Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Regarding DU and the reaction to Warren...too much outrage, not enough outrage, or just right?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:10 PM
Original message
Poll question: Regarding DU and the reaction to Warren...too much outrage, not enough outrage, or just right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Too much outrage backlash
on both sides I fear.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Fractures and tribalism...
The worst of all worlds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat. - Will Rogers n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnotforgotten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Bigotry, Discrimination, And Racism Should Not Be Tolerated By Anyone Ever
How can there ever be too much outrage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. Nowhere near enough outrage n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. At 49.9999999%
The outrage is slightly low ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. That was the reading as of last hour. Perhaps we could do a daily "Warren outrage" poll...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats_win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. Outrage not requested. I want DU to know why Warren is a bad choice.
All three of these are very serious issues:

1. He's a homophobe.

2. He's part of Right Wing False Religion which is responsible for bush. He and his partners in crime should be told, that they are no longer in control of our government.

3. He should pay more attention to the Bible and less attention to the cameras. He actually gives his personal opinion disguised as a Biblical idea.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. Someone's been sleeping in my bed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. ...
"Warren's letter to Saddleback Church parishioners

In a 2004 letter to his Saddleback Church parishioners, Warren urges Christians to vote in order to prevent marriage equality. Read an excerpt below, and read the full letter here: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2008/08/warren_wows_the.html

… Presidents serve for only 4 years, so they can only make a limited impact. But Supreme Court Justices serve for life, and they are the ones who decide on issues like abortion, gay marriages, human cloning, harvesting babies for stem-cell research, revoking the tax exemption of churches, removing "under God" from the flag pledge, and "in God we trust" from our money. In most ways, the Supreme Court has far more influence and impact on our day-to-day lives. This extremely important fact has been overlooked in most of the campaigning.

President Bush and Senator Kerry have VERY different opinions about the type of people who should become Supreme Court Justices. They could not have more opposite views about these matters. Either man will shape the court in very different ways.

If the members of our congregation fail to vote on Tuesday, we are actually surrendering our responsibility to choose the direction of our country for the next 40 years. If we do not vote, we have no right to criticize or complain when unbiblical decisions are made by the court in the decades ahead."

http://www.hrc.org/11805.htm

He's no friend to Dems. :shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. "He's no friend to Dems."
Perhaps he's not...yet.

But does that warrant a four-day plus "Warren sucks and so does Obama for inviting him" DU conniption?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Sure. Why not?
I never peeped a word during the great Tim Russert is Dead War. :D It will settle out soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. You tell me...
Does that warrant 4 days of "get over it"?

The man helped to deny people of their rights. I guarantee you, if this vote had been on interracial marriage and he did what has been done to gays and lesbians he would be universally pilloried here at DU. The outrage would never die down.

And it's very likely that Mr. Obama never would have invited him.

But, hey, it's just the gays, right? They did their job by helping to get him into office. Back to the closet they go for 4 more years and then we can let them out again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Well, I voted "too much outrage"...
I'll also take a back seat to nobody in terms of full support for equal rights and respect for the GLBT community.

So I reject your conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. You reject my conclusions...
Please explain why. Which ones? All of them? Do you honestly think that if California had been voting on interracial marriage and Mr. Warren had gone to the lengths he has to deny black/white couples of their chance to be together Mr. Obama would be inviting him?

I'm rather confused about what conclusions you reject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. The conclusion that the invite amounts to Obama's unabashed rejection of the GLBT community...
and the interests of equal rights.

The harsh reality is that society has not yet progressed to the point where opposition to gay marriage carries with it the same stigma that opposition to interracial marriage does. Soon (not soon enough), it will.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. we are not going away and you are NOT going to intimidate
us into shutting up so give up on trying to do so because we will only get LOUDER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Very protesty!
Yay! Don't let a stupid DU poll shut you down! SCREAM it -- SMITE it -- from the rooftops!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Did you start this thread to have a dialogue about this?
Or just to attract like minded posters (too much outrage)? Maybe you could have been more clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. I started this thread because I was interested in measuring the collective opinion of DU.
I've noted that some DUers have expressed outrage at too much outrage while others have expressed outrage at not enough outrage.

The poster asked about my personal opinion and I offered it. Big deal.

