I was shocked when I read this morning that President Obama had defended the Islamic Center. I was proud as hell of him, but for the life of me I couldn’t understand why he did it. As I wrote to a friend earlier today, “this President doesn’t do ‘controversial.'” Sadly, I was right. The President has now backed away from his comments of last night, claiming that they weren’t intended to show support for the Islamic Center. When they clearly were.
This tickles me to no end. Aravosis misinterprets Obama’s remarks, and when he finally figures out what Obama said, he flames Obama for changing his position.
This is why we made the manic progressive tag.
BTD
I agree with your criticism of Aravosis, but I disagree with your generalizations based on what Aravosis said. There are of course other people who are criticizing Obama for trying to find the sweet spot – see digby for instance – but you are wrong to attribute Aravosis’ statements to progressives generally.
To be sure, I did the same thing when Aravosis called Hillary a racist during the 2008 primaries, though it is true that a lot a bloggers called Hillary a racist at the time.
We were both wrong to attribute the views of John Aravosis and others to everyone.
mistermix
Greenwald is a little more level-headed about the whole thing, but he’s still upset:
http://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/21228968732
(Links go to powerline and Palin’s FB page)
Of course they agree, because only a crazy person would disagree with his assertion of a fundamental constitutional right. And what’s so bad about Obama crafting a statement that every sane person has to agree with? Seems smart to me.
maryQ
I want to see a “professional Left” tag.
BTD
@mistermix:
I would go further – I had a problem with the initial interpretation of Obama expressing a view in support or opposition to the substance of building a mosque (or a church or a temple.)
But I hate the whole mixing of religion and politics. You know who used tobe good about not mixing religion and politivcs (Imean this seriously) Richard Nixon.
You never heard him talking about religion.
In fact, one of the worst things about Jimmy Carter was his overt injection of religion into politics. While the Religious Right of course made it impossible to escape, Jimmy Carter hada big hand in it too.
jurassicpork
Sometimes Aravosis can be a stupid prick (he banned me recently from ABlog then feigned ignorance of it on Twitter yet I’m still banned for no apparent reason).
What seems to be lost on everyone was how Obama’s “courageous” stance on the Mosque was buried at the end of the Friday news cycle. If he felt strongly enough about it, he could’ve said something in the middle of the week but he pointedly didn’t BECAUSE he was afraid of stirring up controversy.
Meanwhile, right wing terrorist Hal Turner, who a year and a half ago threatened my family and me, was convicted last week of threatening 3 federal judges. A rare victory and a damned good thing but what took so long?
Lolis
IMHO, the president was simply trying to clarify that he is not “endorsing” any mosque, as any president should not endorse any religious institution. Some news media was painting his speech that way. Plum Line has a good dissection of what he said and how it wasn’t a retreat, but a clarification. Of course, the media still can’t handle nuance so they are still getting it wrong. I stopped reading Americablog well over a year ago because I thought the emotion there led to dishonesty. I don’t like to be manipulated by liberals any more than conservatives.
BTD
@Lolis:
Agree with this.
morzer
Incidentally, and on a not totally unrelated topic, Juan Cole has a fine piece on the neocons and their lust for war:
http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-barack-obama-to-a-one-term-president.html
He seems fairly confident that Obama isn’t going to be pushed into an idiotic war against Iran. But of course, he isn’t a professional leftist, so what would he know, eh?
arguingwithsignposts
Goddamned first amendment. What did that ever solve?
And, just to be clear, I don’t think Digby can get any more shrill.
arguingwithsignposts
@jurassicpork:
I initially thought the same thing, but he did make remarks at a Ramadan celebration, so it was scheduled. Sometimes we overthink these things.
rob!
I think you’re being a little unfair here. He made those remarks at a WH event to commemorate the beginning of Ramadan, so it was the appropriate time and place.
I’m thrilled he said what he said–look how the Right is scrambling to address it. Even Fox News–FOX NEWS–came out on Saturday morning and praised it. Exploded sets all over the South!!
Napoleon
@jurassicpork:
That is because that was the day Ramidon (sp?) broke and he had an event scheduled with a Muslim group, which gave him a natural forum to make his statements.
Personally I do not see how you interpret his initial comments as anything other then as he “clarified” them.
John Cole
The thing that amazes me is how Obama still is a blank slate where people hear him speak, and then pay no attention to what he said and paint their own hopes, dreams, and desires on him. Then when he doesn’t follow through with their fantasy, they flame him for backtracking or being a pussy.
I was emailing a really smart friend of mine on Friday, and he thought Obama was really courageous in defense of the mosque. I replied- I just don’t think what he said was that big of a deal. Bloomberg’s speech was far broader and actually supported the mosque. Obama just did what a President should do and is supposed to do- stand up for every American’s rights, regardless of their religion.
morzer
@Napoleon:
Ramadan. And yes, it was a clarification, not a walkback. As for the timing, I’d say that making his remarks in a speech given before a Muslim group at an Iftar dinner was fairly courageous, given the rabid right-wing media and the crypto-Drudge slime-peddlers like Politico.
maryQ
@jurassicpork
“What seems to be lost on everyone was how Obama’s “courageous” stance on the Mosque was buried at the end of the Friday news cycle. If he felt strongly enough about it, he could’ve said something in the middle of the week”
I’m sorry, friend, but this is very, very weak. Can we try to remember that Obama has to govern the whole country, and he’s not our little wind-up toy who will say exactly what we want, exactly how er want, and exactly when we want. Even of a third of or fellow citizens do not want to be governed by him, he’s the friggin president, not the DNC leader or the MoveOn spokesperson.
demo woman
@arguingwithsignposts: Yeah but he should have just moved the Ramadan celebration to another time. lol
The President took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States and he did that by pointing out how hypocritical the right can be. Sarah can be all touchy feely and spout nonsense but most people vote for leaders not whiners.
Anya
@jurassicpork: It was not a Friday news dumb. He was hosting iftar for Muslims so naturally, he had to address the issue. He used the right forum to address religious freedom. Stupid media then miss-interpreted his statement to mean that he was endorsing the Islamic center and he clarified or expanded on his earlier statement.
BTD
@John Cole:
I would have been fine if he never said a word about it.
It is not a federal policy issue. The only way it becomes one is if the state or city government violate the First Amendment, and that seemed to be unlikely, David Paterson;s hare brained scheme notwithstanding.
So I think it was somewhat courageous of the President to say anything about it, and perhaps not too smart politically.
I wish he had not said anything personally.
BTD
@morzer:
War with Iran? That’s not happening, no matter how much Jeff Goldberg wants it.
It is obvious that the focus militarily will be all Afghanistan.
You can not be removing troops from Iraq when you are planning a war with Iran.
Not going to happen.
Napoleon
@morzer:
Not to mention his middle name and the fact that a good percentage of the public thinks he is Muslim.
Emma
Damn if he does (it was somewhat courageous, but perhaps not too smart politically and why didn’t he do it on Wednesday instead of Friday?) and damned if he doesn’t (why hasn’t he stepped up to the plate and stand for something?).
Perhaps he’s the brightest of us all. Does what he thinks he has to do and ignores all the chihuahas snapping at his heels.
morzer
@BTD:
Yes, BTD. That’s what I said and what Juan Cole said. Well done !
demo woman
Is anyone watching Face the Nation? What did Ed Gillispee just say?
morzer
Looks mighty like someone doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution. As a professional Leftist might say – Quelle Surprise!
