Rick Warren and Barack Obama - Los Angles Times Parses Words or “How the Press Turns”

With all the brouhaha surrounding Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation, especially from gay activists and those who opposed California’s Proposition 8, it is curious that those who decry intolerance are themselves intolerant – especially when it comes to opposing viewpoints. What is interesting is that Obama’s choice of spiritual leaders is being dissected by the press, more than his association with Reverend Wright. The problem that Gay Activists and the left have with Warren is that he opposes Gay Marriage, and defines Marriage as that between one man and one women (additionally he is an evangelical Christian Leader – strike one, so to speak), a sentiment that is shared by the President-Elect.. However, theses detractors assumed that since the President Elect was in favor of gay rights, his opinion would transfer to the issue of marriage – there is a difference between civil unions (which offer all the benefits of marriage, and is an option that most American’s would approve) and traditional Marriage (which has religious connotations).

The basis of an article posted yesterday was an article from the LA Times, which closed as follows;

Earlier this month, in an interview with reporters from the Los Angeles Times, Obama answered a question about his current spiritual advisor by telling reporters he had found inspiration in a "prayer circle" of supportive clergy leaders who include Bishop T.D. Jakes of the Dallas-based mega-church the Potter's House, the Rev. Joseph Lowery of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and Warren.

From that article, one would surmise that Mr. Obama specifically chose three clergy to be his spiritual advisors. This is not the case. From a transcript of the L.A. Times original interview one understands that Obama is not specifically choosing these three men as his advisors, rather, they are part of a larger group of spiritual leaders who have “prayed for him”.

Q: Do you have a spiritual advisor now? Many presidents have had them.

O: You know, one of the wonderful things that we did during the campaign was to set up sort of a prayer circle across the country, of pastors who, from all denominations, all religious faiths, who would every morning, a few of them would get on the phone and pray for me.

Sometimes I'd get on the phone. And, you know, they're made up of people as diverse as, you know, T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren, Joseph Lowery, just a wonderful collection of people and, by the way, across the political spectrum. I'm not even sure that all of them voted for me.

But they were willing to pray for me. And that's something that was wonderful.

The Times, whether intentionally or not, changed the entire meaning of the first interview, giving an impression (isn’t that always the way), of something more “dubious” in Obama’s choice of “Warren” (additionally they chose not to use the Pastors first name, dismissively.)

Now, as the “Warren Controversy” is being played out on every Network and Newspaper, Blog or otherwise across the country, it is important to put into context the following: Obama had stated from the beginning that he was a Christian, his choice of Reverend Wright aside, (as well as his views on abortion), never wavered. When the “Wright” controversy exploded, Obama, as a candidate was in no haste to name a new spiritual advisor, being human, it is a personal choice that takes time. Additionally, should he have chosen Jakes, Lowery or Warren, for that matter, it would be his personal choice, one that is a guarantee of the Constitution.

Therefore, those that feel they have “bought into” the Presidency by way of support (whether financial or by the pen), feel they are owed some sort of allegiance from the President, and somehow have the ability to affect the choices he will make. They are not disillusioned, they are delusional. As the President Elect has made additional choices that have angered left leaning activists (including your local daily paper’s editorial board), prior to his inaugural, it is apparent that should he continue on this centrist path, the romance that once was, will become an assault. The only possible good that could come from this is job security for those employed by a media who has, up until this point, been losing readers and viewership faster than residents are leaving California and Massachusetts. (Those states can’t blame the Internet) Perhaps the 50 percent of the country who are consistently incensed by the editorial content within the main news of the aforementioned, and have cancelled subscriptions or tuned out, will have a change of heart. It is certainly not fair to Barack Obama, nor was it fair to “name the Republican”, that said – Prediction: Shocking Headline 2010: “New York Times Now Accepting Applications!”

Obama’s Choice of Pastors and the Angry Left.

Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church will deliver the invocation at President-Elect Obama’s inaugural, which is not sitting well with gay and lesbian activists and those who opposed California’s Proposition 8 (Defining Marriage as being between a man and a woman) (The Teachers Union comes to mind). In an article today, The Los Angeles Times , noted that the anger arises because Warren endorsed Proposition 8.

