Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti Gay Pastor Removed from Inaugural Program! (218 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Now we're getting somewhere (14+ / 0-)

    Pretty lame that the Inaugural Committee didn't bother to do their homework. But WE did.

    To the mainstream it might seem like one of those "oh, it all happened so long ago, why are you folks so sensitive after all this time?" things. The mainstream was not affected by his remarks (and after all they DO remain on the record) but WE were directly affected by those remarks and we have cause to be bothered by them for the simple reason that they were directed at us.

    When Cardinal Ratzinger was selected as Pope, it's not as though nobody bothered to bring up his childhood membership in the Hitler Youth. There were accusations, there were excuses; I don't think it's really been laid to rest to the satisfaction of a good many people and that involved a considerably older situation (and of course Ratzinger took many unseemly actions in the intervening years as well).

    Beyond a certain point it really has little do do with what statements Giglio did or did not make since the controversial one so much as a) he never bothered to update his views--at least not in public--and b) nobody on the committee bothered to consider how Giglio's selection might be received by constituent groups. And in politics that really does matter.

    •  Absolutely. It's the optics (11+ / 0-)

      They're all bad. Surely somebody remembered how un-pleased members of the administration's core constituency were about Rick Warren. If not, that's not a good sign.

      -7.75, -8.10; Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Dave in Northridge on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:21:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  One thing about working for the government (5+ / 0-)

        You get to be sensitive to optics. As I was told long ago "It's not just actual conflict of interest you need to be concerned with, it's the appearance of conflict of interest."

        I suppose that, technically, the Inaugural Committee doesn't work for the government; they work for the campaign. But whatever. Someone didn't do their homework.

        •  a lot about politics is perception. most folks... (3+ / 0-)

          in politics know this. the inaugural committee, not so much...

          There’s a word for the people who keep complaining that the “ideologues” are getting in their way: Lobbyists. ~ RJ Eskow

          by poligirl on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 11:46:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  yep (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          the Inaugural Committee doesn't work for the government; they work for the campaign. But whatever. Someone didn't do their homework.
          and it was probably an appointee, not an employee who did it.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:57:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's not a VP selection committee, for pete's sake (0+ / 0-)

          People here are acting like the Inaugeral Committee should have been doing FBI background checks and obtaining tax records for these speakers.  That's utter nonsense.

          Giglio's remarks were made almost 20 years ago.  That doesn't excuse them, of course, and his latest statement that shows that he likely still holds such views certain disqualifies him, but I can't find it reasonable at all to want heads to roll at the Inaugeral Committee for this.  They didn't realize what he said back then, and once it came out, they asked him to step aside.  All's well that ends well...

    •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)

      But as I understand it, Inaugural Committees are often "pretty lame", as often they are staffed with appointees that serve some kind of election pay-back: sons and daughters or wives of big donors, etc.

      These are people who aren't necessarily keyed into constituencies and the kind of awareness of any kind of political issues that aren't staring them in the face.  I'd be surprised if anybody really senior in the Administration had much to do with this until they saw the push back.

      I say this not to defend Obama, nor to minimize that the mistake was a glaring one in light of the LGBT politics of the recent election (if nothing else).  Given that Obama's been concentrating on major news events since his election: Newtown shooting, Fiscal Cliff baloney, Susan Rice attacks, etc -- i.e. not a typical "lame duck" session at all, and given that this is a second inauguration rather than the historic event that his first one was, I wouldn't be surprised if the planning for this event was delegated down to folks not in the inner circle at all.

      Doesn't excuse it, but it does make some of the complaints seem a bit misdirected.  I think it's more an error of neglect than one purposeful intent to offend, to coddle bigots, or to make statements about positions of rightwing evangelicals.  

      It could well be that the WH simply said to the committee, we'd like to find a traditional evangelical pastor who's actually done some good work on an issue, so we can show we are opposed to all evangelicals, and somebody (more than likely somebody who is completely blind to the fact that there are LGBT and other discriminatory red flags you have to look for) pulled up this guy without a great deal of vetting.

      I cannot believe that Obama and his key advisors have any interest in offending LGBT community.  They are too pragmatic for that.  I think it's just stupidity and neglect, rather than willful disregard.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:55:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No doubt this is patronage, that's certainly true (3+ / 0-)

        And since we're talking about the campaign organization rather than a branch of government, patronage is not at all contestable.

        Still, you'd think that whoever these people are they'd exercise even a bit of common sense. Campaign workers need to be trained and reasonably well-informed in order to be effective and given that there was almost certainly plenty of minority involvement in the campaign it shouldn't be that tough for SOMEONE to have thought to ask a question.

        •  I generally expect that most (0+ / 0-)

          professional people exercise common sense and minimal adherence to basic standards of their jobs/tasks.  You'd be surprised how often those expectations aren't met.  Even among well-intentioned and very interesting people that I like.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:02:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site