Sunday, December 28, 2008
Politics Frank Rich Blasts Obama on Warren
Posted by Dan Savage on Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:25 AM
NYT:
When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.It is even more toxic in a year when that group has been marginalized and stripped of its rights by ballot initiatives fomenting precisely such fears. “You’ve got to give them hope” was the refrain of the pioneering 1970s gay politician Harvey Milk, so stunningly brought back to life by Sean Penn on screen this winter. Milk reminds us that hope has to mean action, not just words.
By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction. It’s no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history.
Rich also compares Obama's to Bush, suggests that everyone chill, and urges people to keep the Warren invite in perspective. But Rich still has some harsh words for Obama. Read the whole thing here.
Share via
1
Huh. I was just reading *this* Rick Warren commentary and was wondering why you didn't highlight *it*. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-quig…
Now I know why. You'd rather rag on Obama then appreciate that he leads by example. From David Quigg (isn't he in Seattle somewhere?):
"There are sensible people who look at Warren and see a man who belittled their marriages, lied about the perils California faced if it didn't pass Proposition 8, and -- in helping get gay marriage repealed -- thwarted their deepest aspirations for equality. Imagine that there was someone who'd belittled Obama, lied about him, and tried to thwart his most high-stakes aspirations. Would Obama invite that person to lead a prayer at the inauguration? The answer is no. Absolutely not. Because the secretary of state doesn't lead inaugural prayers."
Now I know why. You'd rather rag on Obama then appreciate that he leads by example. From David Quigg (isn't he in Seattle somewhere?):
"There are sensible people who look at Warren and see a man who belittled their marriages, lied about the perils California faced if it didn't pass Proposition 8, and -- in helping get gay marriage repealed -- thwarted their deepest aspirations for equality. Imagine that there was someone who'd belittled Obama, lied about him, and tried to thwart his most high-stakes aspirations. Would Obama invite that person to lead a prayer at the inauguration? The answer is no. Absolutely not. Because the secretary of state doesn't lead inaugural prayers."
2
Man, that Frank Rich. Takes the considered approach. Chooses his words and lets them rest a little while, takes their measure, makes careful edits, so that the essay comes out reflecting the full coin of his intelligence. He's never tempted to apologize, because nothing he writes isn't just what he means. He's a writer, not just another pundit working an angle.
3
What about tone deaf Melissa Etheridge? Talk about a fucking Judas amongst our own ranks. But if I had her money I suppose I could afford the inequality offered by Rick Warren and the rest of his ilk.
4
I largely agree with Rich.
I've been saying all along that Warren was a bone-headed choice, but not worth the internet firestorm that has resulted. Obama didn't give Warren a cabinet position. Warren isn't a close advisor.
If Obama repeals DADT and DOMA, we will quickly forget about his stupid choice for the inaugural invocation. Let him get in office and actually start making policy before we crucify him for perceived wrongs.
I've been saying all along that Warren was a bone-headed choice, but not worth the internet firestorm that has resulted. Obama didn't give Warren a cabinet position. Warren isn't a close advisor.
If Obama repeals DADT and DOMA, we will quickly forget about his stupid choice for the inaugural invocation. Let him get in office and actually start making policy before we crucify him for perceived wrongs.
5
"What about tone deaf Melissa Etheridge? Talk about a fucking Judas amongst our own ranks. But if I had her money I suppose I could afford the inequality offered by Rick Warren and the rest of his ilk."
Oh, puh-fucking-leeze, 3 weeks ago she was a hero for saying she wasn't going to pay taxed and now she's a Judas for not hating Warren's guts? If only all gay people would fall in line and think alike, life would be so much easier.
Oh, puh-fucking-leeze, 3 weeks ago she was a hero for saying she wasn't going to pay taxed and now she's a Judas for not hating Warren's guts? If only all gay people would fall in line and think alike, life would be so much easier.
6
Almost all those evanGENETIALS will never support Obambi so don't know why the hell he wants to suck up to them.
7
BTW, I would hardly consider this article a "blast." Measured, and well thought out, though I do think he contradicts himself somewhat in the gravitas he assigns the situation, and then proceeds with a "oh well, what's next?" conclusion. Considering the hyperventilating vitriol pouring forth from some places on the interwebs, this was a love letter by comparison.
8
Hal would have been one of those Jews in Germany who thought Hitler had some pretty good ideas for the most part.
10
When one considers the enormity of the financial problems and unemployment now facing this country, and the fact that we are still in a war in Iraq and facing the expansion of the one in Afghanistan (we'll likely have 30,000+ troops there by next Christmas), a good portion of this Inauguration will be, and should be, a rather somber affair.
ALL Christian ministers, ALL Jewish rabbis, and ALL Muslim clerics represent religions that are hostile to gays, at their heart. So are Hinduism and I think Buddhism as well. The sad fact is that Obama (and most of the nation) feels an invocation is somehow required.
Obama is playing divide and conquer with the Right Wing by picking one of their more controversial leaders. These same people jumping up and down about the choice of Warren would likely say VERY LITTLE if Obama had chosen a black preacher known for the same anti-gay rhetoric that Warren is.
We can use this snub as leverage to get Obama and Congress to pass ENDA right away, which is the most important piece of legislation gays SHOULD have in mind right now. But contented, secure gays in "Urban Archipelagos" and Blue states seem to forget that much of the country is still Saddleback-land. My newly adopted state of Georgia certainly is.
Let Obama play quid pro quo with his selections all he wants: our job is to turn this snub to our favor. In the way we never were properly able to do with Clinton over DADT after 1994 and the GOP Congress. That won't be the case this time -- we need to demand substantive legislation and demand it fast. I'd say Civil Union is not too much to ask for nationally, either. Perhaps Obama is buying hush-time from Warren over such upcoming laws; We can only hope.
ALL Christian ministers, ALL Jewish rabbis, and ALL Muslim clerics represent religions that are hostile to gays, at their heart. So are Hinduism and I think Buddhism as well. The sad fact is that Obama (and most of the nation) feels an invocation is somehow required.
Obama is playing divide and conquer with the Right Wing by picking one of their more controversial leaders. These same people jumping up and down about the choice of Warren would likely say VERY LITTLE if Obama had chosen a black preacher known for the same anti-gay rhetoric that Warren is.
We can use this snub as leverage to get Obama and Congress to pass ENDA right away, which is the most important piece of legislation gays SHOULD have in mind right now. But contented, secure gays in "Urban Archipelagos" and Blue states seem to forget that much of the country is still Saddleback-land. My newly adopted state of Georgia certainly is.
Let Obama play quid pro quo with his selections all he wants: our job is to turn this snub to our favor. In the way we never were properly able to do with Clinton over DADT after 1994 and the GOP Congress. That won't be the case this time -- we need to demand substantive legislation and demand it fast. I'd say Civil Union is not too much to ask for nationally, either. Perhaps Obama is buying hush-time from Warren over such upcoming laws; We can only hope.
11
"Hal would have been one of those Jews in Germany who thought Hitler had some pretty good ideas for the most part."
Totally. You know, he was actually nice, except when he was drinking.
Totally. You know, he was actually nice, except when he was drinking.
12
defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable
Like some of the Liberal Obama supporters who post on Slog Comments...?...?
Physicians...heel you-selfs.
Like some of the Liberal Obama supporters who post on Slog Comments...?...?
Physicians...heel you-selfs.
13
(Insert personal political affinity group here) are the Jews, and (insert political opponent's name here) are Hitler!
That gurgling sound is your political credibility washing down the drain.
That gurgling sound is your political credibility washing down the drain.
14
Let's see Warren's face when Obama starts signing legislation that puts him in his place. I hope that's what will happen. But if Obama thinks he's going to get the good will of right wingers, he is mistaken. And if Obama thinks gay people have no where to go, we can sit on our hands when it's time to vote. Not voting is a kind of third party.
15
Dan sounds a lot like my gay Republican brother from NYC who blames everyone else for their own personal lack of outreach to the African-American communities over Prop 8.
Look, you never talked to them - what made you think they were going to vote your way on a ballot issue if you just expect them to do what you want but aren't willing to talk to them?
I'm sure this will upset you, but it's the same story on a lot of issues - you can't just show up on election day and expect them, with no effort on your part, to vote your way just because you expect them to.
Mend the fences.
Now, religious bigotry SHOULD be attacked - that's a different issue, and one that calls out for actions.
Look, you never talked to them - what made you think they were going to vote your way on a ballot issue if you just expect them to do what you want but aren't willing to talk to them?
I'm sure this will upset you, but it's the same story on a lot of issues - you can't just show up on election day and expect them, with no effort on your part, to vote your way just because you expect them to.
Mend the fences.
Now, religious bigotry SHOULD be attacked - that's a different issue, and one that calls out for actions.
16
If you enjoyed Frank Rich at all today, here's a sleeper from the Times Magazine's year-end roundup of some significant people who passed away this year. Don't want to give it away, so I'll just say I didn't see it coming, and this is another example of why the print edition helps me read amazing things I might not click on if I relied on the web version alone. Enjoy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazi…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazi…
17
Barney Frank has the most insightful take on Obama with respect to his selection of Warren:
“I think he overestimates his ability to get people to put aside fundamental differences.”
Whether Obama has overestimated here remains to be seen, but I'm hopping he proves the pessimists wrong.
“I think he overestimates his ability to get people to put aside fundamental differences.”
Whether Obama has overestimated here remains to be seen, but I'm hopping he proves the pessimists wrong.
20
@14
you to
dream on
Obama is just getting warmed up and it ain't gonna be civil unions.
Didn't you people pay ANY attention to what Obama said during the campaign?
you to
dream on
Obama is just getting warmed up and it ain't gonna be civil unions.
Didn't you people pay ANY attention to what Obama said during the campaign?
21
@8 18 Godwin etc
But you have to admit that there is a lot of 1938 Brownshirt in Savage's behavior since Prop 8.
But you have to admit that there is a lot of 1938 Brownshirt in Savage's behavior since Prop 8.
22
Really? What sort of candidates, other than Republicans, have been elected in this fashion?
Not voting is a kind of third party.
Really? What sort of candidates, other than Republicans, have been elected in this fashion?
25
david axelrod did a good job of dodging the question on 'meet the press' today.
on another note, the poet mark doty wrote a fantastic piece about obama and warren: http://markdoty.blogspot.com/2008/12/pen…
on another note, the poet mark doty wrote a fantastic piece about obama and warren: http://markdoty.blogspot.com/2008/12/pen…
27
Jayme @25, I enjoyed Mark Doty's piece - and decided to listen to Warren's New-and-Views that was linked to.
Like Doty, I couldn't get through the whole think. (Boring) But I listened to enough to hear pastor Rick swear he'd never said gay marriage was the same as pedophilia or child abuse. (Seems like most people don't realize that tapes of what they've said in the past still exist...)
As far as I got, Warren's main objection seemed to be the use of the word 'marriage'. That he wanted to reflect only hetero couples.
Which is fine with me - just as long as 'civil unions' are recognized to have all the legal benefits of marriage - and become available to everyone.
I really could live with that. I suspect most of us could. Maybe we can find a way out of this logjam after all...
Like Doty, I couldn't get through the whole think. (Boring) But I listened to enough to hear pastor Rick swear he'd never said gay marriage was the same as pedophilia or child abuse. (Seems like most people don't realize that tapes of what they've said in the past still exist...)
As far as I got, Warren's main objection seemed to be the use of the word 'marriage'. That he wanted to reflect only hetero couples.
Which is fine with me - just as long as 'civil unions' are recognized to have all the legal benefits of marriage - and become available to everyone.
I really could live with that. I suspect most of us could. Maybe we can find a way out of this logjam after all...
