Jack & Jill Politics

Top of the morning folks. Until a new board goes up I will post this question on here for the second time and hope someone answers:


"What do you think will happen as a result of Warren doing the invocation?"


I already know that the people against this feel offended or driven under the bus or kicked in the gut or slapped in the face, but... that's not the question.


"What do you think will happen as a result of Warren doing the invocation?"

carolinagirl: It will be DEMONSTRATED that PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS LARGE ANNNNNNND IN CHARGE!!

I don't make that statement off-handedly. Ever since HE declared that HE was running for POTUS, he has carefully measured/weighed the decisions that he made. There are a lot of factors that went into all of them. Not the least of which was for him to consider how people will react to them.

HE must have the most accurate "THERMOMETER" and "SPHYGMOMANOMETER" in the world 'cause he has to take the temperature and the "pulse"/"pressure" of "we the people" in order to determine whether his decisions will serve us.

I believe that he gathers ENOUGH DATA in his decision-making in order to make the BEST one(s). Annnnnnnd, HE KNOWS the minds of his detractors. BUT, as he keeps saying, I AM THE VISIONARY and ultimately, I make the decisions.

He admits that "WE WILL MAKE MISTAKES!" And he said that he will admit that when he does. Soooooo, unless and/or until he reverses this decision, I'm believin' that HE had a plan and for now, I am supporting his decisions.

To the question: A PRAYER WILL BE OFFERED TO GOD on behalf of MR. P-E Obama, annnnnd I believe that it will be answered!

God bless the FIRST FAMILY!!

Maybe some evangelical Christians who aren't drinking from the Dobson well will be brought a little closer into the fold.

Maybe the GOP's lock on younger evangelicals will be loosened just a little bit more.

Maybe nothing at all.

Now let me ask a question that's not being answered. Why is Rick Warren's attendance and prayer given so much weight and importance, and its meaning is attached so firmly to Obama, but Joseph Lowery's attendance and prayer is considered meaningless and to be ignored?

Kat, that is a great Question. I personally think it is because to them, Lowery is just another black preacher.

Because Roland Martin does not have his own network anchor program!! Because TJ Holmes does not have his own Holmes&Malveaux program hour.
Because news anchors from BET Ed & Jackie do not anchor a program on a network or cable newscast.

Preach.

Tick Tock -Tick Tock -Tick Tock.......

Why didn't they feel slapped in the face when Obama went to Saddleback Church in the first place?

They did...there was a huge hue and cry...at the time the evangelicals were the loudest they were mad at Warren. But guess what? There were no evangelicals with anchor positions on 2 major cable networks to deliver rants about it and use their professional perches as a platform to make a federal case about that.
So, we didn't hear as much about it...you had to be in the evangelical community to hear that protest.

Well, we've been waiting two days carolinagirl, I don't think an answer is forthcoming. Apparently the sky is really NOT falling!

Miranda

lol

I have a cup of hot coffee in hand. You're gonna make me burn myself!

Between you & Town.... (shaking my head).......hilarious!

Obama will finally officially become the POTUS!!!!!

I have a question...can anyone explain how the West Wing and Cabinet function in terms of an organizational chart?

The reason I ask is because I was reading this article by P.Baker in the NYT and he made reference to how Obama is
"creating new positions with authoritiy over key areas, he is fillin his WestWing with people of stature equal to or even greater than the members of his Cabinet, including 2 former Cabinet officers and a former Senate majority leader snip....there is a willingness to encourage, competing power centers within his administration snip...Obama's moves collectively signal a political shift farther away from the Cabinet"

I was unable to make sense of this in terms of hierarchal power structure. Is the West Wing where cabinet members take up offices.. what differentiates the West Wing from the Cabinet.

This article was written following yesterday cabinet nominnees being announced is there another level of power in the West Wing?
If you are a cabinet member would you have less power than someone who has served in the Cabinet previously but are not in a cabinet position in Obama's administration...if so why would that be? Which is the traditional power center the West Wing or the Cabinet? Where are the cabinet offices if not in the West Wing?

I was not able to grasp the significance of what Baker was saying nor figure out how power relates to the Cabinet vs. the West Wing.

Is there anyone who does understand this in terms of the political power shift he is saying Obama is creating?

I hope this helps. It's a lot and it may not be what you're looking for, but it does talk a lot about the fuctions of the cabinet:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_resea...

Advisors Or Administrators: Categorizing Cabinet Function From Washington To Clinton

Thanks Carolinagirl

Interestingly, those citations are by Thomas Brezinzinski as in Mika's brother and Zeb's son.

I am wondering though how these two centers (cabinet& westwing) function as power bases and if they have ever been co-equals or if that is what makes this new in the Obama adminstration. And what that portends, if anything.

What I am looking for is how the WestWing and Cabinet traditionally have functioned within an administration in terms of power heirarchy.

What role does the WestWing typically play, in terms of power vs. the role of the Cabinet in terms of power. Why would the stature of those in the WestWing overshadow a cabinet, if the cabinet is what has traditionally been the most powerful broker position in a Presidential administration. Bottomline, I have never paid a whole lot of attention to the role of the West Wing nor even given the slightest thought to it being as powerful or high ranking as being a member of the cabinet.


Obama is so innovative, savvy and analytical ...I think what he is setting up could be potentially equivalent to Kareem's sky hook.

With 2 power bases no one can hijack his administration...you know like a SOS might be able to if they were the highest ranking cabinet member?

Seems like domestic policy is going to outrank FP and carry the day when it comes to covering Obama's flank. And that Obama has made certain of this by placing folks over domestic policy in the WestWing that can squash any insurgency that a SOS might consider engaging?

Another tactical move by a game changer strategist!

If John McCain and Sarah Palin had won, and invited Rick Warren to do the invocation, would there have been all this teeth gnashing and hand wringing? Somehow I don't think so.

IMO all this stomach twisting has nothing to do with gay rights, or Rick Warren or feeling disrespected, and everything to do with feeling that Obama needs to bend down and suck your dick or clit.

Obama's problems for the next 4 years at least will NOT be with the Republicans or conservatives. It will be with the Soul Patrol, the Gay Mafia, the PUMAs, the Daily Kos crowd etc. who feel that they gave him a chance "even though he is black" so he needs to cater to their every wish and whim. I'd say the "I voted for you even though you're black" mentality coursing through the veins of many of these people hollering and screaming is just as racist as the Palin "don't vote for him because he's not like you and me" voter who voted against Obama because he's black.

I'm not talking about merely questioning his policies and agenda. That's fine and should be questioned. I'm talking about the over the top reaction to a 5 minute prayer that will be forgotten 5 minutes after dude gives it.

No, Rick Warren doesn't support gay marriage. Neither does Barack Obama. So if you voted for Barack Obama thinking he was gonna magically bestow gay rights upon the land, you voted for the wrong dude. Joke's on you, don't vote for him next time.

I don't know, somehow I think if Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton had won and done the exact same thing, there wouldn't be as much hollering and crying.

And someone mentioned that Rev. Lowery who is pro-gay rights is giving the benediction but nobody's mentioning that. Now why is his contribution to the inauguration being ignored?

