Barack Obama is finding out that his honeymoon with the mainstream media may be considerably shorter than he had expected. Inviting Pastor Rick Warren to pray at his inauguration hasn't endeared him to a core constituency and now Time Magazine has joined in the bash fest. Its Web site carries the piece, "The Problem for Gays with Rick Warren — and Obama." Authored by John Cloud, the article begins by citing Warren's criticisms of homosexuality and then clobbers Obama for his association with him:
Gays and lesbians are angry that Barack Obama has honored Warren, but they shouldn't be surprised. Obama has proven himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot. He is far too careful and measured a man to say anything about body parts fitting together or marriage being reserved for the non-pedophilic, but all the same, he opposes equality for gay people when it comes to the basic recognition of their relationships. He did throughout his campaign, a campaign that featured appearances by Donnie McClurkin, a Christian entertainer who preaches that homosexuals can become heterosexuals.
But if, as asserted by Time, Obama has repeatedly shown he's a bigot, why did he capture so much of the gay vote? As noted by the Windy City Media Group and other activist outlets, in some gay districts Obama won close to 90 percent of the vote over John McCain. Surely gay voters, usually described as being above-average in education and wealth, would not have been fooled by an obvious bigot.
NewsBusters managing editor Ken Shepherd has pointed out that Obama also extended an invitation to Rev. Joseph Lowery, who ardently supports gay rights, to give the benediction at the inaugural. Obviously, that is insufficient atonement for inviting Warren.
Obama's action could well be a ploy, intended to modestly placate conservatives and moderates as he prepares to govern from the Left. In the meantime, it appears as though he'll have to withstand some withering criticism from his temporarily spurned sweethearts in the mainstream media. Perhaps he can take comfort in Shakespeare: "The course of true love never did run smooth."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Obama does not want the
December 19, 2008 - 14:58 ET by MrSnugglesObama does not want the black and hispanic vote to bail on him because at his core he really is a gay rights monger. If he could do it, he would pass legislation making gay marriage legal in all 50 states.
The only chance republicans have of splitting the hispanic vote is to hit the democrats on abortion and gay rights, two issues that hispanics are very very conservative on.
Inside Gay Baseball
December 19, 2008 - 15:02 ET by reasonsjesterSome of Cloud's comments are too cryptic for us white heterosexual oppressors to make hay of. But I love the sassy tone. Keep up the attacks, Cloud nine.
Responsibility is the price of freedom. - Elbert Hubbard
Sassy
December 19, 2008 - 17:08 ET by Mike BatesBut I love the sassy tone.
Sassy? Careful now!
O's actions could be a ploy
December 19, 2008 - 15:06 ET by bigtimerO's actions could be a ploy ...
Oh heck Mike, why The Chosen One would never use such tactics....he would never sink to such levels.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
No ploys here, bigtimer
December 19, 2008 - 17:10 ET by Mike BatesOh heck Mike, why The Chosen One would never use such tactics....
Of course you're right, bt. Better turn CNN/MSNBC on right away and get my head screwed on straight. If you'll pardon the expression.
Didn't they know ...
December 19, 2008 - 15:12 ET by legacyrepublicanDidn't the left know that he can no more disassociate himself with Rick Warren than he could disassociate himself with his own pastor?!
;)
disassociate himself
December 19, 2008 - 17:12 ET by Mike BatesI can see it coming. . . . "Not the Rick Warren I know."
Actually
December 19, 2008 - 17:24 ET by littlemissmuffin"I never spoke to Rick Warren. I don't know him personally. I've never heard him say anything derrogatory, and he was never one of my advisors." ad infinitum
(oops -- forgot all the uhs, and ums in that quote.)
"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"
Barry's denial, littlemiss
December 19, 2008 - 17:28 ET by Mike Bates"Oh, and my staff never spoke to Rick Warren either. Unless there's a tape of it."
wait
December 19, 2008 - 15:12 ET by candanceDidn't Time just tell us two days ago that Obama's the best thing since George Washington? I swear these people make stuff up as they go.
Now we should all come together, be unitied, listen to opinions from all sides, and not find wedges to drive in between....but if you invite that ****** preacher to your inauguration this honeymoon is ****** over.
I'm a typical white person.
George Washington Obama
December 19, 2008 - 17:14 ET by Mike BatesDidn't Time just tell us two days ago that Obama's the best thing since George Washington?
And they'll be back to that refrain shortly I'd guess.
Why should fundamental
December 19, 2008 - 15:14 ET by MidAmericaWhy should fundamental societal rules be changed just because a minority social group says they want recognition for being a special class of citizen? Until science can prove that gayness is genetic and not merely a lifestyle choice then why should this group be honored with special laws?
Poor Hussein
December 19, 2008 - 15:17 ET by 1611LilacLadyFrom Time Magazine's Man of the Year* to Bigot within days of each other, my my who'd thunk it? >>tongue in cheek<<
Poor Hussein. . . The threats to his cause aren't from the right, they're from the left. He better get some Farrakhan approved bodyguards!
*I refuse to be pc!