Napoleon
@BTD:
I can understand why you would feel that way but what he did was in the best tradition of presidents who did not drag religion into politics but at certain points did stress that it is American to have a government that does not favor one over the other. Think G. Washington’s letter to a Jewish congregation or, was it Madison, and the Tripoli (or whatever it is called) Treaty (the Barbary pirate situation).
BTD
@Emma:
Wednesday, Friday or Monday, I wish he would have not said anything. But I give him props for political courage.
This view seems to offend you.
[email protected]
Too many people active look for nothing more than a hero or villain in their politics and politicians. What Obama did was not heroic, and I suspect Bush would have said something similar. It is the only thing a person who respects the office of the presidency could say and not be just another partisan hack.
The wingnuts see a villain, and folks like Greenwald light up and swoon at “most courageous thing he has ever done” (paraphrase). No it’s not. That would be sticking with HCR and reviving it from the dead. Still not heroic, but pure persistence, with failure of the dem signature issue nipping at his heels and the electoral consequences deemed greater for failure than not, same with congress. Or, largely self preservation, and some doggedness to get it done. Same with all his accomplishments. Though I think he also cares personally about things like everyone getting HC coverage. That is being a decent human person, not heroic.
Obama is just a decent president, and a decent politician, maybe a very good politician, who makes most decisions like any other president, largely, but not completely on political truth and consequence. I personally think there is a little extra there in the fortitude department, at times, but hardly heroic, as I define that term.
There are no heroes in politics, left or right, only people who want something, and people who want something else.
Now back to my Galt.
beltane
This episode has has proven to me without a doubt that there are many on the left who will bust their asses and work overtime to search for reasons to be outraged with the president. I used to think they were naive in repeatedly falling for the right wing bait, but I have now concluded that they do this intentionally, even cynically, for the purpose of keeping the gears of their Outrage Machine greased and running smoothly.
There is a segment of the so-called left which thrives on the emotional rush of being thrown under the bus. I am learning to avoid these people.
BTD
@Napoleon:
Sure. I give him props for political courage on this.
If he had asked for my advice, I would have told him not to. Indeed, I am sure a lot of people told him not to and he did it anyway.
Good for him for following his own belief of what his role was on this.
General Stuck
Too many people actively look for nothing more than a hero or villain in their politics and politicians. What Obama did was not heroic, and I suspect Bush would have said something similar. It is the only thing a person who respects the office of the presidency could say and not be just another partisan hack.
The wingnuts see a villain, and folks like Greenwald light up and swoon at “most courageous thing he has ever done” (paraphrase). No it’s not. That would be sticking with HCR and reviving it from the dead. Still not heroic, but pure persistence, with failure of the dem signature issue nipping at his heels and the electoral consequences deemed greater for failure than not, same with congress. Or, largely self preservation, and some doggedness to get it done. Same with all his accomplishments. Though I think he also cares personally about things like everyone getting HC coverage. That is being a decent human person, not heroic.
Obama is just a decent president, and a decent politician, maybe a very good politician, who makes most decisions like any other president, largely, but mostly on political truth and consequence. I personally think there is a little extra there in the fortitude department, at times, but hardly heroic, as I define that term.
There are no heroes in politics, left or right, only people who want something, and people who want something else.
Now back to my Galt. n
Ana Gama
@Lolis:
This cannot be repeated enough!
jwb
@beltane: The Outrage Machine generates page hits, and when played correctly gets you on TV, which also generates additional page hits. Simple economics.
GregB
Time for a new outrage du jour.
Let’s spread a rumor that Native Americans are planning on building a sweat lodge two blocks from General Custer’s grave.
homerhk
How could Gibbs have been so mean in his characterisation of the Professional Left? I mean it’s clear that PL just wants Obama to succeed and would have his back completely if he just went and did something ‘courageous’ and stood up for his principles.
The President is one of the most eloquent speakers in history and he should use that skill to defend the constitution, fight against bigotry and espouse progressive ideals. If he does that, we’ll have his back cos we just want him to live up to what he promised in the campaign.
Oh right, sorry, silly me. The PL is just waiting for Obama to trip up so they can be proved right yet again. Did whatshisname really say this President doesn’t do controversial? This President? What a bunch of dicks these so-called liberal commentators have proved themselves to be.
joe from Lowell
Obama’s alleged “walkback” is actually PART OF THE IMPORTANT POINT.
First Amendment protections and religious freedom don’t depend upon whether the president, or the public, or the government actually supports the speech or religious activity being questioned.
Making this point was an essential part of Obama’s message, not a retreat from it.
morzer
@GregB:
A sixteen storey sweat-lodge even, complete with ritual daily readings of Michelle Obama’s thesis?
morzer
@homerhk:
I think the professional leftist position essentially boils down to:
“Commit suicide and we will applaud, and then five minutes later seek out a promising candidate for the next round”.
maryQ
from the Department of Yeah It Would Be Nice But It’s Never Gonna Happen:
Now would be an outstanding time for Former President George W Bush to redeem himself by continuing to do one of the few things he ever got right, and put an end to public GOP Islamophobia.
And buy me a pony.
BTD
@homerhk:
This seems to be the point on everything for some.
Their activism revolves around waiting for the “Professional Left” criticizes Obama about something so they can whine about the Professional Left.
This also generates page views.
It is an endless circle.
AxelFoley
@maryQ:
I agree with everyone who already addressed jurassicpork’s silly statement, but especially this quote.
beltane
@joe from Lowell: Stop Making Sense! There are thousands of outrage addicts out there who will experience painful withdrawal symptoms if they do not receive their daily Slap In The Face from the Obama administration. Will someone please take the needs of the Outrage Addicts into consideration.
mr. whipple
@GregB:
For real. This one is going on two days old. We need to come up with some new shit.
Ana Gama
@BTD: I kind of expected he’d say something at the Iftar because the discourse was growing more and more toxic by the day. Adding in the nutjob at AFA calling for “no more mosques” anywhere, the crap in Temecula, CA, and Murfreesboro, TN, and the proposed Koran-burning in FL, it was only a matter of time that the POTUS would remind the minions of the freedom of religion. The Iftar gave a natural opening and setting. He did the right thing.
morzer
@beltane:
Could we launch a new stimulus, generate say 5,000 face-slapping jobs, and still have it be deficit-neutral?
Maude
@John Cole:
not a blank slate, a blackboard. I have to wonder if Obama was a whiteboard, the lefters would be so insistant that he do what they think he should do.
Hal
Huffpo had one of their huge, blazing, front page headlines accusing Obama of hedging on his previous statement, then links the article in which Obama re-iterates it, but says he isn’t going to say either way about actually building the Mosque. Funny thing is, they actually got trashed by many in the comments section for being disingenuous.
Emma
BTD: Not really. I was merely pointing out that for each of your opinion there is another one of the complete opposite and mostly it’s either downright negative or damning with faint praise. So, the president might as well be himself.
mr. whipple
@Hal: Glad to hear they got some reader feedback. That place jumped the shark long ago.
John Cole
@GregB: Just tweeted that…
cleek
@beltane:
There are thousands of outrage addicts out there who will experience painful withdrawal symptoms if they do not receive their daily Slap In The Face from critics of the Obama administration.
just sayin…
arguingwithsignposts
@Napoleon:
And just exactly where are these presidents of whom you speak?
GregB
John,
My first official tweet. Thanks.
Nick
This is what Gibbs meant by the professional left. When you can’t even stand by your guy when he does something courageous, and all you do is look for the sellout, you are not an ally.
People like Huffington, Aravosis, David Sirota, Glenn Greenwald want to be considered allies, but really they’re not. The WH knows this.
beltane
Not so sure about that. I find meta diaries on DKos too boring to venture into, and the bon mots of Jane Hamsher and friends just don’t have the kind of outrage producing power that Sarah Palin does. Irritation is not the same thing as outrage.
Nick
@BTD:
and then we’d be hearing from “the base” that he’s too scared to say a word about something so politically divisive, he’s a coward and won’t even stand up for freedom of religion.
Actually, seeing as “the base” will bash him no matter what, I would advise him to not doing anything politically dangerous, because your “base” will never back you up.
Darius
EXACTLY. Obama made a strong point in defense of religious freedom, but our political media (right and left) is more interested in generating phony controversy. It’s pathetic.
Sly
@arguingwithsignposts:
Presidents not dragging religion into politics actually is a pretty big tradition, dating all the way back to Washington. The problem is that this is something we haven’t seen a lot of in recent history. Jimmy Carter, I’d argue, was the last.
joe from Lowell
@beltane:
I just needed to explain this point – that it was good for the president to point out that the right of the Cordoba people to build a mosque has nothing to do with the president’s personal opinion – ON A LIBERTARIAN BLOG.
I don’t mind people criticizing the president when he does something to offend their values. I take offense at people who toss out their values and make shit up just to have something critical to say.
adolphus
@BTD
Probably because he was a Quaker, or a member of the Society of Friends, and no matter how many rich people and prominent politicians send their kids to Friends Schools or how many Founding Fathers and Mothers were Quakers, most Americans STILL don’t understand who they are or what they believe and he would have alienated much of his core support in emphasizing it.
edit: blockquote fail. Sorry
kwAwk
I find the arguments on this issue odd. If people are reading into what Obama said and he isn’t walking it back, and what he said is only what every person who believes in what the 1st amendments stands for would say, then why did he wait so long to say it?
It is true that there are those who want Obama to be the liberal crusader on every issue and get the liberal doctrine accomplished, but at the same time there are those for whom whatever Obama does is inherently right on just about every issue.
Here at Balloon Juice the stated contention seems to be there are people for whom whatever Obama does isn’t good enough. Perhaps though good enough isn’t the standard that a lot of people have set for him, or that he has set for himself.
Perhaps Obama is good enough, just not great, like a lot of people would have us believe.
BTD
@Nick:
I can’t speak for the base.
I speak for me only.
That said, I did not hear a lot of carping about Obama not talking about the mosque. Maybe I missed it.
Nancy
Thank you all!
This is exactly why I visit this blog regularly and tell my friends about it – even though I hardly ever comment. Such a voice of sanity when I’m climbing the walls with the idiocy.
And John, yes absolutely about the blank slate phenomenon. We want to decry the emotional manipulation of fear by the conservatives. But WAY to many liberals only bothered to hear the emotional message of “Hope and Change” and never bothered with the specifics. Whether or not you like what Obama is doing or not – he articulated it well long before he got elected.
Bloomberg’s speech nearly moved me to tears. As I told someone at the time – he moved this old cynic to actually feel patriotic. When I read Obama’s speech, I appreciated it, but I didn’t have the same reaction. You all have helped me understand why.
Nick
@BTD: check this out;
http://www.openleft.com/showQuickHit.do?quickHitId=15563
or this
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/8/15/893205/-Mr.-President,-Intolerance-Feeds-On-Itself.-Take-A-Stand
the people who call themselves the “base” just want to be endlessly outraged.
joe from Lowell
@kwAwk:
Because it is generally best for the President and the federal government to stay out of local land use disputes. It’s only when this one has turned into a national political issue (and one touching on important religious freedom issues), not by Obama or the Democrats but by others, that it became necessary for him to comment.
Andrew
I agree up to a point that his words yesterday were bone-headed, because they distracted from the very eloquent speech he gave Friday.
That being said, I really don’t understand the argument that “well, he just defended the right to build. That isn’t in question.” The right to build at that location IS the question. Sure, Palin et al. may claim to support “the right” to build there in a technical sense, but by indicating that it’s illegitimate or inappropriate for Muslims alone to build at the site, they are challenging the First Amendment. You can’t claim you’re supporting the First Amendment if you selectively discriminate about who can actually exercise those rights.
So for Obama to defend “the right” to build anywhere, including Lower Manhattan, is perfectly appropriate pushback to the right’s nonsense.
Nick
@kwAwk:
Because its a local issue and he only commented on it because he was hosting a room full of Muslims for Ramadan.
Now we got the “he took too long to comment” bullshit? When does he get the blame for 70% opposing it?
joe from Lowell
It is appropriate for the mayor of the city in which the project is proposed to engage with the issue on its merits like Bloomberg did.
For the President of the United States, it is appropriate to discuss the project purely in terms of religious freedom and constitutional protections.
Nick
@Andrew:
No, they weren’t bone-headed.
kwAwk
@joe from Lowell:
Whether you like it or not we are talking about it because it is a national issue. Last time I checked neither Sarah Palin nor Newt Gingrich is from New York City.
Combined with that, that usage of 9/11 to justify the blocking of this mosque is making it a national issue. And as pointed out by a lot of those liberal lefties you all seem to dislike so much, this type of activity by the right to block the building of mosques isn’t localized in New York City, it is going on nation wide. This particular mosque is simply the one that is garnering the most public attention.
kwAwk
And hell, this isn’t even a mosque, its a community center.
beltane
@Nick: And if he had spoken up sooner, these same people would have claimed he was panicking, “jumping the gun”, and that he had “stepped in it”.
The only way to win this game is to refuse to play.
arguingwithsignposts
@Sly:
Dude, Abraham Lincoln would like a word with you.
cmorenc
Who the hell is this John Aravosis -the-PL-blogger everyone is in a dither about? And why is he worth spending our energy getting in a snit over his ramblings on his blog?
There’s eighty million blogs in the naked internet city, why has this been one of them we’re paying any attention to?
Nick
@kwAwk:
so every time Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich comments on some local issue, he’s required to chime in. Should he just resign and let Biden govern the country while he spends his time responding to righties who hold no elective office?
He said they had the right to build there and everywhere and anywhere they want, what more do you want from him?
Andrew
… which is why he made the broader point about emphasizing the freedom of religion because no matter how much the right *claims* to support the First Amendment, their opposition to these mosques shows that they actually do not.
Nancy
One of the things that struck me this morning is that perhaps at least part of what prompted Obama to speak up about this is foreign policy concerns – something that he does have primary responsibility for.
Can you imagine the challenges US diplomats all over the world in Muslim countries are facing as a result of this controversy? I would think that the President needed to go on record in order to give them some ground to stand on.
