Oh noes, Obama associates with people he disagrees with on some issues...

[usregimechange]

The Left's version of the Right's guilt by association game.

[mondo joe]

1. You've confused "associates with" and "selects for a historic honor". NT

[DevonRex]

2. Name who gave the last 5 inaugural invocations.

[Solon]

7. How many of them were controversial?

You know, like helping to strip rights from GLBT people in one of the largest states in the country almost two months ago now, you know, shit like that?

[glowing]

11. Its more controversial.. because not so long ago, black and white

couldn't sit together, go to school together, marry one another.. and now we have a black man in the White House.. Overcoming adversity, prejudice, hatred.. only to prop up another hatred and division..

[SeattleGirl]

15. Franklin Graham gave the invocation in 2001.

I don't think he's such a fan of the GLBT community.

[Solon]

21. And if Al Gore was the one who was having the Inauguration, that would have been controversial.

Your point?

[SeattleGirl]

24. My point was to give one example to your question about how many

of the previous people giving the inaugural invocation were controversial. Nothing more, nothing less.

[usregimechange]

8. They were soooo important no one can remember them

[DevonRex]

17. I was just thinking that the invocator, being so historic and all, he maybe

would have known who a few of them were. Maybe I asked for the names of too many. So how about the last 3?

[mondo joe]

25. If he doesn't matter, why choose someone so controversial? The reason: It sends a

message.

The message matters.

[DevonRex]

30. Honestly, I think that the message wasn't to the GLBT community at all.

I think it's to all those people who bought that idiot Warren's books. Many people have no idea what Warren did regarding Prop 8. And many of his books say nothing about his views on gay marriage. But they do like what they "think" is his message about God and how to live a "Christian" life. Hell, he was even on Oprah.

I have to tell you that I'm not happy with Warren because I'm pro civil rights for GLBTs. And I'm really not happy that it has hurt so many DUers. And I'm one of those who disagrees with him on matters of spirituality, too. In fact, I pretty much can't think of anything I DO agree with him on.

What upsets me, too, is how many times I've seen people call other DUers homophobes and other nasty words. I'm sure we have a few. But surely we can refrain from using that language with each other here, to posters we've known for a long time, who have never done or said anything to indicate they hate GLBTs.

[mondo joe]

33. Of course not. It was a message to the bigots.

That's the problem.

[usregimechange]

41. You can not change bigotry by cussing at it

[mondo joe]

42. Apparently you change it by giving it a place of honor in a national forum.

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

10. Dance, stranger, dance!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

14. Billy and Franklin Graham.

Not sure who else (if anyone beyond those two).

[DevonRex]

18. Yeah. They're not so good on GLBT issues are they?

[mondo joe]

26. The presidents who chose them didn't describe themselves as "fierce advocates"

for gay and lesbian people, did they?

[DevonRex]

31. I think Bill Clinton would describe himself as being for civil rights for GLBTs.

[mondo joe]

32. Again, did he describe himself as a "fierce advocate"?

Hm?

[Solon]

3. He's also confusing"people he disagrees with on some issues..." with bigots. n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

4. ...

[usregimechange]

6. I think it is symbolic of his willingness to work with people he disagrees with

[mondo joe]

9. When he chooses a KKK member for a special honor I'll take that seriously.

Thanks.

[polichick]

19. Exactly.

[EFerrari]

5. It's pretty easy to "associate" with something that doesn't affect you, isn't it?

:)

[usregimechange]

37. In the long term it may have a greater effect on the change we are wanting than

calling them bigots.

[EFerrari]

40. Really? Is there a history of authoritarians giving ground to peacemakers?

Well, no, there isn't.

[Phx_Dem]

12. He's so intolerant. n/t

[depakid]

13. More like legitimizes creationists, mysogynists and homophobes

and enables their whack fundamentalist agendas at time when the nation desperately needs to return to reason.

[Critters2]

16. I assume you can get married. nt

[peacebird]

20. When will Obama select a progressive liberal & tell the right that they need to bend a little LEFT?

It seems many picks are showing his broad coalition, but so far it is the LEFT told to lean RIGHT. When will he pick a LEFTIE and tell the right that THEY need to be accomadating and lean towards the left (middle)?

[cosmicone]

22. I think Obama is very clever.

By including the partial bigots in, he blunts their opposition by disarming them when he later makes liberal policy changes. Wait and watch.

[nuncvendetta]

23. the real question is...

with picks like Salazar, Holder, and Clinton, the real question is whether Obama ever associates with people he agrees with!

[nichomachus]

27. Stupid post

Really really stupid

No one is saying Obama can't meet with this guy, consult with this guy, or anything.

But making him the lead pitch man for the inaugural is a slap in the face to the gay community. I don't know anyone who would object to him sitting down with Warren to iron out their issues, but as you've probably noticed, a lot of people are very very hurt by this.

It's not "guilt by association." That's just stupid. So stop trying to belittle people who are hurt and feel betrayed.

[usregimechange]

39. I believe he will appoint the Supreme Court that will ensure the freedom to marry for everyone and

that is what is truly important.

[rhett o rick]

28. There are a lot of better choices, so why did he agree with this choice. In your eyes it is nothing

but it means a lot to a lot. you should at least respect those that are offended. Obama must have known that he would be hurting some of his hard working followers. So why did he allow this choice? That's the question.

[wryter2000]

29. This reminds me of what my officemate said about the shoe thrower in Iraq

"Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you should throw a shoe at him."

This isn't a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of civil rights. I don't suppose this means Warren's bigotted ideas will have any effect on Obama's policies. (Lord, I hope not!) But, you wouldn't invite a racist to deliver a speech. Why would you invite a homophobe?

[skepticscott]

35. Exactly

Trying to justify this by saying that Obama can't be expected to agree with everyone on every issue and that gay rights is an issue where Obama and Warren simply happen to disagree only makes sense if there are legitimate differences of opinion on the issue. And what, Mr. Obama, are those differences and what makes them legitimate?

[mondo joe]

36. He could have found a pastor who doesn't compare gays to child molesters.

I agree with you.

[Lex]

34. "Obama's Inaugural Mistake"

It is difficult to comprehend how our president-elect, who has been so spot on in nearly every political move and gesture, could fail to grasp the symbolism of inviting an anti-gay theologian to deliver his inaugural invocation. And the Obama campaign's response to the anger about this decision? Hey, we're also bringing a gay marching band. You know how the gays love a parade.

Yes, the Rev. Rick Warren, pastor of the humongous, evangelical Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., has a sound message on poverty. And certainly, in the world of politics, there is a view that Barack Obama owes Warren for bringing him before fellow evangelicals, despite fierce opposition during the heat of the presidential campaign.

But here's the other thing about Warren, the author of the bestselling book "The Purpose Driven Life": He was a general in the campaign to pass California's Proposition 8, which dissolved the legal marriage rights of loving, committed same-sex couples.

For that reason, inviting Warren to set the tone at the dawn of this new presidency sends a chilling message to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. It makes us uncertain about this exciting, young president-elect who has said repeatedly that we are part of his America, too.

We understand that the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a civil rights icon and a dear friend of LGBT Americans, will close the inauguration ceremony. But would any inaugural committee say to Jewish Americans, "We're opening with an anti-Semite but closing the program with a rabbi, so don't worry"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121802788_pf.html

[usregimechange]

38. Now if he appoints him as to the SCOTUS, all hell will break loose and I will help