I was thinking the same thing
December 19, 2008 - 15:54 ET by bioteachedHow is it that the Man of the Year is a bigot? Why is it that Time loves bigots so much?
Farrakhan approved
December 19, 2008 - 17:18 ET by Mike BatesHe better get some Farrakhan approved bodyguards!
Aren't those gents called the Fruit of Islam?
The unsatiable queer appetite.
December 19, 2008 - 15:24 ET by CTThere appears to be no compromise, no opinion, no thought that does not embrace all aspects of the gay agenda acceptable to the three-dollar bills of this world. I can understand one not finding the status of just being tolerated satisfying but keep pushing the string and even that tolerance may erode.
Civil Unions with all the legal rights of marriage seem inevitable and logical under our Constitution. Arguably the term marriage does not belong to the secular and should not be dictated by the state. The homosexual lifestyle has no right to be forced on the heterosexual culture so bugger-off!
Queer
December 19, 2008 - 17:21 ET by Mike BatesI think "queer" has been appropriated and can only be used by gays or GLBTs or whatever else the radical activists want to call themselves.
Media Hypocrites
December 19, 2008 - 15:54 ET by Ozark_SunshineThe media, like the gays are hypocrites. They don't stand for equal rights, they want special rights. The are the most intolerant group around. If you don't fit into the gays or the medias agenda they spew vile and hatred like it's going out of style. That's why the MSM has lost advertising and business, because they are only for the special interest groups. Let's see the money loving gays keep your lying rags afloat. I look forward to the days when the LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Newsweek and Times are all bankrupt because they've been bankrupt morally for years. Also I look forward to the first time a gay attacks me for my opinion so I can sue them for infringements on my first amendment rights and have them arrested for a hate crime.
Re: Media Hypocrites
December 19, 2008 - 23:44 ET by Vivaldi5"Also I look forward to the first time a gay attacks me for my opinion
so I can sue them for infringements on my first amendment rights and
have them arrested for a hate crime."
I think, Ozark, that your plan would only work as long as you don't go before a liberal, make-up-new-laws-from-the bench judge, who decides to create a "Disagreeing With Gays On Anything = Automatic 'Homophobia'" ruling just to please the defendant (going on to create other necessary laws like "In Obama We Trust Shall Replace In God We Trust on All Currency" and "Global Warming Denial Shall Earn the Death Penalty").
I'll do anything you want Obamessiah...
December 19, 2008 - 15:55 ET by Wilbur747I'm too old for the Obama Youth Corps, but I'll teach...supply uniforms...shine their boots...I...I'll do anything!
Just please...PLEASE don't point that finger at me!
I submit! I SUBMIT TO YOUR WILL! You're will is but my command....just NOT the finger! ALL PRAISE THE OBAMESSIAH! <sound of hysterical sobbing>
the One
December 19, 2008 - 16:01 ET by inevitableHe can point his finger at me all he wants. I can also cut it off and shove it__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __.
Obama Youth Corps
December 19, 2008 - 17:25 ET by Mike BatesI'm too old for the Obama Youth Corps, but I'll teach...supply uniforms...shine their boots...I...I'll do anything!
Don't know if The One needs his shoes shined, but the MSM can always use a few more bootlickers.
But I wanna be a part...
December 19, 2008 - 20:14 ET by Wilbur747of the Elite Brown Shirts...sorry, the Youth Corps. I'd get to wear those neat, pressed brown shirts with the 'O' emblem on the sleeve, knee high boots, and go around registering those evil people who cling to Bibles and guns, and go around forcing people to watch Algore's movie.
I think the MSM is licking The Dear Leader's boots and have been for a long time! They are, after all going to be a part of his Ministry of Propaganda. ;)
I tell you what, NO amount
December 19, 2008 - 15:57 ET by dscottI tell you what, NO amount of MSM disagreeing with the Obamanator will cause me to agree with him even IF his stated position or action runs parallel to mine, period. The MSM's second thoughts about the messenger they chose is not my concern other than schadenfreud. Just because he speaks english doesn't mean our interests, goals or wellbeing coincide at any point.
Obama stands in opposition to my culture (bitter clinging to guns and religion remarks), he aided and abetted the slaughter of children in the womb (abortion promoter, not just supporter), he is in full support of the CRA (cause of the mortgage meltdown), he is an AGW cultist (domestic drilling ban supporter) and is a Socialist.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Caveat Emptor
December 19, 2008 - 15:59 ET by littlemissmuffinCaveat Emptor has bitten them you-know-where.
"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"
Prop 8 - 70%
December 19, 2008 - 16:13 ET by Cool ArrowI could no more disavow my homophobic ideals than I could disavow my black race.
Looks to me like it's racist to expect Obama to break ranks with his race.
Confusing...
December 19, 2008 - 16:13 ET by Wilbur747There is a gay and lesbian community.
If one is a lesbian, then one is gay, yet if one is gay, one may not be a lesbian.
Is there a separate, unique name for male gays? After all female gays are lesbians. Is it fair that female gays get two monikers while male gays only get one?
