginary cheek...)

i think Rick Warren was actually a really good choice. that's not to say i like Warren for his stance on homosexuality; i disagree with him strongly in that regard. but Warren is an intelligent, compassionate man who has built a ministry based on intelligence and compassion. he made one minor misstep that's become a soundbite--which, as i recall, is the same bullshit we were all happy to see Obama brushing off his shoulders.

and Warren has huge, huge appeal to the conservatives--who are, and will remain, a powerful force i the US, whether you (or i) like it or not.

i really don't understand why everyone is so shocked about the people Obama is choosing to help him with the presidency, from the invocator at his inauguration to his cabinet picks. far-left liberals got this idea, somewhere, that Obama was basically going to kick all the conservatives--fiscal and social--into the ocean as soon as he got into office. Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do: working with everyone to fix the problems.

I couldn't be a bigger supporter of Barack, and yes, everything Subrosa brilliantly said.

But it's crazytalk to think Rick Warren has had one bad soundbite. He has made homophobic remarks repeatedly, and then some.

Nevertheless, I have to confess to wanting to dream that BO chose this guy in an attempt to woo and court him, seducing him with a more liberal view, and eventually count him as an ally in the struggle to cement civil rights for the gay community.

As Melissa said

i would say that there's a difference between homophobia and believing that homosexuality is wrong. i think both stances are small-minded, but you can work with someone who simply believes homosexuality is wrong. Rick Warren believes homosexuality is wrong. i wouldn't call him homophobic.

Yeah, there is already a SH1TSTORM of drama over a move that my man Barack has made concerning the ceremony to induct him into the Presidential fold. Symbolically, this should be viewed simply as inclusion of a figurehead who represents a large following of Americans whom did not likely vote Obama/Biden last month.

Given FTR's recent columns (many of which I greeted with thunderous applause!) I can understand his disgust with Rick Warren's selection. Myself, I think the man is about as Christian as matza ball soup. Sodom & Gomorrah were only smoten (smited?) because they appeared corrupt in MANY ways, not just gay dudes "getting it on."

Let homosexuals/bisexuals/homosexuals/just experimenting in college handle their business. It isn't any of our affair! The distasteful part of Obama & his administration being bipartisan is that they have to deal with people we ideologically find fault with. We disagree! Big whoop! It wouldn't be worth a fart in a hurricane if he was reaching out to people who were pretty much in our corner to begin with.

Wait... he descended into a lair of homosexual activity? That bastard.

Definitely an interesting read. Seems Warren is actually human after all.

I can't really fathom why anyone would have expected him to kick conservatives to the curb, considering his message was always that he was going to be compromising and bipartisan (maybe lingering memories of Bush, who said some of those things and then promptly disavowed the entire left of the country?). Can't deny that I think he *should*, though. They've had their chance. They fucked our country to the brink of collapse. And they've never been big on compromise or bipartisanship, which I suspect means that Obama's going to be doing all the compromising. It's a big part of why I was never his biggest fan (though he was and is probably our best choice of the available.).

the problem is, democracy doesn't work like that. when a large group of people's ideas don't work, you can't just kick them out. you can vote a lot of their representatives out, but those people are still going to be there voting their own people back in. catering solely to the far left will accomplish nothing, because you'll just end up re-energizing the far right.

you don't move a heavy weight by slamming into it--you'll just hurt yourself. you push slowly and steadily, without stopping, until you get where you want to go.

Well, but compromise doesn't work when one side's doing all the compromising. And that's the history of Democrats working with Republicans.

I don't like it, but I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. He's earned it.

very true, but it's also fair to say that Democrats haven't been able to put together a cohesive agenda on which to make compromises, whereas the Republicans--up until recently--have been very unified. it's hard to characterize bipartisanship in the US as one party working with another. it's more like one party working with ten other parties, each cutting their own deals and getting much less in return than they would if they combined their strengths.

i think Obama will be able to--heck, has been able to--largely unify the left side of the aisle. that will provide the left with a much stronger position from which to force real compromise from the right.

Washington Post.