Aw Man.

Posted on 12/18/2008 at 3:28 pm by Bob Cesca

For too many reasons to list, I really, really admire Thom Hartmann. But wow. With all due respect, I just don’t understand his latest column in which he applauds the inclusion of Rick Warren in the inaugural ceremony. Basically, Hartmann is in line with my friend Stranahan in suggesting that by including Warren, the president-elect is creating a sort of peaceful détente between progressives and conservative evangelicals. Hartmann writes:

You’d think that we’d have learned from these experiences – particularly those of us who call ourselves “progressives” – that you get your desired results faster when you embrace, engage, and nurture your “enemies” than when you physically or rhetorically bomb them.

Of course I couldn’t agree more with this general idea — but within reason. After all, we’re talking about an evangelical minister who believes that my gay friends are one step removed from pedophiles (and therefore one step removed from criminals). We weren’t so forgiving when Rick Santorum said almost the exact same thing. Rhetorical bombing all around. And for good damn reason.

Additionally, I thought I heard Hartmann on his show the other day declaring the shoe-tosser to be “a hero.” I’m not sure how bestowing hero status upon a man who hurled shoes at the head of the president lines up with “embracing, engaging, and nuturing” those we disagree with.

Between this Warren thing and the shoe-tosser, this week has seriously sucked eggs for blogotubing.

This entry was posted in Inauguration 2009 and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://unrelatedcontent.com Travis D

    Hartman’s really keen on Jesus, and hence willing to look the other way to a degree. On his show today he was kind of backpeddling, admitting it seems like a terrible idea.As for the shoe-thrower, he wasn’t a hero, but he wasn’t wrong either.Also does any week where you’re paid to blog really suck, Bob? Really?

  • camel54

    Tolerance goes both ways. We liberals seem to have this belief that tolerance means we include all the different groups and subgroups of lifestyles and beliefs that do not offend us. Are we really so tolerant if we’re open minded toward things that don’t offend us? Of course Rick Warren is a asshole but can we say we believe in tolerance if we don’t tolerate him? We don’t have to agree with him or like him, but it seems to me that simply turning out all those who did the same to us when they had the pulpit makes us just like them. If we are going to open a meaningful dialogue with people like Rick Warren, and thus reach his followers, we can’t treat them as though they don’t count or that they are lesser. It’s not like Warren and his views are representative of a small minority of individuals.I get it. I understand we don’t want to endorse his views and many see this invocation as doing just that. I don’t. Including people in the larger discussion is not the same as affirming them.

  • http://unrelatedcontent.com Travis D

    Where is the line? If he had included miscegenation in his screed against gay marriage, then could we agree that he’s a bigot?

  • Bob_Cesca

    >>Of course Rick Warren is a asshole but can we say we believe in tolerance if we don’t tolerate him?It’s not about tolerating Rick Warren or not. I tolerate his views and he has a right to say whatever he wants.But that doesn’t mean we should go around rewarding and aggrandizing the loathsome, destructive and divisive idea that gay couples are a moral gateway to incestuous couples.If that were the case, why did we work so hard to yank Rick Santorum out of the Senate? Shouldn’t we have tolerated him?

  • Zanath

    It hasn’t been all bad, Bob. Our new Labor Secretary is a great choice, from what I’m reading, and despite Warren’s presence, Joseph Lowry, who is on the opposite spectrum of Warren, is also speaking. I’m disappointed in Warren having a role too, but I think it’s possible to oppose this decision without condemning Obama on a whole…which you are not doing, and I appreciate that. Andrew Sullivan has a great view on the situation as well. I just wish we could all have discussions without some of the name calling I have been seeing on DailyKos (on both sides).

  • camel54

    I’m not saying he’s not a bigot. I’m saying he represents a very large, perhaps majority percentage of the country and because of that, the onus is on us to change minds. Many of those people are not bigots or homophobes irrationally. They’ve been taught that hate through religion, through family, through things that can be undone. If we are intolerant of them we are no less bigoted, though we believe our bigotry to be righteous. Guess what, so do they. It’s not like they think the things they believe in are wrong or are hate any more than we think the things we believe in are sinful or godless or evil.

  • http://unrelatedcontent.com Travis D

    >>It’s not like they think the things they believe in are wrongActually, that’s kind of the problem. They are. Being gay isn’t a choice, and it certainly isn’t the same as wanting to fuck children or animals.

  • CJ

    Ironically, Rick Warren condoned assassinating Ahmadinejad, although both he and Ahmadinejad hold similar views about the GLBT community. Maybe they should put their differences aside and bond on their common hatred of minorities.

  • camel54

    Quick note: I think you guys are right. I think he’s a deplorable human being and so is anyone who would compare loving couples to pedophiles or beast-o-philes is a contemptible fucker. I just want to make the argument that there is a possibility we could reach some of them, give them a seed of doubt so maybe they or their children would not be so quick to think the same horrible things because they can compare their intolerance to our inclusiveness.

