Warren: Great Move or Stupid Blunder?

[Warren Stupidity]

Poll question: Warren: Great Move or Stupid Blunder?

Simple question. Three choices.

[gcomeau]

1. Guess how I voted?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4708518&mesg_id=4708518">Hint

[zeemike]

5. A very detailed and through hint....n/t

[MADem]

14. I enjoy your arguments very much, even though I take issue with some aspects

While I agree that he's building a "Democratic" majority, I also believe he is co-opting the single-issue right, and worst of all, I also think our President Elect means it. I further think he wants this issue on the back burner, doesn't want to deal with it, and he's giving Democrats in Congress permission (and an excuse) to not deal with it as well (Well, shit, constituent--sure, I'd love to do something with that, but the PRESIDENT has said he's OPPOSED to gay marriage...it just wouldn't go anywhere, sorry! But I'm with ya, really I am, wish I could help, ain't it a shame...") .

At the same time, he's signaling the Evangelical crowd that he's "not so bad" and, if he gives them a nice place to chow down at the Faith Based Initiatives trough, he'll also be giving them a reason to vote FOR him.

I think he's growing his base, myself. And he's growing it well beyond the party. It's rather a Reagan strategy.

Ultimately, though, he's "throwing those queers under the bus." And he's breaking their hearts, and the hearts of their friends and relatives. It's not really all that surprising--he did say again and again that he's opposed to gay marriage, and he did signal his attitude with Caldwell and McClurkin, but using The Dispicable And Shameless Rick Warren to drive the stake through the heart of the gay community is a pretty cold move.

IMO.

Oh well, nothing to be done for it, save gripe. The horse is out of the barn...

[BeFree]

20. Do you really think

...Obama has thrown gays under the bus? Isn't that deadly? You mean he meant to kill them?

And I ask that because you then say he is driving a stake thru their heart, as if he thinks they are vampires or something? Do you really think that or are you just being hyperbolic?

[MADem]

23. Yes, but "not in a mean way."

I do think he does NOT want to deal with the issue of gay marriage or gay rights at the federal level. I also think he takes personal issue with the whole concept--he's said so, plainly, often enough.

Don't overthink the "stake through the heart" reference. All I meant was "decisively kill," not this vampire shit that the teen agers are into.

[gcomeau]

26. Well, there's two issue there.

1. Gay marriage.
2. The Warren invite.

On Gay marriage I take issue with Obama on the merits. It's one of the few positions he's taken I flat out disagree with him on. While I do consider civil unions a step up from no legal unions at all... no, they are clearly not sufficient and appealing to "well, that's just what the word has always meant before" is hardly an argument that belongs anywhere near a civil rights debate (or anywhere near a historian for that matter, they'd rip that apart). Nor is an appeal to religious tradition... oh boy am I the last person anyone wants to bring that argument to the table with.

However, he took that position long before the Warren invite. So while it is a point of contention, I factored that in to my overall opinion of Obama a long time ago, and when I evaluate the benefits and harm of the Warren invitation I come up with all benefits... no harm. I didn't like Obama's stance on gay marriage before, I don't know. But he hasn't made it any worse, he's not enshrining it in policy, he's not giving Warren a hand in drafting legislation or something... so suddenly exploding over it overnight makes no sense. And the symbolism of the outreach despite clearly conflicting views between Warren and Obama's core of supporters has immense potential value to our side.

[zeemike]

2. Time will tell

But it was not until he picked warren (to preform a meaningless task) that I realized just what he was trying to do.
I think he is smarter than most of us know.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Obama has a secret plan and you have deciphered it? Wow.

Maybe you are physic.

So what is his secret plan that you have deciphered?

[zeemike]

10. It was no secret he told us right from the start

But we were not listening or did not understand.
Or so engaged in fighting that we just did not pay attention.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. He will filibuster immunity for the telecoms? I heard him say it. So what happened?

[zeemike]

35. I don't know

Does this mean you no longer support the Democrats?
Or do you think we should impeach him?
Or do you think Hillary would have been a better choice?

[John Q. Citizen]

41. I think it means that just because Obama said something doesn't mean you should take it to the bank.

[MADem]

4. I can't believe how many people are here with shovels!

There MUST be a pony in there somewhere!!!!!!!

[GarbagemanLB]

6. Nope. Just people who actually read up on Obama's philosophy and agree with it.

[MADem]

16. Keep digging! nt

[TygrBright]

17. Sometimes, those of us shoveling manure are not LOOKING for a pony....

Sometimes, we're preparing stony, exhausted, infertile soil to bear a wonderful crop a few seasons down the road.

But yes, some are just flinging poo for the sake of making their feelings known.

expositionally,
Bright

[MADem]

21. Ahhh, yes.....the "You queers sit back and WAIT" argument!

We're PREPARING the WAY for you! Just WAIT a few seasons!! Patience! Your issue isn't important, the nation just isn't READY, so sit tight, hold your horses, and get in line...AGAIN.

That argument is never popular, no matter to which aggrieved party you shop it. It's never believed, either.

And then, if the queers, or their friends and family, take exception to the "WAIT" approach, and refuse to "go along and git along," why, they're accused of "flinging poo."

How dare I want equal rights for my gay friends and relatives! The NERVE of me! WhatEVER was I thinking? Let me step off and fetch myself a great big cup of Shut The Fuck Up, I guess! Can't ruin the party!

Expositionally, indeed!

:hi:

[TygrBright]

36. Yikes! I'm sorry you interpreted my post that way.

That was not how it was meant.

intimidatedly,
Bright

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Pie? Bad place to look for pie.

[cali]

7. It could even be both

I tend to think it was a rather callous political calculation more than anything.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. I agree it could be both

but I tend toward the uncomplicated explanation first: stupid blunder.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Too bad you didn't have an additional choice.....

such as, "Predictable move based on all that he had said during his campaign."

