Civil Liberties Group Questions Obama's Outreach to Christian Right
The Family Research Council (FRC) and Concerned Women of America (CWA): You know them well as some of the most vocal right-wing groups in the nation, the types that push against President Obama's agenda as hard as they can, from his nominees to his executive orders.
And guess where the two groups are headed today ... to the White House, to meet with Obama's director of faith-based initiatives about finding common ground on religious-related issues.
People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, which tracks conservative evangelicals' push to influence the social agenda, is not amused:
If the Obama administration thinks that it is going to win support for anything that it does on this issue from groups like CWA and FRC, it is sorely mistaken ... which is something they will presumably learn once this meeting takes place.These are not moderate, open-minded groups looking for common ground - they are militant, anti-choice groups committed to, above all, making abortion illegal everywhere and for everyone, with no exceptions.
It is hard to understand what the administration expects to gain by meeting with such groups to discuss efforts to reduce abortion considering that the only option such groups support is to outlaw them entirely.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Presumably, these same people would be supportive of Obama's opening up a dialog with, say, Iran.
March 17, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your mental powers are such that you really think that's a good analogy, I have some Citibank stock to sell you.
March 17, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly a well thought out rebuttal.
March 17, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
All that an abysmally stupid analogy deserves. Analogies, especially dumb ones, aren't arguments.
So, since you're so smart, go ahead and convince- not me, but GayIthacan, who has a personal stake in this, and personal reason to be offended by it, that I don't have- that this is a good idea. Using actual arguments, not glib analogies.
March 17, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, Steve "vituperative" LaBonne, how is the analogy flawed? What is wrong with inviting these two groups to the White House for a discussion?
How about instead of attacking the messenger, you attack the message.
March 17, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't like my comments, don't read them. Now, do you have anything of substance to say?
March 17, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tara (below) made a good argument, but I'll try to sum it up in one pithy sentence: What do we have to lose?
Do you seriously equate talking with buying into their agenda? The analogy seems to me to be quite on point. Refusing to talk gets you nowhere.
March 17, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she didn't, she made no argument at all, just bullshit assertions. The idea that Obama will pick up support from crazy Christian Right types has been floated since long before the election, and was and is a delusion. Remember, for example, how criticism of his stem order was muted because people remembered how he had given countenance to the odious Rick Warren at the inauguration? Ohm, right, that didn't stop anyone from bashing him for one microsecond.
Get a clue. This fascists shouldn't be given the time of day, let alone invitation to the White House. It gives them unwarranted importance but does absolutely nothing for Obama except to piss off his own supporters.
March 17, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you seriously trying to argue that there is something wrong with talking to people? If so, then I have a fundamental disagreement with you.
First off, no one can predict the future with 100% certainty, so you have no idea what will come of it.
Second, did it ever occur to you that the intended audience of the meeting isn't the participants, but moderate independent onlookers who could just as easily support one party or another. Obama's open attitude is winning them over big time. Why would we want to adopt the republicans "my way or the highway" approach which is turning them into a regional interest group rather than a national party.
March 17, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, last I checked, the President is President of *all* the people.
Even ones you do not like, to whom you give yourself permission to rant like an geriatric shut-in.
There is nothing to lose in dialog, and everything to be gained.
In case you were not aware, silence = death. If one right-wing pastor calms down for five minutes to speak with the People's President, then a small victory would have been had.
By your own logic, I suggest you cherish it.
Pax,
M.
March 17, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree! Ceding ground to the AmTalibangelicals gets no support from them. Send them an Easter card and call it a day.
March 17, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point out what ground Obama has ceded to these people? Stem cells? Nope. Choice? Nope. DADT? Don't think so.
You're just like those nutcase wingers who equate talking to appeasement.
March 17, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is definitely an example of foolishness and weakness on the part of Obama.
If he thinks this earns him any points, he is sadly mistaken. As a gay man, I am doubly offended.
But, of course, no white supremacy groups were invited.
Says a lot, doesn't it?
March 17, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is your problem. The only thing you care about is what it means to gays. These people are assholes to a variety of groups, such as women who want to decide what to do with their own bodies and people who could benefit from stem cell research.
But none of that ever seems to matter to you. It's all about what they said about gays. There are tons of straight people who advocate strongly for gay rights but I *never* see gays advocating for anybody but themselves.