Do you consider the poll unfair?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Ok.
Fair or unfair, no. But a bit frontloaded with assumptions. I don't consider all of the conversations "outrage" per se. YMMV. Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
32. You have to put in the perspective of Prop 8
that's the key thing a lot of you keep forgetting about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. I wonder how many DEAD HUMANS that letter translates to. How many Spirits enslaved to sexual
conformity.

Outrageous enough for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eyesroll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
15. Misdirected outrage.
Specifically, the people most outraged that people are outraged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
24. A thinly disguised "STFU objectors" thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. So i'll mark you down as in the "not enough outrage" camp.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Hope this backfires on you
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
25. I'd say dunno.
IS there a right amount of outrage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. When the outrage is directed in a constructive way,
yes. I don't know if that's happening here or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. I dunno either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
28. Too bad DU wasn't open for business when DADT AND DOMA were instituted.
I would be curious to know if some perspective would alter the view of Obama's tone-deaf inclusion of Warren.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. or Clinton's (original) "Sister Souljah moment"
In United States politics, a Sister Souljah moment is a politician's public repudiation of an allegedly extremist person or group, statement, or position perceived to have some association with the politician or their party. Such an act of repudiation is designed to signal to centrist voters that the politician is not beholden to traditional, and sometimes unpopular, interest groups associated with the party, although such a repudiation runs the risk of alienating some of the politician's allies and the party's base voters.

The term originates in the 1992 presidential candidacy of Bill Clinton. <...>

Barak Obama's selection of Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration has been seen as a tacit acceptance of Warrens views. Warren, a vocal opponent of gay rights and a strong force in the battle of Proposition 8 in California, where gays and lesbians were stripped of their right to marry, seemed to many Obama supporters to be a poor choice for this role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment

Okay, so that last Wiki editor couldn't spell "Barack", and the point isn't really distancing oneself from an "allegedly extremist" group so much as a politically radioactive one, but if Obama's move was best described as "Clintonian" we should be mad not the Clintontites (but it was Howard Deanian IMO, like the Southern pickup truck controversy (with or without astroturf)).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
30. that question cannot be answered, it's different for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
31. It's been educational /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
34. interesting results - so far
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
35. Misdirected outrage. Email Obama and stop calling other
forum members names because they don't want to dwell on the subject exclusively. Warren hates atheists, so I'm on his unacceptable list, too. I view him as a small minded man who doesn't understand the fairy tale he preaches. I'm not happy he will be giving the invocation, but the bottom line is I've got bigger problems to worry about. Every day I don't have health care is a day I could die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
36. I have no idea. Is it very productive? Are we not just convincing ourselves over and over again
that this was wrong by Obama? I feel the need to direct my outrage at my parents and see what they think, as Republicans who voted for McLame. They are fiscally conservative but socially moderate. Perhaps the discussion will mean more to them then to other Duers who almost all dislike what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloudythescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 04:57 AM
Response to Original message
38. Too much focus only on his antiGAY stuff, slighting antiWOMEN & other
and this problem fits into a larger point -- unless Warren says something in his short invocation that is at least WIDELY PERCEIVED to be outrageous, his invocation will be quickly forgotten. It'll, in that likely circumstance, be old, yellowy news w/in 7 days after the inauguration. But the larger issue and longer term issue is keeping Obama from being like Clinton, stabbing progressive politics in the back, often in complex ways. A broad-based, multi-pronged alliance is needed, INCLUDING for the proper advancing of gay rights in the years to come. It is important for the full range of groups to be given front-row billing in this as in other issues.

Remember that the MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS (even if not of the country) really want virtually ALL of Obama's progressive promises and promise to be fulfilled, and there's also issues such as his support for the current reincarnation of "Star Wars" along with other issues.

The way in which the Rick Warren issue is addressed should be consciously fit into this larger purpose, on gay rights as on progressive concerns in general.

Incidentally, I URGED DUers in the weeks before the election (especially when it was obvious that the likely winner, Obama, was AWASH in money, and that the kind of mild or extreme political mavens there are at DU only gave a small fraction of the overall monies) that progressives should FLOCK to support the NO on Prop 8 campaign and the close Senate races. There was almost no interest, including in the idea of a second thermometer for fundraising on these issues, and urging other similar blogsites to do the same. Now everyone's focus is shifted, but there's still not enough longer term strategic thinking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Feb 11th 2025, 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC