Republican Ray LaHood offered Transportation Secretary - Jets Insider.com Forums

nuu faaola · 12-17-2008, 05:26 PM

Between LaHood, Gates and Jones, that's three non-Democrats in the cabinet thus far.

Not bad for a Marxist radical.

[url]http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-transportation1217,0,5403077.story[/url]

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON - Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., has been asked to be Transportation secretary for the Obama administration, a Republican source said today.

A spokesman for the Obama transition team declined to comment and LaHood's office did not immediately return phone calls.

The nomination of LaHood would fulfill Obama's promise to name a Republican to his cabinet, tapping an ideological moderate who has a well-established reputation for bipartisanship and efforts to encourage civil discourse in Congress. Though Obama has asked President Bush's secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to remain in the cabinet, Gates is a registered independent.

LaHood, a long-time staff aide to the affable then-House Minority Leader Bob Michel, R-Ill., who took his boss's seat when Michel retired, was elected in 1994 along with a tide of Republicans led by Newt Gingrich. But he did not follow the same highly partisan path that characterized the class elected with him.

On the floor of the House, Emanuel recently offered his own accolade to LaHood, who plans to retire from Congress at age 63 at the end of the current session.

If someone were to ask the nation's founders what kind of person should serve in Congress, "what they had in their mind's eye, that person would be Ray LaHood,'' Emanuel said. He called LaHood a man who ``while firm in his principles, was very flexible about his opinions."

LaHood also has long been a favorite of reporters covering the Capitol for his willingness to say on-the-record what other members of Congress will only whisper anonymously.

He is a member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which determines spending on projects around the country, and a former member of the House Transportation Committee.

A product of Peoria's large Lebanese-American community, LaHood is one of the few Arab-American members of Congress.[/QUOTE]

fukushimajin · 12-17-2008, 05:45 PM

I like it all so far -- except for fatty Rick Warren being prominent at the inauguration. I know it is just a sop to the religious community without any substance, but that is precisely the type of a-hole I'd like to see sidelined from politics for the next 4... forever. I got no problems with traditional republicans but we shouldn't have to hear from these manipulative religious hucksters in the public sphere.

nuu faaola · 12-17-2008, 05:51 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2917663]I like it all so far -- except for fatty Rick Warren being prominent at the inauguration. I know it is just a sop to the religious community without any substance, but that is precisely the type of a-hole I'd like to see sidelined from politics for the next 4... forever. I got no problems with traditional republicans but we shouldn't have to hear from these manipulative religious hucksters in the public sphere.[/QUOTE]

I don't care for Warren's gay-marriage views, but there are certainly areas where he and Obama are aligned, particularly when it comes to anti-poverty and anti-AIDS efforts abroad. (Pretty good politics, too.)

Obama has always described himself as a "finder of common ground" or whatever, so using something like the invocation at his inauguration as an olive branch is a nice gesture, I think. It costs nothing and it might win some good will from a group not inclined to lend it to a Democrat.

fukushimajin · 12-17-2008, 05:56 PM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2917668]I don't care for Warren's gay-marriage views, but there are certainly areas where he and Obama are aligned, particularly when it comes to anti-poverty and anti-AIDS efforts abroad. (Pretty good politics, too.)

Obama has always described himself as a "finder of common ground" or whatever, so using something like the invocation at his inauguration as an olive branch is a nice gesture, I think. It costs nothing and it might win some good will from a group not inclined to lend it to a Democrat.[/QUOTE]

Oh, its great politics, but at some point, he has to use the credibility he's gathered to drop the hammer down. If we get universal health care and the ability to refuse to hold hands with Saudi leaders I'll personally serve Rick Warren bacon wrapped twinkies while listening to his book on tape.:D

jetstream23 · 12-17-2008, 07:32 PM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2917641]A product of Peoria's large Lebanese-American community, LaHood is one of the few Arab-American members of Congress. [/QUOTE]

An Arab? :eek: I knew Hussein wouldn't wait long!

;) :D

nuu faaola · 12-18-2008, 11:24 AM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2917670]Oh, its great politics, but at some point, he has to use the credibility he's gathered to drop the hammer down. If we get universal health care and the ability to refuse to hold hands with Saudi leaders I'll personally serve Rick Warren bacon wrapped twinkies while listening to his book on tape.:D[/QUOTE]

I have seen nothing to suggest Obama is not deadly serious about enacting his proposals on health care and energy, which would both be huge victories for lefties like me.

