« Obama's Other Inauguration Pastor Not for Gay Marriage, but Condemns Rick Warren Remarks |
Main
| He's a Jet all the Way »
12/24/2008
Rachel Maddow on Rick Warren: Obama, This is Not Going Away
"He has snatched the possibility of open-mindedness from the jaws of possibility."
Rachel Maddow takes apart the latest Rick Warren developments, AFTER THE JUMP...
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Posted 12:25 PM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Inauguration, News, Rachel Maddow, Rick Warren | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Thank god for her window of opportunity to address the nation every night.
Posted by: Wes | Dec 24, 2008 12:37:46 PM
What a pathetic piece of shit.
Posted by: homer | Dec 24, 2008 12:42:44 PM
when egos collide. the black messiah vs. the new prophet. we all lose. this issue is not going gently into that good night. rage, rage against the dying of the light!
rachel keeps it real.
Posted by: nic | Dec 24, 2008 12:53:15 PM
Rachel is wonderful.
Posted by: marty | Dec 24, 2008 1:06:52 PM
You are right Rachel. we are Warrenophobes, considering Christ NEVER made disparaging remarks about gays, and perhaps was even gay himself with no wife or children.... just sayin'
Posted by: Ty | Dec 24, 2008 1:12:27 PM
What's all the hubbabaloo?
Posted by: Ed | Dec 24, 2008 1:15:17 PM
All I can say is Obama will not get my vote again in 2012. I can't believe he has associated himself with this hate monger. It is a major disappointment to me and he is not even in the office yet!!!!!! Shame on you Barak
Posted by: Philbert | Dec 24, 2008 1:17:17 PM
well what if I wanted to marry my goat anyway.
It'd be a lot nicer to wake up to in bed than this joke of a pastor.
Posted by: Ed | Dec 24, 2008 1:18:21 PM
Thank you Rachel!!
Guys and Gals I am posting this here. I hope that others out there will help promote this and I hope Andy and other bloggers will pick up on this. This is a symbolic statement that we can all do.
http://www.back2stonewall.com/?p=35
PLEASE PASS IT ALONG
Posted by: Wolf | Dec 24, 2008 1:21:57 PM
Yes, we should all turn our backs on Warren if he gives the inaugural invocation. as per Wolf's idea.What a bigot he, Warren is, and his Humpback Church.
Posted by: Hephaistion | Dec 24, 2008 1:54:29 PM
rachel is awesome for addressing this on her show faithfully and intelligently. we're lucky to have her.
Posted by: apollo | Dec 24, 2008 1:55:53 PM
Thnaks Hephaistion
I really am trying to get the word out and have this catch on. It would be a great show of usnity and make a strong statement
Posted by: Wolf | Dec 24, 2008 2:09:50 PM
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), 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 we have to have an invocation at all!
Obama is playing divide and conquer with the Right Wing by picking one of their more controversial leaders. He certainly chose their most famous one for the past three years. 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 cities and Blue states seem to forget that much of the country is still Saddleback-land. My home state of Georgia 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; I'd hope so.
Posted by: Laurence Ballard | Dec 24, 2008 2:16:06 PM
I'm glad to see Ms. Maddow addressing the issue with her typical wit. Rachel rocks. I know she got some shit for the Huckabee thing, but frankly, that guy's not worth engaging IMHO. I mean, good for Jon Stewart, but he's small potatoes and he's not being given a national platform by an incoming president, after all...
Posted by: Jay | Dec 24, 2008 2:30:16 PM
Obama's right: We need to reach across the aisle. Be more inclusive of others. He needs a skinhead to stand beside him on inauguration day who thinks blacks and whites shouldn't intermarry. And an anti-Semite would be the perfect reach-across-the-aisle moment for us common folk to better understand the new president's great knowledge and respect for our differences.
In the end, it's just a damn shame. That's all I can say. After Prop 8, this is something I never thought he'd do.
Posted by: david | Dec 24, 2008 2:30:24 PM
Rachel makes a very good point. Warren seems to be trying too hard to dance and smooth things over. Odd.
Posted by: Gayiaguy | Dec 24, 2008 2:58:32 PM
Laurance,
Why "must" we always have a religious invocation? Although most presidents have chosen to include a religious component to their inauguration, it is certainly not a constitutional requirement.
Thomas Jefferson didn't have one.
Neither did John Q. Adams.
It seems ironic that the Founding Fathers were actually less hung up about the exact nature of these ceremonies than we are.
The historian Thomas Cahill had a very interesting thesis with regards to such symbolism in "How the Irish Saved Civilization." He notes that as the Roman Empire became ever weaker, it tried to "overcompensate" by (1) staging ever more elaborate spectacles and by (2) instituting ever more rigid sets of social controls (against prostitution and such). Cahill argues that when the situation is dire, conservatives always want to tighten laws against "immorality" to reclaim some ideal that never existed in the first place.
Seems like 'Murika is headed in that direction. The sun is setting on our empire. And the pomp and circumstance is out in full force.
Posted by: John in CA | Dec 24, 2008 3:17:38 PM
John in CA:
Your historical information and perspective is dead-on; I never wrote "must"-- I wrote "have." As in the difference between "need" and "want."
There is no constitutional need for a religious invocation; there is a palpable want by the public to have performed. I certainly do not share this desire, which was the point of that sentence in the first place.
I am particularly fond of Mr. Cahill's analysis. Religious conservatives take all of this one step further: They need conflict. They need an "Other"--that never-ending search for one more punch on their martyr cards.
Posted by: Laurence Ballard | Dec 24, 2008 3:49:22 PM
Rachel Maddow is awesome and very smart (she was a Rhodes scholar and has a doctorate in Political Science. Her dissertation was on AIDS/HIV in Prison populations).
Posted by: josh | Dec 24, 2008 3:49:51 PM
Here's a strategy for you, if you're interested:
Saying you won't vote for Obama in 2012 doesn't really scare Obama or the Democrats enough at this point, since that's a long way off, and it's likely not the most productive thing to do, as we genuinely DON'T want a Republican rightwing president in office.
Instead, what the GLBT community needs to do-- that will be much more effective and have much quicker results-- is to let the Democratic party know that if they don't make major progress on at least one major GLBT rights issue in the next year, we'll target the Democratic party in 2010, picking several specific races to tightly focus on where the Democrats are vulnerable, particularly where they're vulnerable to Independent candidates, rather than Republicans. It won't be specifically about Obama, but it will put the pressure on him in a way that any single protest at the inauguration will not, as the Democrats will NOT be happy at what could be a much more credible (and faster) threat to their power center. Make it clear that unless we're given more than lip service and bad compromises at our expense, your money, time, and votes will be devoted to lessening their control in focused, tactical ways.
In this way, you can weaken the Democrats without having to simply hand control over to the Republicans. There are viable independents out there in the House and Senate races (as opposed to the Presidential race where there's not much real, practical choice). And by picking selected vulnerable races, you don't have to target the entire nation to put the heat on, which gives us a lot more flexibility and the possibility of success.
You want action from Obama and the Democrats? I'd say that's the best option. If they see the threat as credible (and the fact that gays and lesbians are keeping the heat up on this Warren thing in a way that's sustained pretty differently from GLBT business-as-usual is actually scaring some of them, which is why you keep seeing columns from the usual Dem pundits that range from surprise to trying to make us stop). They're nervous, and that's a big plus if we then make clear that, without genuine action, our next step will be focused on selected House and Senate elections to weaken their control. Then, if Obama keeps dissing us, we won't have to put the pressure on him. Believe me, THEY will.
Posted by: bobbyjoe | Dec 24, 2008 5:48:34 PM
Is it possible, that by igniting this controversy, Obama actually serves to move Mr. Warren closer to the gay community?
Is it possible that this controversy will actually result in a real dialogue between the gay community and conservative christians (neither of which are going away)?
Let's all take a breath, and become part of the solution, not the obstruction. We can turn this into our advantage - if we all love Rachel so much, I say she go speak at Mr. Warren's church. Sound crazy? Didn't Harvey Milk meet his opposition head on, face to face?
Let's start talking and stop shouting.
Posted by: dvdinorl | Dec 24, 2008 5:49:31 PM
Oh, and I should add to the last post, when targeting those races, we also form coalitions with other groups who are dissatisfied with Democratic foot-dragging and cop-outs. We make clear that in the races we selectively target, we're going to do everything we can to bring others with us, if they force us to oppose Democratic candidates by dissing or constantly sidelining us.
Posted by: bobbyjoe | Dec 24, 2008 5:56:07 PM
Screw having RM visit Warren's church. Have him come on her show and debate her. He seems to always enjoy having control of the hotseat...
Posted by: Jay | Dec 24, 2008 6:04:35 PM
dvdinorl,
In answer to your questions: No and no.
You have only to look at what Rick Warren has been saying this week suggesting gays are using "hate speech" and suggesting we're Christ-o-phobes (I'm Christian, thanks, Rick, but glad to see you think YOU'RE the religion) to see that he ain't gonna stop.
These folks' views cannot and will not change. I've been around for over four decades, and I can count on maybe one or two fingers any time whatsoever that a major far-Right anti-gay religious figure has even slightly changed his or her tune. Warren said recently that even were homosexuality proved 100% to be biological, he'd still preach against it. You can't get much more pig-headed about things than that.
The only thing that could change a man like Warren on this would be to convince him that he could make a whole lot more money on the gay side of things. Then (and only then) I'd imagine you'd have to jump out of Warren's way as he galloped to the gays in the same way I imagine that fat *sshole runs towards a free buffet.
Posted by: bobbyjoe | Dec 24, 2008 6:07:10 PM
Given the centuries-long Christianist tradition of ignorance, the suppression of knowledge, large scale violence, mistreatment of women and minorities, homophobia, hypocrisy, and dishonesty, I am most definitely, no-doubt-about it, "Christophobic."
After all, as a gay American, I am far more likely to suffer at the hands of a Christianist than I am Al-Qaeda. Christianists are in fact the people who hate my freedom and want to take it away. When it comes to Christ's alleged followers, I have nothing to respect or admire and everything to fear. Christophobic doesn't begin to describe it - I'm terrified.
Posted by: Bryan | Dec 24, 2008 6:14:34 PM