28
ayden@27-i'm glad that you liked it. he writes a lot about the current state of affairs on his blog. it's a nice addition to his published work.
29
@ 15 - First we hear the African-American vote did not play a role in passing prop 8, and now it's really important to perform outreach to that ethnic group (even though no one else seems to need outreach)?
Why? What's in it for us? If the AA vote doesn't make or break these ballots, then it's not worth pursuing if victory is your goal.
If you can cite a single anti-gay ballot initiative where a normalized black vote would have tipped the balance, then I agree that outreach to that one group in particular might be important. ( By "normalized" I mean changing the black vote enough to pretty much mirror the voting percentages of the majority.)
Until I see evidence, I just don't think it's relevant enough to spend time on the issue.
Why? What's in it for us? If the AA vote doesn't make or break these ballots, then it's not worth pursuing if victory is your goal.
If you can cite a single anti-gay ballot initiative where a normalized black vote would have tipped the balance, then I agree that outreach to that one group in particular might be important. ( By "normalized" I mean changing the black vote enough to pretty much mirror the voting percentages of the majority.)
Until I see evidence, I just don't think it's relevant enough to spend time on the issue.
31
@15 - I am truly puzzled by the whole African American thing. On the one hand, they say they want an inclusive America where race is not the issue, but on the other they require dedicated, specific, concerted "outreach" to their own community in order to feel as though they've been included. That's not the way it works. Either you're part of the community and you behave as though you're part of the community and you pay attention as though you're part of the community -- or you're not part of the community, you're special. They can't be both part of the community and special -- they need to make up their minds which one it is and then act like adults about it, not stamp their feet and sulk and point fingers when they haven't felt enough of the outreach love.
32
@31
isn't that what homosexuals want, marriage as it has existed for the nation's entire history isn't good enough, they want 'special' marriage.
isn't that what homosexuals want, marriage as it has existed for the nation's entire history isn't good enough, they want 'special' marriage.
33
@30: Hey, remember in 2000 when Nader supporters were saying the same thing -- that Democrat or Republican, it doesn't make a difference? With the benefit of hindsight, would you say they were right or wrong about there being no difference between a Gore and a Bush presidency?
34
Silly faggots, wanting to be equals in society. You will never be America's favorite oppressed minority group. NEVER!!!
35
Outreach isn't meant to make people feel included. It's meant to convince them why they should support your cause. Now you can just expect people to be magically won over, without any explanation as to why this issue matters and why marriage equality is a good thing, and then stamp your feet and sulk when that strategy doesn't work for you. Just keep in mind that you'll keep losing if that's the best you can do.
they require dedicated, specific, concerted "outreach" to their own community in order to feel as though they've been included.
Outreach isn't meant to make people feel included. It's meant to convince them why they should support your cause. Now you can just expect people to be magically won over, without any explanation as to why this issue matters and why marriage equality is a good thing, and then stamp your feet and sulk when that strategy doesn't work for you. Just keep in mind that you'll keep losing if that's the best you can do.
36
Ha ha you dumb Seattle liberals are SO NAIVE! Obama is just as much a Zionist tool as George W. Bush.
Just wait for the war for Israel that Obama is going to have us fight. Don't say you were not warned.
Just wait for the war for Israel that Obama is going to have us fight. Don't say you were not warned.
37
#35, right on, but some people prefer to be petulant and stamp their feet. I know I have in my lifetime, and it's gotten me... nowhere. But it's a perverse quality of my personality, and apparently of some other people, like Dan Savage. Here's the difference: when I act that way, it usually just affects myself. When Dan Savage publicy goes on in this vein about a political matter, it actually hurts the prospect of ever getting gay marriage protected. In this sense, Savage is kind of like Antigone, without the character or stalwartness.
To Dan Savage:
I hate to break it to you, but black people aren't your problem. Your insistence that marriage, and not civil unions, is necessary for your civil rights, is your hypocritical problem.