Socially, regardless of how many grip and grins he does with the likes of Warren --who does a lot of good charity work, btw-- you know Obama is not going to do anything to impede abortion rights or gay rights (constitutional amendment talk and such nonsense), and he is probably going to appoint justices more sympathetic to those causes in general.

The more outspoken elements of those causes will whine about olive branches to Rick Warren, but the goodwill such gestures breed makes achieving the substantive parts of his agenda more possible.

Progressives with a clue about how stuff we want actually gets done are, I think, thrilled with the way this administration is coming together.

fukushimajin · 12-18-2008, 11:33 AM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2918554]I have seen nothing to suggest Obama is not deadly serious about enacting his proposals on health care and energy, which would both be huge victories for lefties like me.

Socially, regardless of how many grip and grins he does with the likes of Warren --who does a lot of good charity work, btw-- you know Obama is not going to do anything to impede abortion rights or gay rights (constitutional amendment talk and such nonsense), and he is probably going to appoint justices more sympathetic to those causes in general.

The more outspoken elements of those causes will whine about olive branches to Rick Warren, but the goodwill such gestures breed makes achieving the substantive parts of his agenda more possible.

Progressives with a clue about how stuff we want actually gets done are, I think, thrilled with the way this administration is coming together.[/QUOTE]

I have to say I agree. The way to deal the death -blow to conservatism is to smile and smile and slip the knife in so slowly they hardly even feel it.

RutgersJetFan · 12-18-2008, 11:37 AM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2918554]
The more outspoken elements of those causes will whine about olive branches to Rick Warren, but the goodwill such gestures breed makes achieving the substantive parts of his agenda more possible.

Progressives with a clue about how stuff we want actually gets done are, I think, thrilled with the way this administration is coming together.[/QUOTE]

I'm a progressive with a clue, and I couldn't be more pissed off about Warren.

fukushimajin · 12-18-2008, 11:41 AM

[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2918567]I'm a progressive with a clue, and I couldn't be more pissed off about Warren.[/QUOTE]

Its hard to accept as progressives have been slapped around lately first by Bush and then by the more conservative members of the democratic conference. But just look at the results Obama actually has Sackdance99 happy.

However, if Obama bails on substance -- pissed off won't even begin to describe it.

nuu faaola · 12-18-2008, 11:45 AM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2918563]I have to say I agree. The way to deal the death -blow to conservatism is to smile and smile and slip the knife in so slowly they hardly even feel it.[/QUOTE]

I don't think Obama is out to kill conservatism so much as he is out to, uh, change the dynamics of the argument.

Basically he sees the political argument as sort of stuck in intractable, mostly trivial disputes over culture-war issues that have prevented us from dealing with more substantive, pressing topics.

Reaching out to a guy like Warren is his way of saying he doesn't want to refight the culture war that's been running since the 1960s. And perhaps doing so will get people who, because of the culture war, would have opposed him on any number of things wholly unrelated to it to relax as well. (Warren, to his own credit, seems less interested in many of these fights than his own predecessors like Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, etc...)

It's not like every single religious conservative voter is opposed to universal health care. (Some will remain opposed, of course, because they think its a bad idea.) For many of these voters, they may have opposed it in the past only because they saw it as something that the bra-burning, dope-smoking, hippies-turned-yuppies from the 1960s wanted.

I've always taken this notion of getting past the tired fights of the 1960s to be Obama's core argument and appeal. Reaching out to Warren is, to me, a sign that he's serious about giving it a shot.

nuu faaola · 12-18-2008, 11:46 AM

[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2918567]I'm a progressive with a clue, and I couldn't be more pissed off about Warren.[/QUOTE]

Warren isn't a piece of "how the administration is coming together." He's not in the administration.

He's giving the invocation at the inauguration. Any clue who did that for Bush or Clinton? Did they have a lasting impact on the policies of the administration?

fukushimajin · 12-18-2008, 11:52 AM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2918577]I don't think Obama is out to kill conservatism so much as he is out to, uh, change the dynamics of the argument.

Basically he sees the political argument as sort of stuck in intractable, mostly trivial disputes over culture-war issues that have prevented us from dealing with more substantive, pressing topics.

Reaching out to a guy like Warren is his way of saying he doesn't want to refight the culture war that's been running since the 1960s. And perhaps doing so will get people who, because of the culture war, would have opposed him on any number of things wholly unrelated to it to relax as well. (Warren, to his own credit, seems less interested in many of these fights than his own predecessors like Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, etc...)

It's not like every single religious conservative voter is opposed to universal health care. (Some will remain opposed, of course, because they think its a bad idea.) For many of these voters, they may have opposed it in the past only because they saw it as something that the bra-burning, dope-smoking, hippies-turned-yuppies from the 1960s wanted.

I've always taken this notion of getting past the tired fights of the 1960s to be Obama's core argument and appeal. Reaching out to Warren is, to me, a sign that he's serious about giving it a shot.[/QUOTE]

Sort of. Universal health-care kills conservatism and will only occur over their dead bodies. I will be shocked and transformed if this turns out not to be true.

RutgersJetFan · 12-18-2008, 11:53 AM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2918579]Warren isn't a piece of "how the administration is coming together." He's not in the administration.

He's giving the invocation at the inauguration. Any clue who did that for Bush or Clinton? Did they have a lasting impact on the policies of the administration?[/QUOTE]

With Prop 8 just occuring and Warren's clear support of it, he could have gone elsewhere to please the right without digging the knife in deeper to gays and lesbians, really. It was a lame move based on nothing but pandering to the extreme radical right...and even taking that into account, I wouldn't even mind that so much if it wasn't kicking off what's set to be the most watched and attended Inauguration in the history of the country.

nuu faaola · 12-18-2008, 12:00 PM

[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2918586]With Prop 8 just occuring and Warren's clear support of it, he could have gone elsewhere to please the right without digging the knife in deeper to gays and lesbians, really. It was a lame move based on nothing but pandering to the extreme radical right...and even taking that into account, I wouldn't even mind that so much if it wasn't kicking off what's set to be the most watched and attended Inauguration in the history of the country.[/QUOTE]

He's not my favorite guy, either, but it's just a gesture.

And the goodwill it garners from a not-small slice of the electorate could help pass universal health care, a greener energy policy and the confirmations of justices who will help prevent future prop 8s.

My mother in law is a big Christian conservative type --we have great fights at holidays-- and I can't even begin to tell you how Obama reaching out to Warren changed her impression of him.

RutgersJetFan · 12-18-2008, 12:04 PM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2918595]He's not my favorite guy, either, but it's just a gesture.

And the goodwill it garners from a not-small slice of the electorate could help pass universal health care, a greener energy policy and the confirmations of justices who will help prevent future prop 8s.

My mother in law is a big Christian conservative type --we have great fights at holidays-- and I can't even begin to tell you how Obama reaching out to Warren changed her impression of him.[/QUOTE]

No I get it, however my point is that there's plenty of conservatives who he could have reached out to that would have had a similar effect on your mother in law that wouldn't have had homosexuals up in arms like this. With Prop 8 just occuring, was it really too much to exercise just a little bit of sensitivity?

nuu faaola · 12-18-2008, 12:19 PM

[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2918597]No I get it, however my point is that there's plenty of conservatives who he could have reached out to that would have had a similar effect on your mother in law that wouldn't have had homosexuals up in arms like this. With Prop 8 just occuring, was it really too much to exercise just a little bit of sensitivity?[/QUOTE]

I see your point, but I think Prop 8 is really the last gasp of the anti-gay movement, and I think most gay and lesbian activists, as well as folks like me and you who are sympathetic to their cause, realize this on some level.

The exit polls from that vote show that basically nobody under 45 voted for it. The opposition to this stuff will literally die off. Its a generational thing and it is inevitable, literally set in stone.

Warren, despite his opposition to prop 8, has been a fairly positive figure in other regards, playing a role in pushing religious conservatives to look beyond abortion and gay rights when they consider how aspects of their faith play out in politics. That's a very positive contribution, both actually and politically, when you consider it undoes so much of what Falwell et al built.

And I'm not sure that there's a religious conservative of equal stature he could have tapped for this. Warren is really pretty big.

Warfish · 12-18-2008, 12:20 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2918563]I have to say I agree. The way to deal the death -blow to conservatism is to smile and smile and slip the knife in so slowly they hardly even feel it.[/QUOTE]

Interesting....I don't think I've ever heard you use this type of language in our discussions on Islamic Fundamentalism and Terrorism.

