Barack Obama and I Now Have Something in Common . . .
We’ve both been Atrios’s Wanker of the Day.
(Atrios is mad at Obama over the whole Rick Warren thing.)
I have two questions for the Obama people who are shocked by the fact that Obama has picked Prop-8-supporting minister Rick Warren to do the inaugural invocation:
1) When Obama said he opposed gay marriage, did you believe him?
2) When Obama sat and listened to a bigoted preacher for 20 years, and then said he didn’t subscribe to any of the preacher’s hate-filled ideas, did you believe him?
Man, I opposse gay marriage.. its the one thing all religons agree on. It don’t matter if muslim, jewish or christian or even hindu etc… gay is a no no… foribidden. why… people ask? it destroys families and community and spread disease. you may say hetrosexuals sleeping around does the same thing. we contend that is wrong as well. its a moral issue not political.
Mike (c998ef) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:11 amWhen Obama said in his acceptance speech, “[O]ne of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and patriotism,” did you believe him?
aunursa (e9b1f7) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:58 amOne thing you don’t have in common with Obama, Patterico; you support gay marriage and he doesn’t. The liberal has become conservative than a conservative. Shocka!
love2008 (1b037c) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:01 am#4 question to the shocked Obama supporters: 52% of California voters* supported Proposition 8. Do you actually think you can marginalize a majority of your fellow citizens?
* Support is undoubtably higher throughout the rest of the country. In some areas — much higher.
aunursa (e9b1f7) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:18 amGood. Now no one will say Obama has not taken positions contrary to the wishes of his base. Who’s the maverick now?….
love2008 (1b037c) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:29 amOur esteemed host asked of the supporters of Barack Hussein Obama:
No, of course they didn’t. We sensible conservatives were very much afraid that Senator Obama was lying about his beliefs, ideas and policies on the campaign trail, to obscure a radical left agenda in order to get more votes. Our friends on the left hoped that Senator Obama was lying about his beliefs, ideas and policies on the campaign trail, to obscure a radical left agenda in order to get more votes.
Now, when it seems like maybe, just maybe, Mr Obama was completely lying through his scummy teeth, conservatives are (somewhat) relieved, whilst our friends on the left are wailing and gnashing their teeth.
The hopeful Dana (3e4784) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:30 amerr, wasn’t completely lying through his scummy teeth
The dyslexic Dana (3e4784) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:31 amNow no one will say Obama has not taken positions contrary to the wishes of his base. Who’s the maverick now?….
He hasn’t changed his political positions. He merely invited a mainstream pastor and leader to give the invocation. You consider that sufficient to make one mavericky??? You set the bar extremely low.
aunursa (e9b1f7) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:34 amWell that decision has sparked a fire of condemnation from his left-wing supporters. It also says a lot about what he trully believes. He has also made it clear that he does not support gay marriage. A position I think endears him to the conservative bloc. But what do you think, aunursa, is this not a sign of things to come?
love2008 (1b037c) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:52 amHe did the same thing that President Clinton did with the DADT policy. Why expend political capital on a constituency that has no other party to join?
Mossberg500 (9fd170) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:22 amAs to the two questions above: no, and no.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:22 amHe has also made it clear that he does not support gay marriage. A position I think endears him to the conservative bloc.
While Obama claims to oppose same-sex marriage, and he claims that it should be left up to the states, he opposed Proposition 8. That position cannot be reconciled with the other two claims. He is trying to straddle the fence.
Now if he had supported Proposition 8, a substantive policy difference with his base mirroring McCain’s positions on immigration and campaign finance reform contrary to the conservative base, that would have been mavericky.
aunursa (e9b1f7) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:23 amHe has not taken a position, or done anything, lovie. He asked a pretty damn popular preacher to give a prayer.
Good Allah. That requires little to no effort, as outrage is their baseline emotion.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:29 amIt also says a lot about what he trully believes.
Actually that’s nonsense. Having a pastor deliver an invocation in no way suggests that you agree with every one of his state political (or religious) positions.
aunursa (e9b1f7) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:30 amBTW, what is this “wanker of the day”? And how can I get so named?
aunursa (e9b1f7) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:32 amWanker of the Day, given by that douchebag Atrios, should be worn as a badge of honor.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:01 amOf course not. They were blinded by The Hope, and made deaf by The Change.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:06 amThis really is not a fair question. Baracky has positions all over the spectrum, just enough that people are going to be able to see their own view reflected in the nonsense that pours forth from his pie-hole.
