Uh, wasn't it CONGRESS that picked Warren?

[Odin2005]

Why is Obama being bashed and not Reid and Pelosi? :shrug:

[dflprincess]

1. Because Obama's team has already defended the choice

and this is Obama's party - if he objected to this you can be he'd be listened to. And if he does object, he should do so publicly.

[Odin2005]

4. Ah, thanks. Fuck...

[Captain Hilts]

2. Obama gets consulted and has veto rights on this one. THAT's why. nt

[gristy]

3. No, the Congress certainly did not pick Warren.

Pelosi, however, was on the committee that advised Obama on the inauguration.

[charlie]

5. It wasn't the committee

The program participants were invited by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and chosen by the Chairman, the Presidential-elect and the Vice President-elect.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/12/aretha_yoyo_and_rick_warren_at.html

[Wilms]

7. And the Chairman is...

Dianne Feinstein

http://inaugural.senate.gov/cmte

Calling San Francisco...

[Fearless]

6. Did it ever occur to anyone that he might be smarter than his picks appear to be?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask that we don't totally lose faith in this presidency until AFTER he is sworn in. Just sayin.

:banghead:

[Odin2005]

9. And I think people need to realize that politics is dirty.

Politics is not the place for ideological purists. I hate Warren's guts, but if Obama thinks using him helps getting his agenda through then so be it.

[readmoreoften]

11. So if a bigot lunatic is swearing him in, that reflects not an iota on where he intends to go?

Come on. I waited until after the election, but he can't be 'unelected.' He is not going to suddenly pull out "the real Obama " on Day 1 in office. This is his cabinet, his ceremony, his presidency. This is the real Obama. There's no more waiting. This is what you bought.

[Fearless]

14. There is no "Real Obama"

As you see it. There never will be. Such a polarizing figure will get this nation no where. We need someone who appeals to everyone. Why was Reagan so powerful? Because he had a real mandate. Why was FDR so powerful? Because he had a real mandate. Why was Carter so weak? Why was Nixon so weak? Because they lacked the ability to draw together ALL people, not just those who they ordinarily agree with.

NTF

:kick:

[readmoreoften]

15. And what would "get done" with this great meaningless mandate?

What other "polarizing groups" will he sacrifice so "everyone" gets along? Who's up next? Labor?

He's not going to do ANYTHING. Don't you get it. NOTHING. People respect people who DO WHAT'S RIGHT. Reagan had an agenda. Reagan NEVER sacrificed his base. Never. Never. Never. He busted unions and broke the Democratic party with a smile on his face and people voted for him because he used abortion and homophobia as a wedge.

This is another "fuck you, LGBT people" post.

[Odin2005]

16. Obama supports civil unions.

A point the Machine of Perpetual Outrage seems to have forgotten.

[Mari333]

19. civil unions isnt marriage

not the same. not as many rights.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

[Odin2005]

20. It's just labels. n/t

[readmoreoften]

26. It's more than a label. It's a compromise that just doesn't work.

It's a fiasco. Two terms can't have the same meaning in law. If they did, they wouldn't be separate terms.

[Mari333]

31. read the link i posted

civil unions do not afford as many rights to couples as legal marriage does.
a lot of people dont know that.

[Odin2005]

32. Most of the proposals I've seen do give the same rights. n/t

[Fearless]

23. It is a step, the same as seperate but equal was a step...

It is still wrong, but it is moving in the right direction. I as much as anyone would love to see DOMA removed and an all-inclusive ERA passed, but never in this nation's history has such a large step been taken all at once.

[Fearless]

21. To say that...

He has sacrificed GLBTQ people is foolhardy as at the same time he has a pro-GLBTQ minister giving the benediction. One could argue that one action does not negate the other. However, therefore it is true in both instances. A bigot does not negate a pro-GLBTQ person either.

Reagan was able to use homophobia and abortion as wedge issues because they were still considered fringe issues at the time by the general voting public (GLBTQ rights specifically). There are no real right wing fringe issues that Obama could use in that way. The right is fractured into three parts... traditional conservatives, evangelical conservatives, and libertarian conservatives. But it is fractured so evenly that no one can be scapegoated (if such an idea is even not morally reprehensible). These are different times.

What I said about Reagan is that he got people who wouldn't normally follow him to do so. Much of this was based on his personality. Not on GLBTQ issues or abortion rights. In addition, he played a precursor role in the Bush Doctrine. He used fear, fear of communism not terrorism in this case. Like after 9-11, people fell into line, because he was "protecting" us from socialism and communism. And, he too was charismatic. He made people want to feel safe and then provided them a "way" to feel said safety.

Obama, like Reagan, will be able to affect policy change, because when one has a vast majority of the public on their side, their legislation will pass. Congress will look bad if they don't. More than a third of this country is not strictly red or blue come hell or high water. Combine those voices with the sturdy blue's and you will see some great change indeed.

Further and finally, I'm not anti-GLBTQ and neither are any of my postings; you're barking up the wrong tree there. Google my moniker if you wish.

[enlightenment]

17. Problem is that Mr. Obama is NOT

appealing to 'everyone' at this point, is he? Seems like he's moving farther and farther away from that goal.

If the only way he can get the people who disagreed with him on board is by shoving off the folks who are already on the train then he's failed before he's even started.

[Fearless]

24. He doesn't need to appeal to us...

When it comes down to it two things are clear:

1. DU is not representative of the entire Democratic Party. Much as I hate to say it, the Gungeon is closer.

2. The Party is going to go along for the ride regardless. Not since Carter have we bucked a sitting president and that got us Reagan.


It's not to say that I'll agree with everything that happens, nor you I assume, but the Party will move on with or without our vote.

[enlightenment]

29. Oh, I'll certainly agree with #1

and, because people are, ultimately, sheeple - #2.

I've never had any high hopes for this president - he's been built up by his most ardent supporters far beyond his reality (nice guy and all, still just human though, not a demigod) - but I was hoping he'd make it into office before he started letting the air out of the balloon.

[Fearless]

30. Hope spring's eternal.

:rofl:

[KittyWampus]

18. Excuse? Warren is "swearing him in"? REALLY?

[Patsy Stone]

22. While we were sleeping

I guess he became the chief justice.

[EFerrari]

25. I don't apply any different standard to Obama than I do to anyone.

He's a politician, not the Wizard of Oz.

And he got busy on November 5.

[Fearless]

27. There are different grades of politicians.

Lest we lump together someone like Pelosi or Reed with someone like Reagan or Teddy Kennedy. Messages may be different, but the effectiveness of one over another remains the same.

[EFerrari]

28. Right. n/t

[stillcool]

8. please if anyone...

has something to say about this...
To email the members of the Congressional Inauguration Committee go here:
http://inaugural.senate.gov/cmte/
To post a message at Change.gov go here:
http://change.gov/page/s/yourstory

Since Obama has already felt it necessary to respond, please write an email..post a message. It can only help. What are you doing that it will be such a waste of your time?

[Maven]

10. No. DEBUNKED

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4670307&mesg_id=4670801

Also see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7993137&mesg_id=7993137

[Odin2005]

12. Thanks. n/t

[Mari333]

13. Its the same spineless jellyfish behaviour tho n/t