But Conservatives? Then you bring out the "knives", ready for the kill, eh?

fukushimajin · 12-18-2008, 12:48 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2918616]Interesting....I don't think I've ever heard you use this type of language in our discussions on Islamic Fundamentalism and Terrorism.

But Conservatives? Then you bring out the "knives", ready for the kill, eh?[/QUOTE]

And this is exactly why you guys are on the outs -- always questioning the patriotism of others. Do I believe conservatives have endeavored to kill liberalism: yes. Do I believe that they do so at the exclusion of hating terrorists? No. Do I believe Rove is destructive person? Yes. Do I think he prefers Bin Ladin to Barney Frank? No.

The era of the false equivalence is over.

Warfish · 12-18-2008, 01:16 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2918670]And this is exactly why you guys are on the outs -- always questioning the patriotism of others. Do I believe conservatives have endeavored to kill liberalism: yes. Do I believe that they do so at the exclusion of hating terrorists? No. Do I believe Rove is destructive person? Yes. Do I think he prefers Bin Ladin to Barney Frank? No.

The era of the false equivalence is over.[/QUOTE]

There is no false equivalence here.

There is you, discussing your desire to kill Conservativism in language you have never used in discussion of our national enemies and how to approach them.

You can make excuses for why your vitriol is excused, or legitimate, but it will be for each poster to determine how they feel about that.

Personally, I am not suprised in any form. If I had you in a moment of total honesty, I would bet you would say Conservatives are more evil, more dangerous, more worthy of destruction than any Islamic Fundamentalist, and that Islamic Fundamentalism is just the fault of Conservativism anyway.

You hard-leftist are nothing, if not predictable.

PlumberKhan · 12-18-2008, 02:48 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2918616]Interesting....I don't think I've ever heard you use this type of language in our discussions on Islamic Fundamentalism and Terrorism.

But Conservatives? Then you bring out the "knives", ready for the kill, eh?[/QUOTE]

Metaphor:

Pronunciation: \ˈme-tə-ˌfȯr also -fər\
Function: noun

a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)

12-17-2008, 05:26 PM	#1
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,255	Republican Ray LaHood offered Transportation Secretary Between LaHood, Gates and Jones, that's three non-Democrats in the cabinet thus far. Not bad for a Marxist radical. [url]http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-transportation1217,0,5403077.story[/url] [QUOTE]WASHINGTON - Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., has been asked to be Transportation secretary for the Obama administration, a Republican source said today. A spokesman for the Obama transition team declined to comment and LaHood's office did not immediately return phone calls. The nomination of LaHood would fulfill Obama's promise to name a Republican to his cabinet, tapping an ideological moderate who has a well-established reputation for bipartisanship and efforts to encourage civil discourse in Congress. Though Obama has asked President Bush's secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to remain in the cabinet, Gates is a registered independent. LaHood, a long-time staff aide to the affable then-House Minority Leader Bob Michel, R-Ill., who took his boss's seat when Michel retired, was elected in 1994 along with a tide of Republicans led by Newt Gingrich. But he did not follow the same highly partisan path that characterized the class elected with him. On the floor of the House, Emanuel recently offered his own accolade to LaHood, who plans to retire from Congress at age 63 at the end of the current session. If someone were to ask the nation's founders what kind of person should serve in Congress, "what they had in their mind's eye, that person would be Ray LaHood,'' Emanuel said. He called LaHood a man who ``while firm in his principles, was very flexible about his opinions." LaHood also has long been a favorite of reporters covering the Capitol for his willingness to say on-the-record what other members of Congress will only whisper anonymously. He is a member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which determines spending on projects around the country, and a former member of the House Transportation Committee. A product of Peoria's large Lebanese-American community, LaHood is one of the few Arab-American members of Congress.[/QUOTE]

12-17-2008, 05:45 PM	#2
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	I like it all so far -- except for fatty Rick Warren being prominent at the inauguration. I know it is just a sop to the religious community without any substance, but that is precisely the type of a-hole I'd like to see sidelined from politics for the next 4... forever. I got no problems with traditional republicans but we shouldn't have to hear from these manipulative religious hucksters in the public sphere.

12-17-2008, 05:51 PM	#3
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,255	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2917663]I like it all so far -- except for fatty Rick Warren being prominent at the inauguration. I know it is just a sop to the religious community without any substance, but that is precisely the type of a-hole I'd like to see sidelined from politics for the next 4... forever. I got no problems with traditional republicans but we shouldn't have to hear from these manipulative religious hucksters in the public sphere.[/QUOTE] I don't care for Warren's gay-marriage views, but there are certainly areas where he and Obama are aligned, particularly when it comes to anti-poverty and anti-AIDS efforts abroad. (Pretty good politics, too.) Obama has always described himself as a "finder of common ground" or whatever, so using something like the invocation at his inauguration as an olive branch is a nice gesture, I think. It costs nothing and it might win some good will from a group not inclined to lend it to a Democrat.

12-17-2008, 05:56 PM	#4
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2917668]I don't care for Warren's gay-marriage views, but there are certainly areas where he and Obama are aligned, particularly when it comes to anti-poverty and anti-AIDS efforts abroad. (Pretty good politics, too.) Obama has always described himself as a "finder of common ground" or whatever, so using something like the invocation at his inauguration as an olive branch is a nice gesture, I think. It costs nothing and it might win some good will from a group not inclined to lend it to a Democrat.[/QUOTE] Oh, its great politics, but at some point, he has to use the credibility he's gathered to drop the hammer down. If we get universal health care and the ability to refuse to hold hands with Saudi leaders I'll personally serve Rick Warren bacon wrapped twinkies while listening to his book on tape.:D

12-17-2008, 07:32 PM	#5
jetstream23 recovering from turf toe Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ (New Jets Stadium Section 246) Posts: 31,711	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2917641]A product of Peoria's large Lebanese-American community, LaHood is one of the few Arab-American members of Congress. [/QUOTE] An Arab? :eek: I knew Hussein wouldn't wait long! ;) :D

12-18-2008, 11:24 AM	#6
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,255	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2917670]Oh, its great politics, but at some point, he has to use the credibility he's gathered to drop the hammer down. If we get universal health care and the ability to refuse to hold hands with Saudi leaders I'll personally serve Rick Warren bacon wrapped twinkies while listening to his book on tape.:D[/QUOTE] I have seen nothing to suggest Obama is not deadly serious about enacting his proposals on health care and energy, which would both be huge victories for lefties like me. Socially, regardless of how many grip and grins he does with the likes of Warren --who does a lot of good charity work, btw-- you know Obama is not going to do anything to impede abortion rights or gay rights (constitutional amendment talk and such nonsense), and he is probably going to appoint justices more sympathetic to those causes in general. The more outspoken elements of those causes will whine about olive branches to Rick Warren, but the goodwill such gestures breed makes achieving the substantive parts of his agenda more possible. Progressives with a clue about how stuff we want actually gets done are, I think, thrilled with the way this administration is coming together.

12-18-2008, 11:33 AM	#7
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2918554]I have seen nothing to suggest Obama is not deadly serious about enacting his proposals on health care and energy, which would both be huge victories for lefties like me. Socially, regardless of how many grip and grins he does with the likes of Warren --who does a lot of good charity work, btw-- you know Obama is not going to do anything to impede abortion rights or gay rights (constitutional amendment talk and such nonsense), and he is probably going to appoint justices more sympathetic to those causes in general. The more outspoken elements of those causes will whine about olive branches to Rick Warren, but the goodwill such gestures breed makes achieving the substantive parts of his agenda more possible. Progressives with a clue about how stuff we want actually gets done are, I think, thrilled with the way this administration is coming together.[/QUOTE] I have to say I agree. The way to deal the death -blow to conservatism is to smile and smile and slip the knife in so slowly they hardly even feel it.

12-18-2008, 11:37 AM	#8
RutgersJetFan Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 29,953	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2918554] The more outspoken elements of those causes will whine about olive branches to Rick Warren, but the goodwill such gestures breed makes achieving the substantive parts of his agenda more possible. Progressives with a clue about how stuff we want actually gets done are, I think, thrilled with the way this administration is coming together.[/QUOTE] I'm a progressive with a clue, and I couldn't be more pissed off about Warren.

12-18-2008, 11:41 AM	#9
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2918567]I'm a progressive with a clue, and I couldn't be more pissed off about Warren.[/QUOTE] Its hard to accept as progressives have been slapped around lately first by Bush and then by the more conservative members of the democratic conference. But just look at the results Obama actually has Sackdance99 happy. However, if Obama bails on substance -- pissed off won't even begin to describe it.

12-18-2008, 11:45 AM	#10
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,255	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2918563]I have to say I agree. The way to deal the death -blow to conservatism is to smile and smile and slip the knife in so slowly they hardly even feel it.[/QUOTE] I don't think Obama is out to kill conservatism so much as he is out to, uh, change the dynamics of the argument. Basically he sees the political argument as sort of stuck in intractable, mostly trivial disputes over culture-war issues that have prevented us from dealing with more substantive, pressing topics. Reaching out to a guy like Warren is his way of saying he doesn't want to refight the culture war that's been running since the 1960s. And perhaps doing so will get people who, because of the culture war, would have opposed him on any number of things wholly unrelated to it to relax as well. (Warren, to his own credit, seems less interested in many of these fights than his own predecessors like Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, etc...) It's not like every single religious conservative voter is opposed to universal health care. (Some will remain opposed, of course, because they think its a bad idea.) For many of these voters, they may have opposed it in the past only because they saw it as something that the bra-burning, dope-smoking, hippies-turned-yuppies from the 1960s wanted. I've always taken this notion of getting past the tired fights of the 1960s to be Obama's core argument and appeal. Reaching out to Warren is, to me, a sign that he's serious about giving it a shot.

12-18-2008, 11:46 AM	#11
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,255	[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2918567]I'm a progressive with a clue, and I couldn't be more pissed off about Warren.[/QUOTE] Warren isn't a piece of "how the administration is coming together." He's not in the administration. He's giving the invocation at the inauguration. Any clue who did that for Bush or Clinton? Did they have a lasting impact on the policies of the administration?

12-18-2008, 11:52 AM	#12
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2918577]I don't think Obama is out to kill conservatism so much as he is out to, uh, change the dynamics of the argument. Basically he sees the political argument as sort of stuck in intractable, mostly trivial disputes over culture-war issues that have prevented us from dealing with more substantive, pressing topics. Reaching out to a guy like Warren is his way of saying he doesn't want to refight the culture war that's been running since the 1960s. And perhaps doing so will get people who, because of the culture war, would have opposed him on any number of things wholly unrelated to it to relax as well. (Warren, to his own credit, seems less interested in many of these fights than his own predecessors like Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, etc...) It's not like every single religious conservative voter is opposed to universal health care. (Some will remain opposed, of course, because they think its a bad idea.) For many of these voters, they may have opposed it in the past only because they saw it as something that the bra-burning, dope-smoking, hippies-turned-yuppies from the 1960s wanted. I've always taken this notion of getting past the tired fights of the 1960s to be Obama's core argument and appeal. Reaching out to Warren is, to me, a sign that he's serious about giving it a shot.[/QUOTE] Sort of. Universal health-care kills conservatism and will only occur over their dead bodies. I will be shocked and transformed if this turns out not to be true.

12-18-2008, 11:53 AM	#13
RutgersJetFan Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 29,953	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2918579]Warren isn't a piece of "how the administration is coming together." He's not in the administration. He's giving the invocation at the inauguration. Any clue who did that for Bush or Clinton? Did they have a lasting impact on the policies of the administration?[/QUOTE] With Prop 8 just occuring and Warren's clear support of it, he could have gone elsewhere to please the right without digging the knife in deeper to gays and lesbians, really. It was a lame move based on nothing but pandering to the extreme radical right...and even taking that into account, I wouldn't even mind that so much if it wasn't kicking off what's set to be the most watched and attended Inauguration in the history of the country.

12-18-2008, 12:00 PM	#14
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,255	[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2918586]With Prop 8 just occuring and Warren's clear support of it, he could have gone elsewhere to please the right without digging the knife in deeper to gays and lesbians, really. It was a lame move based on nothing but pandering to the extreme radical right...and even taking that into account, I wouldn't even mind that so much if it wasn't kicking off what's set to be the most watched and attended Inauguration in the history of the country.[/QUOTE] He's not my favorite guy, either, but it's just a gesture. And the goodwill it garners from a not-small slice of the electorate could help pass universal health care, a greener energy policy and the confirmations of justices who will help prevent future prop 8s. My mother in law is a big Christian conservative type --we have great fights at holidays-- and I can't even begin to tell you how Obama reaching out to Warren changed her impression of him.

12-18-2008, 12:04 PM	#15
RutgersJetFan Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 29,953	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2918595]He's not my favorite guy, either, but it's just a gesture. And the goodwill it garners from a not-small slice of the electorate could help pass universal health care, a greener energy policy and the confirmations of justices who will help prevent future prop 8s. My mother in law is a big Christian conservative type --we have great fights at holidays-- and I can't even begin to tell you how Obama reaching out to Warren changed her impression of him.[/QUOTE] No I get it, however my point is that there's plenty of conservatives who he could have reached out to that would have had a similar effect on your mother in law that wouldn't have had homosexuals up in arms like this. With Prop 8 just occuring, was it really too much to exercise just a little bit of sensitivity?

12-18-2008, 12:19 PM	#16
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,255	[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2918597]No I get it, however my point is that there's plenty of conservatives who he could have reached out to that would have had a similar effect on your mother in law that wouldn't have had homosexuals up in arms like this. With Prop 8 just occuring, was it really too much to exercise just a little bit of sensitivity?[/QUOTE] I see your point, but I think Prop 8 is really the last gasp of the anti-gay movement, and I think most gay and lesbian activists, as well as folks like me and you who are sympathetic to their cause, realize this on some level. The exit polls from that vote show that basically nobody under 45 voted for it. The opposition to this stuff will literally die off. Its a generational thing and it is inevitable, literally set in stone. Warren, despite his opposition to prop 8, has been a fairly positive figure in other regards, playing a role in pushing religious conservatives to look beyond abortion and gay rights when they consider how aspects of their faith play out in politics. That's a very positive contribution, both actually and politically, when you consider it undoes so much of what Falwell et al built. And I'm not sure that there's a religious conservative of equal stature he could have tapped for this. Warren is really pretty big.

12-18-2008, 12:20 PM	#17
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2918563]I have to say I agree. The way to deal the death -blow to conservatism is to smile and smile and slip the knife in so slowly they hardly even feel it.[/QUOTE] Interesting....I don't think I've ever heard you use this type of language in our discussions on Islamic Fundamentalism and Terrorism. But Conservatives? Then you bring out the "knives", ready for the kill, eh?

12-18-2008, 12:48 PM	#18
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=Warfish;2918616]Interesting....I don't think I've ever heard you use this type of language in our discussions on Islamic Fundamentalism and Terrorism. But Conservatives? Then you bring out the "knives", ready for the kill, eh?[/QUOTE] And this is exactly why you guys are on the outs -- always questioning the patriotism of others. Do I believe conservatives have endeavored to kill liberalism: yes. Do I believe that they do so at the exclusion of hating terrorists? No. Do I believe Rove is destructive person? Yes. Do I think he prefers Bin Ladin to Barney Frank? No. The era of the false equivalence is over.

12-18-2008, 01:16 PM	#19
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2918670]And this is exactly why you guys are on the outs -- always questioning the patriotism of others. Do I believe conservatives have endeavored to kill liberalism: yes. Do I believe that they do so at the exclusion of hating terrorists? No. Do I believe Rove is destructive person? Yes. Do I think he prefers Bin Ladin to Barney Frank? No. The era of the false equivalence is over.[/QUOTE] There is no false equivalence here. There is you, discussing your desire to kill Conservativism in language you have never used in discussion of our national enemies and how to approach them. You can make excuses for why your vitriol is excused, or legitimate, but it will be for each poster to determine how they feel about that. Personally, I am not suprised in any form. If I had you in a moment of total honesty, I would bet you would say Conservatives are more evil, more dangerous, more worthy of destruction than any Islamic Fundamentalist, and that Islamic Fundamentalism is just the fault of Conservativism anyway. You hard-leftist are nothing, if not predictable.

12-18-2008, 02:48 PM	#20
PlumberKhan HAIL SATAN! Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,080	[QUOTE=Warfish;2918616]Interesting....I don't think I've ever heard you use this type of language in our discussions on Islamic Fundamentalism and Terrorism. But Conservatives? Then you bring out the "knives", ready for the kill, eh?[/QUOTE] Metaphor: Pronunciation: \ˈme-tə-ˌfȯr also -fər\ Function: noun a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)