And I know someone will scream at me "What if a preacher who didn't like blacks was invited to give the benediction, what about black people?" What ABOUT black people? Are these the same black people castigated and blamed in the media for passing Prop. 8 when every single black person in California could have voted against Prop. 8 and it still would have passed? Are these the same black people who've been ignored by gay rights organizations but expected to vote for gay rights initiatives?

We're in for a long 4 years, folks. If Obama pimp walks too hard, if his necktie leans to the right, if he eats fish and fresh vegatables instead of fried catfish and fatback, we will hear about it all day long. It won't be the Republicans that bring Obama down, it will be the so-called Progressives.

A little rough but I feel you.

Amen Town . You are on point with this one!!!

Town,y NAILED IT!!! Barack Obama is just another Black "WE" can try to manipulate for our gains because WE are entitled.

Town: GREAT ANALYSIS, as usual!! :>)

MAJOR CO-SIGN!! :>)

I just read a comment over on Daily Kos, where the diarist claims that more people will pay attention to what Rick Warren says at the invocation than will remember Obama's "black face".

The Mafia, the PUMAs, the Daily Kos crowd all have one thing in common: they want Obama to be desperate, desperate enough to do whatever they want him to do.

And when he's not, well, it's "off with his head."

The fact that people keep evoking Obama's race in this situation when Obama is doing what any white Democrat would have done is telling.

It's the old "you black, so you should be grateful" mentality. That's the same mentality that was behind the "We voted for Obama, but you black people couldn't vote for US" hoopla over Prop. 8.

The Mafia.... well said, well said.

I am so over them and their "nonracist" ways. "It isn't about race" I call that out, it is and you have nailed the idea of we should be grateful.

Sorry, I am a minority and I feel the struggle is shared by nonwhites.

While I do think this pick is stupid I'm, however, bothered by some of the nasty comments. I noticed that the nastiest comments are made by trolls, pumas who use to comment before they showed their true colors. Regular DKos posters have been pissed but they have not shown the nastiness you've seen with the trolls. I am getting the feeling that there's something manufactured about this outrage.

I have cut down visiting at Daily Kos considerably! It's unbelievable how ugly their attitude has become. It's sickening!

I feel the same way. I have done the same thing. I just don't go there, unless I want to ruin my day.. It is suffocating and nauseating to listen to those distorted rants. It is worst than red state...cuz at red state sites, you knew they were irrantional...now we see the same type of manic ramblings at 'progressive' sites and it makes you wonder...who ARE these people?

I kept trying to figure out what the word 'progressive' meant and why there was so much emphasis on that word. Those people sounded like they were liberals with most of the same issues liberals had. I finally concluded that these so called 'progrssives' just decided they did not want to be called flaming liberals anymore so they decided to re-name themselves.

Folks at Kos have gone beyond ugly...they are ugly nitwits.

Craig has pointed this out as well. Its the same thing that happened during the primaries....we discovered that black women were not actually women...we just black. Black gays and lesbians are not gay and lesbian...they are just black. Fascinating how that works.

Town,
Now you see what I mean about folks being able to use their professional positions as anchors to shift the focus away form the truly substantive historical event and just rant becasue they have a bully pulpit.

Recall, they did the same thing when Obama won the nomination...there was no focus on the historic nature of that night at Excell...it barely received any coverage. Instead, they focused on PALIN!!

We did not hear any analysis of HOW this black man was able to reach new heights and beat a 16 year political veteran...we did not hear any stories of his meteoric rise and how that came to be...we STILL haven't!!

We did not get backgound analysis of how Plouffe and Axelrod created the narrative and delegate/caucus strategy.

There should have been endless stories on how this man has risen to this phenomenal height in less than FOUR years!! It is an incredible story of gargantuan magnitude...yet we hear nothing.

In fact, all we can do is buy a DVD from MSNBC!!!....they are marketing him!!

He is not being treated as the historic figure that he has become by simply winning the nomination and the unprecedented Presidential win.

Not one peep.

But, you can tell me how Palin can field dress a moose, how her baby boy is name Trig and how her hubby is a snomobile champ...

The media bias is DEAFENING

WORD! Every individual group within the "progressives" has convinced themselves that they and they alone are responsible for Obama's win and therefore they are OWED. Personally, a lot of them want Obama's presidency to be an utter disaster, they have a loser mentality so hell........... let'em eat cake.

as usual, you rock

Town,

That's it! That's it! They want PEO to jump through the hoops whenever they say so!

Applause, Applause!

Say that!

*Standing ovation*

That was so much better than coffee Town.

Outstanding post, Town...ITA!!!

Random thought:

One of my favorite artists, Ledisi, has a Christmas album out this year.

Also, Brian McKnight put out a Christmas album too.

Just wanted to share that since alot of people like playing Christmas music during this festive time.

THanks! I love Ledisi!

Monie: You did REQUEST these - - - RIGHT? :>)

Ledisi - Alright



Brian McKnight - The First Noel

ENJOY!! :>) :>)

Thanks GLH!!!

And you know "Alright" is one of those 'pick me up"jams.....It IS gonna be alright!!

Monie: U R welcome! :>) :>)

U just B "picked up!" :>) :>)

I am 2! :>) :>)

ENJOY your day! :>) :>)

the more i think about this, the more convinced i am that this was a huge mistake and an unbelievably stupid decision by obama. i don't know if it's arrogance or being naive, but obama willingly put himself in a no-win situation. the evangelicals/right are NEVER going to support him or come around in the numbers he needs/wants and he's just thrown the LGBT community, progressives, liberals, pro-choice folks, etc, A HUGE PART OF HIS BASE, under the bus. He's basically disrespected them and kicked them in the gut all to try and get a group that will never like him no matter how hard he tries. who does that? unless he has a wildly successful first term or does something really dramatic like repeal, don't ask, don't tell, then these people are not going support him or lift a finger to help him in 2012. while they probably won't vote republican, they will probably just stay home. yeah, 2012 seems a way off but if we're no better or only marginally better than we are now, obama will have a tough time getting re-elected.

DCGATN:

you're [mistakenly] making the assumption that Obama's base is made up only of people who care about gay marriage and abortion. The truth of the matter is that there are a whole lot of us who want to move beyond those two narrow cultural issues. What's more, we DO NOT WANT OUR PRESIDENT TO BE A CULTURAL WARRIOR. By the way, the only reason why Obama won is because he promised a different kind of politics--different indeed from the us v. them that you're advocating. Remember Obama's speech when he said he intends to be the President of ALL the united states? Yeah....Also, I dont know if you're aware of this, but Rick Warren, whether we agree with him or not, is on his way (if he's not there yet) to become the most influential preacher in America. More influential than all the gay rights advocacy groups and "liberal" blogs combined. Just imagine what his influence can mean in enacting a more progressive economic policy (which Warren seems to be in favor of) or fighting poverty in Africa (something that's VERY important to a lot of us who voted for Obama, by the way) or fighting AIDS (something that's also very important to a lot of us who voted for Obama).

