Yes, we can.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

It's not about respecting viewpoints with those personalities. It's about no longer telling the American people that these blowhards should be looked up to.

I think the best way to turn people off from these "blowhards" is to let them be heard loud and clear, otherwise their followers simply see them as martyrs. But when you give someone like Bill O'Reilly a national audience, his popularity eventually fades and he soon wakes to find himself a laughingstock that fewer and fewer people agree with. People have to come to that decision on their own though. Trying to silence them actually has the reverse effect.

And I don't think that Obama is saying that you should look up to this man. He has made it clear that he disagrees with many of this pastor's viewpoints. I think he is simply saying "I'm going to give someone I disagree with the opportunity to be seen." And considering that millions of people already look up to this guy, I hardly think that this prayer is going to make much difference.

And hey, there is always that small chance that this guy will decide to make a political statement while doing this and say something really stupid. That might actually change some minds as to whether he should be looked up to or not. I've always felt that the best thing one can do is let these people keep talking and talking and eventually, given enough rope, they will hang themselves by saying something that nobody agrees with.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

The more I think about it, it's not really a bad move. By inviting him to speak, Obama can get RWs followers across the country to think Obama won't be so bad, because after all, Obama invited RW to speak at his inauguration then they may be more likely to accept Obama and the decisions he is going to make setting him up for a more effective Presidency. It may help remove the "Democratic party = anti-god and anti-country" stigma that was so well perpetrated by the last Administration.

We tend to forget that we live in, and are surrounded by a mostly politically liberal population. The rest of the country isn't so progressive. It's "that rest of the country" that needs to be eased into a more liberal administration after having 8 years of their god-law President. It would not be effective for Obama to go "ok, I personally think gay marriage is wrong but I want the Supreme Court to find a way to add gay marriage is to be allowed in all 50 states to the Constitution" right away. That would just piss off his opposes and those looking at him to fall on his face.

It's sad that starting out of the gate he's made such a poor choice in the eyes of us, but much like selecting Hillary as the SoS, this may be a politically savvy move.

Exactly my point. Well said.

[Ghoulish Delight]

To me, all it does is legitimize him. "See, even your precious Obama is willing to give his views serious consideration."

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

To me, all it does is legitimize him. "See, even your precious Obama is willing to give his views serious consideration."

He was already legitimized by the millions that follow him. I have yet to see where Obama has given any of his specific views serious consideration though. True, it is a show of respect for the man's influence, but I certainly don't think Obama is going to change his mind about abortion and gay rights as a result.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

But when you give someone like Bill O'Reilly a national audience, his popularity eventually fades and he soon wakes to find himself a laughingstock that fewer and fewer people agree with.

I don't think I've seen much evidence of this. Can you provide examples? Bill O'Reilly certainly hasn't faded significantly.

People have to come to that decision on their own though. Trying to silence them actually has the reverse effect.

Not giving Warren the opportunity to lead the nation in prayer is not silencing him.

And I don't think that Obama is saying that you should look up to this man. He has made it clear that he disagrees with many of this pastor's viewpoints. I think he is simply saying "I'm going to give someone I disagree with the opportunity to be seen."

Would you agree that there are ideas sufficiently repugnant that they should not be given even token acknowledgment? Without directly comparing being opposed to gay marriage, if Warren were a preacher who was surprisingly progressive on many issues but had campaigned in support of limiting civil rights of Jews and Muslims because those faiths are sins according to his interpretation of the bible, would your view still be that this is relatively unimportant and it ok to hold up that person before a national audience in a task of some honor? Does it matter if that man holds the opinion himself with little public support (a congregation of 100) or does it become more acceptable as more people (a congregation of 2 million and a popular video series) buy into it?

I ask just to establish if you agree there is a line, in which case we're just arguing over where it is. Or whether are arguing about the existence of the line in the first place.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex

I don't think I've seen much evidence of this. Can you provide examples? Bill O'Reilly certainly hasn't faded significantly.

Bill is successfully contained at Fox, the only network that would ever give him a pulpit, and their ratings overall do not seem to be holding their ground against their competitors.

“But the back-and-forth these last few months masks a more ominous trend for Fox News, particularly as its gears up to cover the general election campaign. The most dominant cable news channel for nearly a decade and a political force in its own right, Fox has seen its once formidable advantage over CNN erode in this presidential election year, as both CNN and MSNBC have added viewers at far more dramatic rates.”

For example: “In the first five-and-a-half months of 2004, the last presidential election year, Fox’s prime-time audience among viewers aged 25 to 54 was more than double that of CNN’s — 530,000 to 248,000, according to estimates from Nielsen Media Research. This year, through mid-June, CNN erased the gap and drew nearly as many viewers in that demographic category as Fox — about 420,000 for CNN to 440,000 for Fox.”

As far as your other questions, I'm going to need to ponder them a bit before I respond.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Bill is successfully contained at Fox, the only network that would ever give him a pulpit, and their ratings overall do not seem to be holding their ground against their competitors.

Yes, but then, you don't see MSNBC inviting him over to record promo spots for them.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex

Not giving Warren the opportunity to lead the nation in prayer is not silencing him.

I can respond to this though.

I don't believe that I ever said that not choosing Warren to give this invocation would be akin to silencing him. He is clearly not being silenced as can be seen by the millions of people that follow him, whether he appears at the invocation or not.

But for many Americans, they are fearful that their voices will be silenced by an Obama administration and I think this gesture acts to diminish those fears. And again, my point is simply that allowing someone to voice their opinion is not the same thing as agreeing with that opinion.

[Alex]

You're comparing CNN to Fox ratings not O'Reilly's against himself. For a while Olbermann was competing with O'Reilly in ratings but since the election it has gone back to what it was before: O'Reilly is the top rated political show on cable TV.


You say he is safely contained. That may be, but that is all he ever was. There is no evidence that he has lost any significant audience due to people who liked him suddenly realizing he is an oaf. Sure, there may be a more vocal larger group of people who think he is an oaf but they aren't converts to that position.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Yes, but then, you don't see MSNBC inviting him over to record promo spots for them.

True, but I have seen Letterman invite him on his show numerous times. And each time, Bill looks like an idiot in front of millions of people. I can only hope that Letterman continues to do so. That's what I mean about letting people like this speak frequently. It may take more time than I originally implied, but eventually people start to see these people for who they are. O'Reilly is always going to have his rabid supporters, but I think mainstream America is starting to see him for who he really is.