Obama-Warren: How Far Can You Lower the Bar Before You Stub Your Toe?

Or break your ankle.

We have all been advised by Obama's supporters and staff members to STFU and give Obama and his Cabinet choices some time to screw up before we start  criticizing anybody. Maybe, but there's another question that arises out of the rather lame excuses that these people are using to defend BO's nominees: "They're not as bad as the Bushies so we're better off." Oh yeah?

For instance, when I wrote about Ray LaHood as SecTrans having no experience whatever, I got this reply from Verbal Remedy:

This country needs a serious commitment to efficient light rail--everybody driving everywhere is simply not sustainable. So I'd guess that La Hood's recognition of this fact and support for the idea of trains rather than cars, coupled with the fact that he IS, in fact, a Republican, made him attractive.

So VR is willing to accept a Gingrich Pub with a total lack knowledge or experience in the field just because what he said wasn't Bush-stupid, knee-jerk pro-oil platitudes. That's good enough.

The latest controversy involves Obama's picking his buddy Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inaugural. For example, here's digby:

There are those who feel this is a very savvy political move on Obama's part --- by inviting Warren to give the invocation at the most watched inauguration in history, Obama is validating the views of the Christian Right and they may very well be moved enough by that to become Democrats. But it naturally follows that in order to keep their votes, the Democrats would have to honor their agenda and views --- the evangelicals are big voting bloc and if the Democrats become the social conservative party, they could count on their votes for sure. (If they don't make substantial moves toward social conservatism, this won't work, obviously.) It doesn't leave much room for liberals, but perhaps that's a good thing. They are nothing but trouble, defending women's civil liberties, agitating for gay rights and hectoring the government about not torturing and starting wars and all that. It would be a big relief if they didn't need them.

The defenders - in this case Barack himself - are saying, in essence, that Warren isn't as bad as James Dobson.

Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to "come together," even when there's disagreement on social issues. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," he said.

Obama also said he's known to be a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so.

Warren, a best-selling author and leader of a Southern California megachurch, is one of a new breed of evangelicals who stress the need for action on social issues such as reducing poverty and protecting the environment, alongside traditional theological themes.

Oh. So he's a homophobe and virulently anti-abortion but he claims to believe in helping the less fortunate and he doesn't seem to be a whacko like Pat Robertson, so that's good enough.

Not exactly. Bush has been bragging that a big part of his legacy is the "success" of his AIDs programs in Africa. A couple of weeks ago, Rick Warren awarded Bush a "peace medal" for this work.

On December 1 -- World AIDS Day -- Warren, pastor of the Lake Forest, California-based Saddleback Valley Community Church and who is well on his way to becoming one of the most recognizable and powerful pastors in the United States, hosted his Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health at the Washington-based Newseum.

As part of the event, he bestowed upon President George W. Bush the first "International Medal of P.E.A.C.E." from the Global PEACE Coalition, in recognition of Bush's "unprecedented contribution to the fight against HIV/AIDS and other diseases," a Saddleback Church press release announced.

Bad enough considering that Bush's AIDs aid to Africa was a) mostly never delivered (not unusual for Bush), and b) what was delivered had a slew of strings attached that essentially restricted the money to medication (paid for at full price until NGOs intervened and convinced the drug companies to sell it at cost, cutting the price by about 1000%) and abstinence-only programs which don't work and never did. This is worth a "peace medal"? Why? The original intent was to provide a huge profit for Big Pharma - major campaign contributors - and the rest was given to Xtianist proselytizers for ineffective programs that everybody knows are ineffective no matter how ideologically satisfying they are to the Religious Right.

But there's more. Two days after the "peace medal" PR BS, Warren goes on Fox with Sean "Wanker" Hannity and agrees that Bush should assassinate Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

HANNITY: I think we need to take him out.

WARREN: Yes.

HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil, or something righteous?

WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe...

HANNITY: By force?

WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.

(emphasis added)

This is, at best, borderline theocracy. But, hey, it's all good because Obama is reaching out and Rick Warren isn't a fire-breathing asshole like Bush faves Robertson and Dobson and Bill Donahue.

What's happened here, at least in part, is that we're accepting from Obama appointments and nominees who would have driven us up the wall a few years ago because "they're not as bad as what Bush gave us". And I have to say, that's a mighty low - and possibly dangerous - standard.

Bush spent the last eight years training us to expect the worst of the worst, so it is perhaps inevitable that anybody who isn't a rock-bottom hack/whack job pulled from the ooze of the deepest Republican swamps looks good by comparison. There are sighs of relief that Obama isn't dragging in Gary North or trying to exhume Jerry Falwell. But do we really want the bar to be that low, that shallow? "Obama's guys aren't murderers or war ciminals and that's good enough for us"?

digby has a good point. When you invite a python to lunch, you might end up being the menu.

Comments

[eRobin]

Exhuming Falwell isn't a bad idea. The media would match the message.

[mick arran]

LOL. Great line.