“Goff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a gay rights organization that worked against Proposition 8, called the decision to include Warren in the inauguration ceremony a "slap in the face to millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who donated for, worked for and helped elect Barack Obama president."

Was Mr. Kors not paying attention when Barack Obama noted that he was a Christian? (Understandably, there are different brands of Christianity, but those that have developed a quasi-acceptance of non-Biblical practices, from a Catholic-Evangelical point of view, cannot seriously be considered “Christian”) It is traditional that an invocation occurs at the Presidents inaugurations; - also the stance of the majority of Christian Church Leaders against Gay Marriage and Abortion (we’ll address that shortly) is also known. Therefore, the President-Elect would be hard-pressed to find one that did support Marriage defined as anything but between a man and a woman. (He did) Additionally, lending support to a campaign does not automatically mean that every single left (or right for that matter) group will be allowed to foist their agenda on that elected official.

All that aside, what is most interesting in this article is the closing, where the Times talks about an earlier interview with Mr. Obama, where he was asked about his current spiritual leaders:

“Obama answered a question about his current spiritual advisor by telling reporters he had found inspiration in a "prayer circle" of supportive clergy leaders who include Bishop T.D. Jakes of the Dallas-based mega-church the Potter's House, the Rev. Joseph Lowery of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and Warren.”

T.D. Jakes,, who supports gay marriage, Rev. Joseph Lowery (who co-founded the Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King and will also pray at the Inauguration and supports Gay rights and finally Rick Warren who is one of the most celebrated American Christian Leaders and takes a hard line on both Marriage and Abortion. (T.D. Jakes, abortion support undefined, Lowery, pro-abortion. Therefore, as long as Obama associates with Pastors that approve of both Gay Marriage and abortion, the left is happy. Obama’s inclusion of Warren has sent them into a spasm (never mind his Cabinet choices!) and Obama’s choice of Warren to lead the invocation may speak volumes. Obama could easily have given that post to either of the aforementioned “spiritual advisors”, yet, he chose Warren. It will be interesting, indeed, to watch the development of the relationship between Mr. Obama and these three men over the course of the next four years.

Obama and Arne Duncan – It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood ?

Barack Obama chose friend and neighbor, Arne Duncan to fill the post of Education Secretary yesterday - to mixed reviews. Duncan, a reformer, is receiving raves from the right and cautious “acceptance from the teachers unions”.. His philosophy on managing the Chicago schools is similar to that of Mike Huckabee. Huckabee, in his 10plus years of Governor of the state of Arkansas, introduced sweeping reforms in education:

Arkansas' ACTAAP system is widely hailed as one of the nation's best school accountability programs. Huckabee has pushed through reforms in Arkansas that have significantly expanded the availability of college scholarships, increased the number of charter schools and established new approaches to workforce education.

It goes without saying that Huckabee had his share of problems with the Teachers Union, and so has Duncan:
from “Substance News”, an organization defining itself as “Defending The Public Schools for over 30 years”:

Duncan attacks union schools, Stewart signs “solidarity” letter to Duncan

The most dramatic weakening of the union became evident in December 2007. Immediately prior to the December Chicago Board of Education meeting, Chief Executive Officer Arne Duncan announced that he was going to close or reorganize somewhere between 147 and 175 schools because of what he called “underutilization.”

Despite widespread demands to know both the criteria for “underutilization” and the names of the schools, Duncan ignored the facts, kept the lists secret, and allowed the system’s 48,000 workers to go into the Christmas holidays with huge questions about their futures. For four weeks, speculation in the schools and on blogs that discussed CPS business ran wild. More than 100 separate bloggers posted to the largest CPS blog (District299.com) between the day of the Board of Education meeting and the beginning of the new year. But while teachers and other staff working in the schools were left to wonder whether their holiday presents would include the loss of their jobs, as had taken place when the school financial crisis had been declared in November and December 1979, the leaders of the CTU were mired in what even their own supporters have called “massive office politics.” During the Christmas holidays of 2007, union members across Chicago were worrying about whether their schools would be closed. They didn’t hear from their union, but Arne Duncan did. Marilyn Stewart was very busy. She was securing her position as “Chief Executive Officer” of the Chicago Teachers Union, beginning a purge of her own ranks, writing an unprecedented letter to the chief of the school system —completely ignoring the looming attack on the union’s 31,000 members embodied in the “underutilization” claims of Arne Duncan. In December 2007, Stewart issued two remarkable documents (both reprinted in this issue of Substance). Neither of them dealt with the crisis approaching for the union’s members. One was dramatically friendly to CEO Arne Duncan, the boss who was planning to destroy the jobs and careers of hundreds of CTU members this school year and more in years to come, while even more dramatically hostile to one of the elected leaders of her own union. The other revealed more between the lines than it admitted in print. One came out the week before Christmas, the second the day after Christmas. Neither has been publicly acknowledged by the union itself, but the authenticity of both have been verified to Substance by union officials and to blog leader. On December 17, Stewart circulated a memo to union staff entitled “Changes in Day-to-Day Operations of the Administrative Office.” A complete copy of that memo is reprinted on Page Eight of this Substance.

That said, Duncan’s coming out of Chicago as a reformer, which, given the history of Chicago in general, that’s one serious accomplishment.

It is no wonder then, that some on the right are applauding Obama’s latest cabinet choice. For many, the role of educator has been defined for the past forty years as Union member first, educator second. A case in point from the recent article at Aaron Proctor’s blog:” 25 Wrongs Don’t Make A Right”. Proctor minces no words when describing the state of the Philadelphia School System and 25 teachers who recently participated in the “Call Out Gay” day to protest California’s proposition 8, (which was heavily supported by the teachers unions to the tune of $1,000,000) - thereby placing the union’s agenda above the needs of their students. Again, that is just one story, in one school district, in one state – however, similar stories, different issues and different agenda’s, can be found across the country – It is not the public school system per se, that needs reform, it is that the teacher’s union needs to take a more active role in education, rather than political agenda’s.

This is the second cabinet choice that has made this moderate conservative feel more secure with the incoming administration. (Clinton as Secretary of State was the first – she had a stellar national defense record in her tenure in the Senate). So much for neighborhood associations - for all intents and purpose, Duncan appears to be Ayers polar opposite. Great call on the part of Mr. Obama – one has to give credit where credit is due.

Caroline Kennedy – The Socialite and the Senate and Sexism

Caroline Kennedy has announced her intention to actively campaign for Hillary Clinton’s senate seat – based on her qualifications as an Upper East Side (Manhattan), author of children’s books, who spent three years in the White House when she was a child, and has a close friendship with Barack Obama. The UK’s, Guardian’s article title “On the Road to Restoring Camelot” is in itself interesting, although a reasonable biography of Ms. Kennedy, one which highlights her qualifications (some noted above), and her life as a Kennedy (fraught with family tragedy), the concept of “American Royalty”, is clearly the point. Based solely on her relatives, Kennedy is assumed to be capable of performing the duties of a U.S. Senator – from a British Perspective, she is a "Princess".

The American Press appears to be of like-mind – from the LA Times article, speaking on behalf of “dynasties”, to the The New York Times, article outlining her political connections, and most importantly her ability to hire the best men to help her suceed in her quest:

”Ms. Kennedy has also retained Knickerbocker SKD, a well-connected political consulting firm founded by Josh Isay, a former chief of staff to Mr. Schumer. The firm counts among its clients Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Ms. Quinn, and Mr. Brown, and enjoys close ties with some of New York’s powerful labor unions.”

Our neighbors to the north, who have taken a more conservative turn in recent years, has a different take on the process: An article in the National Post, One of Canada’s leading daily’s, is less inclined to be enamored of the Kennedy charade. Kelly McParland, ponders the question: “Is Al Sharpton the best Caroline Kennedy can do?”, in response to Ms. Kennedy’s calls to all major players in the DNC who can help her achieve her “rightful” place in the senate. Another, in the same publication, by Steven Edwards quips” America's aristocracy lines up for senate vacancies “>, where he outlines all the “political dynasties” and closes with: “So it all comes down to this: America fought a revolution for what? “ (Author’s Note: Buy Canadian!)

There reactions from New Yorkers is mixed, according to a YouTube Video, posted below, however, those “interviews” were conducted in Manhattan, which does not represent the majority of the State of New York.



There are those “upstate”, who would see a more competitive bid for this seat, the Elmira Star Gazette article, includes the fact that “Two other women - Reps. Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan and Kirsten Gillibrand of Hudson - still are being mentioned as possible appointees here” and comments below the article are telling – they are in concert with Canadian Press, vis a vis, any so-called American “aristocracy”.

In the final analysis, is it more than likely Kennedy will get what she wants; she may not have the experience, or the qualifications, for that matter, but her connections to the big money and political players, and for no other reason? She is a woman, who is, for all intents and purposes “fluff”. What this appointment does is take away the opportunity for qualified women, to vie for a Senate Seat, while making a mockery of the entire process. (See Elmira Star Gazette). It is that women, in general, are treated as objects by the press, dependent of course, upon political affiliation, or who one might be running against. The blatant sexism that greeted the highly qualified Hillary Clinton (who Kennedy feels entitled to replace), was disgusting, however, what is most galling is the treatment of Gov. Sarah Palin, who, with greater qualifications that Ms. Kennedy, was subject to a never-ending stream of sexist commentary from the American Press, while Caroline Kennedy is treated as “the Princess” (object). (And that beat goes on).

McCain – True to Form - Critical of the Republican National Committee, Defends Mr. Obama and Dumps Palin

The old adage, “A Leopard Doesn’t Change His Spots”, is appropriate when analyzing the Senator from Arizona, and weak 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate, John McCain. With all due respect to his service to the nation, McCain, a moderate-left “Republican”, was, without doubt, the worst possible candidate in the primary vis a vis conservative principals. Although he attempted to make a sharp turn to the right (fiscal and social conservatism), during the campaign, it was clumsy and transparent. Many conservatives, “held their nose”, to vote for McCain, simply because he “was not Obama”. The strategy that McCain would appeal to the independent and moderate voter was insane – the man had no chance what-so-ever (and to be fair, it is without doubt had Reagan been reborn, he would have struggled in this past election) - he faced an alienated base, a mantra from the press and DNC that he was “Bush-lite” and a Republican National Committee that could not effectively get out a message, unless it was a fast drive by on the opponent. (The need for improved leadership at the helm of the RNC National Committee became glaringly apparent this cycle.)

This week McCain was able to go back to being McCain, the “Republican” that Democrats and the Press most respect. On ABC’s, This Week, with George Stephanopoulos, McCain came back in spades. Transcripts from the interview follow:
On the corruption within the Illinois Democrat Party, McCain went out of his way to defend Obama against questions raised by the Republican National Committee, as well as others, (Savannah Morning News>) who want the President-Elect to be a bit more forthcoming vis a vis Blagojevich:

ABC News

STEPHANOPOULOS: Absolutely. And there's so much to talk to you about since the campaign, but let's begin with the news of the week. You saw that joke about Governor Blagojevich in Illinois. Fifty Democrats in the Senate have called on him to resign. Do you think he should resign?
MCCAIN: Oh, I'm sure that he should have. President-elect Obama also called for that. He should. You know, there's a lot of corruption amongst Republicans and Democrats, and this kind of thing doesn't help in these kinds of difficult economic times. So I would hope that he would resign, but we also look -- ought to look at systems that breed this kind of corruption, and unfortunately, it isn't confined to one city or one state.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Mike Duncan, has been highly critical of the way President- elect Obama has dealt with this. He's had a statement every single day, saying that the Obama team should reveal all contacts they've had with Governor Blagojevich. He says that Obama's promise of transparency to the American people is now being tested. Do you agree with that?
MCCAIN: I think that the Obama campaign should and will give all information necessary. You know, in all due respect to the Republican National Committee and anybody -- right now, I think we should try to be working constructively together, not only on an issue such as this, but on the economy stimulus package, reforms that are necessary. And so, I don't know all the details of the relationship between President-elect Obama's campaign or his people and the governor of Illinois, but I have some confidence that all the information will come out. It always does, it seems to me.

McCain on Obama’s team, and noted it was a team he would have picked. In reviewing voting patterns of Senators since 2004, there is no wonder, McCain would admire Clinton, they voted in kind, and this writer shares the same admiration for Clinton, however, McCain extended this flattery to the entire team and to Obama.

STEPHANOPOULOS: This team that President-elect Obama has picked -- you had kind words...
MCCAIN: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... for Senator Clinton as secretary of state.
MCCAIN: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Jim Jones, General Jim Jones...
MCCAIN: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... as national security adviser. Bob Gates as secretary of defense.
MCCAIN: And Geithner, Treasury secretary, is also a very good choices, yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You look at the national security team; this is a team you could have picked.
MCCAIN: Sure, sure. Absolutely.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And what does that tell you about the president- elect?
MCCAIN: Tells me that the president-elect is going to address national security issues with people who he thinks the American people can trust, and that he can place trust and confidence in.
MCCAIN: Again, I'm not playing Paul Revere, OK? But I am saying that there are enormous challenges throughout the world. We have the situation in Afghanistan. The situation in Iraq is still dangerous. There are efforts by Al Qaida to continue to cause difficulties and launch attacks in different areas of the world. So -- the Israeli situation is certainly unsettled, as they go through a new election period of uncertainty. So there is -- there's incredible national security challenges, which mandates -- doesn't argue for but mandates that we all work together as much as possible.
STEPHANOPOULOS: A bipartisan...
MCCAIN: Where we have been -- the North Korean talks apparently just broke down. So we should work together. Now, that does not mean, in any way, that we will agree on every issue.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it sounds like you agree on Afghanistan now...
MCCAIN: Yes.

On Guantanamo – McCain’s is the McCain we all knew in 2000, redux – rendering most sane conservatives – speechless:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You and the president-elect also Guantanamo, closing down Guantanamo.
MCCAIN: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you signed on to a very harsh report, out of the Senate Armed Services Committee, this week, on the torture of detainees across the military prison system. And you said this wasn't just the work of a few bad apples. In fact, you laid direct responsibility of Secretary of Defense -- former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Listen to this: "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. It conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely."
His spokesman called these allegations "unfounded." How do you respond to that, first of all? And, number two, how should the secretary of defense be held accountable for this?
MCCAIN: I don't know. I think history, obviously, will render very harsh judgment about this whole detainee treatment situation, whether additional action is called for. I think, as a member of the -- ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, that we've done our job. Let me just tell you a brief story. Not that long ago, a year and a half ago, Senator Lindsey Graham and I were in Iraq. We were in the prison. The general, our U.S. general in charge of prison had us in a secluded area and met a former high-ranking member of Al Qaida, one of the toughest guys I've ever seen. I said, how did you succeed so well after the initial American victory? He said, "Two things" -- he said, "One" -- he said, "there was no control by your troops. It was total lawlessness. There was rape, looting, pillage, murder, settling of old scores. So there was lawlessness." "Second, the greatest recruiting tool we had -- we were able to recruit thousands of young men," he said, "was Abu Ghraib." So you can't underestimate the damage that our treatment of prisoners, both at Abu Ghraib and other...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But some look at that and say...
MCCAIN: ... harmed our national security interests.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Some look at that and say, because of that, there should be a special prosecutor looking into all the crimes that were committed, and no one should be exempted from that.
MCCAIN: Well, look, that's not my job. If overwhelming evidence indicates indicates that, that's fine. But the point is, I thought, and Senator Levin did, that we should carry out our responsibilities in the Senate Armed Services Committee and do a thorough and complete investigation. I'm not that interested in looking back. What I am interested in and committed to is making sure we don't do it again. We're in this long twilight struggle here, and so America's prestige and image, as we all know, was damaged by these stories of mistreatment. And we've got to make sure the world knows that that's not the United States of America that they knew and appreciated for centuries.

Finally, McCain turns his back on the only person who made real sacrifices on the part of the GOP in 2008, Gov. Sarah Palin. Without Palin, McCain would not have enjoyed the crowds, or the support of the base, and beyond that Palin brought back into the fold. What one finds most appalling is that the man that called himself a “maverick”, apparently is nothing more or less than a business as usual politician pandering to whomever will throw him the next gig – regardless of party affiliation. Palin, to her credit, remained true to who she was, never shifting a position - she remains wildly popular.

MCCAIN: Oh, no. Listen, I have the greatest appreciation for Governor Palin and her family, and it was a great joy to know them. She invigorated our campaign. She was just down in Georgia and invigorated their campaign. But I can't say something like that. We've got some great other young governors. I think you're going to see the governors assume a greater leadership role in our Republican Party. Pawlenty, Huntsman...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not? (inaudible) she was the best person...
MCCAIN: Sure. Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... to succeed you if something had happened to you?
MCCAIN: But now we're in a whole election cycle. Have no doubt of my admiration and respect for her and my view of her viability, but at this stage, again...
MCCAIN: ... my corpse is still warm, you know?

In a word: Despicable.

Michael Steele and the RNC Chair - Leadership without Compromise

There are several candidates for the RNC Chair, all with hefty resumes and conservative credentials; however, the choice should be made with an eye towards leading the Party forward, rather than focus on the “moderate”, or worse, trying to recapture a bygone era. From an intellectual perspective, the GOP losses in the past two elections were the result of the natural course of history, magnified by a seeming loss of identity. Over the past 6 years, there appeared to be little in the way of either social or fiscal conservatism coming from the Party leadership. Therefore a “business as usual”, chair candidate, will not bring the “change” necessary to attract the “base” as well as those all-important independents fence-sitters who are crucial to state and national elections.

The traditional GOP model was a party of inclusion, Abraham Lincoln aside, the platform of the Party has remained consistent, yet, the Party is viewed by the uninformed as a group of angry old wealthy white men, propped up by a base made up of religious nuts. This view has been fostered by the Democrats (who are actually a party made up of wealthy old white men, propped up by a base that is comprised of the “haves” (Hollywood, The Union Leadership, NARAL, Editors) and the “have nots” (Name the minority). The Democrats get better press and the Republican Leadership remains silent. Both parties have their share of “base” negatives, it is a question of producing an “image” that will appeal to those “independents” – if the DNC can downplay Ayers, Wright and the entire Chicago Political Machine, surely someone within the GOP would be capable of “normalizing” their base, which happens to be the normal aspect of the party – Social Conservatives, specifically those who are religious.

The choice of the RNC chair, therefore, should be carefully weighed towards an individual who is both socially and fiscally conservative, has a track record of inclusion of the various factions that make up the GOP, is media savvy and has the understanding of technology in order to counter the left, and actually grow the base. Michael Steele, former Lt. Governor of Maryland, FOX news contributor, and current GOPAC chair, meets that criteria.

In a recent interview with the Baltimore Examiner, Steele talked about his desire to “tear up the old playbook” and “move the party forward”,

That's going to start with building a ground game of fresh new faces and new voices that reflect a modern GOP. That's what I've tried to do at GOPAC [the candidate-training organization he chairs]. It doesn't mean that we're less conservative; it doesn't mean that those founding principles on which we have stood and are time-tested are no longer relevant. In fact, they are, maybe even more so. But how we speak to them and how we express them to voters without ticking them off or making them feel we're sitting in judgment of their lives and communities will make the difference.

Bingo – Steel knows what is at stake, and understands the need not to abandon GOP principals, but to effectively communicate. What sells this social conservative? The man understands the GOP’s biggest problem and he addresses it a phrase that should be practiced by every GOP candidate, from the local dogcatcher to the Senate to the White House : ”I don't need to be Democrat Lite to win.”

To learn more about Michael Steele and his Candidacy for the RNC Chair: visit Steele for RNC Chairman