I'm surprised Bush didn't make it onto the list this week.
I'm not surprised by Obama's decision.
And there's a discussion of the Campbell famliy here.

I'm worried about Warren too. Given his views, I wouldn't put it past him to intentionally sabotage the invocation by replacing the part about asking God for peace and prosperity with a demand that he smite all the homosexuals in the audience. Afterwards, his buddy God will turn Obama into a pillar of salt and flood the world for forty days and forty nights, just because he hates parties.

Or perhaps the invocation is a meaningless ceremony that affords no real power, divine or otherwise. Perhaps Warren was given the chance to deliver it simply to show that the conservative voice will not be completely shut out of White House during an Obama administration, especially when figures such as Warren can be counted on to lend their support to causes such as the fight against AIDs.

But hey, maybe snubbing dudes who disagree with you is just more important than working together to further shared charitable causes. Just remember that for every liberal whining about Warren appearing at the inauguration, there's a conservative doing the same damn thing.

Course, if you'd read those articles first, you'd probably be ragging on the far right about their own willingness to place their values above working towards a common good. Instead you're agreeing with them from a different angle, and that's just as bad.

There's a difference between disagreement and being wrong.
Rick Warren is wrong.

Giving Rick Warren the invocation isn't an endorsement of his homophobic views. This was made very clear again and again.

Are you saying that it isn't enough to denounce that? That everyone who dislikes homosexuals shouldn't be allowed near the White House, even if their presence is strictly ceremonial and promises to have no effect on anything at all? That we should snub them all, even if that threatens to make them less likely to support us when we need their support?

If so, then congratulation on being on the right side of social issues, but on the wrong side of how to conduct yourself in a position of power.

Listening to what religious people have to say in any capacity has run this country into the ground.

So yes, I don't want any preachers around the White House. Nor any homophobes. I'm sure there are intelligent policy-makers around who don't hold such shit-headed views.

And don't condescend to me. I am aware that politics are about compromise, the same sort of compromise the GOP hoped to establish with a "Permanent Majority". Fuck 'em, the shoe's on the other foot now, I don't expect Obama to turn this country into some kind of Utopia -I don't know what's good for everyone- but having conservatives around will only impede him.

(Edited to change "People" to "Policy-Makers")

Eh, whatever.

Excuse me?

The Conservatives have to be shut out, just to put the country on an even keel.

I was a young republican when I was younger, I understood the opposing views so well I had to vote Kerry in 2004.

On one side we extreme liberalism that wishes anarchy to extreme conservatism that leads to repression such as in Iraq and Iran. So ones beliefs can be wrong on both sides of the issues. If one is religious does not make there moral code wrong nor just because one choses not to believe in a god make them good people. At the same time just because one professes a belief in god behaves in a moral manner. So the trick is then to live in the midddle area somewhere that, one does not like amoral behavior yet does not hate the persons that practice it.For example there are many that feel abortions are wrong yet feel it it is just as morally wrong to bomb a clinic and kill people over the issue. Or some one that destroys logging equipment because they believe logging should stop is also morally wrong.

Memo to Barak : You won the fucking election . My are you kissing maniac holy rolling ass ?

...tha fuck?

No child left behind, anyone?

I don't think that this is very logical thinking.

But this is a good point too.

Overall I'm a big fan of compromise, but it's a slippery slope. This guy's too nuts for me.

Great American Insurance has done some shitty things like this in the past... I need to do a little searching, but they are repeat offenders.

Barack Obama is going to be EVERYONE's president come Jan. 20th, not just the people who voted for him.

I know. I KNOW; you are even now screaming into the hoary frost outside: "He is a progressive Democrat! He should be as far away from Rick Warren as possible!!"

He is not asking permission to attend Saddleback Church. He is not asking Rick Warren to be his personal spiritual advisor. He is asking him LITERALLY to give a ceremonial blessing at the intro to his term in service. Given the preacher he had in the past, he could have done far worse. This is a symbolic gesture to those he couldn't reach during election to show that his is INDEED going to listen to the leaders on their side. He wants an "official" blessing to act in the interest of liberals & conservatives, so he is going to get his prayer on via a conservative preachers.

Would I have chosen Rev. Warren? More than likely not. Can I respect a "unifier" for actually taking flak by crossing the aisle? HELL YES.

This is what John McCain claimed he could/would do. We need to come together, America, not split apart. To those opposed to this selection on both sides, at least unite in your displeasure! "The enemy of my enemy IS my friend....."

I don't think having the man speak in front of the largest inauguration crowd ever is a terribly strong denouncement.

There's a difference between inviting someone to the White House and speaking at an event seen by millions.

You think anybody on the right would have noticed had Obama picked a pastor who just didn't have much to say on the issue?