One more thing. If you're looking for Obama to be a democratic George W. Bush (in terms of being your culture warrior cowboy) then let me warn you that you'll be mightily disappointed. I am not saying that Obama wont further a more lefty cultural agenda (which he might), but because that's just not who he is. Believe me (or believe him), he's truly about bringing people --whether they agree or disagree--together to the table. This Rick Warren thing is right up that alley.

When I was voting for Obama, I was worried. My main problem? I though that no matter what he did, it would never be enough for some people. I actually was hoping at one point that he would lose the primary and Hillary could go for it, cause unless Obama cured Cancer and AIDS in his first hundred days, a lot of people were going to be disappointed. Obama was just going to be put up on a pedestal and then knocked over. That is what we are in part seeing here now. I thought people would wait until he was elected, but I guess it's never to early to start a firing squad.

Remember what Michelle Obama said, that some had such a problem with?

"At the end of the day, he's just a man."

I hope people remember that when they are deciding that Obama has betrayed them and destroyed their lives when he hasn't signed one damn bill, or passed one law yet. Why bother giving him a chance to actual do something once he's President, when you can wallow in self-centered aggrievance?

Typical Democrats...

I hear you. The haters done got on my last nerve.

Very well stated HAL!!

At the end of the day, Obama is a flawed human, just like all of us.
However, the parts of him that are right are so brilliantly awesome....I can handle his flaws, knowing that he will do far bigger and better things...then these little flashpoints folks want to make a lot of noise about that have no substance and mean nothing to the vast amount of Americans.

Define vast. GLBT people make up at least 10% of the country. Is that vast enough for you to count?

It's not about Obama being flawed. Of course he's flawed as are we all, and personally, I think Obama rocks. But he made a bad decision that has a significant symbolic impact. Is it so horrible to discuss it?

Exactly how much discussion is warranted? Because while this is front and center being "discussed"....AHnold is ordering payroll decreases, Bush has gone ahead with implementing that horrid new HHS rule, and the Treasury Dept is being sued because they won't tell us who got what and why in the funds that have been released from the bailout thus far. So please...how much more discussion on RIck Warren do we need?

LIzDiamond...you asked:
"Define vast. GLBT people make up at least 10% of the country. Is that vast enough for you to count?"

I will be happy to.

Vast as counted

in this case refers to over 3/4ths of the 52% of Americans that voted for Obama plus a majority of the 48% who voted against him as they are most likely Evangelicals.

As for that 10%..never has been true.

Sorry but GLBT do not make up 10% of the population, they barely make up 1% and some estimates are even less. The 10% is often cited erroneously from the infamous Kinsey report, when what Kinsey actually said was that about 10% of men engage in homosexuality at some point in their lifetime.

While no one has carried out a door-to-door census, we do have a fairly accurate estimate. Interestingly, these statistics came to light in an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003, in the Lawrence vs. Texas case (commonly known as the Texas sodomy case). On page 16 of this legal brief, footnote 42 revealed that 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following:

"The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (Laumann, et al., 1994).

The study also found that only 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women reported having only same-sex partners since age 18—a figure that would represent a total of only 1.4 million Americans as homosexual (based on the last census report, showing roughly 292 million people living in America). The resulting accurate figures demonstrate that significantly less than one percent of the American population claims to be homosexual. The NHSLS results are similar to a survey conducted by the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey (1986) of public school students. The survey showed that only 0.6% of the boys and 0.2% of the girls identified themselves as “mostly or 100% homosexual.”


Hope that helps.

hal: Well said! :>)

AMEN!

In four years from now I don't think anybody is going to give two damns about who said a prayer at one inauguration. If folks see a recovery from this crappy economy and if we've managed to keep our homeland safe, those things will matter more than Rick Warren.

I agree Nate.
Most of these folks squealing like pigs can't name the minister who gave the inauguration prayer for Bush, his daddy, Carter or Clinton.

Some of them probably had to look up the word invocation because they are that uninformed about so many common day occurences.

Nate: CO-SIGN! :>) That's ALL! :>)

i agree. however, i think if the opposite is the case and we're in the same place we are now, then i think things like rick warren will get brought up again and everyone that got thrown under the bus this time around will be reminded why they started disliking obama in the first place ("he pals around with homophobes"). people have a short memory when things are good and a long memory when things are bad.

Well if that is the case, then how come many in the overall Democratic population, including the LGBT community, continued to support Bill Clinton after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" became a policy under HIS watch-----an actual POLICY that was a slap in the face to gays.

And these same voices are railing against Obama, while wishing that Hillary had won the Presidency----even though her husband, and she as an extension of him, hurt them the most.

The truth is most of these same people were lukewarm to Obama from the beginning, or they never really like him in the first place.

And BTW, has Obama filled your own personal diversity ratio in his cabinet---since you have been one of the more critical on this blog.

PREEEEEEACH Monie!! Preach

Say it, Monie! Now that's what I'm talking about!

I'm beginning to question if this outcry has a touch of racism in it. Like whether PEO would be a push-over because he should be grateful a black man made it to the White House. And that he could be bullied into things just because some cast their vote for him. Well big surprise! It ain't gonna happen.

Some just weren't listening to him during his campaign. The old way is out and a new era has been ushered in. There will be no tit for tat politics! Change has come!

A touch of racism? Some folks sound like they got their full 'hood' regalia on.

Well now Justice, you know there is a virulent racist streak that runs DEEP and wide in the entire group same gender loving folks. Always, has been a separate but equal strata in terms of bars, restaurants, theatre roles, networking etc!!

This is the same group that hollered like their child was being murdered in front of their eyes, when McClurklin headed up the gospel tour....AS IF, there could even be a goespel tour in the South withOUT McClurkin?!!!

I truly feel like so many groups feel like they elected Obama on their own....you know the LGBT community really got him elected...or it was black people who sealed the deal for him...or oh, no, he wouldn't be anywhere without the Hispanic vote.

The truth of the matter is that many groups COLLECTIVELY helped get him elected. But Obama was also wise enough to do outreach to so many people that previous Democratic and Republican candidates failed to tap into .....and he proved victorious. And I am so tired of this self-centeredness that seems to flourishing out of different corners...especially when there has not been one policy brought forth yet...for goodness sake's, there is still a month left before he is sworn in.

And while we are distracted, the abortion rule goes forth...Paulson ain't being truthful and is ready to steal the rest of the bailout...and the anti-war movement has been all but silent these past 5 years.

I am all for Gay rights, and I hope progress is made. But there are other issues to... there are still people being forced out of their homes, while banks sit on their government bailouts....the immigrant rights battle is still heated, and families are being torn apart...more families are living in poverty and more people will need assistance in the months to come and the list goes on.

Great posts on this.

There was a large group of LGBT community who were backing Hillpatine and they make up a lot of the noise here. And there is an angry Edwards group as well and the progressives are trying to unthaw Stalin from his cryogenic chamber.

heh, joking about the last one, but you know they would if they could.

OMG! Re-elected? He hasn't been sworn in yet. He hasn't began to govern, there are no policies in place and you're speaking of getting re-elected. Why? Because he's invited a man you don't agree with to do an invocation? A prayer? Listen to yourself? Please! GMAB!

snort

Justice58: "WHYCOME" I'm just about to grab my "OXYGEN MASK" so that I can BREATHE!! Soma these comments are EXHAUSTING!! ***shakin' my head!!