Isn’t Baracky Teh One that said his religion informs his views on this topic? SHOCKA. Rev. Hatey is no supporter of same sex marriage.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:10 amHardly.
I don’t exactly agree with Prop 8 (The more I think about it, the more I would only have voted yes to annoy the screeching portion of Prop 8 oponents), but I do agree it is a States Rights Issue, and should be left up to the states…
I frankly don’t see a single problem with Obama’s profession that Prop 8 is a state matter, and yet not supporting Prop 8. This assumes his WORDS match his actual beliefs, which is not a given.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:10 amWhen will we hear the wailing, see the gnashing of teeth, the rendering of garments, and the cries of NEO-THEOCRACY !!!!eleventy
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:11 amAnd it assumes that there is a philosophy behind his beliefs, and it assumes the existence of a belief system.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:12 amThis is also true…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:26 amComment by JD — 12/19/2008 @ 5:29 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:37 amBut tell me, JD. Aren’t you a little relieved that Obama is not going to be as liberal as was projected? Don’t you think that maybe he ain’t that bad?
lovie – He has done nothing liberal or conservative. He asked (gasp) a preacher to give a prayer.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:58 amComment by JD — 12/19/2008 @ 6:58 am
So what’s your take, will he do well or is he showing signs of failure?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:08 amYes.
Take Blago, for example. The truth would have likely perfectly acquited Baracky, yet his initial reaction, and subsequent comments were dishonest, and have since done nothing but objuscate and spin. It is his nature, and of those he surrounded himself with, and is what we should expect for the next 4 years.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:15 amWhat would you do? Knowing how complicated this things could get, shouldn’t the first thing to do be damage control? What would you do,JD?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:34 amI would tell the truth. It really is that simple. I would say that of course we had been in contact with Gov. Blagojevich about filling the Senate seat that he was vacating. The mere idea that Baracky or his people did not have any contact about his own Senate seat being filled by his former political ally is laughable. I would have never sent out Axelrod to freakin’ lie about how they had not met shortly after the election, in an attempt to re-write even the contemporaneous news coverage. The truth would have served him quite nicely.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:38 amDamage Control…
Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:38 amAh, there’s the ghost of Dick Nixon when we need him.
“Knowing how complicated this things could get, shouldn’t the first thing to do be damage control?”
Telling the truth would be a quality start. Avoiding lines like, “I don’t want you to waste a question” in press conferences would be a good idea as well. Comes across just a tad snippy.
Jack Klompus (b0e238) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:42 amI love how afraid of the religious oogedy-boogedys the left is. Having a hissy fit over one man saying a prayer…I realize that if the pastor were of another belief system, anything, anything but evangelical, it would be entirely acceptable, but to get their panties in such a twist over this is entertaining if not pathetic.
Policy and prayer, who knew they were mututally inclusive to some people…
The She Dana (be9504) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:45 am31. No opportunity to register “outrage”, issue an “action alert”, or otherwise posture politically is ever missed. Activists’ lives are literally defined by these displays. If gay marriage were legalized in all 50 states do you think that the most foul-tempered gay activists would give out hugs and say, “thank you, America!” or start looking behind the furniture for the next source of “hate”?
Jack Klompus (b0e238) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:57 amSanctimonious lefty douchebags are some of the most insufferable people to be around. They wake up every morning looking for opportunities to wear their views on their sleeve. I have a coworker who never misses a single opportunity to blame every single thing that goes wrong on Republicans. He still to this day, as a man in his 30’s, blames “Ronald Reagan’s policies” for his difficulties in school starting in second grade. He never contemplates for a moment that maybe being a snotty know-it-all annoyed his teachers as a child as much as being a snotty political know-it-all annoys his peers.
Jack Klompus (b0e238) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:02 amIt’s ironic the anti-religious Left elected one of the most ‘religious’ candidates in recent memory, Bush’s Born-Again status notwithstanding. Bush didn’t preach religion, he’s just tried to live it, while Obama preaches religion, but makes no attempt to live it. Fear not Lefties, Obama’s still your ultra-liberal guy. But I hafta admit that this Office of President-Elect thingy must be making him exhausted. One has to wonder how he’ll handle the real job.
RickZ (06fa85) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:13 amPerfect example that Glenn Reynolds links to. Law Professors boycott hotel owned by Prop 8 supporter during a convention and proud to let everyone know they are so brave in doing so. Questioned about their stand on the inauguration since Obama is opposed to gay marriage, and now with the Warren issue…hear the crickets chirp.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2008/12/still-waiting-for-law-professors-to.html
Jack Klompus (b0e238) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:16 amComment by JD — 12/19/2008 @ 7:38 am
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:19 amI will have to agree with you there, JD. Bad reflexes can hurt in crisis. Sometimes a little honesty is all it takes. But who’s perfect?
Patterico’s kicker question is really deserving of more serious thought. That the Obama crowd considers inviting Rick Warren so objectionable, but having Jeremiah Wright as a spiritual advisor for 20 years so inconsequential, says much about this crowd, none of it good.
Karl (f07e38) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:25 amOTOH, we could also ask whether, if Rev. Wright were giving the invocation, Atrios, Avarosis & Co. would be in full-screech mode over Wright’s opposition to gay marriage.
Karl (f07e38) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:27 amBeautiful. We know the same guy.
Vermont Neighbor (de46bd) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:31 amAmen. Ooops, better be careful. Someone might think that I am promoting a theocracy.
That question is so silly so as to make it meaningless to ponder. They do not care that Baracky says his religion informs his position on this, so why would they care about Rev. Hatey?
Good to see you, Karl.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:32 amnothing but objuscate and spin.
Odds are this is a typo, but I’ll be using it as a neologism for those who obfuscate in a lawyerly manner. JD, many thanks.
Uncle Pinky (834163) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:41 amThe spit-flying outrage over some dude saying a prayer is hilarious considering how every critique of the substance of Obama’s policy proposals and judgment of character were dismissed as “smears” or “distractions”.
Jack Klompus (b0e238) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:41 amI think the Obamaniacs did not believe his campaign statements at all. It was all “wink, wink” and “nudge, nudge, he’s really one of us.” What else explains the absolute lack of interest in the disparities between his campaigning and his appointments to date?
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:12 am) When Obama said he opposed gay marriage, did you believe him?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:14 amYes.
When Obama sat and listened to a bigoted preacher for 20 years, and then said he didn’t subscribe to any of the preacher’s hate-filled ideas, did you believe him?
Yes.
Had Obama chosen a Muslim Imam who once had called Israel a filthy state or compared its position on Palestine to apartheid, the left would be congratulating Dear Leader on his “outreach” and “inclusiveness.” Since it is a Evangelical minister who opposes gay marriage, however, it is time to call for the boycotts.
The logic of the left.
JVW (bff0a4) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:26 amScott Jacobs: I don’t exactly agree with Prop 8 … but I do agree it is a States Rights Issue, and should be left up to the states… I frankly don’t see a single problem with Obama’s profession that Prop 8 is a state matter, and yet not supporting Prop 8. This assumes his WORDS match his actual beliefs, which is not a given.
It wasn’t a matter of not supporting Prop 8. He explicitly opposed Prop 8. To oppose same-sex marriage, claim it’s a states-rights issue, and then oppose an inititive in which a state’s voters decide the issue — is inconsistent.
(I grant that you could make the case that Obama could oppose Prop 8 based on the notion that it would remove a right already granted. But Obama never suggested that in his statements.)
aunursa (1b5bad) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:28 amYou say that as if his left-wing supporters were slow to anger.
Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 12/19/2008 @ 10:11 amHey, has Single Issue Andy interrupted his daily routine of digging through Sarah Palin’s hospital dumpster to have a hissy fit about this yet?