That would have made it a more honest poll.
As it is, I can't vote in this poll the way that it is. :shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

11. The question wasn't 'were you suprised?'.

All I wanted was a sense of DU on 'good or bad move'. Seems to me that on this basis my poll was rather honest simple and straight forward. Since you have accused me of being dishonest, please do explain where and how I was dishonest here in my poll question.

[FrenchieCat]

18. You examplify the entire mentality that is on the increase here, now.

I questioned the poll's honesty, not your dishonesty.

How I look at it:
Poll question: Warren: Great Move, Stupid Blunder or Expected Conciliatory Gesture?


And so in fact, you are willing to conflate my questioning the validity of a poll question,
with my judgment on one of your character attributes....thereby making it personal.

J'accuse, NOT! :eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

22. As the author of this dishonest poll

I must have committed this dishonesty. You, on the other hand, are attempting to weasel out of your accusation.

How was I dishonest in my authoring of this poll?

Your complaint, again, appears to be that you want a different poll about 'expected or unexpected'. That was not my intent. Feel free to conduct your own poll.

"Good, Bad, Expected": one of these three is not like the others, one of these three is just not the same.

p.s. 'other'.

Sheesh.

[GarbagemanLB]

24. The dishonesty lies in thinking the issue is black and white. Warren is either a GREAT choice or

a stupid one.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Or OTHER

again: sheesh.

[EFerrari]

37. That's right. We forgot, "He's keeping his powder dry!"

lol

[MADem]

19. It's a good question, actually. I was not ALL that surprised. I was saddened.

I also thought it was a little SOON to drive home the points he had made all during the campaign. But maybe he wants to herd all those pesky gays under the bus now, so he doesn't have to work at lowering their expectations again, later. They're good-n-demoralized by this; and feel pretty hopeless and helpless as well. So do their friends and family. That's apparently what he was going for, I guess.

FWIW, I don't think you were being dishonest. AT ALL.

I think your question was a fine one, too, to get a sense of how this forum actually feels on the issue.

It does give us an idea about how willing forum participants are to believe that there must be a "grand scheme" at play (because even though Obama has said "I believe marriage is a SANCTIFIED UNION between a MAN and a WOMAN" there are people who insist he must not have meant that...or something).

I don't think there's a pony, myself. I wouldn't mind being wrong.

[kdpeters]

39. Call me crazy FrenchieCat, but ...

Having a president that keeps his campaign promises and whose actions are exactly what we should expect based on his words sounds pretty great to me.

[patrice]

9. It will be whatever we REALLY want it to be, not just what we SAY we want it to be. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

29. OK I have no idea what that means.

[patrice]

31. Some people are more honest than others (ON BOTH SIDES of the issue).

Consciously and/or un-consciously, it is possible for there to be a great deal difference between what a person says and what s/he truly wants. This is most especially true of the internet.

[scubadude]

12. Stupid blunder, but we're going to see a lot we don't like from Obama.

When Obama was elected as Senator I had high hopes finally we had a liberal voice that would eventually be heard. At that point I was already projecting him into the Presidency. After about a year I began to become somewhat disenchanted. I was watching and it seemed he wasn't simply a liberal, he had his own ideas about how to use his newly elected post, and some of these ideas ran with the Republicans against the Democrats. He voted much more with the Dems but on a fair number of occasions he voted against them.

So what do we have? We have a President Elect who will bring his idea of a new vision to Washington. A centrist voice, not strictly liberal, but one in my opinion all too willing to agree with republicans.

It is my view that if he brings the Republicans into his administration they will sabotage him, because he is a Dem. This will be done in spite of his willingness to "compromise".

I hope I am wrong. I hope he pulls more for the liberal side. I hope somehow he can control the Republicans he brings into his administration.

I support Obama and was there for his acceptance speech.

Scuba

[ecstatic]

15. A blunder with a possible silver lining?

I think the discussions that have occurred all over the media over the past week have been helpful. :shrug:

[David__77]

27. Bad move, but my opinion may change.

We'll see how it plays out. It will be a test of his caliber politically if he can use it to neutralize the far right religious forces.

[JohnnieGordon]

32. So the "salt in wound = brilliant" crowd is much smaller than they'd have us believe

That's a little Merry Christmas for us.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Which is why I ran the poll.

However I was holding off on stating that conclusion for fear of the feedback effect.

[SKKY]

34. Not a great move, a BRILLIANT move...

What a way to bring the issue of gay rights out into the light and put it squarely in everyone's living room!

[kdpeters]

38. Great move.

He ran on being inclusive, reaching across the aisle. This is a demonstration of authenticity that he truly meant what he said. What it says to me is that we may not always agree, but we'll always know where he stands.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. time will tell...too early to say

I don't know if this is the best analogy. But, I recall when Bill Clinton approved a visitor visa for Gerry Adams (leader of the political wing of the IRA) to visit the United States, the outrage in the UK even from most of those on the British left was palpable. But time showed this one deeply unpopular move was a major factor in setting the stage for the Good Friday agreement.

I do believe that the principle that there needs to be efforts to increase understanding and decrease the mutual paranoia between social conservatives and social liberals is quite correct. How this can work is hard to say, It will simply take time to determine if this good faith effort bares fruit or not.

[AtomicKitten]

42. I don't think we can know that yet.

Obama has pissed off and insulted people, but I'm seeing an amazing upclick in LTTE letters discussing all sides of this issue. Wonderful, passionate, poignant points of view.

I don't think anyone can deny that Obama has opened up a dialogue. I think people are hard-wired to fight, but I think Obama is going to show us another way. Progress through mandate.