  • http://unrelatedcontent.com Travis D

    >>I just want to make the argument that there is a possibility we could reach some of themCapitulation didn’t really work for Democrats between Nixon and W, why is it going to start working now?

  • http://obamaproject.windonwater.net QueenTiye

    Let’s start by conceding the “bigotry” point. I don’t think Rick Warren is a bigot, but that’s predicated on my belief that people’s beliefs help us understand them, while most here believe that any belief against gays is bigotted. SO. Let me concede to you all’s opinion on this matter. Rick Warren is a bigot. Done.Can we then talk about how to move the dialogue forward? If we start from the premise that Rick Warren is wrong, and we all are right, does that excuse us from dialoguing if dialogue is possible?Lee raised the spectrum of Dr. King. Admittedly, the turbulence of the civil rights movement included, but was not exclusively characterized by Dr. King’s nonviolent, love your enemy ways. There were plenty of people who were angry, hostile, and unwilling to negotiate. These were perhaps as necessary to change as Dr. King was – forcing people to dialogue with Dr. King as the alternative to the other more radical groups/leaders. But conversely – I’m not sure the civil rights movement would have succeeded if we only had radicals.Obama wants to broaden the dialogue space. Doing that means reaching into the boundaries of the “enemy” camp for space. Rick Warren is about where I would draw the line.______________There is an article on HuffPost about the gag-rule enacted by Reagan, preventing health care agencies from talking about abortion. Enacted by Reagan, rescinded by Clinton, and reenacted by Bush. Know what that tells me? It tells me that presidential actions are temporary unless you put the force of public opinion behind them. Creating more room for dialogue is so foundational to any real, lasting, change.QT

  • Bob_Cesca

    >>Also does any week where you’re paid to blog really suck, Bob? Really?Paid? ‘The hell is that?No-one pays me. Not even Huffington. I make beer money from the Google ads, but that’s it.

  • camel54

    I don’t think giving a prayer is capitulation. This isn’t policy. This is imagery. This is staging for the sake of appearances and has nothing to do with legislating the country. When it comes to policy, are you saying we should oppose them no matter what they want, just to prove how big and bad we are now that we’ve won? Surely we’ll hold our power forever creating a permanent, liberal strong-hold; Just like they did by being uncompromising.

  • http://obamaproject.windonwater.net QueenTiye

    Wow. Just read the Hartmann article. Bob, what about the article did you object to? Seriously?I found it moving, and incredibly hopeful.QT

  • http://unrelatedcontent.com Travis D

    >>No-one pays me. Not even Huffington. I make beer money from the Google ads, but that’s it.Sorry dude, I assumed Huffington paid out. I didn’t mean anything untoward by it.>>I don’t think giving a prayer is capitulation. This isn’t policy. This is imagery.Exactly, it’s saying “your bigoted point of view is acceptable in this day and age”. It’s not. It’s really not.>>When it comes to policy, are you saying we should oppose them no matter what they want, just to prove how big and bad we are now that we’ve won?They want virtually nothing positive, why should we give them obstructionism, a poisoned planet, union busting, and widening of the class divide?To make the Stranahans of the world happy? Thanksbutnothanks.jpg

  • sammy1

    While I don’t think anyone should go out of their way to attack or bash Warren, I also don’t think we need to elevate him as a national figure anymore than Oprah (and BHO when he allowed himself to be set up in that staged political “discussion” between he, Warren and McCain) has already done.

  • Bob_Cesca

    >>Wow. Just read the Hartmann article. Bob, what about the article did you object to? Seriously?Heh. Okay. Simply put, we shouldn’t be rewarding or elevating “gay leads to kiddie rape” rhetoric. We should be opposing it. Vocally.One of Hartmann’s slogans is “winning the water cooler wars,” and it’s a great way to define what he does. He helps us argue more effectively. And despite helping us to win said wars, he’s objecting to the rhetorical ‘bombing’ of Rick Warren. I simply don’t get that, with all due respect to Hartmann who, again, I really admire.

  • http://52novels.com Rob in Denver

    I wish I had a nickel for every person I know with at least one asshat, repugnant view of something.Seriously, I just don’t see this is as an issue.At all.It’s two minutes of political theater at the near end of almost two years of a crap ton of other political theater. Tough it out and enjoy the good governance that’ll begin shortly after Warren exits the stage.

  • http://obamaproject.windonwater.net QueenTiye

    I’ve argued on two different threads that I think Warren’s comments are being mischaracterized. But anyway,

    One of Hartmann’s slogans is “winning the water cooler wars,” and it’s a great way to define what he does. He helps us argue more effectively. And despite helping us to win said wars, he’s objecting to the rhetorical ‘bombing’ of Rick Warren. I simply don’t get that, with all due respect to Hartmann who, again, I really admire.

    Thanks for the reply. I don’t know what is meant by “winning the water cooler wars” so I can’t respond to whether or not this is out of character. I have to take your word for it. OTOH, the level of discourse Hartmann seems to be talking about here is not war but diplomacy.QT