Warren Ruining Inauguration Parties

Warren irks me and I think he should withdraw from the inauguration until he can become more humble and educated (see his I love gays video). He threw a bone to the gay community and its supporters, getting rid of the anti-gay language from his website. That's not enough.

But people shouldn't let Rick Warren ruin their inauguration celebrations. He's one guy of many and Joseph Lowery, who contrasts with Warren, will give the benediction. Forget about Warren, for now. Continue the fight after the party. There is so much else to celebrate.

WaPo: Not that he was planning to attend, but Barack Obama should know that my sister's inauguration night party -- the one for which she was preparing Obama Punch -- has been canceled. The notice went out over the weekend, by e-mail and word of mouth, that Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation had simply ruined the party. Warren is anti-gay, and my sister, not to put too fine a point on it, is not. She's gay.

She is -- or was -- a committed Obama supporter. On the weekend before the presidential election, my sister and my mother drove from the Boston area, where they both live, to Obama's New Hampshire headquarters in Manchester. There my mother made 76 phone calls for Obama, which is not bad for someone who is 96, and gives you an idea of the level of commitment to Obama in certain precincts of my family.

I should say right off that my mother feels less strongly about Warren than my sister does. But I should add immediately that my sister feels very strongly, indeed. She's been in a relationship with another woman, the quite wonderful Nancy, for 19 years, and she resents the fact that Warren has likened same-sex marriage to incest, pederasty and polygamy.

"I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage," Warren told Beliefnet.com's Steve Waldman. "I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

Waldman asked, "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?"

"Oh, I do," said Warren.

Another viewpoint from 538:

That's beside the point, though; what I think the Warren dust-up reveals is that the left is now willing to raise at least as much ruckus about the issue as the right. The left, of course, has always had its own moral compass, but it's now beginning to convert that into more focused, overtly political action. If John Kerry had won four years ago, and invited Warren or some analogous pastor to give his invocation, would there have been this much debate about it? It's hard to say for sure, but I don't think we would have heard very much about it at all. This all feels very recent, stemming from a renewed self-confidence on the part of the left, coupled in this particular instance with the aftermath of Proposition 8.

I say this as someone, by the way, who buys into the "Can't we all just get along?" side of the argument. There's a difference between feeling as though you have superior morals and feeling morally superior, and some of the discussion has veered toward the wrong side of that equation. Nevertheless, I think the passion aroused among the left on the issue has been fairly impressive, and is potentially fairly consequential.

More stories on Warren:
Will Warren be worth it?
Why Warren?
Muzzling of Warren

Saddleback Removes Anti-Gay Sentiments On Church Site

Check out the before and after here.
Rachel Maddow discusses the probability (slim) of Rick Warren being uninvited to give the invocation. She also talked about the offending information (see below) that was posted on the Saddleback church site here. 

Andrew Sullivan finds peace with being stuck with Warren on inauguration day. He references Melissa Etheridge's post, the essence of which is: 

"Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us."

She's right. It's an ignorance problem.
Here's the original content at Saddleback. It must be a burden to be so self-righteous:

I've heard it asked, "Isn't being homosexual something that a person is physically born with?" First of all, there are absolutely no facts to support this claim. From time to time studies have been reported in the news that seemed to indicate this, but every one of these studies has proven to be wrong. Secondly, even if some physical difference were discovered, it would be no excuse for sin. We know that some people can develop a stronger physical addiction to alcohol than others, but that's obviously no excuse for living an alcoholic lifestyle.

Finally, a word about being judgmental. It's not judgmental to say that what the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that's just telling the truth. Not being willing to talk to someone caught up in sin, or not believing that they can be forgiven, or thinking that you are not just as much in need of Jesus as they are ... that's being judgmental.

Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.

In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.

Negative Campaigning Works

painting by Alex Ross

Even I think Obama is a lightweight. Just kidding. I'm so sick of the notion that Obama is an empty suit, but the constant bombardment of that message has worked.

Americans are easily hoodwinked. We did after all, vote for Bush - twice. If it happens again, we'll only be able to kick ourselves. I know, I know. It's totally unfair for those of us who know better.

Really, how much could Obama screw things up after Bush? The only way is up. I'm thinking the office of president is getting way too much attention.

What about the people that Obama will surround himself with. Hopefully, tomorrow we'll know who his vice president is and who knows, maybe he'll even name a couple of other positions.

We get McCain and we're going to have a bunch of old guys -- as in old fashioned ideals. Obama has some superior advisers. He's head and shoulder above McCain in smarts. McCain has Phil Gramm.

In the past two days, Obama's supporters at the town halls have been asking: What are you going to do about the negative campaigning? To which Obama replies that the republicans are good at campaigning but bad at governing (you'd think we'd know that by now) and he says he's striking back and he's in it to win it.

But the media has bought McCain's message for now, and much of it had to do with the republican kickoff at Saddleback.

People forget that the audience was nearly all republican and highly conservative and live in one of the most wealthiest areas of the U.S. 

The media responded to the audience's delight at McCain's panders, I mean answers. But now, Mr. Sound Bite is considering a vice president without a pro-life bent and they've sent up warning signals. The republicans are being controlled by a talk radio host. McCain goes from "life begins at conception" to making his No. 2 a pro-choicer.

The purpose of the Saddleback show was to get Obama's views out to the conservative base, so republicans could rein in any stray evangelical who might've considered voting for Obama. In the past two days, the abortion debate, at least from the republican side, has heated up. Obama now kills live babies.

But soon, the media will rally back to Obama. It's like herding goats. Then it will sway to McCain and somewhere along the way, Americans will make up their minds.

Electoral Vote: While voters constantly complain about negative ads, campaigns use them because they work. A new LA Times National Poll shows that a month of ads attacking Obama as a lightweight unready to lead have erased his lead nationally. The two are in a statistical tie. Obama's advantage in the electoral college has also vanished. If you compare the 2008 electoral college graph with the 2004 one, the parallels are striking. Kerry led throughout the summer until the Swift Boat ad kicked in, and it was downhill from there. Kerry never recovered.
It will be interesting to see if Obama has studied the 2004 campaign and goes negative himself. He has three possible themes. First, he can paint McCain as out of touch with how many Americans are struggling economically. If he wants to get personal (as McCain has), he can depict McCain as the man with $520 Italian shoes, half a dozen houses, a wife worth $100 million and the view that someone making $4 million a year is not rich There is some evidence that he will continue to run a positive national campaign but start hitting McCain on the economy in specific media markets. For example, in Ohio, he's hitting McCain because Rick Davis (McCain's campaign manager) helped broker a deal to move 8000 jobs from Ohio to Kentucky. A second theme is that McCain is an honorable man but at 71 is losing his marbles (can't tell a Sunni from a Shi'ite, thinks Czechoslovakia is still a country, etc.). A third plausible theme is that McCain used to be a maverick but in his pandering to the Base has now repudiated everything he used to stand for (was against, now for Bush tax cuts; was for, now against his own immigration bill; was against, now for torture, etc.). In at least one way, Republicans are much smarter than Democrats: they fully realize that the way to win is to attack your opponent relentlessly, preferable on a single topic. This year's topic is Obama's lack of experience. Basically, you can't trust your kids' safety to him.

Rick Warren Couldn't Vote for an Atheist

Why does that irk me? It seems so unGodly. I would never vote for or against someone based on their religious beliefs. See the video here.

Democrats Need to Let Go of Pastor Night

Saddleback church's mission was to get voters to vote for McCain because that's what God would want, but the democrats aren't going to get anywhere accusing McCain of cheating or doubting his cross story. So what if he cheated and lied. It wouldn't be the first or the last. Going after McCain, the war hero, for lying could turn off some potential new voters. Now, if there was solid evidence, video...

Atlantic: Megan's Fourth Law of Politics: The party that starts looking for implausible and unprovable conspiracy theories about the opposition candidate is in trouble.

This spring, it was bizarre accusations against Barack Obama: he's a closet muslim, his wife is a black nationalist, etc. Now, suddenly, the Democrats are the one frantically hunting for buried treasure.

Obama and McCain at Saddleback

Update: Full transcript

Rick Warren covered a lot of ground within an hour (for each candidate) and asked a lot of good questions. 

Aside from opposite views on nearly every issue, the main difference I saw between Obama and McCain is Obama thinks much more broadly. He's a complex thinker, considering the gray areas of issues. 

McCain is much more black and white. He's a reactionary. He doesn't think in shades and in that regard, is a lot like Bush. 

One notable comment from Obama was that George Bush is anti abortion but that hasn't reduced the number of abortions. Obama was making a case for a more practical way to reduce abortions, while maintaining the right to choose. That approach, I'm afraid, is lost on evangelicals who would rather be right and righteous than solve the problem.

Obama also seemed more honest, authentic is a good word, in his answers while McCain relied on anecdotes, the same ones we've heard over and over, and bits from his town halls.

McCain, with a stacked republican audience, received constant applause. He cracked a lot of jokes and talked about Vietnam when answering the religious questions.

Obama received a warm welcome and some applause here and there but it was a McCain crowd. 

McCain couldn't define rich. He doesn't want to tax anyone, he said. This is a fundamental difference between the two candidates. McCain doesn't understand reality and is much more aligned with the rich (I guess that's just a republican thing), whereas Obama aligns himself with the middle class and the poor. He'd help them first before he'd help the rich. McCain says he wouldn't boost taxes but didn't say how he would pay for anything, so it was a good sound bite. 

McCain managed to slam Russia and praise Georgia. He talked about Georgia being one of the earliest Christian nations? And this means?? 

McCain began to get rattled and riled up to fight the way he does. 
Obama never seemed rattled, calm and collected as always. McCain even ended with his tagline: country first. I'll post the video when it's up. 
Cnn's take
MSNBCCBS
HuffPo
NYT
APWaPo


On rich

On abortion

three people

McCain