M. Scott Eiland (fddcd7) — 12/19/2008 @ 10:13 amThe left. They left. The left. They left. It’s time to leave them behind and move the nation forward. If Obama is going to choose a man of God to pray for his inaugural service, then it better be a real man of God. One who opposes gay marriage and all the likes. What? Were they expecting that electing Obama will advance the cause of homosexuals? maybe pave the way for the first openly gay prsident? Or do they imagine they constitute the majority? Obama did not win because of a few liberal votes. He won largely because of the conservative vote. They should get over themselves and smell the coffee.
love2008 (1b037c) — 12/19/2008 @ 10:25 amAs for Sullivan, it is sad beyond belief when one’s high school crush rejects you. He must be bereft. Probably writing sad poems and listening to Joni Mitchell albums.
Eric Blair (e906af) — 12/19/2008 @ 10:27 am“…were giving the invocation, Atrios, Avarosis & Co. would be in full-screech mode over Wright’s opposition to gay marriage.”
We’ve heard nary a peep from those oh so brave demonstrators in CA regarding where the majority of opposition to Prop. 8 actually emanated from – African Americans and Hispanics. Virtual silence.
Dmac (e30284) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:05 amBigotry is bigotry and a result of ignorance and selfishness. It is very unchristian. Go on being proud of yourselves… you’re in for a big disappointment when you finally meet your maker.
Stephanie (050020) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:29 amPatterico,
1) actually, I didn’t believe him when he said he opposed gay marriage. He opposed Prop. 8, and I think that if Illinois voted on gay marriage, he’d vote in favor of it. I think he ‘opposes’ it because he knows that it isn’t politically viable right now and is willing to compromise on that in order to achieve other things.
2) I did believe him when he said he didn’t subscribe to Rev. Wright’s hate-filled ideas; I pretty much thought he was using the church as a form of social/political climbing.
As for the underlying controversy: I don’t particularly like Rev. Warren; while he has the right to support Proposition 8 and to work for its passage, I also have the right to be annoyed and unhappy with him for doing so.
But I don’t think it’s reasonable of me to expect the President-Elect to sacrifice the good he feels he can gain by enlisting Rev. Warren on those issues where they agree in order to assuage my anger over Prop. 8. So, while I’m annoyed at the choice, I can’t condemn it; it makes good political sense.
Moreover … I think that we’re better off as a country if everyone is at the table and the government operates, to the degree possible, by forging a consensus across the lines of political and cultural disagreement. By definition this means involving people I don’t particularly like in the conversation. I don’t like Rev. Warren; I think some of what he has worked for has been harmful to me; but I think that the country is better off if he is involved, and I think the President-Elect’s doors should be as open to him as it is to political leaders I like better.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:31 amMike: I’m not sure that I understand the argument which says that my long-term, stable, monogamous relationship with my husband destroys family and community and spreads disease. Perhaps you’re talking about the effects of rampant promiscuity rather than the effects of gay marriage?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:33 amScott, at #19, I think you missed an important point.
Then-Sen. Obama said that Prop 8. was a state matter. Fine. He said he opposed gay marriage. Fine. He said that he didn’t support Prop. 8.
How do you reconcile I don’t support gay marriage and I don’t support Proposition 8? The two positions seem inconsistent.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:36 amA fragment.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:37 amactually, when THE ONE says it’s a state matter he means it is a matter for the state courts to determine. He opposed Prop 8 cuz it took the matter out of the hands of the preferred legislature of the left.
quasimodo (edc74e) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:38 amQuasimodo: please remember, prop 8 also took the matter out of the hands of the legislature.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:42 amIn saying “the preferred legislature of the left”, q meant the judiciary.
Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:45 amAnother Drew: of course he did. 🙂 My point was that the proposition took the matter out of the hands of both the judiciary and the legislature.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:47 amComment by aphrael — 12/19/2008 @ 11:33 am
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:50 amDo you ever have any doubts that maybe this lifestyle may be wrong? Not trying to judge you or anything. But do you ever have those doubts? Please don’t be offended.
Love2008: I’m not offended; it’s a perfectly reasonable question.
I do not have such doubts. My relationship with my husband is a good thing for both of us; as we have grown over time, the relationship has provided us with a strong base for growth, and the support we provide each other has been protective and helpful in difficult times. Our commitment to one another is the rock of stability in our lives; and our ability to draw on each others’ strengths to augment our individual weaknesses enrichens both of us … thereby making it easier for us to enrich the lives of our friends and family.
Why would I think something was wrong with this? 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:55 amI really don’t think so.
Ok, I guess the reason I don’t see the inconstancy is a) his support or non-support means little, since he was never going to vote either way (unless he has a house in Cali I didn’t know about) and b) I’m really cynical about Ocarter and his motives in all things, and thus I think he didn’t support it because he figured “most of cali won’t support it, and thus I’ll look good.”
*shrugs* It makes sense in my head, at least…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:55 amComment by aphrael — 12/19/2008 @ 11:55 am
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 12/19/2008 @ 12:17 pmThank you for your candid answer. I wish you the best of happiness with your chosen partner.
Comment by aphrael — 12/19/2008 @ 11:47 am
Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 12:26 pmI think it has to do with some silly concept such as “the People are Sovereign”.
When will they ever learn that we must leave such matters to our betters?
Another Drew: of course the people are sovereign. But the people don’t decide everything; that’s the entire point of representative government. What should be delegated to the legislature and what reserved to the people, as well as the question of what the people have chosen to reserve for the courts, is an ongoing fundamental discussion which every representative government must have; and, in general, I approve of California’s system.
But I opposed Proposition 8, and I think it’s worth noting that Proposition 8 was not just about revoking the undemocratic decision of the imperialist judiciary; it was also about taking a decision out of the hands of the legislature.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/19/2008 @ 12:39 pmThen you should advocate for the modification, or elimination of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall provisions of the CA Constitution; provisions put into the Constitution by the Progressive Movement of the early 20th-Century, and which are decried endlessly by the Progressives of the 21st-Century.
Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 1:04 pmThat doesn’t follow. I can support the right of the people to enact legislation without agreeing with the people’s choice to enact particular legislation.
Proposition 8 was a legitimate ballot initiative under our system; the people had the authority to take the decision out of the hands of the legislature.
But that does not mean that they didn’t do so. Claiming that Proposition 8 was nothing more than rebuke of the courts is a misrepresentation. It was in part a rebuke of the courts. But it was also in part a decision to take power away from the legislature.
As I said, the people had the right to make that decision. But it’s simply incorrect to claim that they didn’t do so.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/19/2008 @ 1:09 pmI’ve never understood the reasoning behind the denial of gay marriage passage – I forgot who first said this, but who would voluntarily choose to be gay in the first place? Even today, all of the sexual confusion and apprehension behind such a realization must be difficult to bear, even for the most hardy of souls.
Dmac (e30284) — 12/19/2008 @ 2:48 pmaphrael: But that does not mean that they didn’t do so. Claiming that Proposition 8 was nothing more than rebuke of the courts is a misrepresentation. It was in part a rebuke of the courts. But it was also in part a decision to take power away from the legislature.
Nit-pick: It was originally intended as a preemptive measure. The initiative was written, and the signatures gathered, months before the CA Supreme Court issued its decision.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 12/19/2008 @ 2:52 pmDmac: To attempt an analogy: There are presumably people who would not voluntarily choose to be sexually attracted to children, but are, nevertheless — sometimes as a result of having been molested themselves.
(I an in no way suggesting that child molestation and homosexuality are equivalent — rather, that just because people have uncontrollable tendencies doesn’t mean that society must necessarily endorse such tendencies.)
aunursa (1b5bad) — 12/19/2008 @ 2:58 pmComment by aphrael — 12/19/2008 @ 1:09 pm
Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:11 pmI did not mean to claim that the people were doing anything but to express their preference over a decision taken from them by the Courts, and that quasimodo was saying that the preferred legislature of the Left is the Courts. You, OTOH, seem to be hung up about their denial of a legislative role in this matter.
It is inherent in the initiative process that the People are dissatisfied with the role of the Legislature when they draw up and submit an initiative for ballot action. Why else have it if it is not an expression of dissatisfaction?
Dmac: To attempt an analogy:
I get your point, but since so much of Western thought and literature is based on the basic tenets of the Greeks, is it not also true that they always considered homosexuality a normal part of a man’s life, along with a wife if he so desired? Yes, we shouldn’t equate morals and customs of societies from different eras to our own, but you can go many ways in each direction when you’re using analogies to make a point.
Dmac (e30284) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:31 pmI’m not sure what your point is regarding Greek thought. We pick and choose from among various civilizations … not we don’t copy everything from one.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:42 pm