I'm GLAD that Mr. President-Elect Obama HAS the STAMINA to ENDURE!!

I PRAY for HIM DAILY!! LAWD HA'MERCY!!!!

"the evangelicals/right are NEVER going to support him"


I'm starting to think he's not getting support from the other side either. If a prayer is what sets folks off to this extreme, I'm starting to think that Obama NEVER had their support in the first place. Either that, or people weren't paying attention. I dunno. I think I read somewhere that John McCain had a higher percentage of gay/lesbian voters in this election than George Bush did in 2004. I wondered about that, but I think I understand why now. I need to figure out where I read that......

I can see how he would have higher numbers of that particular special interest group given that the GOP has a specific group called LOG CABIN republicans that have dominanted the GOP structure for over a decade. Even though the GOP platform is supposedly antigay...there are numerous GOP politicians who have major influence on policy that are gay.

I read that stat as well on Andrew Sullivan's blog, I believe it was 24% of gays/lesbians voted for Bush, and 27% percent voted for McCain in this election.

There a few gay women in the south who are so anti Obama and they have a blog that promoted Palin to no end.

They were pissed that Hillary didn't make it.

http://grand-divisions.blogspot.com/2008/11/mcc...

Found it. I <3 Google.

Um, Carolina...this says Obama received 70% of the vote.

"Barack Obama got 70% of our community's vote, down from John Kerry's 77% in 2004.

In the overall scheme of things it didn't matter, of course. But what accounts for the change? From what I could tell, Obama's outreach in the GLBT community was more consistent than Kerry's. One factor may be the Log Cabin Republican endorsement."

Um, whiterosebuddy....It also says in the lines right before that:

"Exit polling indicates that John McCain got about 27 percent of the GLBT vote this year. George Bush got 23 percent in his reelection bid in 2004."

That is what I was looking for. I know it didn't matter overall in the end, because President Obama increased support elsewhere, but I think that maybe a lot of these 4%ers are the ones making the most noise. Just another part of the discussion.

My bad, Carolina...I misread your initial post...

No problem, WRB.

Warren is not the "guest of honor". There is no "guest of honor". The MAN OF THE HOUR will be Barack Hussein Obama Jr. The only people who seemed to think Warren is the "guest of honor" are those who are cutting off their nose to spite their faces.

I'm sorry, you have to learn to pick your battles. Yes we blacks fought for our rights, but we chose our battles better than the LGBT community is doing right now. Because it seems to me that the only issue of improtance to the LGBT community is marriage. The Black civil rights movement was about more than one issue: voting, intergration, better schools, fair pay, etc. We chose our battles wisely. Once LGBT community gets marriage equality, then what. It seems like the community is in danger of becoming a one issue community.

Also, I think is just a factor of the age in which we live in. We are an instant gratification society. We want everything now, so don't stand in our way. Like Ludacris said "Move Bitch..." that's what we have become.
No one wants to engage in a little compromise. Neither side wants to meet in the middle.

i can understand the angst---no doubt.

However, if Dr. Rachel (who is just one of the more vocal people in this debate)wants to put the pressure on Obama, the she too needs to live up to the same standard. After Mike Huckabee's comments about "gays not being bashed in the head, so it's not a civil rights issue, " she invited him on her show----and then avoided discussing his controversial statements----since she thought it was best not to rile things up.

She has had one of the most outspoken bigots, Pat Buckkkhanan appear on her show numerous times----and if i am not mistaken, calls him "Uncle Pat"----where is her outrage of a man who has degraded every ethnic and minority group in this country?

And then so many of the LGBT want to "wish" that Hillary was the Pres-Elect now, when clearly Hillary, of all people, has shown that she will change her positions and tactics in an effort to remain in power.

And since, the Clintons seem to be the heroes of so many that are disenchanted with Obama---let's not even start on the policies he brought forth that hurt LGBT or how in 1992 he ran on a platform of freeing Haitian migrants from Guantanamo,treating them with dignity but yet continued the deplorable treatment that Bush I showed towards them too----How quickly do some people forget about some huge mistakes Clinton made, while his wife stood beside him.

She has had one of the most outspoken bigots, Pat Buckkkhanan appear on her show numerous times----and if i am not mistaken, calls him "Uncle Pat"----where is her outrage of a man who has degraded every ethnic and minority group in this country?


Amen! Say it again!


Surely Rachel must have known how offensive Pat Buchanan's article ("Slavery Best Thing Ever to Happen to Blacks" )was to black people. Yet, she continually has him on as a guest. What about the time Pat Buchanan told Kelli Goff to shut up? Rachel was there. She heard him. Where was her outcry? Did she call Pat Buchanan a bigot? No. But yet she spews her bias bull about Rick Warren!

Justice was that 'shutup' moment on the Abrams show? If so, I saw it and I recall Maddow did speak out...she told Pat, that he was wrong and that she had never heard him ever tell anyone to shut up before, Buchannan did back off a bit.
I only recall it because that was the first time I noticed Maddow, and then I saw her subsequently on Race to the White House and watched her shut Joe Scarborough down..he got so mad he walked off the set.

i was like WHO IS this woman...and I began to watch more for her.

However, on this whole Warren thing...her and Anderson are like that Nanci woman who yammered on endlessly about the missing white woman and child...Caylee and the blonde that went missing in Aruba.

It is overstated and over done. It is highlighted even more by the fact that no other interest group gets this type of sustained protest...the mainstream media focuses unrelentingly on missing white folks and gay umbrage.

Miranda asked a question yesterday in the Rick Warren thread yesterday that I want to put out there again:

"What do you think will happen as a result of Warren doing the invocation?"

Anyone?.....Anyone?......


Bueller?.....Bueller???????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s-oGumvPz0

Crickets!

It was crickets last time the question was raised. I see their point of view. You are offended. You are offended by Pastor Warren's beliefs and comments (a lot of people on the right felt that way about Rev. Wright). You believe that he is a bigot and does not see homosexuals as human (I don't know if that is neccessarily true, but whatever, I'm just trying to convey what I am hearing). I see that and I understand why you are offended.

On the other hand, he is doing the invocation. He won't be saying any of these things about gay people during the prayer and he is not going to deal w/ policy. I don't know, I just can't get that invested in this. *shrugs*

Carolinagirl,

Are you replying to me or Lavender? I'm not offended by Rick Warren. I don't think he hates gays either. I believe he is against the lifestyle not the person.


According to my faith and according to the God whom I serve....I believe marriage is an institution ordained by God, is between male & female. I will defend anyone's right to live freely without being taunted, beat-up, discriminated against, just because their sexual preference is different from mine. I am against that 100%. If I lived in California, I would have voted against Prop 8 also.

No, Justice. I was using "you" in the general sense. Not "you" in particular. I should have been more clear.

Okay!

I wasn't being snappy, just answering your question. That's all. I think I'm about to leave this whole thing alone because no one has stepped up to answer this question yet. Maybe I'll repost it in tomorrow's thread? *shrugs*

carolinagirl, I myself was tempted to post a sarcastic/satire reply ... but everything I could think of saying was in bad taste or creeped me out one way or another.

