Yes, we can.

[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]

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 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.

Tell you what then, let me completely recant my argument about Bill O'Reilly as being poorly thought out, because quite frankly, that isn't what I came here to debate.

[Strangler Lewis]

On the other hand . . . maybe as a practical matter, it would be a good thing if we returned to the Billy Graham "pastor-to-the-president" model where it was enough for the evangelical community to feel that they had the president's ear. I'm not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle, though.

[Strangler Lewis]

It's hard not to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room. However, if you look at the history of civil rights in this country, I don't know how much progress was made via respectful dialogue with the man on the street. We had the Civil War. We had Truman deciding to integrate the armed forces. We had the litigation that culminated in Brown. We had Kennedy and Johnson who made it their business to cram the Civil Rights Act down the throat of half the country. We had schools that integrated with the aid of the National Guard. We had civil disobedience in the south, and riots in the north.

Eventually, much as Archie Bunker did when the Jeffersons moved next door, people learned that mixing with black people and treating them equally was okay. I heard a similar piece on NPR recently about a small town coping with the influx of immigrants. Hostility initially, then everybody's cheering for their kids' soccer teams. I agree that change is coming, but it will come from exposure as people know more gay people and see more positive images of gay families to balance out the images of Folsom Street that weird them out. But, now, just hearing people out on theoretical issues isn't going to do anything than give people the pleasure of hearing themselves talk and dig in their heels.

[Alex]

They became laughingstocks among those who already disagreed with them, I don't dispute that.

I would strongly contest that either became impotent within the power circle they had. And how they were viewed in larger circles did little to change that. So that is what I am contesting, that by granting visibility and an airing of views this will somehow lead those who already agree with Warren to potentially change their views. That is what I am asking for an example of.

Are there people who laugh at Limbaugh? Absolutely, does that number go up the more mainstream exposure he has? Absolutely. Does that increase in a number represent a diminishment of him? Absolutely not.

[Tenigma]

Hmm...

I'm caught up with this discussion. I know I'm in the complete minority here, but I APPLAUD Obama for doing what he did. He knows exactly what the hell he's doing. He's a shrewd politician.

He spends two years campaigning on the importance of a UNITED States of America, and the first time he reaches out to a demon, you guys are all immediately all jumping all over him.

I say you're all wrong.

OK, I agree, it's OK to be upset. It's OK not to like Warren. It's OK to feel disgusted that he's going to give the invocation.

But in my opinion, Obama did NOT make a mistake. Period.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It's funny how everyone wants a big inclusive tent until there's something that's offensive to them, then it's no longer something that can be discussed in a raitonal manner. This goes for all extremes of the political spectrum.

Exactly. What do you think Obama meant when he said "there isn't a red America or a blue America"? He didn't say "The people who have been ignored for the past 8 years under the Bush administration want to be acknowledged that we exist, too! Include us in the dialog!" Did he say that? No. He said EVERYBODY TOGETHER. That includes progressives acknowledging that conservatives have just as much a right to sit at the adults' table.

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

1) He was not paying enough attention to the Prop 8 reaction to realize the impact of his selection of Rick Warren.
2) He knew full well what the impact would be and decided, "Eh, those whiners aren't important enough."
3) Conscious of the unsurprising drop in momentum after the initial surge of protests, Obama wanted something the movement could rally around and get energized again, so he selected Warren knowing it would piss people off and get them to the streets again.

Or how about a Harvey Milk-like option #4: He invited Warren knowing that Warren has a HUGE following ("I'm your President, too"), as a way to start rebuilding the bridge towards learning about the "other side," humanizing people again, helping people on the opposite ends of the spectrum to see that perhaps the other side ain't quite so evil.

Listen, Prop 8 passed. Telling other liberal people to support gay marriage until you're blue in the face isn't going to help. You need to convince the people who voted YES to CHANGE THEIR FRICKEN MINDS. If you dig in your heels and refuse to even be a part of the ballgame, how can you expect to win?!?

Originally Posted by JWBear

Rick Warren isn't merely someone with an "opposing viewpoint"; he is someone who has actively fought against the rights of gays and lesbians.

YES -- and maybe that was his plan all along! On purpose!

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

True, and he is also someone who has enormous influence on many people.

Ding ding ding. "That Obama guy is socialist and he scares he. He wants to keep abortion legal... why did my beloved Warren accept the invitation? What is it that made him say yes? Maybe Warren knows something we don't. Maybe this Obama man isn't quite so bad about everything after all. Maybe I won't oppose everything he wants to pass."

Anyway, I don't care if you think I'm wrong. I think Obama continues to impress me with this shrewdness.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Tenigma

Anyway, I don't care if you think I'm wrong. I think Obama continues to impress me with this shrewdness.

Then I won't bother having a discussion with you on this discussion board.