Perhaps if gays acted like they gave a fuck about some cause other than themselves, you wouldn't be seen as such self-absorbed whiners.
March 17, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a completely narrow-minded response. So anyone advocating (as it were) on behalf of gays is automatically single tracking? What in what GI said leads to your conclusion? The fact that he said anything at all perhaps? Anything you want to tell us? Mmmmmmmmm?
March 17, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Q: Why is this *only* an affront to gays? It's not but that's how it's being framed. Where's the outrage from him about their comparing choice to the holocaust or stem cell research to nazi experimentation?
They don't exist because they *never* express the tiniest bit of outrage for anything other than gay issues.
I've seen this person's posts here before during the Warren mess. He/she acted as if it was an afront to gays and gays alone.
If I ever witnessed the slightest bit of concern about what these people mean to anyone besides the gay community, I'd feel differently. I haven't.
March 17, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're equally offensive to women. To liberals. And to the non-religious.
March 17, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad you had to be made to acknowledge that gays aren't the only people who matter here. And every gay person I've seen post on this subject *never* mentions anyone else who is mistreated by these people. Why? Because they only care about their own agenda.
March 17, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have forgotten one of your core mantras: Silence = Death.
If you back away, point fingers, call names, and cross your arms, you have trasnmitted away all your personal power, and become no better than those you accuse.
I invite you to grow up.
Pax,
M.
March 17, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It never ceases to amaze me that people are shocked or offended to see Obama do exactly what he said he was going to do if he got elected.
Yes, it seems unlikely that this administration will be unable to find common ground with these groups but what if they could? And how can we find out without trying?? What if these discussions actually did lead to less poverty or fewer unwanted pregnancies. Would that not be a good thing?
And if nothing comes if it, then at least he can say he tried. It's a win-win. This is just like the stimulus debates. Obama makes the overture and what he really wants is cooperation/progress for the country. But if he can't have this, then at least he gets political advantage by trying. And this is true regardless of how the media spins it. Polls show that the American people get it.
March 17, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I was going to also note that the Republican coalition is definitely in danger of fracturing. If Obama can be there to pick up some of the pieces then good for us. Keep in mind that Obama already did much better among evangelicals than did Kerry or Gore. So it's not just these extreme groups that are the audience. It's some of the more moderate evangelicals as well.
March 17, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree, TaraV. The Repubs are definitely fracturing right now. The very act of talking to Obama automatically makes these two nut job groups less "hard core" than their equally nutty colleagues in other wacko clubs. It will add to the infighting that is burning down this Confederacy of Dunces.
GayIthacan, I'm pretty sure the spin from Obama will be, "Yep, I tried talking to them but they refused to engage in anything resembling rational discourse. Somebody forgot to tell these radicals that the days of the Bush Administration's 'no compromise' mentality are over.
This is the change I had in mind. Act in good faith and kick ass when people refuse to play. Obama has a spine. Let's hold him and his administration accountable for using it. So far, he's done more things right than wrong; let's help him keep doing that.
March 17, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is Obamna's style, resisting on the principle of "show me the money," and then coming to an "aw shucks you got me" moment, and then he picks the perfect time to Act, so that when he does, it will have the full force of the People behind it.
But only if we insist upon it, and continually. This is the bargain. This is what he is asking us to do re: war crimes for example.
No one will remember the "aw shucks." They will remember his leadership.
Pax,
M.
March 17, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well-stated. O'Bama (begone and begorah) seems to be acting, beyond all reason, like President of *all* the people.
Even the ones we do not like, who, incidently, aren't going anywhere, and who's vote counts as much as anyone else's.
One cannot move the debate without dialog. Have we learned nothing from the previous criminal enterprise posing as a presidency?
Pax,
M.
March 17, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tara:
Ah yes, dear.
And just what 'common ground' do you expect him to find with an organization that has called for gays to be place din internment camps AND denied fundamental civil rights.
Or do you not give a shit about them, since you apparently would be unaffected by said 'common ground'.
Perhaps when the subject is actually about YOU, you will have a point of view that actually is impacted by any ;common ground' Obama finds with these lunatics.