BTD
@cmorenc:
Page views poutrage?
kwAwk
@beltane:
No. He is accused of ‘jumping the gun’ or ‘panicking’ when his administration fires Shirley Sherrod because of a highly edited video posted to the web by that most nutty of wingnuts Andrew Breitbart.
In this case he would have been applauded for deflating another obnoxious crusade by the right.
homerhk
@Nick: the commentator at that open left link you have said this:
“As it stands, Obama went with the Sarah Palins on this mosque issue and pretty much slapped the liberals in the face once again, by refusing to comment on the “wisdom,” which he did by not commenting. Obama essentially took the side of the Islamophobe, Foxman.
Do we elected another slick Willie?”
Is this really serious? Or is it really saying that Obama’s eloquent statements are the same as Sarah Palin’s? I say Good and I say Grief!
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
Appropriate but not necessary.
Nick
@kwAwk: Do us a favor, give the WH a list, maybe a fucking Excel spreadsheet, of when its appropriate for them to respond quickly and when they should wait for more information?
Ana Gama
@kwAwk:
Exactly. And it’s only a national issue because the fright-wing nutcases have taken their “objections” to multiple communities….like Temecula, CA and Murfreesboro, TN…and a church in Florida wants to sponsor a Koran-burning.
joe from Lowell
@kwAwk:
I can’t figure out for the life of why you think this comment is somehow a rebuttal of what I wrote.
Joe: It got to the point where Obama had to talk about it because other people had made it a national issue..
kwAwk: No, Joe. Obama had to talk about it because Gingrich and Palin made it a national issue.
Uhhhh…good point? I wish I’d thought of that?
BTD
@Nick:
Meh, Shergald is not the base of anything.
I did not click the second link.
Nick
@homerhk:
Unfortunately, yes, and this is “the base” the professional left thinks he needs to pander to on a daily basis.
Mike in NC
@GregB:
We could, though Custer is buried at West Point, not the Little Bighorn, and the USMA sits on a huge piece of federal real estate.
kwAwk
@Nick:
No, but when the national leaders of the Republican Party start trying to build a national crusade to disenfranchise a minority of their rights, I’d like the leader of the Democratic Party to stand up an oppose them early and unequivocally.
I don’t really think that’s too much to ask.
beergoggles
The guy doesn’t need to come out in favor of the Islamic Center. He just needs to keep reminding the rest of the country that we have this thing called a First Amendment that he and other presidents from Clinton onwards have ignored in terms of ‘Faith Based Initiatives’ that Bush took to a whole new level. I think a lot of people either mistakenly or willfully (and I would put Glen and Avrosis in the latter group) mix up 1A support for Islamic Center support and it’s not a matter of nuance. You don’t have to go worship at the Islamic Center to support people’s right to build one on private property.
joe from Lowell
What about his tie, kwAwk?
What that a slap in the face too? A bigger one than the timing, or a smaller one?
Get a grip. The President of the United States just waded, without any sort of requirement that he do so, into a big kulturkampf fight, on the unpopular side of the despised minority, and you’re complaining because he didn’t do it a couple days earlier?
This is the hunting-around-for-reasons-to-whine tendency that people are always complaining about.
kwAwk
@joe from Lowell:
My apologies Joe if you took it that way. There are a lot of people in this thread saying that it was wrong of the left to expect Obama to make a stand on this issue or to cheer him for doing so.
Perhaps I read through you post too quickly.
arguingwithsignposts
what I want to know is if he was wearing a flag pin? because if he wasn’t, it don’t mean shit! /snark
beltane
@kwAwk: Fulfilling all the byzantine and ever changing demands of the PL would be a full time job in itself, leaving no time for anything else.
joe from Lowell
So Sarah Palin gets to decide what Barack Obama’s political messaging operations will be doing, because they have to devote themselves respond to every bleat she makes, instead of picking the important ones.
Foolishness. You sound like the people who wanted him to suspend his campaign because John McCain did. No, I don’t want the president to run around, getting panicky about everything offensive that comes out of the right wing media machine. It’s pointless and self-destructive.
scav
@Mike in NC:
pppttt, rookie error, you’re letting mere reality get in the way of the narrative. Don’t forget they’re undoubtedly going to be using peyote at their religious ceremonies and probably dancing about the death of Custer too.
Sly
@arguingwithsignposts:
A group of Protestant ministers, believing the Civil War was punishment for leaving God out of the Constitution, approached Lincoln with a proposal to “remedy” this effrontery: an amendment to the Constitution that would change the preamble to the following text.
Lincoln responded with polite praise. “The general aspect of your movement I cordially approve. In regard to particulars I must ask time to deliberate, as the work of amending the Constitution should not be done hastily. I will carefully examine your paper in order more fully to comprehend its contents than is possible from merely hearing it read, and will take such action upon it as my responsibility to our Maker and our country demands.”
His responsibility to his Maker and his country demanded that he put it in a desk drawer somewhere and forget about it. He did find the time, however, to draft a law allowing for Rabbi’s to serve in the Army Chaplaincy for the first time.
kwAwk
@beltane:
Byzantine and ever changing? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Did you really come through the 2008 election not knowing that the left wanted a government program to ensure all people got health insurance at affordable prices?
Did you really come through the 2008 election not knowing that the pl wanted our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Did you really come through the 2008 election not knowing that the professional left wanted DADT repealed?
Did you really come through the 2008 election not knowing that lefties wanted the Democratic Party to stand up for minority rights?
If so what exactly were you reading at the time?
Nick
@kwAwk:
I’m sorry, isn’t that what he did? How did he not do this? It’s too much to ask for you to ask him to do something he already fucking did.
Bernard
fascinating to watch the anti left attack the left when they criticize Obama. as if Obama was not “worthy” of being attacked. the Obamabots as i hear them described. even make up “why didn’t the left attack him when he didn’t say anything.
now that is good. Make up a story that didn’t exist beforehand and them claim, oh, there they go again. lol. St. Ronnie won’t go away? will he, lol
Obama is not a lefty in any way shape or form. and to watch people think he “should” be a lefty, or not be criticized for being the Republican he is/ conservadem/Bluedog, lol., well i have some wetlands in West Texas if you believe he is a Democrat. lol
it’s so funny. i haven’t expected anything from Obama since the Spying vote. i haven’t been surprised by his lack of ethics or morality. saddened, but not really surprised. He’s a POLITICIAN!!! they have no morals other than MONEY. lol
to see the “Oh my poor Obama” meme is quite funny at this stage of the Kabuki. Obama is playing his part.
and to see the Bloggers/Professional Left/ get up in arms over what Obama, Inc. does or doesn’t do is a good laugh at their “outrage” so to speak. as if the Left mattered to Obama.
the Obama you see is the Obama who runs the Presidency for the Corporatists. just facts.
it is interesting to see Gibbs/Obama reading the script that Fox/Republican Party wrote/endorses. like i said, Obama has been that way, a Blue Dog from Illinois, to get RICH and get elected.
Stupid is as stupid does.
kwAwk
@Nick:
No the question is, is it justified to bash Digby and Glenn Greenwald for applauding Obama doing so, and then bash them again when they find out that Obama’s support wasn’t as unequivocal as it seemed?
maryQ
@kwAwk
Just to clarify-Barack Obama is not the leader of the Democratic Party. He’s the President.
Take it up with Tim Kaine. Please.
joe from Lowell
Shorter Bernard:
Ha! Puny hu-mans!
joe from Lowell
@kwAwk:
Wait…what? Who bashed Greenwald and Digby for supporting Obama’s statement?
soonergrunt
This post needs a strikethrough close. did it work? Nope. Dammit!
Unclosed strikethrough tag in post 52.
Kiril
@cleek: This.
Sheila
Vanity made the Revolution; liberty was only a pretext.
Napoleon
Nick
@kwAwk:
Yes it is, because it IS unequivocal as it seemed.
They’re parsing his words, they’re saying “oh, he supports their right, but he won’t comment on the ‘wisdom'” oh what does that mean?”
It could, and probably does, simple mean, that the “wisdom” is fucking irrelevant because their right to build it trumps all else and Obama isn’t playing into the media narrative that someone’s rights can be infringed based on the “wisdom” of something.
and as usual, the left fell into the fucking trap and the media is cumming in their collective pants.
You Don't Say
I just saw Obama’s full statement yesterday, which most news outlets aren’t quoting, and he reiterates in a few sentences what he said in the speech, then said he isn’t commenting on the NY mosque. I do think it’s a minor waffle — he did refer to it specifically in the speech — but I agree with John that Obama is a blank slate that people project onto.
A lot of TV talk today at least is about private property rights. Has anyone asked Rand Paul what he thinks about this? ;-)
kwAwk
@joe from Lowell:
Arguingwithsignposts
GeneralStuck
[email protected]
John Cole
We can start from there. Though, some of the comments don’t use specific names rather generic ‘theys’ or ‘professional lefts’ or ‘liberal commentators’. But the idea is still the same and we can ask those involved to be more specific about who they are talking about.
kwAwk
@Nick:
We’ll it would appear that others disagree with you Nick, on the scope of Obama’s message. To you it sounds like he’s not allowing the wisdom argument to come into play. To others he abstain from the wisdom argument all together.
Goes back to the Obama ink blot test really. Obama says something very typically vague and leaves people to see what they want. People argue about what he really meant for hours with those in support of Obama accusing those not in support of not really listening to what Obama said and then follow it up with accusations of those who agree with Obama never being satisfied with anything Obama does.
kwAwk
To ramble on a bit more about it Nick. When this type of thing happens over and over and over again. Its called a pattern.
This particular pattern should lead us to believe that somebody isn’t communicating themselves very well.
Sly
@arguingwithsignposts:
Further, Lincoln directly rescinded General Order No. 11, issued by General Grant in December of 1862, which expelled all Jews from the administrative districts established by the Union Army as it retook Confederate states. This and the chaplaincy bill are important in the respect that Jews were probably the most universally reviled religious minority in the United States at the time. Yet Lincoln never flinched in protecting their rights.
Lincoln inserting his own religious views (or religious views he deemed fit to capture public support… there is much debate over his actual private beliefs), something he was rather famous for, is neither here nor there when it comes to matters of government policy. And this is what this entire issue is about. The number of Presidents who violated the Free Exercise Clause can likely be counted on one hand.
arguingwithsignposts
@soonergrunt:
I’m thinking we could use more Updates! And moar shrill! Dammit, Cole falling down on the job as usual!
Sly
@kwAwk:
Or someone isn’t listening very well, intentionally or otherwise.
Nick
@kwAwk:
Because they’re idiots who just want to get into a back and forth with the right. They want the left to be as loud and obnoxious as the right wing. That’s what they want to hear. They want to hear him say both they have the right and they should definitely go ahead and do it and enjoy doing it.
Because the left, too, has decided that people’s rights can be selectively enforced based on personal feelings and “wisdom”
True Constitutionalists will stand up and say “It doesn’t matter how I feel, they have a constitutional right to do it,” but we’re too busy fighting the right, that we see that as a cop out, a way to avoid endorsing something, and the right pounces on it and fingers it as a way of avoiding taking a stand to.
Look, honestly, I agree with Sarah Palin. I don’t want the fucking mosque there. There, you happy, you got me to admit it. I don’t want it there. As a New Yorker, I do feel its in bad taste and think the organizers are idiots for thinking that’s a good place to put it.
BUT THAT DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PUT IT THERE AND I WILL DEFEND IT! and the fact that Sarah Palin thinks her personal feelings trump their rights makes me really fucking mad. Sarah Palin, like Obama, should realize that her fee-fees do not trump people’s rights, and had Obama came out and said it was wise to build it there, that would’ve been the story, not “they have the right” but “Obama likes the mosque”
this should be about RIGHTS not left/right opinions.
You get it now?
You Don't Say
OK, watching CNN and another Republican defend not building the mosque there, anywhere but there.
The biggest problem here is people (70% according to polls!) blaming an entire religion and its adherents for the actions of a lunatic few.
morzer
@Nick:
Why object to a cultural center (not so much a mosque) when there are already two mosques in the neighborhood?
kwAwk
@Sly:
If the message were truly unequivocal it would be easy to understand what he was trying to get across. Its kind of what unequivocal means.
The logical end result of this is that people on the left will stop praising Obama all together for what he says and instead will spend days analyzing everything he says to find the wiggle room in the speech or waiting for the walk back or clarification to follow.
Not a very good messaging operation if you ask me.
Nick
@morzer:
Because I don’t see the need and think all it will do is inflame people and make it harder to fight bigotry.
But that does not matter. I’m not opposing it, because they have the right to put it there. They have the right to put it across the street if they want to buy land across the street. I don’t even care if they put up minarets (I actually think they’re quite beautiful).
Not only am I not opposing it, I’m defending it to all my friends who “agree” with me.
This is about their rights, and my feelings are irrelevant.
arguingwithsignposts
@kwAwk:
your concern is noted. Are those pearls real?
Nick
@kwAwk:
That’s the left’s fault, not his. You’re blaming him for stupid things lefties do.
You do realize he was asked this question, “Do you think it’s wise to build a mosque there?”
what would you have had him answer?
Hal
Slightly off topic, but in reading the comments at places like Openleft and Americablog, I realized that the factions of Obama critics seem to be comprised of either people who never liked Obama and wanted someone else (Hillary, or if they live in a fantasy realm; Nader, Kucinich), and people who hated Bill Clinton and Hillary, and wanted Obama to be the next Lincoln/FDR/JDK, and are “deeply disappointed.”
Funny how they’ve all gotten together on their mutual disgust at this point, but it does make me wonder what they will do when Obama is out of office and they ultimately have to endorse another candidate.
Is their anyone out there who can actually be elected?
morzer
@Nick:
So we fight bigotry more effectively by simply giving in to it when ever the crazies start howling?
Added to which, if we measure things by “need”, apparently the two nearby mosques can’t fit all their congregations in, and so this would fill their need for more space for prayers. Turning to what the larger community needs, what we need desperately is a means to show that we are not against Muslims, but against alQaeda. Allowing and supporting Cordoba House would be a good way to achieve this, at least in part.
DougJ
@soonergrunt:
I fixed it.
Malron
@Lolis:
I feel that way about many of the professional left bloggers,..
Omnes Omnibus
@kwAwk: Completely unequivocal statements are frequently wrong. Moreover, people have a right to do certain things even if those things are stupid. For example, you have a right to tell a large angry drunk in a bar that his girl friend is ugly. This is probably a stupid thing to do. Obama can, should, and did defend a First Amendment right to do something without ever having to say that he agrees with what is being done. His agreement or lack thereof is entirely immaterial to the existence of the right.
Nick
@morzer:
no, they never wouldn’t howled in the first place if it was never proposed to be put there.
But now that it is, we defend it, to the very end. And pay the political price for it. The end result is it made bigots even more of bigots, but that may have happened anyway.
Yesterday, an NYPD officer told a friend of mine that if the mosque gets “firebombed” that “we’ll find ourselves busy that day”
I’m not sure this was the best decision for anyone, but it doesn’t matter, as a team, we fight for it.
gelfling545
@Lolis: I strongly agree.
AxelFoley
@Sheila:
Hold up. Prince made the Revolution. Vanity was in Vanity6.
scav
I want to know how anyone outside of those immediately concerned can even begin to judge whether an additional center or mosque is needed or not? I, doomed atheist that I am, couldn’t see the bloody need for 67 gazillion churches in my immediate neighborhood, but apparently the Methodists, Unitarians, Unitarian-Universalists, Quakers, Church of the Free Apostles, Baptists, Korean Baptists, Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Southern Synod Lutherans, Irish Catholics, Polish Catholics, and Spanish speaking Catholics judge their needs a little differently.
kwAwk
@Nick:
I appreciate your honesty Nick and it does clear up the issue a bit for me. Me not being from New York, I have a different perspective on it. My understanding is the community center isn’t at ground zero, rather it is two blocks away and set to be put in place of a building that isn’t in any way related to the World Trade Center or the terrorist attacks.
I, along with a lot of liberals, believe in inclusion. That we don’t solve problems by holding grudges against entire subclasses of our population based upon the actions of a few. As such I personally believe that showing the bigness of allowing this community centers to proceed shows an unwaivering support not just for the letter of the constitutional law, but also for its intent. I suspect that Digby and Greenwald would say the same.
If Obama feels differently, then he should say so.
morzer
By that logic, if we simply clear things with the bigots first, there will be no problems and we can all live in a bigotry free world. This isn’t a workable program, for obvious reasons. I will go further – the idea behind Cordoba House, which is one of peaceful goodwill and mutual tolerance (thus the name) is one we ought to support. The cultural center isn’t at Ground Zero, but if it were, we should praise the courage of those who dared to stand up for mutual toleration, and to say to the western world that Islam is NOT defined by AlQaeda.
kwAwk
@arguingwithsignposts:
Umm….yeah.
FlipYrWhig
I have to say, the argument that the original statement shouldn’t have been _on Friday_ is like the quintessence of every wanna-be left wanna-be critic of Obama.
Nick
@kwAwk:
No, he shouldn’t. What matters first and foremost is their rights. If we get into a debate over the merits of it…first of all, liberals will lose, because the public never does whats right, which is why we had to mandate it into law…and second of all, we diminish, forever, the importance of rights, which is what our country was founded on.
Their RIGHT is most important. Polls have shown people recognize their rights, but not the merits…stick with their rights, it’s not only the correct answer, it’s also the politically popular one.
FlipYrWhig
Nate Silver had an interesting comparison to poll questions that boil down to “Do you support the mosque?” He likened it to “Do you support flag-burning?” — in that there’s a clear split between supporting something and supporting the right for someone else to make a statement by doing that thing. And 60% said that they didn’t like the idea of the mosque… but 60% also said that they believed that the mosque could be built.
(Yes, I know it’s not a mosque, but that’s what the polling has been about.)
Nick
@morzer: In a sense, it’s true that if we make our decisions based on bigotry, there will be no bigotry…but that’s what we created things like the Bill of Rights, so that bigotry will have to fucking deal. The Bill of Rights was never meant to defeat bigotry and oppression, it was created to limit its power.
Also think about the Civil Rights Act…that didn’t eliminate racism, but it did make it politically impotent.
The problem is, the American people have shown an incredible ability to believe a lie and ignore the truth…in today’s viral world, all that is needed is some dude in the mosque to say something remotely radical and that mosque with become an Al-Qaeda HQ in a matter of hours, and half the country will believe it despite all proof to the contrary.
scav
@Nick:
But then we’re left with questions along the lines of do we kill all the babies not because they might be actual ticking terror babies but because they might be misunderstood as ticking terror babies?
we can flail all we want, we should just do what is correct. ETA: Because this cuts beyond polls and parties, this cuts to the very roots of what it means to be American. And I really want that still to mean something beyond the foam finger.
morzer
@Nick:
I agree with part of what you are saying, in that people do tend to believe what they are told loudest and first. However, that isn’t an argument for writing them off, or just pre-emptively not doing things that bigots wouldn’t like. Instead, we need to get our message across better, speak openly and honestly for what we believe, and have faith that we can win people back to the traditions that underpin this country, and which are enshrined in the Constitution. I think that we face great obstacles: an ignorant and dishonest media, a fanatical and hate-filled right-wing party, the casual jingoism of many well-meaning people. That said, we can’t simply quit or wait for better times. We only have the times we were given by our ancestors and predecessors, and it’s up to us to improve them and bring justice, decency and toleration a little further forward. We can do this by building institutions to get our American message across, by standing strong even when the world seems bleak, and by remembering that, over time, our messages have been winning out, little by little. A century ago, women were in a worse position, African Americans were deprived of civil rights, and homosexuals faced vicious penalties. Think of where we are today. We have a ways to go, but we can do it, if we stay calm, put one foot in front of the other, and refuse to cave in for short-term peace of mind.
kwAwk
@Nick:
Some things are worth losing elections over, and if you really believe in the first amendment then you shouldn’t object to building a mosque in any place you wouldn’t object to building a Catholic or Protestant church or Jewish or Buddhist temple.
That is what freedom of religion means.
Sly
@Hal:
It’s not a surprise at all, and unresolved primary disaffection isn’t just for disgruntled Clintonphiles and Kucinichites. You can find traces of the Edwards (and even Dean) supporters getting their kicks in, though the Edwards folks have found it somewhat problematic to announce their allegiance publicly. Their halos are just as big and shiny as the others, however.
scav
Oh, and I don’t want to leave the impression I’m arguing with you personally, just with some details along the way.
Nick
@kwAwk:
When did he object to it? He very specifically said it should be built, what he didn’t say is if it was “wise” to build it there. That debate SHOULD be irrelevant, but the right wing and the media want to have that debate, because they don’t respect rights, unless its to have a gun, and you want him to waltz right into it.
Nick
@scav: You know the phrase “this is why we can’t have nice things?”
@morzer:
Yes, which is why this debate should be about rights and not personal feelings.
morzer
@Nick:
Yes, which is why we don’t give in to bigots in advance. Feelings is all they got.
Nick
@morzer:
That’s why we neutered them with stuff like the Bill of Rights.
kwAwk
@Nick:
It was you who objected to it being built, but said that you’d allow it because the law allows it.
And you’re right, I would wade into that fight with conservatives because I believe in confronting their more anti-constitutional views, not sweeping them under the rug.
JenJen
@beltane:
Exactly. Words to live by in today’s political climate.
soonergrunt
@arguingwithsignposts:
YES! Moar SHRILL!
And I finally broke down and installed Firefox on my computer. I can’t get John Cole to fix the damn site. (Something about dying wishes comes to mind, but that would be crass to mention,) so I gave up and installed Firefox for the ONE SITE that won’t work without it.
How’s that for shrill?
@DougJ: Cool!
Nick
@kwAwk:
and?
that’s exactly what the President did. By pointing out their CONSTITUTIONAL right to build the mosque, he exposed their ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST views.
If he gets into a debate of “wisdom,” he then points out their anti-Islamic views, and that’s not either a relevant nor winnable debate. This is a country that absolutely HATES Islam and would oppress it if not for the Constitution, which is really more of a thorn in our anti-Islamic backside.
You want to point out their anti-constitution views, you focus on their opposition to someone else’s rights. That’s what he did. He doesn’t need to go further.
soonergrunt
@beltane:
Tell it, Sister! or, Brother, as the case may be.
arguingwithsignposts
@soonergrunt:
You’re going to have to have more updates for that, Okie! :)
scav
@Nick: well, if by accepting not having nice things you mean resigning myself to living in a country defined by immediately ceding everything to the anticipated reactions of lowest common denominator media-enflamed bigots, then I’m notinterested and I’m not playing by those rules of engagement. I’m fighting for the nice things. (ETA: hesus, forget to include the extra not, . . !)
Nick
@scav:
Well then you’re going to have to fight smart…and the smart way to fight for stuff like this is appeal to things people agree with…God, Constitution, for example.
Instead of defending Islam (which he sorta did) and trying to explain the need or positive aspects of putting this thing in Lower Manhattan, something no one would pay attention to anyway (they hate Muslims, you’re not going to make them like Muslims by saying nice things about them), the President appealed to the Constitution. He gave a “If you love our Constitution, then you must respect that they have a constitutional right to do this, even if you disagree”
and actually, he did defend Islam in his speech too, which I think is further than he could have gone.
that’s how you win these arguments. The fact some of the left can’t see this really speaks to have tone deaf they are.
kwAwk
@Nick:
Well, its a good thing that Abe Lincoln didn’t buckle under to the country’s anti-black people views when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation I guess.
I suppose its also a good thing that Harry Truman didn’t buckle under to this country’s anti-black people views when he desegregated the military years before Brown vs. the Board of Education and the organized civil rights movement.
Those guys are considered to be legendary figures in American history now, and were even left off of the right wing blogger’s 25 people I hate the most list.
I’m sure Obama will be remembered fondly too.
Just Some Fuckhead
@soonergrunt:
lolz
Nick
@kwAwk:
I would think he “but lets send them all back to Africa” part of his platform more than made up for that.
The Emancipation Proclamation banned slavery (which what was the left of Union hated), didn’t give rights to blacks.
Besides, it’s pretty clear people hate Muslims far more than they ever hated blacks, at least outside of the Deep South, and keep in mind that in both of those situations, Lincoln and Truman were not working with already existing rights.
Those weren’t so easy, this one is.
scav
@arguingwithsignposts: does being shrill mean also vehemently getting into the nuts and bolts of justifying a choice of Chrome v. Firefox because they both apparently work? Must admit I’m lamentably behind on the minutia of shrill: I’m still slogging through the complexities of the different species and sub-species of trolls.
morzer
@Nick:
Judging by your wish to pre-emptively appease them, not very effectively, alas. Laws don’t neuter evil people – good people fighting for the laws do.
arguingwithsignposts
@scav: we do what we can, scav. we do what we can.
scav
@Nick: Well, you are sort of assuming that your tactics are the epitome of smart ones, and I don’t know if that’s true. I’ve not seen any track record of yours. I have seen more of Obama’s and, while in no way perfect, his tends to be astute. Actually, I don’t even believe that infallible and perfect “messaging” exists and find that an over-indulgence in worrying about it leads to something that is all wrapping and very little substance. Bother. If this is all this thread is about at this point . . . pish. I’ve got some mine-sweeper to play.
Andrew
I don’t quite get the complaint that Obama didn’t call for tolerance or defend Muslim-Americans against RW slurs. He did exactly this in Friday’s speech. The major thrust of the speech WAS a defense of Muslim-Americans place in American life.
And while it’s true the sentiments themselves were unremarkable, the kind of thing that should go without saying, given the political climate and the kinds of attacks even the mainstream right is now making, it was absolutely right and essential for him to tackle this.
From the speech:
Nothing in yesterday’s comments negates any of this.
Zuzu's Petals
@kwAwk:
Not only that, it’s been used for prayer services for some time now.
Mum
@jurassicpork:
It wasn’t “buried at the end of the Friday news cycle.” The comments of the President were made at a very appropriate setting on Friday evening. I don’t believe, as you apparently do, that “he could’ve said something in the middle of the week but he pointedly didn’t BECAUSE he was afraid of stirring up controversy.” If he was “afraid of stirring up controversy,” why host an Iftar dinner (which, despite the fact that it has been done in other White Houses, already opens him up to criticism from those who flog the “secret Muslim” meme) and use that opportunity to say something?
kwAwk
@Nick:
Then it shouldn’t be so hard for Obama to say that these people have the right to build their community center where they want to build their community center without fear of harassment, intimidation or retribution.
When you don’t include that last part, then you’re partly justifying the bigotry that is leading to this particular protest.
kwAwk
@Zuzu’s Petals:
Yeah, that is what is odd about this. One has to wonder what is the acceptable radius around ground zero where Muslims should fear to tread?
morzer
@kwAwk:
Judging by Sarah Palin, approximately 3000 miles.
Nick
@kwAwk:
HE DID SAY THAT!!!! JESUS CHRIST ON A RITZ CRACKER!
asiangrrlMN
@maryQ: What she said. It’s not Obama’s job to push Democratic moral (or liberal, if you prefer) values onto Americans–that’s what the fucking DNC is for.
Obama is gonna get shit no matter what he does from all ends of the political spectrum, so he might as well try to do what he thinks is right. I am glad that the term professional left is entering the lexicon (it should be put in the BJ lexicon) because it (the PL) is starting to resemble the far right in tenor, tone, and unreasonable demands.
Bob Loblaw
@Nick:
That’s bigotry, though. That’s still bigotry.
Bigotry that is marginalized through Constitutional forethought is still bigotry. You don’t have the right to enact collective punishment upon a people for a specific act of violence they had nothing to do with. You shouldn’t even be allowed to voice such a thought in polite company, regardless of your proposed remedy to the situation or lack thereof. They do not have to consider your “feelings,” nor should they ever be expected to. They knew people who died that day, just as you did. They grieved just as much.
Marc
Give it a rest Bob. You’re exactly the same as the wingnuts going after a black woman who confessed that she felt bigoted thoughts towards white folks. By your precise logic nothing else that she said, or did, could matter; she thought a bad thought, and that is that, and she should be fired, shunned, yada yada yada.
Or you could pay attention, you know, to the rest – namely, agreeing on actually supporting, and doing, the right thing.
Nick
@Bob Loblaw:
Am I disagreeing with you? Do you not see me fighting for their right to put a mosque there?
and I didn’t until now. I made it clear no one knows what my personal position is, but kwawk thought it was so important that we debate personal feelings, so there ya go.
I’ve been making this exact same point. My personal feelings, the ADL’s personal feelings, the President’s personal feelings, DO NOT MATTER. What matters is that we stand up for their rights, even if we don’t particularly like what they’re doing.
I personally have very pro-life opinions too, but you’ll never see my joining hands with Right to Life organizations…because women have that right and as an American, I’m obligated to defend it.
Bob Loblaw
@Marc:
Marc, you’re pretending there wasn’t a redemptive arc to that story. It’s not just about tolerance, it’s about working beyond that. And it can be a hard slog. I’m not saying Nick is an awful person. He’s being better here than millions upon millions of our countrymen, and his honesty is important and commendable. I’m saying he has work to do. We all do some days. Truncating the conversation just pushes it off for another day.
Kerry Reid
@kwAwk:
And yet you complain that you have a hard time understanding Obama’s messaging? Maybe it really is YOU.
JMY
So Robert Gibbs is vindicated? lol
Jen7
Aravosis used to be a Republican…..that should say it all….
FlipYrWhig
@Jen7: Well, so was our esteemed host. But I agree that Aravosis has always struck me as much more like Arianna Huffington, more an opportunist than a believer in much of anything beyond himself. And Aravosis has even thinner skin than most of the top-tier bloggers.
Emma
kwAwk: Some things are worth losing elections over, and if you really believe in the first amendment then you shouldn’t object to building a mosque in any place you wouldn’t object to building a Catholic or Protestant church or Jewish or Buddhist temple.
That is what freedom of religion means.
Not even close. It means that the government has no right to support or suppress ANY religion, and by extension, neither can a local government or a large mob. James Madison was so opposed to any government involvement in religion that he didn’t think the Armed Forces OR Congress should have chaplains.
At the personal level, understanding the Constitution means that EVEN IF I WERE TO HAVE AN OBJECTION to any religion, it would be moot. My opinion is utterly irrelevant… as is the president’s.
Cacti
I’d like to see a “Gibbs was right” tag.
Mnemosyne
@kwAwk:
So when Obama made a speech about their Constitutional right to build the mosque, and when he backed it up the very next day by re-emphasizing that it was their Constitutional right to build that mosque, what he was really secretly saying was that they didn’t have the Constitutional right to build that mosque?
I think you broke your logic center with that backbend.
Darnell
Aravosis is moran who has had it in for Obama ever since he and his blog got its collective Underoos in a bunch over Rick Warren being asked to mumble to the great FSM in the sky at Obama’s inauguration. And it has gone down hill from there.
The President did the right thing standing up for the right to build the Mosque. IT IS NOT the place of the President however to opine on when, where, or how we should exercise our inalienable rights.
How hard is that to understand? Not hard, unless you’re John Aravosis, Larry Johnson, et al..
Munira
@Nick: That’s actually quite mature of you. Not many people seem to be able to see beyond their own feelings, which they somehow believe to be sacred.
waynski
I don’t have to read the thread. This is my neighborhood. Nobody cares. Back the fuck off. Or you know, if you’re a Republican, go fuck your own face. Have a nice day.
Elie
@kwAwk:
YES … THIS
I had to EDUCATE my PHD husband about that this morning. AND that its two blocks away from ground zero –not AT ground zero…
Sheesh…I truly believe our country is in a free fall mental breakdown because a man name Barak HUSSEIN Obama is President and a black President to boot… The crazee hormone is at the highest blood levels possible and its making people, particularly WHITE people have seizures and ongoing fits of despair and overwhelming ignorance. I also believe that the White People having fits are both on the left AND the right.
As a nurse, I order up having both groups have their mouths stuffed tight (to prevent them from biting their tongues) and order up massive volumes of antiseizure enemas (dont know if these even exist) to be given every two hours until they shut the fuck up
Nick
@Munira:
I didn’t grow up here, I grew up overseas…when I came back, I learned the respect the difference between ours and other democracies…the fact that people have certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away on a whim.
My feelings are exactly those…my feelings. I’m not God and it doesn’t mean I’m correct and people should listen to me.
When God comes down from heaven and appoints me Great Spiritual Leader of the Universe because every belief of mine is the right now, then y’all have to listen to me, but until then, the only person who has to listen to Nick’s rules is Nick…and Nick’s kids.
AxelFoley
@Cacti:
This. A thousand times, this.
Nick
@Elie:
This is what makes me mad at some liberals…Obama is not an ordinary President…his case is different than the rest…LBJ had the plus of being a Southern Democrat…FDR and JFK came from blue blood backgrounds.
Of anyone, I think Obama’s situation is similar to Truman’s…Truman had a hard time in his first years in office because our situation was unpredictable…Republicans desperately wanted to get back into office, and liberals thought he was a sellout. Any progressive piece of legislation or order Truman spearheaded was incremental at best
kwAwk
@Nick:
I think the confusion is that we have established that they have the legal right to build their community center anywhere they please. We all seem to agree on this.
The contention is whether they have the moral right to build their community center where they please. There seems to be a lot of contention on this issue.
I’d bet almost nobody on this blog knows if there has been a YMCA or other religious type community center built within a close radius of ground zero in the past 9 years and those that do probably live in lower Manhattan. The fact that we are even having this conversation about this community center, which isn’t being built at ground zero but two blocks away, shows that bigoted forces within the right wing are trying to use this issue to leverage religious intolerance for political purposes and to intimidate these people into giving up their legal rights.
I personally believe that we need to come out against bigotry forcefully whenever we find it. Even when we find that we are in the minority when doing so.
It should be remembered that FDR found the legal justification for rounding up and putting in camps all of the Japanese descended people during WW II, and probably had what sounded like pretty reasonable reasons for doing so. But this still is considered the low point of his Presidency.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@John Cole:
> The thing that amazes me is how Obama still is a blank slate
Mr. Cole, he’s not a “blank slate”. He’s a documented liar, a documented asshole and a documented coward. Balloonbaggers don’t see the difference, of course, which is what always amazes me.
Nick
@kwAwk:
Nobody elected President Obama to be the moral arbitor of our decisions. We did elect him to be the constitutional arbitor of our decisions. We have a Constitution that prevents us from having a debate over the morals of things, since humanity usually falls on the side of immorality and when it doesn’t, it usually invovled limiting freedoms
All that matters is that they have a right to do it, if you want get into a moral debate, you’re gonna lose. If we start making decisions on morals, we should just give the Episcopalian Church control over the country.
You can’t tell me stuff like abortion or prostitution or euthanazia or drugs are moral, but you can tell me (and I would agree) that people have a right to do those things, so whether or not they’re morally correct is irrelevant.
Supreme Court declared it constitutional. Was it morally incorrect? Yes, but the highest court in the land gave him the legal right to do it
Cacti
@Uncle Clarence Thomas:
Fascinating.
Apnea
This is not a mosque, folks.
The spin keeps on spinning. Incredible, really.
Edit : Right on, Uncle Clarence Thomas. I see there are still a few principled objectors to the whole tribal binarism around here.
AxelFoley
And I see the same few principled whiners pissing in the wind.
AxelFoley
@Uncle Clarence Thomas:
Dude, will you just shut the fuck up? Or better yet, take your bitch ass and leave. Get the fuck out if you don’t like it here. And kill yourself while you’re at it. Lying motherfucker.