Obamanation...The Left Is Displeased With Rick Warren's Part In The Ascension

There was an item in the sidebar about Obama selecting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Today, Right Wing News has a round up of the lefty-sphere's reaction.

"I've been willing to swallow a lot of distaste for some of Obama's choices in the transition phase, but this is really going too far. The Inauguration Committee just announced that Rick Warren, charlatan pastor of Saddleback Church, who lied his face off about the so-called cone of silence during the presidential debate he hosted, is going to deliver the invocation.

...I've left aside that they shouldn't really even have a religious invocation at the inaugural because it's become a tradition now. But my friend Capt. Fogg left an excellent comment that I urge to read in full. The main point being, "Religious rituals have no place at all in government. It's the law. Belief in God or gods is not part of public policy: that's the law, and if no religious test may be imposed for office, which is the law, why then are we asking a president to demonstrate his private religiosity in public, as part of his inauguration?" -- The Impolitic

This is one of my favorites because it combines rabid intolerance in the guise of tolerance and combines it with abject stupidity (the Cone of Silence was a metaphor idiot, get over it). Most of the rest of them, including Trig Truther Andrew Sullivan, are upset because Warren supported Proposition 8.

So the lefties are unhappy about the invocation, big deal. They'll be plenty happy when Obama starts spending 800 billion to one trillion dollars on their favorite programs. Personally, I'd trade one invocation for control of the budget for the next 4 years but that's just me. Still, it's fun to enjoy their discomfort no matter how small and fleeting it will be.

More [ace]: RWN adds:

I don't think his selection is a telling omen about Barack's governing philosophy. Same goes for the supposedly "centrist" advisers Obama's selecting. If you're going to veer way off to the left, making some largely symbolic and inconsequential gestures towards the middle to provide cover makes a lot of sense.

It also tells you a bit about the netroots. A meaningless gesture towards "outreach" of a very weak nature is made, and still they freak out.

The left portrays the right as eternally outraged and freaking out (and, in fact, masturbating with delight at being outraged; one of their favorite braindead lines is "fap fap fap fap" after, say, the announcement of a jihadist plot -- see, we love hate so much we actually take sexual pleasure in terrorism).

In contrast, of course, they imagine themselves as pretty cool customers, very centered, having a good bead on things and well-nigh unflappable, thank you very much.

Compare the right's complaints that Norm Minetta, who opposed any element of ethnographic profiling in airport security post 9/11, with the left's outrage that Rick Warren will speak at an inaugural. One involved policy; one involved window-dressing.

Eh. Fashionableness means a lot more to these guys I guess.

posted by DrewM. at 11:07 AM

| Access Comments