Meet with certain church leaders and anti-abortion groups? Fine. Meet with radical groups who advocate or justify reducing their fellow Americans to second or third class status AND whose goal is to impose a theocracy.
Sorry. Tht isn;t the 'change' I had in mind.
March 17, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, GayIthican? I actually have a lot of sympathy for gay rights but not coming from people like you who spout it as if it's the only thing at stake and that the whole world is out to get you. You do your cause no favors.
And last time I checked as a woman, I am potential victim of these whack-jobs.
What I'm suggesting is that there is a bigger picture to be looking at here. You guys just have no sense of strategy at all. It's all tactics, tactics, tactics. And look where that has gotten the Republicans. I for one, am not looking for a my way or the highway sort of government.
The day that Obama makes unreasonable actual concessions to these folks, we can talk. In the meantime, would you just trust the man? Did you really learn nothing watching these guys operate all through the primaries and the GE?
March 17, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tara:
My dear, did YOU learn nothing from Obama's almost deafening silence on Prop 8 - and the result?
And we have been 'patient' and 'talking' to these people for DECADES.
It is time to STOP TALKING and exert ones POLITICAL POWER (recently gained) and actually DO SOMETHING - which is what the right wing had no compunction in doing for over 30 years.
Most of us learn that after talking and talking for years, there comes a time when talking is a waste of time and effort - especially when the group being 'talked to' is deaf and dumb.
March 23, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Obama is President of all of them, and you too. Read the Constitution.
If you were really a gay man, how can you possibly justify the furtherance of ostracization? Did marginalizing you work out for you growing up? Why are you so eager to heap it on others? This seems exceedingly weak to me.
I remind you again: Silence = Death.
March 17, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can I borrow that brush? With one that wide I can paint my whole house in no time.
March 17, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
what was rahm emanuel said? they don't have to succeed at achieving bipartisanship-they just have to be seen as trying.
i think something similar is happening with this. they may not win the support of the CWA or FRC, but they'll be seen as trying...
March 17, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As GayIthacan put it so well, I'll buy this when he invites David Duke to the White House.
March 17, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was one of the commenters who thought that the invitation to Rick Warren was just a bad idea altogether.
And honestly? It still bothers me.
But what substantive events came out of that invitation? Nothing, except Obama had already begun to set the theme of reaching out to those who disagree with him. And given the polling on who's been reaching out more, Obama or Republicans, I'd say he laid a good foundation with the Warren pick.
Besides, Warren underperformed, if anything. He went on too long. And what will people remember about preachers and pastors at the Inauguration? Not Rick Warren, outside of those who already know him. They'll remember the closing benediction.
So in light of the Rick Warren situation, and its aftereffects (none, that I'm aware), I'm willing to wait and see where this outreach to those homophobic closeminded Christianistas leads.
If it leads to some on the Christianista side to diminish their rhetoric and vitriol, well, that's a baby step forward, isn't it?
March 17, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm still waiting for somebody to address GayIthacan's point. When may we expect Obama to invite white supremacist groups to the WH to discuss improving race relations?
It's awfully easy to brush off this sort of thing when it's not YOUR freedom that's directly threatened by these people, but only somebody else's.
March 17, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got some nerve. You don't know anything about me, and therefore, have no right to make sweeping statements about how easy it is for me to "brush this off" because supposedly it's not "my freedom" that's "directly threatened" by "these people". Fuck you.
You completely dismissed Man's Best Friend comment about Iran, but how is that different? Iran has a terrible record on human rights. The reality is worse than the plots by the Christianistas here. And yet where's the outrage when Obama suggests a dialogue with Iran?
March 17, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has it escapde your attention that Iran is a fucking foreign country? Diplomacy != domestic politics. This comparison is as completely brain-dead as the Rethugs' favorite comparison of the US budget to your household budget.
Also, by the way, Obama is in favor of "getting tough" with Iran and offering "carrots and sticks". Seems that doesn't apply yo domestic Christian Fascists.
And my previous comment stands; you can cram your faux outrage.
March 17, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohhh, Labonne. Brilliantly stupid and hyperbolic as usual while not being able to defend his position.
Labonne = JOKE.
March 17, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
His posts do have an odor of urine-soaked cheerios, I must say...