It sounds as though even in the G&L community there is sexism. Are gay men are emanciated by lesbians? What would happen if gay men rose up and revolted against lesbians claiming the right to keep the term 'gay' only for males?
God forbid any man who feels as though he may be a lesbian in a man's body.
→ GLAAD you asked
December 19, 2008 - 16:14 ET by Cool ArrowBut I flunked set theory.
I'm sooooooooo confused!
December 19, 2008 - 16:22 ET by Wilbur747I fear that my confusion will result in my being labeled a bigot (...oh wait, I forgot, as a conservative, that's the default label) and may be sent to diversity rehab camp.
I'm waiting to hear that
December 19, 2008 - 16:49 ET by HockeyKidI'm waiting to hear that some high school guy is suing the state for the right to dress out for gym in the girls' locker room, seeing as how he's a pre-op transsexual who fears the emotional scarring resulting from changing in the boys' locker room. If it's California, the stupid 9th Circuit will probably grant the little perv permission to shower with the girls every day.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Gay rights is one
December 19, 2008 - 16:58 ET by RR GOPGay rights is one thing...the ascendancy of one group over others is simply bigotry in itself.
Anyhow, Obama is very concerned with the thought of facing from the Right what George Bush has had to face from the Left all those years. He knows he's quite reviled by millions of Americans...and he doesn't like it, and will try to do what he can to ameliorate.
At any rate, he's still far more 'friendly' to the gay rights movement than any Conservative is going to be. That is-the Liberals will indeed fawn over them, want to party with them, do what they can to help them achieve their goals. Conservatives on the other hand really aren't out to get them or destroy them, but figure if they choose to be gay, then whatever. But, that's not good enough. Being ambivalent is not the same, nor anywhere near as acceptable as 100% support for whatever it is they want and what they are.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
I'm stretching to come up
December 19, 2008 - 17:29 ET by Chris NormanI'm stretching to come up with words beyond Noel Sheppard's "delicious" to describe the sheer luxury I feel reading the leftist media's dismay over their messiah over this minor matter. "Scrumptious", "delectable", what? It shows when people imbue impossible to live up to attributes onto some one who seemed a blank canvas (and who encouraged the activity), inevitably, many are going to be bitterly disappointed (and in my case, delighted).
A stretch
December 19, 2008 - 17:33 ET by Mike BatesYummy is good, as is ambrosial.
Mmmm - mmmm good? :)
December 19, 2008 - 17:46 ET by Chris NormanMmmm - mmmm good? :)
Gotta love the audacity of
December 19, 2008 - 22:14 ET by lotrGotta love the audacity of Time magazine hitting leftist Obama from the Left. Rick Warren moderated a forum between the two candidates, and now they are labeling him as "far right." Blatant propaganda.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
While applauding Obama's
December 20, 2008 - 02:42 ET by JerWhile applauding Obama's unifying efforts and centrist appointments--and hope he continues in this direction--I fear his attempts may be no more successful than were Clinton's--thus alienating significant components of his base while failing to placate his adversaries.
Jer
Good point Jer, so why did
December 20, 2008 - 11:09 ET by dscottGood point Jer, so why did he seemingly compromise (in your view) in making those appoints? Is it a matter of pragmatic governance or did he just tell you what you wanted to hear in order to get your vote? If the former, what does that say about you and other Obama supporter's veracity of their solutions to the real world? If the later, doesn't it say Obama is a typical saleman who sold you a bill of goods to get your vote?
Let me help you in that answer, did the Dems keep their 2006 campaign promises? What does it say about the left when their standard bearers have a track record of not keeping their promises?
From my point of view Obama is an empty suit, a figurehead, he is delegating all the decisions to the Dem Party establishment functionaries. Remember he voted Present on most of his votes and when he did vote it was at the direction of the Dem leadership. E.g. his 2005 vote against reforming Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He of course will take all the credit for anything that seems to go right, on the other hand when the policy blows up, he will toss the Clintonite or other functionary under the bus, just as threw Rev. Wright under the bus when it was no longer going to give him political mileage. It's Obama's MO.
Does Obama have a Socialist agenda? Probably yes. Will Obama impose socialism? Probably not, his personal agenda will trump all other agendas. Pelosi and Reid will run the country and Obama will take credit where he can and blame someone when he can't. That's what you get with someone with no experience in anything but manipulating his way through life.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I voted for Obama after
December 21, 2008 - 17:16 ET by JerI voted for Obama after becoming convinced he would govern pragmatically from the center, and was sincere in his stated conviction about elevating political discourse above and beyond the partisan rancor that has divided Washington and the rest of the nation along deep ideological fissures for the past couple of decades in particular.
Thus far, he has not disappointed. But I think it will prove to be a very difficult road to navigate--with obstacles on both the left and right.
Jer
a not so significant component...
December 20, 2008 - 23:27 ET by lotrActually, unlike African Americans, I can't see that gays themselves could be a significant component of the base -- there just aren't that many of them.
Rev. Warren was a decent choice (being a somewhat charismatic yet orthodox Christian) on Obama's part. The radical gays should respect that and stop bitching.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe