Frank Rich vs. David Axelrod on Rick Warren
Published December 28, 2008 @ 07:28PM PT
There are two schools of thought when it comes to PE Barack Obama's selection of Pastor Rick Warren to lead the invocation on January 20. The one school of thought was championed hard by Obama's senior-most adviser, David Axelrod, on Meet the Press this morning. This line of thinking says that Warren's prominence at the Inauguration is a sign of Obama's commitment to inclusiveness. Axelrod thinks it's in poor taste to attack the choice of Warren, and urged gay rights supporters to stop "shaking our fists at each other."
The other school of thought on the Rick Warren issue was spelled out by Frank Rich in this morning's NY Times, in an op-ed piece, "You're Likable Enough, Gay People." (That's got to be one of the best headlines of the year. If only Frank Rich could have worked in a line in the column about the issue of marriage equality being above Obama's pay grade.) Rich points out that while Warren is no James Dobson, inviting someone like Warren to have a leadership position at the inauguration is rewarding unacceptable intolerance. Rich writes, "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."
Ouch. Take that, David Axelrod.
Rich is right. When the Obama administration tries to explain their invitation to Warren, they sound "too cute," a little arrogant, and a lot indifferent to the anger LGBT people feel over Warren's active support of Prop 8 and his "unacceptable" comparisons of homosexuality with sex crimes and perversion. They should stop trying to explain it away like it's the gay community's fault that Warren causes such anger.
But Rich is also right, a little later in his article, when he writes that Warren's participation in the Inauguration is no "Bay of Pigs." It's not good, and it certainly tarnishes what should have been a rather exciting Inauguration -- but it's not necessarily what folks will remember in four years. What we'll remember in four years is whether (1) Obama works to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't tell," (2) Obama pushes Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Uniting American Families Act and the Matthew Shepard Act, and (3) Obama welcomes supporters of marriage equality (both religious and non-religious) at his governing table, and gives them as much credence as he's about to give Pastor Warren.
Share this Post
Related Posts
-
Obama's Cabinet: The Most LGBT-Friendly Cabinet in History?
-
Obama's Hot and Cold Moments on LGBT Rights
-
Idea for Change in America: Pass a Trans-Inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
Comments (10)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Email



















In other words, Obama & Axlrod ask the LBGT poeple (the oppressed) to show tolerance towards Rick Warren et al (the oppressor). Oh the irony!
Posted by pak tam on 12/28/2008 @ 08:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Great roundup of this!
Posted by Nathaniel Whittemore on 12/29/2008 @ 06:26AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Greetings from the Canadian Maritimes .
Christmas Day and Boxing Day were simply wonderful....I would say F A B U L O U S , but David Axelrod would find that word was equivalent to shaking my fist at he and his pal, Rick Warren.
There is a sense of freedom in MA - you are somewhat free until you leave the state and your destination is not RI or CT or NY. The simple fact is that even in MA, you are federal legal strangers.
One of my spouse's elder brothers - a man who was always homophobic - said to me after five years of legal marriage in Canada, " I always just saw you as "best buds" (???) for thirty years or so, but after five years married, I will call you my brother-in-law, because that is what you are." I was completely gobsmacked.
Then I thought, the AA civil rights act did change minds, if not hearts. They finally had to accept blacks sitting in "their" restaurants, or sleeping in "their" hotels, or using "their" bathrooms.....and "their" front doors.
David Axelrod is a Jewish American. When I was young, the exclusive WASP country clubs excluded CATHOLICS AND JEWS.
Ours did. Our membership had nothing to do with wealth, but with pedigree....Mayflower White Anglo Saxon Protestant pedigree. Shame on him for making that decision. He made it along with Plouffe. This does not diminish Obama's culpability.
What is the final feeling about this reality. I will wear a black arm band. I will tape, but like Nixon's secretary, stop the tape when that arch-homophobe takes the podium.
I will NEVER TRUST nor RESPECT the man - Barack Hussein Obama II. I will ALWAYS VERIFY HIS ACTIONS before I give him verbal assent to what he says that he will do. I will never give him credit for appointing gays to non-gay promoting jobs. It does NOT matter if the SECNAV or the SECLAB is straight or gay, white or purple. In short, Obama will never be given cover for his bait and switch strategies.
PS_ I do not care if he has every HRC staffer at all his inaugural balls, and even dances with Joe Salmonese, I won't trust him beforehand. Melissa Ethridge and her career means nothing to me. She deserves a bitchslap from the LGBT community, IMHO.
See you sometime in January...........
Posted by A B on 12/29/2008 @ 06:50AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yea, not buying it. sorry.
Posted by G. Allan Hendricks on 12/29/2008 @ 06:57AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
A conversation with an Anglican priest tonight cast some "foreign" insight into the reason WHY Barack Obama would turn to someone like Rick Warren to add gravitas to his Christian identity.
His mother was a cultural Protestant Christian who married two Muslims in her life - his father and stepfather. Barack went to Harvard Law School - where many Congregationalists - UCC come for an education. Harvard was founded by the Congregationalist UCC.
The UCC has one black congregation - in Chicago - and it was the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright who marries he and Michelle and baptizes the two daughters and provide he and his family with Christian sustenance for decades.
The UCC is Enlightenment liberal Christianity. Wright's colleague UCC Dallas is the Cathedral of Hope. The CofH was an MCC parish that was incardinated into the UCC. It is one of the largest UCC parishes in the country....with thousands at worship each week, and more by live internet feed.
I for one minute do NOT believe that he had never heard Jeremiah Wright rant on about the abuses of Jim Crow and "separate but equal" that as a bi-racial WASP and Kenyan raised entirely by whites, could never understand.
This conversation began when the Anglican priest mentioned that George HW Bush was an Episcopalian (Anglican) as were his sons. With the gay issue hanging over it all......it was noted that both men married women whose faith they now share.....United Methodist for Laura and George W and Roman Catholic for Jeb and Colomba.
Rick Warren is Barack's way of reconnecting with Christianity. It was his way to nail his Christian past to the cross.
Posted by A B on 12/29/2008 @ 03:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sorry I don't buy this spiritual identity crisis drama which Rev Swayer proposed. Warren's invitation is just a bad political maneuver which Obama is too stubborn to rescind.
Posted by pak tam on 12/29/2008 @ 07:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Pak Tam - greetings from the True North Strong and Free.
You misunderstood. The Anglican vicar mentioned that Obama had to politically triangulate his connections with a Christian denomination or church affiliation. I was careful to note that it was his views that I was sharing with you.
I agree with YOU. It is bad politics, but ONLY so if he pays a political price for his decision.
His political calculation is that this is his "Sister Solja" moment, and his payoff is showing the homophobic neo-liberals that he is not victim to the "gay agenda".
I DO NOT see that he is paying any price whatsoever. What with the KUMBAYA GAY LEADERSHIP singing a tune with Melissa Ethridge's lyrics, there was no cancelation of any Lesbian and Gay Band....no LGBT parties pre-inaugural week cancelled.....no HRC Inaugural Ball cancelled.....are we not the very personification of their stereotypic views of us?
Pak - you do not have to go to anti-LGBT blogs to see it. You can go to liberal and progressive blogs and see the animus against gays for getting mad with Obama. How dare we criticize him for inviting good ole Pastor Rick.......!!! Who do WE think WE are?
Back to my vacation....but needed to answer you. After all, you are my friend. Raymond
Posted by A B on 12/29/2008 @ 07:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Inclusiveness is one thing, but to pick Warren to give the invocation, a man who actively campaigns agains human rights, is a blatant betrayl of those who helped get him elected. As a long time politica actavist I beieve some act of protest should be make.
Posted by Dorothy LaFleur on 12/30/2008 @ 01:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
lets put it this way you already have rights, so you want to marry some other person of the same sex isn't a right marriage is for procreation in a stable man and woman scenario it is also religious and being gay isn't it is a sin you wanted to be equal well I can't marry anyone of the smae sex so neither can you that is equal being gay is a choice people not a right .
Posted by Warren McLeod on 01/01/2009 @ 04:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We call what you just spewed here nothing short of spiritual violence or verbal diarrhea, Mr. McLeod.
No one here is going to engage you further on content. I doubt that other than homophobia, that you are a closet moral theologian, or a legal scholar.
Posted by A B on 01/05/2009 @ 05:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.