March 17, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice that neither of you bothered to even try to defend the brain-dead analogy between domestic politics and foreign affairs (where you don't get to choose what countries NEED to be dealt with). Nor have you addressed the fact that Obama talks a lot tougher about Iran than about his new misogynist homophobe buddies. Typical- anybody expecting substance from the likes of you two will always be disappointed.
March 17, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it's because we owe you nothing.
But that aside, you have not addressed how exchanging GOP exclusionary politics with your (alleged) "progressive" exclusionary politics does anything but repeat the past, and make you look like both a fool and a tool.
Nor have you enlightened us as to how you intend to escape the Constitution where it clearly says the President is President of even those you do not like or agree with.
Your fear of "them" is visceral and unwarranted. By your own dogma Silence = Death.
Until real dialog begins, it's just more of your spew.
March 17, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your approach is a prescription for a dead-end.
And suggests that you really have an extremely low opinion of Obama. Good grief! He's going to, gasp, TALK TO PEOPLE.
As for why he doesn't meet with supremacist groups? Their whole reason for existence is to wipe out anyone non-white person.
Christianistas? Dislike, loathe them all you want, but they have other items on their agendas beyond outlawing abortion and putting gays in detention camps.
And dismiss Iran all you want: the fact is that he's willing to talk to a nation that demonizes gay people. But invite religious groups here into the White House??? Why are you so afraid, anyway?
Finally, what makes you so damn sure he's not going to use the same approach with the Christianistas that he plans to use with Iran? Carrots and sticks only work with foreign nations?
And you can cram your constant bitter haranguing, your impossibly high standards, and your anger as well. Must be wonderful to be perfect.
March 17, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Misogyny and homophobia ARE what these assholes are all about. Get your head out of the sand, or wherever else it might be.
2. Wake me up when Obama gives even the first glimmer of applying carrot and stick to these creeps. He's trying to apply "come let us reason together" to people who don't believe in reason. And yes, that DOES lower my opinion of him.
March 17, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your opinion of Obama has always been low because he's not a foam-at-the-mouth do-nothing like you.
But your entire argument is so specious. Evangelicals care about poverty and homelessness, just like the president. That's where they can find common ground and common solutions.
I'm still waiting for you or any of the screechers here to point to one thing he's given up to the evangelicals, besides time.
As far as talking to Iran goes, they are a terrible country (women, Jews, gays, nuclear weapons) so why talk? Why not just bomb them into oblivion like McCain advocated?
March 17, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Family Research Council and Concerned Women don't care about anything other than what other people are doing in their bedrooms. Their issues are not poverty or environment. These folks are the panty police.
March 17, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to evangelicals in general. There are always some nuts.
March 17, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup! And those are the nuts they've invited to the White House for "dialogue".
March 17, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Obama is President of them, and you, too.
Please tell me how your exclusionary politics is anything other than that which you eschew?
March 17, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are they nuttier than Ahmadenijad of Iran?
You people are just like the nutters on the right. They think you can become gay by living next door to gay people. Do you think Obama will become an anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-stem cell winger just by meeting with them?
People who are secure in their beliefs aren't usually so afraid of people who think differently. Maybe you're easily persuaded and, therefore, think the president is, too????
March 17, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you did there. You acted like a moderate, reasonable person, and therefore when Steve LaBonne attacked you viciously, he ended up looking unreasonable to uninvolved third parties. It's sort of like what happens when people observe Obama having meetings with right wing fundamentalist groups. Clever!
March 17, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I was moderate for awhile at least. Telling someone "fuck you" doesn't count as moderation for me, most of the time. :)
March 17, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know...you could have said "fuck you and the horse you rode in on". ;-)
March 17, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
People for the American Way will get over themselves
March 17, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we can stop calling each other names and questioning each other's motives and stuff for a moment, I'd like to ask the people who are outraged by this an honest, totally non-rhetorical question.
What are you afraid of?
Seriously, what concrete, tangible thing are you afraid will happen as a result of talking to these people?
I'm really only hearing two arguments. 1. He's wasting his time because these people are extremists and therefore I know for a fact that it is absolutely impossible that anything other than a complete waste of time could result. 2. It hurts my feelings that he's talking to people who hate me and/or who I hate.
What am I missing here?
March 17, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
March 17, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink