Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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