You damage your credibility every time you demand marriage as a civil right in a country that needs a more clear boundary between church and state. Actually, your rant against the AA community post Prop 8 destroyed what credibility you had with many of us, so the marriage argument (you could have had it all with civil unions! if you lived here, you'd be HOME by now!) is just an extra helping of Savage-fatigue.
To Dan Savage:
I hate to break it to you, but black people aren't your problem. Your insistence that marriage, and not civil unions, is necessary for your civil rights, is your hypocritical problem.
You damage your credibility every time you demand marriage as a civil right in a country that needs a more clear boundary between church and state. Actually, your rant against the AA community post Prop 8 destroyed what credibility you had with many of us, so the marriage argument (you could have had it all with civil unions! if you lived here, you'd be HOME by now!) is just an extra helping of Savage-fatigue.
38
I'm reminded of this little gem whenever I doubt Obama's command of the political game: http://zeitgeistinapetiole.wordpress.com…
That said, he's not playing just for marriage equality. Forgetting that simple fact is what gets a lot of us so frosted with him. While marriage equality may be the single most important bedrock civil rights issue for 2% (probably more) of the population, it is but one issue among many. Obama undoubtedly has other things on his mind, including a dangerous economic crisis and two botched wars not of his making.
Folks really do need to chill the fuck out. Rich and Quigg put the marriage equality debate in its appropriate context, to include not blowing the Warren kerfuffle out of proportion. Looking to Obama to save marriage equality is just going to breed more disappointment. If he facilitates the passing of ENDA, the repeal of DOMA, or the introduction of national civil union legislation, all the better. And it's likely that history will judge him as being a president that was friendly to gays and lesbians. But he cannot, and frankly should not even if he could, wave a magic wand and make right all of society's wrongs to gays and lesbians. Change that is slow and deliberate, and that percolates from the bottom up, is change that is most likely to last.
That said, he's not playing just for marriage equality. Forgetting that simple fact is what gets a lot of us so frosted with him. While marriage equality may be the single most important bedrock civil rights issue for 2% (probably more) of the population, it is but one issue among many. Obama undoubtedly has other things on his mind, including a dangerous economic crisis and two botched wars not of his making.
Folks really do need to chill the fuck out. Rich and Quigg put the marriage equality debate in its appropriate context, to include not blowing the Warren kerfuffle out of proportion. Looking to Obama to save marriage equality is just going to breed more disappointment. If he facilitates the passing of ENDA, the repeal of DOMA, or the introduction of national civil union legislation, all the better. And it's likely that history will judge him as being a president that was friendly to gays and lesbians. But he cannot, and frankly should not even if he could, wave a magic wand and make right all of society's wrongs to gays and lesbians. Change that is slow and deliberate, and that percolates from the bottom up, is change that is most likely to last.
39
@38
>>"Change that is slow and deliberate, and that percolates from the bottom up, is change that is most likely to last."
Exactly.
It is tempting to find some leftwing tool judge to throw out (two) votes by 10 million Californians and give you a Christmas present but until public opinion is persuaded those gains will be bitter, divisive and short lived.
>>"Change that is slow and deliberate, and that percolates from the bottom up, is change that is most likely to last."
Exactly.
It is tempting to find some leftwing tool judge to throw out (two) votes by 10 million Californians and give you a Christmas present but until public opinion is persuaded those gains will be bitter, divisive and short lived.
40
@39 - Leftwing judges, what? By your logic, Bush is a socialist because he supported No Child Left Behind and a prescription drug benefit for Medicare.
42
Considering the Wall Street bailouts, Bush has thrown more money at socialism than anybody since FDR.
Most Commented on Slog
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
PETA vs. Thanksgiving by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Is Your Teen Out of Control... And Smoking Hot? by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
Boy-Nerds Offended by Cootie-Ridden "Girl" Movie by Paul Constant
-
The Cost (and Fear) of Dying by Anthony Hecht
-
SL Letter of the Day: Serial Cheater Turns On the Tears by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot For Twinks by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Base: The Know Nothings by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (42) RSS