It was like:

typetypetype [pause] [think] [delete]

typetypetype [pause] [think] [delete]

and so on.

Anyway, I too would like to to hear answers to this question and think it is very telling that the reply so far is the crickets.

Oh I wasn't thinking that way at all. Honestly. I just wasn't sure if you were talking to me or Lavender.

I would like to hear the answer to your question! But I seriously doubt you'll receive an answer. It was avoided like the plague! I really don't think anyone has a rational answer. But that's just me!

I expect one of the things that factors into the angst over picking this rat bastard Rick Warren is that Clinton essentially did the same kind of thing.

After eight years of Reagan, four years of Bush, after 12 solid years of being railed against by the "Moral Majority" on every level, most LGBT people were hopeful of a president who was willing to act on his expressed wish to make positive changes for LGBT folks.

Then came the Defense of Marriage Act, which was purely political. So I understand completely why people are pissed at this from Obama.

I just don't see the point of it. He talks about wanting to end the politics of division, but that appears to mean only that he wants to try to drag in the right wing. He doesn't care about divisions on the left, because he probably figures we've nowhere else to go. It has the feel of being taken for granted.

But as for Warren, would Obama have asked him to give the prayer if his church website proclaimed that no Native Americans were allowed? No African Americans? I doubt it. But it's okay in this country to have someone speak at the nation's celebration of the inauguration of a new president who explicity prohibits homosexuals from membership in his church.

Why is that okay? Does that not bother anyone else here?

I am really truly not bothered.

bigassbelle, are you yourself gay, or are you straight and just trying to act as our indignant advocate or whatever? (this is not a rhetorical question, I have no idea)

But as for Warren, would Obama have asked him to give the prayer if his church website proclaimed that no Native Americans were allowed? No African Americans? I doubt it.

Ooooooh, I hate this kind of argument. Just hate it. It functions more to blur reality up than to be of use in having good discussion, IMO. See:

Womanistmusings on The Referential Black

(also, seriously, whatever happened to those inauguration tickets you reported were offered to you that you couldn't use? Did someone get them who could use them? Like I said, I don't want them for myself but thought people's idea of offering them to someone here at JJP was a good one)

Michelle, as I said in that thread about the tickets, the friend who had them offered them to me first because he couldn't go. I couldn't go either, so Harold gave them to a mutual friend, Keith. Keith has family in DC thus no problem with finding a place to stay. He's flying into Baltimore, then using public transportation to get to DC.

Offering them here was a great idea and one I would have pursued had the tickets not gone to Keith.

As for straight or gay, had you asked that in a less insulting manner ("or just trying to act as our indignant advocate") I'd be happy to discuss it with you. FO.

Thanks for the info on the tickets, I was really curious to know what happened. Hope Keith enjoys them.

I acknowledge that you don't want to answer the question I asked as I asked it. To me, whether you are/identify as straight or not is entirely unrelated to the manner (or the surrounding accuracy/inaccuracy) with which I ask it, but I acknowledge that you don't perceive that as I do.

Michelle. You have asked several people to identify if they are gay or straight. I get you are gay. But - and I usually wouldn't ask this on a blog - are you also African American? It seems to me that it makes a difference to YOU if people on this blog are members of the groups they advocate for or refer to, so I guess turnabout is fair play.

I am Gay and I'm glad to have bigassbell act as an advocate, indignant or otherwise, and it doesn't matter to me if she's straight as an arrow or queer as a two dollar bill. And, for the record, I don't think she's obligated to tell us.

Lavender, I am not African American. I am white and as whiterosebuddy mentions accurately below, I am Jewish (though I am not sure that is relevant to this particular question...?)

And myself personally -- I don't mind you asking at all.

Just to be clear: Anything and everything I say on this site comes from me and is my responsibility alone. It comes from my gut perception of what is going on. I am here because I myself find the content on this site generally more in line with how I perceive the issues discussed than some other sites (eg daily kos which is almost physically toxic in its feel to me, sometimes).

I am not advocating for African Americans. I am speaking only and specifically from my perception, which is completely specific to how I perceive reality.

So for example, I posted the link to Womanist Musings above because when she posted it here to this site a few days ago, I read it, and I personally experienced what she wrote there as a vivid and accurate naming of important parts of reality (in particular, she named some ways how this rhetorical move is a move of evasion of reality in particular ways, and I have this thing where I can feel dissonance around things like that but the words and cognition to describe what is going on often come later and the translation from gut to words is sometimes pretty hard for me -- so I am always deeply grateful to read something like that).

Relatedly, my response to bigassbelle's use of that rhetorical move was from my own gut sense of dissonance related to the evasion of reality that I perceive in it. It's personal for me.

Whiterosebuddy made an important comment a few days ago that I really appreciated. She wrote: Your reality is yours as well Michelle. That is 100% true, both in general and also in the specifics and I appreciated that naming tremendously (my reply is here).

One area of dissonance I perceive lately is straight allies (mostly in place like dkos in what I have seen/had access to) seeming to take the rhetorical lead of people in the LGBT community who claim to be speaking for all of us and promoting what I perceive as a partially dissonant view of what is going on in an indignant manner.

In my perception, the problem with this is layered. The first piece is the practice of some, usually white, GLBT people -- actually, it's usually either G or L in my observation) speaking as if they for all of us.

I have not yet been able to fully name the second layer that involves the straight people, but I feel dissonance there as well. Maybe what's happening is that the gay people are giving the straight people permission to do things supposedly in the name of a just cause that are really just harmful (to my perception).

This may be part of it: I've been thinking the last few days that there may be a sort of white solidarity dynamic in whatever is going on. Like maybe those white gay people who position themselves and all other white gay people as only oppressed (and not also privileged) are also implicitly saying to white straight people: "You wouldn't let us be treated as bad as Black people are treated, right?" -- implicitly invoking a sort of white race solidarity under the guise of it being about LGBT issues.

And so if that is going on, white straight allies get cover for acting out of implicit white solidarity because it's supposedly not about that, but rather it's about justice for LGBT people. No need for self-critique because it's supposedly (defined as if it is) for justice.

But. I still don't know if I am naming this right at all.

I do not know Michelle's race, but she has stated she is Jewish.

That is true.

Michelle, read the link, and this statement was so on point:

"The imagine "if the blacks were being spoken about like this" also presupposes that there are no black members in the group in question. There is no standard black identity which means that within any group that is currently undergoing marginalization it quite possible in fact highly likely that there are black members."

AMEN AND HALLELUJAH!!!!

The right is giving Warren hell (pardon the pun) for agreeing to do the prayer, so its not like they are all high fiving each other over this choice either.

There is also the fact that Rev. Joseph Lowrey wil be on the stage, which seems to be totally ignored. Can someone explain to me why Rick Warren is deserving of so much oxygen (and why his presence means something about Obama), but Rev. Lowery's attendance is meaningless?

Not me. I see past it.

It sure as heck bothers me. Thank you BAB. It really seems sometimes that most people, even so called progressives, think it's ok to discriminate against Gay and Lesbian citizens. And that we should just stop whining about it. I mean, if we'd just put on some lipstick, or walk a little heavier in the loafers we could pass for straight so why don't we just shut up and focus on more important issues?

Really?

Lavender, honey, you know all those LGBT folks have it good and they're still bitching. Dang, they're all white, all rich, all well employed. Right? What's to bitch about? The loss of basic human rights? Whatever.

Maybe Obama's got a plan with this, I don't know. I can't imagine what he really hopes to gain with the intractible religious right, the majority of whom believe he's the second coming of Karl Marx , that abortion is a holocaust and gays are the spawn of Satan.

I think he's losing way, way, way more than he could ever gain with the few religious zealots who see this as conciliatory.

Rachel Maddow was ranting again tonight! ***Sign*** I tuned her out...again!

I love Rachel. She can "rant" all she wants as far as I'm concerned. Tonight she pointed out that The Saddleback Church- Warren's church -won't allow Gays and Lesbians to be members. How come we - GLBT folks - are not supposed to be angry about this kind of policy and point it out? I grew up in an era when Jews - my family -were not allowed to live in certain buildings, go to certain schools ,join certain clubs, hold certain jobs. Should we have just kept silent about that too? Was it too pushy of us to try to end anti Semitism?

Maybe Obama has a bigger vision than I can understand. I've trusted him thus far. But it feels like a pretty big slap in the face for him to have invited an anti-Gay bigot to play such a symbolic role in his inauguration. And yeah, I was upset about Billy Graham, too.

I say people should throw doughnuts at Warren during his invocation.

Lavender,

Churchs allow anyone to worship there, but to become a member, a gay person would have to agree to cease engaging in same gender sex. A gay person would have to agree to the tenets of the Christian faith. That is something homosexuals are unwilling to do.So, why would they even want to become a member?

This is not analogous to not allowing blacks to be members or Jews to become members in any sense..

Individuals who join a Christian church are expected to live by Christian tenets. If they are unable to and they engage in sinful ways, they are suppose to repent those sins and seek redemption. Those are core tenets of the Christian faith. Christians are also suppose to help, guide and support other memebers of their community to adhere to the core tenets.

So, why would a community want any individual to join who does not want to renounce a sexual habit that their Christian beleifs clearly label as sinful? As long as an individual beleives they can continue living in sin they would be unwelcome to become members.

I am sure that all homosexuals who desire to worship at Saddleback can, they are simply not allowed to become members unless they are willing to renounce their sin.

Bottomline, Warren is saying you cannot live in sin and be a member of this church.

She had Huckabee on her show and didn't bring up the topic of his views on gay marriage at all.

I wonder why that is?

Hmmm...

Even after Mike Huckabee approved a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage In 2004?

Lavender,

You're entitled to your opinion & I'm entitled to mine! Just as Rick Warren is entitled to his beliefs. It's his faith and his belief in the Word. He believes the institution of marriage, ordained by God, is between a male & female...period!

Were you paying attention to PEO's speeches during the primaries? He stated time after time, if he was elected as president...the old way of politics would be gone.

I don't think PEO will be bullied in any way regardless of what group is doing the bullying!

Speaking out for human rights or civil rights is not the same as bullying. Warren can believe what he likes. But he's done more than believe...he's damaged the lives of thousands, if not millions, of citizens in California. You can bet he'd do the same nationally, given half a chance.

Inviting the nation to listen to a gay-hating bigot at the inauguraltion IS the old way of politics.

Reaching across the table? By all means, invite him as a guest. Not as the guest of honor.

he's damaged the lives of thousands, if not millions, of citizens in California.

IMO not nearly as much as the inept thoughtless white-centered anti-Prop 8 campaign did.

Using Warren and others as boogeymen to avoid real self-critique of movement practice? Not ok by me.

I think the fact that you said it that way speaks volumes.

I am now thinking that this focus on Warren is, at least in part, another exercise in avoiding the necessary internal movement critiques and work.

But he's done more than believe...he's damaged the lives of thousands, if not millions, of citizens in California.


How so? Is Rick Warren sole responsible for killing Prop 8?

The voters killed Prop 8!



Inviting the nation to listen to a gay-hating bigot at the inauguraltion IS the old way of politics.


No it's not! It's called unifying...Something this country has not seen. I'm for unity!

Warren is not the guest of honor....

Obama is the guest of honor

Texas,

lol lol

Obama is the honoree or inductee

If Obama's a guest, who is the host? I guess I'm not up on Inauguration etiquette.

The AMERICAN people are the host

Yep. Thanks, but no thanks; I TURNED her off and put in my West Wing DVD.

This Rick Warren thing is getting ridiculous. I understand the anger, and I don't care that people are vocal, but some people are going too far.

So now Obama's a bigot because he pick Warren to give a prayer, not a policy proposal, a f(*&ing prayer. To call Obama a bigot is uncalled for, and it doesn't help the cause either.

All I gotta say, that it's agood thing Obama doesn't seem to be a vidictive politician ala the Clintons, because if he was, I would imagine that this type of stuff wouldn't put them in his good graces.

Another thing, alot of people have been comparing this Rick Warren thing to invinting David Duke or an admitted supremacist to speak, but I see a little bit of hidden racism here, why does it seem that whenever a certain group of people have a problem with Obama, they immediately try to compare it to some sort of "black" problem. I know it's because Obama is Black, but so what, did Gay rights advocates protest when Bill Clinton had Billy Graham at his inauguration????

Anyway, I gonna try to go on a blackout from cable news til the new year, but I'm gonna stay online of course, so I'm gonna have to count on the JJP fam to keep me up on news. You guys are like an oasis in a see of white progressives, and I appreciate it. I know Thanksgiving is over, but I'd just like to say, that I'm grateful to have found JJP.

They were saying he was a bigot on Donnie McClurkin. I don't like the pick, but it was political. Now look at it. Both men, Obama and Warren, elevated "above the frey". Warren is taking hits from his side for the invocation. I have a lot to say, but I need to write a book.

It is a lot of emotional screaming and yammering about nothing. The group that is resonsible for this is just one hotmess the way they rant about any little thing, it is downright annoying. As you said they had the same temper tantrum about Donnie.
No other politician that ran during this election had a better record than Obama on gay issues. And now they call him a bigot? But bashing is how they have been able to move forward, so they continue to do so.

I like Obama and I like Warren...the inauguration is big enough for both of them as well as Lowery.

geez

I heard the bigot word passed around! Unfreakingbelievable! PEO is elected to be president of all of America. The old way of politics are over. This is a new era!

Justice, inflammatory names is the only way this group knows to get their point across. This method is how they forced the America Psychology Group to remove homosexuality from deviancy under their therapeutic codes. It was not changed due to research, simply by protesting and shouting down the speakers at a scientific professional forum. Quite uncivil.

I find it wholly unseemly. The world is big enough for everyone and this stuff where folks think they are going to silence folks because they don't agree with them is so 90s...it is not going to fly any longer.

Obama and Warren together represent a far bigger constituency than those who are calling Obama a bigot. Even the Hispanics are on board with Obama and Warren.

The APA has considered every demographic except for staight white men to be deviant at one point or another.

Probably, I am not endorsing the group.

Simply noting how changes were brought about. Because there are people who do refer to their classification codes like they are scientific experts and that is the furtherest thing from the truth.

Most groups who are no longer classified as deviant are due to compelling verifiable and reproducible scientific evidence.

With homosexuals that was not the case. It was more like a mother giving into a child throwing a temper tantrum in the ToySRUs store and just buying them the toy.

This is what a wrote about it yesterday.

On Rick Warren Delivering the Inauguration Invocation

It's rather brief, but...

Craig, that is flat-out excellent IMO.

Craig, you wrote:

Rev. Joseph Lowery is delivering the benediction. He happens to be a Black minister who is pro-gay. I'm not surprised that those so outraged by Warren say nothing of Lowery.

I've noticed that too....

Lots of people like to indulge in victimization. It's a pity, really.

There are no victims here, only wiling participants.

I'm wondering if what we're seeing in the media and even comments on sites such as dailykos are an actual reflection of the majority of the gay and lesbian community. The majority are disappointed that Rick Warren will be delivering the invocation, obviously - that's perfectly understandable....but is it a majority that are really as PUMA-esqe as we are being led to believe? I ask this because this has the feelings of the so-called revolt by Hillary voters in the primaries. Remember the whole protest we were gonna see in Denver? Remember the rallies and demonstrations that were gonna overtake the convention and tear the Democratic party apart? Yeah, that....... It was a ruse. This feels the same....... the loudest, most radical voices are drawing airtime, but how big of a segment are they really?

I'm wondering if what we're seeing in the media and even comments on sites such as dailykos are an actual reflection of the majority of the gay and lesbian community.

Miranda, I'm glad you're bringing this up. One of my biggest frustrations all around with the dkos-type people is how they act like they speak for all of us. It's persistent and it's ugly. They do it on various issues, not just this. And I do feel that this is something they do, try to make it seem like they represent more than they do.

And as for your question: I only can speak for myself, but here I am, one lesbian who does not thing it is anywhere near the kind of huge freaky deal that those dkos people make it out to be.

Oh, wait, I have two more gay people I can report on:

My girlfriend, who they also don't speak for.

And my co-worker, who when I asked her what she thought of the Rick Warren thing hadn't even heard about it a couple of days ago, but after like a minute of reflection, her reaction was: "{Shrug} I'd rather see what happens in terms of policy." Which is pretty much my take too.

(so, here's a sample of 3)

I don't have a poll, of course, but the only thing that characterizes a "majority of the gay and lesbian community" is same-gender love.

The stuff coming out in these comments is extreme and can't possibly reflect the majority of same-gender loving people.

Agree. I'll bet if the small group of screaming banshees stop and take a look in the mirror, they'll see their own arogance, entitlement and bigotry.

spirit_55z, if they stop and take a look in the mirror like that, I will fall over from the force of my startled surprised shock.

That's what I'm thinking...some of what is coming out of the comments is just plain hate and its really wierd. It has the feel of the whole Puma, No Deal mirages.

I so agree with your gut, Miranda. The puma site I moniter still is all over this like glue. They cannot say a good word about any of it and this proves their point even more.

The only thing that keeps me amused is that they are imploding over the idea of Caroline Kennedy.

Oh I have read their fuming at the idea of Caroline....that is priceless!! LOL I SOOOO hope she gets the appointment, because its totally worth it to watch them completely stroke out about it!

Joan Walsh is sickening. She's so beholding to Billary LOL!

I'd love to stick eectrodes on'em and see how their heart rates are
flying off the Empire State Building!

I so agree!

Trey Ellis
December 19, 2008 | 11:32 AM (EST)

Choosing Pastor Warren: Callous or Cunning?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trey-ellis/choosi...

That too.

That is what I blogged about yesterday under the Warren post. Obama is putting into play a way to neutralize the religious right. I believe Obama is doing this by compromising one religious leader at a time. Don't think the religious right is not working overtime to derail the Obama's administration for ideological reasons. Don't think they are not trying hold on to the influence and power they've be accumulating since the Reagan years.

Tell it now! I co-sign ljf. They are plotting and scheming as we speak. Obama needs to get ahead of their asses and I believe this is how he's doing it. He doesn't do impulse, not from what I've seen. He's a deliberate individual and this was calculated and shrewd just like Craig Hickman stated.

He doesn't do impulse, not from what I've seen. He's a deliberate individual and this was calculated and shrewd just like Craig Hickman stated.


PEO is always calm & cool. He chooses his words wisely. He thinks before he speaks. I don't believe that "bitter" comment he used in Pennsylvania.....will happen again! He learns from mistakes...

Obama Was Right To Pick Warren

by Frank Schaeffer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/o...

AGREE!

"Progressives are too used to failing. Stop worrying about little battles, you just won a war. It's all about real results now, not words, and not symbols. It is time to think like winners. The issue now is governance, not symbols."

rikyrah: If you all -- if we -- bitch each time Obama makes a strategic move, we are just shooting ourselves in the foot. Pipe down, and give him a chance. And by the way, America faces bigger problems right now than the window dressing at the inauguration.

CO-SIGN!! :>)

That's it right there.

Frank Schaeffer is on point IMHO.

Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol's fiance, Levi Johnston's mother was arrested on drug charges. PWT, for real

Link

Yup!

Yeah, they wont confirm...but we all know this was a meth lab.

Palin soap opera: Drug in Levi's mom's case is oxycontin

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/254/story/58245.html

yes, i saw something in the charges about manufacturing drugs.. you cook crack so we know that's not it

Obamas in Hawaii, leaving tomorrow. I will have pics up through the week. WIll post links. Blago is a scumbag. Here is video and transcript. Only in Chicago and only in Illinois. Blago sounded like Al Capone's side kick, it was unbelievable. And that 1980s hair, "....can he get a, CUT, CUT....."

Vid

Thanks for that vid Ice
You know who Blago reminds me of with that hair and the way he expressed his innocence?

Wesley Snipes in NewJackCity...same type of teflon mentality!!

iocebergslim: REST VERY WELL - - Mr. President-Elect Obama and FIRST FAMILY!!

YOU have done a YEOMAN'S JOB - - - - -ALREADY!!! :>)

THANK YOU and GOD BLESS YOU! :>)

IBS: THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, for WHAT WE 'BOUT TA RECEIVE!!! :>) AMEN! :>) :>)

Thanks Slim. This whole Blago thing is a real eye opener about The Chi and its politics. I hope the Obamas rest up and have a great holiday. They've earned it.

Blago & that hair reminds me of Alice of the Brady Bunch.

http://tu.tv/imagenes/videos/t/h/the-brady-bunc...

spirit: BWAHAHAHAHA!! :>)

Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, he doesn't look like Marsha!, Marsha!, Marsha!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!! The sad part is, I read the Blago transcripts and knowing that he has R.Kelly's defense lawyer? MY MONEY IS ON HIM GETTING OFF SCOTT FREE. Hell, R'uh was live and in living color and that man somehow convinced a jury they weren't look at a preteen girl! OH HELL NAW...My money is all on Blago's lawyer!

Are there any travel agents here? I am trying to book a spring vaca :)

DO NOT...I repeat...DO NOT BOOK ANY PACKAGES THRU COSMOS - DONT LET A TRAVEL AGENT BOOK ANY VACATION THRU A COSMOS TOUR PACKAGE OR GLOBUS (THE PARENT COMPANY).

My tip for the day. The rat bastards are incompetent shrews!

Rwanda Survivor Speaks on Hiding In Bathroom During Genocide

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/12/...

I saw her on Dr. Phil.

She snapped me out of my little funk that I had been nursing.

What strength people have. She has a book, too.

I can't even begin to comprehend what she went thru and what she still goes thru everyday. I have no right to complain about any aspect of my life, I dont.....Not when there are stories like this.

For real, Miranda. And folks are bitching about a man saying a prayer. It's the Inauguation. I'm so grateful to be alive and able to attend.

From First Read
*** Updated Cabinet census: Here’s our updated list after the Solis and Kirk picks:
-- 8 State Schoolers (Daschle, Vilsack, Chu, Napolitano, Salazar, Gates, Solis, Kirk)
-- 7 Ivy Leaguers (Clinton, Duncan, Geithner, Holder, Donovan, Orszag, Jackson)
-- 5 Raised in the Midwest (Clinton, Daschle, Gates, Duncan, LaHood, Vilsack) Note: This doesn’t include Chu, who was born in Missouri but grew up in New York or Vilsack who can be now considered a "midwesterner" since he had lived in and lives in Iowa, but he grew up in Pennsylvania.
-- 5 Women (Clinton, Napolitano, Solis, Rice, Jackson)
-- 4 Raised in New York (Holder, Donovan, Geithner, Chu -- who grew up on Long Island) Note: This does not include Napolitano who was born in NYC or Clinton who currently lives there.
-- 4 Basketball Players (Duncan, Rice, Holder, Kirk -- who also was a cheerleader in college)
-- 4 African Americans (Holder, Kirk, Rice, Jackson)
-- 3 Hispanics (Salazar, Richardson, Solis)
-- 3 Westerners (Salazar, Richardson, Napolitano -- who was born in NYC but raised in Albuquerque) Note: Solis is from L.A., but is that really a Westerner?
-- 2 Asian Americans (Shinseki, Chu)
-- 2 Republicans (Gates, LaHood)
-- 2 Sitting Senators (Clinton, Salazar)
-- 2 Sitting Governors (Napolitano, Richardson)
-- 2 Raised in the South (Kirk, Jackson -- who was born in Philadelphia, but adopted a few weeks later and grew up in New Orleans’ Ninth Ward)

fanita: HEY!!! :>) I was searchin' diligently for this on MSNBC. David Schuster presented this to the tune - - -

Straight No Chaser - 12 Days of Christmas

Thank you!! :>) :>)

Oh! Today is - - - -The 7th DAY of Christmas; 7 SWANS A-SWIMMING!!

ENJOY!!! :>) :>)

Sounds like Alaska may be just as corrupt as IL...
State Sen. John Cowdery pleaded guilty to a federal charge of conspiracy to bribery and extortion this morning, the latest public official to fall in the broad public corruption investigation in Alaska.

Reverend Al Sharpton defended Barack Obama on Friday for choosing Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, calling the move gracious and inclusive on the president-elect's part.

"I think that from my understanding, President-elect Obama is trying to reach out to people that don't agree and do agree with him, to unite the country. I certainly don't agree with Reverend Rick Warren. I'm sure Reverend Warren doesn't agree with me on certain things. But I think there's room for everyone and I think that is what President Obama is trying do. I thought it was a very gracious thing. I think Warren said it was courageous. I think it was both," said Sharpton. "I think that President-elect Obama showed a lot of graciousness extending this to him, showing that he's trying to pull the country together even with those he disagrees with and [those that are] frankly... less than gracious to him."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/19/sharpt...

I gotta give it to Al "Just For Me" Sharpton. He's really come through for PEO.

LMAO!!!!!!!! not "Just for me"!..........LOL

I almost hollered when Bush said he didn't want to leave a big mess for the next president!
Whatever, Chimpy! I pray for Obama-he's got a Herculean task ahead of him.

George Bush is leaving a big load of :

http://www.eliboat.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/... and for the last 8 years he didn't carry his pooper scooper along.

I'm really pulling for him because it's a tough, crappy task that he has been left to deal with. However, he stated that the time to lead is when things are hard, not easy. I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do.

I enjoyed the "complicated" pic from yetserday. It was hysterical to read people's reactions.

rikyrah: IFFF HE needs any help with trimming the tree, here are the digits________.

Oh. Never mind! I'll have ta bring that darned "AIR CONDITIONER", "FANS", and "OXYGEN MASK!" :>) :>)

Now to my post:

Obama: A Continued Economic Decline Is Not Acceptable

Barack Obama, addressing the press for the fifth straight day, offered perhaps his gloomiest assessment yet on the current economic situation. Relaying how the talks with his economic teams have revealed a landscape far more challenging than previously imagined, he insisted that "a significant amount" of government spending was needed "on the front end."

"What is striking in the conversations that we have had with economists from the left and the right over the past several months is how the economic forecasts have deteriorated, and the conclusion has been with credit freezing up, with businesses laying off workers, with a continued weakness in the housing market, and escalating foreclosures, that unless you have a bold approach, you could see the economy continuing to decline at a pretty rapid clip. That is not acceptable to me," he told reporters. "I don't think it is acceptable to the American people."

More bad economic news is indeed anticipated. The housing market is expected to get hit with another round of massive foreclosures as rates on subprime and other loans get bumped up. Moreover, state budgets are precarious and governors could also end up pleading for bailouts from the federal government.

Reports from inside the transition and on Capitol Hill suggest that the stimulus package Obama will sign after taking office could grow to $1 trillion. It is a sum of money that humbles even the president-elect.

"First of all, I'm concerned about the numbers being talked about," he said. "We are not intending to spend money lightly. You know, the tax burden on Americans are already high. We are inheriting a deficit that is probably above $1 trillion. And so, look -- I'm a taxpayer like everybody else, and I don't want to see money wasted."

Obama went on to note that, in this environment, tough budgetary choices will have to be made. And that the idea of narrowing the deficit was unrealistic. That, however, wasn't an excuse for fiscal prudence. Or, for that matter, to not have one's eye on the long-term effect of near-term spending.

"I am confident that we are going to put people back to work," said Obama. "I'm confident that businesses are going to start growing again. It is going to take some time, but we can get this done. Once we have an economic recovery and the economy is growing again, then we are going to be confronted with this enormous deficit... and so, part in parcel of the overall economic plan is going to be a mechanism to get our mid-term and long-term budgets under control. I want to be very clear, we are going to make some difficult choices on the budget, and I'm going to make sure by the way that some of the difficult choices are under my watch and not just somebody else's watch."

I know that this will be on the VIDEO; BUT he is determined to work on this DISASTER which was HANDED to him by SHRUB! aaaaaarrrrrrgggg!!

Predident-Elect Obama!! LEADERSHIP!!I :>)