There is either the cold and calculating political genius Obama, or there is the liberal hack Obama plus a cold and calculating political genius who resides just off the stage.

I personally find it hard to believe that the guy who spontaneously erupts in liberal tone-deafness like “clinging to God and guns” and “no seances like Nancy Reagan conducted” is the same guy who is smart enough to get past the HuffPoNess of it all to embrace someone like Warren. I see that as the act of someone far more politically sophisticated than the Unscripted Obama has yet revealed himself to be.

Can the guy take direction and appear to be magnanimous, even bipartisan? Sure. Is he also a liberal hack who holds all the same ignorant prejudices we see drooling from the mouths of Zsa Zsa the Huff and her flying moonbats? Sure.

A number of news sources (including McClatchy Newspapers) quote officials from People for the American Way as if it’s an unbiased source, What a joke.

Obama invites Warren to offer the invocation. Anybody who looks on this “event” and thinks it’s going to buy him Evangelical votes in four years or support for his desire to remove all restrictions from abortion is soft in the head.

And the fact that it’s driving the lefties – specifically the homosexual lobby – utterly into the rubber room is just icing on the cake.

“If those evangelical numbers turn out to be a one-election thing, ”

Many Evangelicals and social conservatives will stay home or vote democratic unless the Republican candidate engages on social isaues. Especially if the democratic party reaches out to them.

After the debacle of the Bush administrations first three years in Iraq the Republicans can’t win a national election on foreign policy.

And there never were enough economic conservatives to win a national election, especially in a time of economic uncertainty.

it will not gain him evangelical votes…but he does hope that it will get him some slack in the Saddleback Forum 4 years hence. He will not be able to claim any question is above his “pay grade” next time around.

“Not One Red Dime for the NRSC or NRCC till they stop trying to elect liberals”

Join the RedState Strike Force

This story has so many facets that it’s hard to know where to start. I actually wrote about 10 paragraphs on it last night and then gave up because I couldn’t make it coherent. Yours is much better than mine .

• I am not a Warren fan. I think his books are vapid and have contributed to the continued erosion of Biblical teaching. That said, I think he is sincere about his faith and has helped evangelize many around the world. He’s not quite as extreme in his social gospel tendencies as some others of the Brian McLaren ilk. And I think his Saddleback Forum was one of the best campaign season events in recent memory – it was one of the only (if not THE only) times I can remember ever seeing someone actually ask a candidate a question that would truly reveal their personal values and morals. He did the country a huge service with that, although unfortunately it was lost on about 53% of Americans (no doubt due in large part to the Obamedia)
• It is a hoot to watch the Left twist in the breeze over this. As you say, it appears to be yet another facet of H’s “betrayal” of his Leftist buds. To me the question is: who is the real Obama? Is he the far-left radical that we saw inklings of during the run-up to the election? Or has he gone Clinton and swung middle? What’s with this apparent move to the center? I don’t think he could be so dense as to not anticipate the frothing at the mouth of the homosexual lobby.
• Regarding the election results: I believe that Obama’s gains with the evangelical crowd is nothing more than an extension of his overall stats across the board. If you look at Pew’s survey (which I assume is where you got your nums), it shows that the “unaffiliated” went even more towards Obama, with an 8-point shift. So Obama actually did worse with evangelicals than with those who don’t claim a religion (I’m assuming a good chunk of those are atheist or agnostic).
• One part you didn’t hit was the uproar against Warren from the Christian conservatives, who believe he shouldn’t be condoning an abortion extremist and homosexual rights advocate by doing the invocation. Personally, I find that particular objection to be unnecessary – if nothing else, we should ALL be praying for this President, that he does NOT use his office to push immoral policies.

This is an interesting observation:

He has been a far more traditional voice on family and cultural issues than John Kerry or Al Gore, and he’s smart enough to recognize that’s one of the reasons he won in November: he was acceptable enough to win a higher percentage of the faithful with inspiring rhetoric, while the social left just assumed he was one of them.

It kind of makes my head spin wildly in confusion, because….you’re right. But I am still hugely skeptical and believe that it is nothing but a rhetorical smokescreen.

But you ask an interesting question: “Who’s the real extremist?” I think the answer is obvious. A very quick search on Google news for “Rick Warren” reveals story after story and blog after blog that show the hypocrisy and Christophobic reactions of the loony left. Warren is showing that he is far from an extremist, and Obama is helping to make his own acolytes look foolish.

From our friends at Associated Press…

WASHINGTON (AP) – The first openly gay member of Congress said Sunday it was a mistake for President-elect Barack Obama to invite the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

“Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest. I found that deeply offensive and unfair,” Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said in a broadcast interview.

“If he was inviting the Rev. Warren to participate in a forum and to make a speech, that would be a good thing,” Frank said. “But being singled out to give the prayer at the inauguration is a high honor. It has traditionally given as a mark of great respect. And, yes, I think it was wrong to single him out for this mark of respect.”

Heh.

He’s put up a firewall and now he can do what he wants.

Blog by Mary Katherine Hamm

But Warren is no fool, and he won’t lie down for unfair treatment. You don’t get to be the leader of a church of 20,000 you built from nothing without some P.R. smarts, and he’ll be using those smarts as this fight moves forward. He’s familiar with the language of the Left due to years of charitable partnerships with our friends of the liberal persuasion, as illustrated by part of a conversation with Ann Curry on “Dateline.”

CURRY: Are you homophobic?

WARREN: I don’t know any church in America that’s done more to help the gay community, particularly with AIDS, than Saddleback. But the hate speech against me is incendiary.

I can’t think of another evangelical leader who would have the gumption to call attacks upon him “incendiary hate speech.”

Read the whole thing, it’s not long but it’s very good.

My view on “marriage equality” is unfavorable to both liberals and conservatives, so I am comfortable getting criticized for it — so flame away if you wish, I’m pretty used to it.

I believe that the tendency toward homosexuality is something beyond a person’s control — I think they are born that way. I’ve known too many gays and lesbians and seen the struggle they’ve gone through in their lives to believe it is a choice. Many, many have said that if they’d had a choice, they would have chosen differently. I also grew up with several friends who later came out, and I remember their struggles in adolescence where they tried to date opposite-sex individuals and attempt to overcome a similar revulsion that a straight person would have over the thought of the reverse. I’ve known their parents — they weren’t abused kids, nor were they coddled, or mama’s boys, it’s not upbringing.

Now, that still fits in with the Christian view of sin. All have sinful natures, all have fallen short of the glory of God, All have the desire to sin, even if one man’s sins may be different than his brother’s. If the desire to sin is uncontrollable, the act certainly is under a person’s conscious control.

I don’t hold to the Christian view, but I do understand and respect it. I’ve known several people who have admitted they believe they are homosexual but refuse to date the people they would prefer to date, but none of them have been successful in an attempted marriage with the opposite sex. I respect their choices and the faith that leads them there, but they are very lonely people.

I very strongly believe in government keeping out of religion as required by the Free Exercise clause. Marriage in many ways is a religious institution, being that it is a ceremony performed by almost every religion out there. There are some, however, that will perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple. Some churches do not recognize a marriage unless it was performed by them regardless of if they are a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. If a church wishes to marry a couple, and the government refuses to let them, that is a violation of the Free Exercise clause. If a church refuses to marry a couple and the government tells them they must, or that they must recognize a marriage that they do not believe is valid, that is also a violation of the Free Exercise clause.

If marriage is a religious institution then the government has no business defining what a marriage is, period.

Therefore, my view as the solution to “marriage equality” is to have a separation between governmental recognition of a dependent couple who have agreed to support each other and the religious ceremony entirely. Let churches say who are married in their eyes, but let any adult who wishes to commit to another adult legally and financially — with both legal rights AND responsibilities — have the ability to do so regardless of the gender of the individuals involved. As a legal institution let there be the same legal rights and responsibilities for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, to be in keeping with the Equal Protection clause.

As I said, I’m an odd duck and this view is unpopular among many. But I feel it is the only Constitutional way to deal with the issue.

… he comes closer to supporting my ideal of the way the situation should be resolved than many. He does not believe that the domestic partnership laws in California should be overturned. Considering that most states do not have those laws, he supports recognition of legal rights and responsibilities for couples who agree to support each other financially to a greater extent than more than 75% of the US has currently recognized.

For an Evangelical Baptist pastor, he is quite liberal. Maybe not as liberal as Tony Campolo, but certainly not as conservative as he is being made out to be. He has said quite a few things I disagree with, but I disagree with a lot of people.

Obama hasn’t lied to his constituents in regards to his views, nor has he hoodwinked them. I may not personally like a few of Rick Warren’s statements, but if giving him a place at the inauguration is meant to be a demonstration that he will attempt to work with conservatives — which he must do if he wants to accomplish much of anything as President, and that he will not ignore the Evangelical Christian component of the electorate… he could have picked a worse person to do it.

Obama is trying to make up for his less than good performance at Saddleback. He may be trying to get some “Sista Souldja” type of boose from it, however I don’t know how much he’ll get.

I truly belive Obama is experiencing a bit of “Oh heck, what have I gotten myself into?” The economy is front & center, & the caterwauling from the fringe on SSM is not helping him. I’d imagine he’s averting his eyes from any images of Jimmy Carter he sees.

He knows that in 2012 he won’t be the transformational candidate anymore – he’ll have 3+ years of tenure to defend. For him, I think that is a sobering fact.

As far as reaching the faith-based voters, Republicans simply need to get back to the 3 legged stool of conservatism.

I think the real question is about Warren and why n evangelical would
want to do the invocation for US President who supports abortion all
the way through to even letting the child die if the abortion goes “bad”
and the child is born alive…just let it die. Abortion, gay marraige, Planned Parenthood, a no-restrictions Talks with Iran, Israel giving in totally to the Palestinians and thus giving away its security and existence. What evangelical would want to be associated with that President? To risk being thought to support that presidents positions
I dunno. Now I have to fess-up that I consider Warren a salesman,
I can’t say one way or another about the honesty of his faith but I get that “money changers in the Temple on Sabbath” sorta feeling when I watch him on TV. I could be off base 100% but I know as a Christian I wouldn’t want to be associated with such a person.
And I would really have to wonder at why such a person would ask me to do it and are his reasons righteous. Because especially as
a Pastor you would have to call in to question works you take part in that could support sin. If Warrens participation in this would in some way support Obama and prolong or aid policy that basically
legalizes and promotes sin then it is wrong.

It always ticks me off when I hear that ‘evangicals’ are the ones opposing such things as abortion on demand, anytime, for any reason and sam sex marriage. That’s utter nonsense and just a way for liberals to demean (by their standards). Many, many people in this country, feel strong about these issues and are ‘driven’ by anything accept a moral sensibility.

I saw Ms. Kerry Kennedy on Fox this morning with Steve Doocy, promoting her book about ‘the new Catholic’. Astounding beliefs from a Roman Catholic…apparently she would like to substitute her beliefs for the Pope’s on these issues. She, of course, promoted her cousin as Senator from New York…… indicating that it was not a choice for the voters, but for the Governor alone…..sort of ‘in your face’ to the voters and their preferences. She also said the choice for Rick Warren was a poor one by Obama because he was a purveyor of ‘hate speech’…… comparing gays to polygamists, and those committing incest.

Now I think the Kennedy’s have been fortunate enough to provide private schools and upscale colleges for all their brood, and that Kerry would understand that what Rick Warren has indicated is that if you change the traditional view of marriage from man and woman you open the door for polygamy, incest, and any other dynamic that comes along. After all, the basic argument for gay marriage is ‘freedom’ to chose your own lifestyle…. why not.

The word ‘hate speech’ goes through me like a knife and I don’t doubt that Kerry Kennedy has her own definitions about what it is and who should be controlled for it and how. If the Pope acted like her, he’d throw her little butt right out of the Catholic church – - in a New York minute.

Rick Warren has the right to believe and SAY what he believes……and no one, not even a Kennedy can use the ‘Hate speech” refrain to stop him.

http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm

My argument against Warren has nothing to do with his religious beliefs, or even my stance on homosexuality.

In an interview with Beliefnet, available on YouTube, Rick Warren claimed that for 5,000 years, in every single culture throughout the world, marriage could be defined as one man and one woman.

This is a lie.

First of all, it does not represent all of human history. Homo sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years, and evidence is that culture existed before then. Where does the 5,000 year figure come from?

Set that aside. The second issue here is obvious common sense: no culture has remained static for 100 years, let alone 5,000. Furthermore, anthropology has proven quite soundly that cultural universals either don’t exist or go through wild variations from culture-to-culture.

Any freshman in college knows that marriage is difficult, if not impossible, to define cross-culturally. Warren’s statement goes against all current thinking in the social sciences – where are his credentials to do this? Does he have 5,000 years of research to back his claims up? I assure you that the sociologists and anthropologists do have research to back their claims up.

Here is the most important point, however: same-sex marriage DOES exist in at least two known and recorded instances in human history: among certain Native American tribes and one particular group in Africa. Don’t believe me? Check my links (above and below).

In other words, when Warren makes the claim that marriage has been one tradition for 5,000 years throughout the world, he is lying.

Finally, let me point out that this lie is a common misconception among conservatives. Huckabee went on national television – the Daily Show – and repeated this falsehood. That, to me, is galling, that this man would go on national TV and say, “This isn’t about bigotry. It’s about science. And for 5,000 years marriage has been…”

Now, whether or not this is an intentional issue of lying or simply a misconception I cannot say. I won’t accuse anyone here of bigotry – only, well…stupidity, to be frankly honest.

The issue is clearly not about science. Anthropology, as a science, has demonstrated the wide variety of customs that fall under the term “traditional marriage.” Biology tells us that culture has been around for more than 200,000 years. This is not a scientific argument. The facts and figures cited by Warren and Huckabee are not only unscientific – they are blatantly made up.

It’s not about science – so what is it about?

Now, I’m not for gay marriage. I think homosexuality is icky, gross and silly. I am not an advocate for homosexuals or homosexual marriage.

However…if you go on national TV and say that gay marriage has never existed throughout all of humanity for 5,000 years – I’m sorry, I have to stand up and say: YOU ARE WRONG. If you wish to limit a person’s right to marry whomever he or she pleases based on a lie, then YOU ARE WRONG. If you wish to claim that you are arguing from a scientific perspective, again, YOU ARE WRONG.

Don’t believe me? Ask the AAA – the Anthropological Association of America: http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm.