Sarah Palin is demanding more answers from Obama regarding the proposed mosque/recreation facility/laser tag center proposed to be built within a few blocks of Ground Zero. Apparently the new angle for criticism is that the hidden agenda reason why Muslims want to build it there is that it’s a historically-dictated victory monument. As opposed to, say, an endeavor to memorialize the innocent Muslims who also died in the attack, or perhaps an attempt to try and convince a skeptical percentage of Americans that terrorists don’t represent Muslims any more than the KKK represents Christians, both of which make far more sense considering the moderate people who are endeavoring to build it. Or maybe…here’s a nutty notion…there’s Muslims living in the area already and they’d like a convenient place to worship.
With any luck, Obama won’t get into a back and forth with her. But I got nothin’ better to do at the moment, so I’ll take a whack at it:
She demands to know why Obama wasn’t encouraging them to accept Governor Paterson’s offer to “look into trying to provide them with the state property they would need” which would be “at a distance,” according to Paterson.
Well, three reasons. First, Paterson promised them nothing except to “look into” “trying” to provide it. Why trade off a property where they’ve got everything locked up and ready to go for a vague promise from a lame duck and unpopular governor? Second, as was well documented on “The Daily Show,” everywhere from Wisconsin to California, attempts by Muslims to build houses of worship is being met with resistance and protests. It’s no longer about geography; it’s about religious tolerance. And third, Obama’s job is to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution says these people have the right to build a house of worship. Therefore Obama upholds that right. Not only does Obama’s obligation end there, but as has been demonstrated, there’s nowhere else he could suggest they DO build it that wouldn’t garner protests from the locals.
Palin also asked Obama, “Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as ‘hallowed ground’? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.”
The answer is: You believe wrong. Those are not legitimate questions for Obama to ask. Government has no business asking them. A president has no business asking them. Palin can ask them if she wants because she is a private citizen, and the same First Amendment that protects a Muslim’s right to worship protects Palin’s right to ask about it. But the foremost upholder of the Constitutionally-dictated hands-off of religion doesn’t get to, and it would be inappropriate if he did. The fact that she is unable to reach this conclusion on her own simply shows, yet again, that she is woefully unqualified for the job she sought in 2008, and if she had taken the oath of office, she would have either been lying or intellectually unequipped to understand what she was promising.
Furthermore, if Sarah Palin were really interested in why they want to build their mosque/community center/dojo in that location, why doesn’t she ask for a sit-down with them? I bet they’d be glad to accommodate her.
So I throw it back to you, ex-governor. Instead of asking Obama these questions, when his only stake in the matter is to do what he promised to do when he took the office, why don’t YOU go ask them face to face? I’ve read a lot of articles in which she’s voiced opposition, but haven’t found any where she’s gone to the source. Doesn’t that seem the simplest solution?
Why don’t you ask them yourself, Sarah?
PAD
• 
Sarah Palin is busy right now, PAD, but she asked me to answer you.
.
First up, the presidency isn’t just about the law. It’s also about the “bully pulpit” — a president can bring attention to an issue and have considerable sway on public sentiment without bringing in the full force of law behind it.
.
A president doesn’t forfeit his 1st Amendment right when he takes the oath of office. He needs to be more mindful of the clout he wields (“will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”), but if he utterly forfeited his right to his opinion, he wouldn’t be able to endorse sports teams, political candidates, or even disparage broccoli. Hëll, he couldn’t even be a member of a specific church, for fear of giving it a federal imprimatur.
.
People have asked the Cordoba people for a sit-down. Greg Gutfeld, for one. He’s been blown off.
.
Personally, I’d like the Cordoba people to answer some questions they’ve managed to avoid so far. Among them:
.
Where is the $100 million for this project coming from?
.
Why is it so important that it be built in a building only two blocks from Ground Zero, a building that was covered in the dust and soot of the 9/11 attacks, and was damaged by debris from one of the airliners?
.
Why was the opening date chosen as 9/11/2011, the tenth anniversary of the attacks?
.
Does the Imam heading up the project still believe, as he stated in 2002, that the United States was complicit in the attacks?
.
J.
Jay, you have a lot of questions. Yet in another thread here you recently posted that “I still believe that it is not being done with good intentions and is motivated by sentiments that are antithetical to American culture and society. And I am not calling for any kind of action to resist it, merely noting it as a declaration of intent and hostility by the backers.
.
And are you not aware of the potential significance to Islam of September 11th this year totally apart from and connection to the WTC?
To Jay,
The answer to all of your questions are really quite simple: cross cultural tolerance.
The people at Cordoba are not conspiring for anything related to us versus them. They’re not trying to claim some kind of terrorist victory. The mere notion of that is laughable and absurd.
The project’s goal is to cultivate multi-cultural and multi-faith understanding– that means awareness to the fact that just because they are Muslim, that doesn’t make them terrorists.
The way I see it, if we start prohibiting people from building and going to their own churches, then people are going to become more divided, more desperate, and more radical. We need to remind ourselves that we are not at war with Islam. We are at worth with terrorists.
If Palin wants to stand up for America, then she needs to stand up for the Constitution. This is just another reminder that we need to protect our constitutional rights from fundamentalism, both eastern and western.
It is the crux of the controversy
.
No, it isn’t.
.
The real crux is that Muslims dare build something near Ground Zero.
.
The claim about the source of funding is just a poor cover for your poor argument.
Calling it a poor argument doesn’t make it one. I’ve pointed out how funding for any project is open to scrutiny with the example of my own church’s building plans and our budget is 40 times less than the mosque. Granted their real estate is bit more expensive.
I’ve drawn comparisons to the situation that innocent priests find themselves in and so do not rely on the presumption of innocence. They know it is not realistic yet the mosque builders apparently have no such insight or willingness to compromise.
>
Some Muslims have acknowledged that whatever good intentions may exist, this community center will be a lightning rod for radicals simply because of its location. Here is an opinion piece from Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah who think the location is insensitive.
>
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html
.
So go ahead and ascribe racist motivations to me and call the writers I cite above Uncle Toms. It appears to be your only argument.
Yes, repost the same link that was already mentioned once before as many times as you like. Those points have already been refuted.
.
What I find amusing about the questioning of this funding is the unstated insinuation that the government is completely oblivious to this group and how they managed to get $100 mil. That they would be able to get so much money – and it *obviously* all came from terrorists – that it completely escaped the notice of the likes of the FBI and IRS.
.
I believe the government on the whole to be rather incompetent. But not THAT incompetent, especially after 9/11 when several groups/charities/mosques WERE targets of government investigations into funding.
.
But I guess this one just escaped their notice?
.
It is and remains a poor argument.
You’ve misunderstood a couple of my points.
.
About the innocent priests:
A fair point. And I feel for the priests who must now take greater care due to guilt-by-association. Far more, clearly, than you do for the Imam and his flock.
.
But I don’t think saying that because one particular group is mistreated (innocent priests) is justification for saying another group should be similarly mistreated. You’re taking one wrong and using it to justify another.
I wasn’t saying the suspicious treatment of all priests is justifiable because of the few pedophiles. My point was the Church took steps to prohibit any priest from solitary activities with children. Priests accept the restriction because they understand how people feel. The Imam doesn’t seem to care how people feel. His insistence on building in this area is insensitive.
My other point you misconstrued was that some Muslims say the mosque would be a lightning rod for radicals. They meant Islamic extremists would be drawn there as the site of their great victory.
If the Imam doesn’t want to be viewed with suspicion, he shouldn’t act so suspiciously.
.
By, for example, attempting to build a community center.
.
No, by not insisting on building a community center two blocks from Ground Zero in defiance of community wishes.
I quoted Charles Krauthammer in my first post and no one has refuted it or even acknowledged it but, it is significant.
“Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi–yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of GOOD WILL would even think of proposing a German Cultural Center at say, Treblinka.”
I have to assume you believe German Cultural Centers, for all the good intentions about healing wounds, should be established at the sites of concentration camps.
So go ahead and ascribe racist motivations to me … It appears to be your only argument.
.
If the foo šhìŧš….
.
I notice that you excluded the reference to the Islamic writers I cited. Why? They don’t fit your template? Do you think everyone who opposes this project at its current location is racist? That group is about 70% of the country and includes Harry Reid and Howard Dean.
.
Sean I understand your position to be completely nonjudgemental and open-minded. That is admirable. It just seems that, justified or not, the Islamic Community Center at this site would do more harm than good.
PAD wrote
Furthermore, if Sarah Palin were really interested in why they want to build their mosque/community center/dojo in that location, why doesn’t she ask for a sit-down with them? I bet they’d be glad to accommodate her.
Well I bet they wouldn’t be willing to accommodate her. The Imam does not seem willing to talk to anyone that opposes the construction of he mosque. And since you are no fan of Palin, you shouldn’t want that either since it would give her an even higher profile on this issue.
.
Jay Tea asks some important questions that no one has answered yet. Where IS the $100 million coming from? The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church that was crushed when the south tower fell on it, still hasn’t been rebuilt. There seems to be an issue of money, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/nyregion/19church.html
The mosque builders aren’t having that problem.
.
Sean Martin asked, How damaged? Would structural damage have to occur or is a light coating of dust sufficient? I’ve read that the landing gear from one of the jets crashed through that building’s roof.
.
No church in modern times has been built without zoning authority. Churches are denied building permits all the time if deemed inappropriate to the master plan for development of an area. Everyone seems to agree that the Imam has the RIGHT to build there but is it a wise public relations move? Charles Krauthammer who I recall “agreed with PAD” about the Israeli blockade of Gaza wrote this: Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi–yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of good will would even think of proposing a German Cultural Center at say, Treblinka.
.
And finally this mosque is scheduled to open on September 11, 2011, ten years to the day of the attack? PAD, if you wrote that scenario into a story, can you really say there would be no significance to that date?
And finally this mosque is scheduled to open on September 11, 2011, ten years to the day of the attack? PAD, if you wrote that scenario into a story, can you really say there would be no significance to that date?
.
Clearly you are not aware of the potential significance to Islam of September 11th this year totally apart from any connection to the WTC. Sure, it takes some reading up on the subject, and that takes more effort than echoing rash suppositions and accusations. But you should try it anyway, George.
<i.Sure, it takes some reading up on the subject, and that takes more effort than echoing rash suppositions and accusations. But you should try it anyway, George.
.
I know when Ramadan ends but go ahead and assume other people are ignorant or stupid if that’s what you need to do.
.
There is no good reason for this mosque to open on the end of Ramadan since that particular date is so significant. The Imam pleads for understanding and tolerance yet seems unwilling to consider how all this appears.
There is no good reason for this mosque to open on the end of Ramadan since that particular date is so significant.
.
Are you listening to yourself?
.
The Imam pleads for understanding and tolerance yet seems unwilling to consider how all this appears.
.
Perhaps if understanding and tolerance were shown he would.
Perhaps if understanding and tolerance were shown he would.
.
Do you really believe that? Besides don’t you think he has been shown tolerance? The New York Landmarks Preservation Commission gave its approval. He hasn’t had to deal with zoning issues that normally have citizens give their input. This mosque has been fast-tracked and he doesn’t want to consider how people feel about that.
.
But maybe you’re right. Maybe after this becomes reality, he will acknowledge the feelings of people who experienced the trauma of 9/11. And maybe Santa Clause will bring me time machine.
Besides don’t you think he has been shown tolerance?
.
Sure. By some. But we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the loudest voices weren’t braying “OMG! They’re building a MOSQUE right ON Ground Zero. How could they be so insensitive? First they knock the buildings down and now they want to build a celebratory mosque right there on that hallowed ground!”
.
Maybe after this becomes reality, he will acknowledge the feelings of people who experienced the trauma of 9/11.
.
And maybe folks like you will acknowledge the feelings of the Muslims who experience bigotry, hypocrisy and hysteria regularly.
.
Yeah, and maybe Santa Clause will bring me a time machine.
But we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the loudest voices weren’t braying “OMG! They’re building a MOSQUE right ON Ground Zero. How could they be so insensitive?
If this project had gone through normal channels and if the Imam was a bit more forthcoming about his financial sources those loud voices wouldn’t resonate so well with so many people. If he doesn’t want people to be suspicious of him, he shouldn’t act so suspiciously.
My local parish is currently building a new church. We brought a piece of land about a quarter mile from the current church so there is no location controversy. But we have had one capital campaign and will need to have another one before this $2.5 million project is complete. If we suddenly had the full amount there would be questions about its source from the Parish Council, to say nothing of the Archdiocese. Those questions are normal and the answers shouldn’t be difficult.
Jay says: Why was the opening date chosen as 9/11/2011, the tenth anniversary of the attacks?
.
seam replies: Clearly you are not aware of the potential significance to Islam of September 11th this year totally apart from any connection to the WTC. Sure, it takes some reading up on the subject, and that takes more effort than echoing rash suppositions and accusations. But you should try it anyway, George.
.
I am confused. The fact that Ramadan ends on 9/11 this year has nothing to do with 9/11 of 2011, does it?
And the goal posts, they have moved.
.
Thanks for playing, George.
And the goal posts, they have moved.
.
Thanks for playing, George.
The goal posts are exactly where they were in my first post.
.
Yesterday at 7:33 PM I reiterated Jay Tea’s point about the source of $100 million. The Imam’s silence about that has always been the a big part of the controversy. As I said, if he didn’t act suspiciously, the loud voices wouldn’t get much traction with the public. The Imam has not been the victim of suspicion and enmity that he himself has not contributed to. My own church’s fund raising efforts have made me aware of just how difficult building a church normally is. I cited the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in my first post also. Nine years later and it still hasn’t been rebuilt because of bureaucratic and monetary concerns. Stuff the Imam seems impervious to.
.
So thank you for playing and enjoy the lovely parting gifts.
Yesterday at 7:33 PM I reiterated Jay Tea’s point about the source of $100 million. The Imam’s silence about that has always been the a big part of the controversy.
.
It’s only a “controversy” because of the insinuation that the money is coming from terrorists or supporters of terrorism.
.
As opposed to the notion that maybe he’s not answering the question is (a) the financial backers are perfectly innocent people who deserve better than to be subjected to media scrutiny and a smear campaign that they are likewise in league with terrorists and (b) if a church or synagogue were being built, it wouldn’t be held to this sort of scrutiny. Or any sort of scrutiny.
.
It’s unequal treatment.
.
PAD
It’s only a “controversy” because of the insinuation that the money is coming from terrorists or supporters of terrorism.
That’s very true, but what is the alternative? Accept that everyone’s story is exactly what they say, or in this case do not say? Mosques have been used as meeting places for terrorists. The Fort Hood shooter was mentored by an Imam at a mosque in Falls Church Virginia where two of the hijackers also attended. There is a reason to be suspicious, so the perfectly innocent financial backers should understand the concerns and answer those concerns.
.
Israel was certainly justified in being suspicious of the Gaza relief ship that intended to run the blockage. Doesn’t the silence from the financial backers seem similar to running a blockade?
The Imam’s silence about that has always been the a big part of the controversy.
.
No. The objection initially (and still) made was to Muslims building a mosque on Ground Zero. The “but… but… we don’t know where the money comes from!” concern is a subsequent attempt at justification.
.
Would there be this scrutiny and concern if if the proposed facility was a Jewish Synagogue, Catholic Church, Shinto Shrine or Buddhist Temple? I doubt it. Because those people, of course, wouldn’t have the same beliefs as the hijackers.
.
Well, (despite what Jay Tea, for example, tries to advocate) neither do the Muslims who want to convert the Burlington factory.
That’s very true, but what is the alternative? Accept that everyone’s story is exactly what they say, or in this case do not say?
.
I know! I mean, that could lead to a presumption of innocence! I mean, why look for anything to suggest guilt when we can just assume it?
.
Mosques have been used as meeting places for terrorists.
.
And Catholic churches have been used as places to molest children. So we should assume any new church being built is going to be a pedophile palace, right?
.
There is a reason to be suspicious
.
And that reason is: They’re Muslim.
George Haberger said: That’s very true, but what is the alternative? Accept that everyone’s story is exactly what they say, or in this case do not say?
We don’t do this level of querying for any other religious institutions. And we don’t run on the assumption that if we haven’t been told the source of money donated to help build Catholic churches then it must be from the Mafia and child molesters.
George Haberger said: Mosques have been used as meeting places for terrorists.
Brilliant. So if we eliminate mosques, Islamic extremists will be stymied because they won’t be able to figure out anywhere to meet. And, to return to the example above, since some Catholic churches have been used as meeting places by pedophiles, we should prevent people building those too.
George Haberger said: Israel was certainly justified in being suspicious of the Gaza relief ship that intended to run the blockage. Doesn’t the silence from the financial backers seem similar to running a blockade?
Nope. Not in the slightest. The blockade running was an openly admitted act of deliberate provocation, a “we are going to do this even though you’ve warned us not to, just dare to try and stop us”. Now, if the people behind this building loudly announced “we’re building right on Ground Zero, and we’re doing it regardless of what you think, say or do, even if you try to forcibly remove us” then it would begin to bear some similarity.
No. The objection initially (and still) made was to Muslims building a mosque on Ground Zero. The “but… but… we don’t know where the money comes from!” concern is a subsequent attempt at justification.
.
Yes. The reluctance the Imam to reveal any information is something I’ve heard since this started, not something that came up as after-the-fact justification.
.
I know! I mean, that could lead to a presumption of innocence! I mean, why look for anything to suggest guilt when we can just assume it?
The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our legal system but the Imam is in the court of public opinion, not a court of law. And even if he was in a civil court, the standard is a preponderance of evidence. The evidence is his insistence on building in that specific area; his unwillingness to reveal financial sources; and the mosque is intended to open on the tenth anniversary of the attacks. These are things he could explain or change yet he won’t. All of that is just one giant coincidence to you?
And since you brought up the pedophile priest issue: Many of innocent priests that I know have to deal with the court of public opinion but they accept that because they know that a few bad apples have tarnished their image. As a consequence, they do not insist on business-as-usual when it comes to dealing with minors. They are not alone with children. They don’t take anyone to sports events or camping unless there chaperones. They should be given the presumption of innocence but they know that is not realistic.
Stuart V wrote: George Haberger said: Israel was certainly justified in being suspicious of the Gaza relief ship that intended to run the blockage. Doesn’t the silence from the financial backers seem similar to running a blockade?
Nope. Not in the slightest. The blockade running was an openly admitted act of deliberate provocation, a “we are going to do this even though you’ve warned us not to, just dare to try and stop us”. Now, if the people behind this building loudly announced “we’re building right on Ground Zero, and we’re doing it regardless of what you think, say or do, even if you try to forcibly remove us” then it would begin to bear some similarity.
Um, that kind of sounds like exactly what they’re doing. Insisting on building there seems just like deliberate provocation.
George wrote: Um, that kind of sounds like exactly what they’re doing. Insisting on building there seems just like deliberate provocation.
.
No. They chose to build something where other buildings are allowed. They followed all the rules for getting approval. They have said that they hope to “push back the extremists” – build something positive for the community, rather than destroy things as the extremists did.
That’s vastly different from the blockage runners. They chose to go somewhere they knew in advance was forbidden, in open defiance of the Israeli warnings, with the stated aim of breaking the blockade. It’s about as opposite as you can get.
Oh, and in regards to your “this mosque is scheduled to open on September 11, 2011”, no, it isn’t. That’s a fallacy Fox News has spread, which the group behind the building have already stated is baloney nearly a month ago
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007200004
The evidence is his insistence on building in that specific area;
.
Yes, it would be much more convenient for a neighborhood community center if it opened in some other neighborhood.
.
his unwillingness to reveal financial sources;
.
You keep saying this but continue avoid providing any valid reason why it’s relevant. As has several folks have noted, “But mosques have sometimes gotten money from terrorists” is not valid.
.
and the mosque is intended to open on the tenth anniversary of the attacks.
.
Were you lying before when you said you knew the relevance of the end of Ramadan?
.
These are things he could explain or change yet he won’t.
.
Explanations have been offered. They just aren’t the ones you like, so you’re ignoring them.
.
Why the insistence that, despite lack of any evidence of something untoward happening, something nefarious is going on.
.
Oh, right. I forgot. They’re Muslims.
Um, that kind of sounds like exactly what they’re doing. Insisting on building there seems just like deliberate provocation.
.
An example of you not being willing to hear any answer that you don’t like.
.
You have convinced yourself that there are some nefarious motives and utterly refuse to be dissuaded from that view. Here, for example, you’re insisting building there is a “deliberate” provocation.
.
Those running the Israeli blockade said, in effect, “We see the line you have drawn and in response to YOUR action in drawing it we are going to cross it to challenge you.” They were, agreed, deliberately provocative.
.
But the community center has not declared an intent to challenge or provoke a response from anyone. Actually has done the contrary, in fact. If anything it’s the bigots who have been deliberately confrontational in drawing a new line, a suddenly more expansive claim as to what constitutes the boundaries of “Ground Zero”, and claiming that it’s the community center’s fault.
.
But it must be the Muslim’s fault because, y’know, they’re Muslim.
Yes, it would be much more convenient for a neighborhood community center if it opened in some other neighborhood.
.
Then it would be a neighborhood center for that neighborhood.
.
his unwillingness to reveal financial sources;
.
You keep saying this but continue avoid providing any valid reason why it’s relevant. As has several folks have noted, “But mosques have sometimes gotten money from terrorists” is not valid.
Why is it not valid? It is the crux of the controversy and he could deal with it but hasn’t.
.
and the mosque is intended to open on the tenth anniversary of the attacks.
.
Were you lying before when you said you knew the relevance of the end of Ramadan?
As Bill Mulligan pointed out, Ramadan ends on Sept. 11 of this year and the mosque is scheduled to open next year so that changes this point. And as Stuart brought up, the date of the mosque opening is not known yet. I wasn’t lying about anything. September 11 would be an incredibly bad choice to open the mosque whether it was the end of Ramadan or not. That was my point.
.
It is incredibly naive of the Imam to expect to build there and have no one feel upset. Whether those feelings are justified or not is not the issue. It is the disregard for those feelings from someone who professes the intention of healing wounds. Is this that hard to understand? I think the Imam should hire a public relations firm.
It is the crux of the controversy
.
No, it isn’t.
.
The real crux is that Muslims dare build something near Ground Zero.
.
The claim about the source of funding is just a poor cover for your poor argument.
And as Stuart brought up, the date of the mosque opening is not known yet. I wasn’t lying about anything. September 11 would be an incredibly bad choice to open the mosque whether it was the end of Ramadan or not. That was my point.
.
Your point was that if something that is being lied about on Fox news is true, then it would be a bad choice? Okay, well…as points go, that’s rather pointless. The better angle would have been to say, “They were PROBABLY going to open it on September 11, but media scrutiny doubtlessly got them to change their mind and then lie about it.” That would be more consistent with the level of thinking being espoused.
.
Why is it not valid? It is the crux of the controversy and he could deal with it but hasn’t.
.
No, it’s the new excuse that people in opposition raised when their initial arguments were slapped aside on irrefutable constitutional grounds. The insinuation is clear: The center might well be funded by terrorists or supporters of terror, an assertion that stems purely from a desire to stir up fear. Why not say that we should invade the site and look for WMDs while we’re at it? As for not dealing with it, I submit that perhaps the way he’s dealing with it is making sure that perfectly innocent individuals don’t get themselves dragged through the mud simply because they think building a house of worship is a good idea and are offering financial support.
.
The acolytes of Bush politics have learned well: When logic fails, resort to fear.
.
People keep saying that we shouldn’t let the terrorists win. If we’re willing to throw the First Amendment under the bus because we’re afraid of unproven insinuations, isn’t that the way we’re indisputably giving the terrorists what they want? Showing that we’re willing to dump religious freedom because we’re afraid of them? If they make us forget who and what we are…don’t they win?
.
PAD
Then it would be a neighborhood center for that neighborhood.
.
Adamantly missing the point again. At least you’re consistent.
.
[Where the money is coming from] is the crux of the controversy and he could deal with it but hasn’t.
.
No, it isn’t. Nobody started with “Who’s paying for it.” The initial “controversy” (that is, lie) was that there was a mosque being built on Ground Zero. The wringing of hands over the financing came subsequently. And several people have already pointed out that the level of concern being expressed is not typical for community centers or houses of worship, the scrutiny you’re asking for is not typical of other businesses or facilities near Ground Zero. Yet you refuse to recognize that and keep claiming that the bigotry of the opponents is the Muslims fault.
.
And, of course, it is there fault. After all, they are Muslims, so it must be.
.
Whether those feelings are justified or not is not the issue. It is the disregard for those feelings from someone who professes the intention of healing wounds. Is this that hard to understand?
.
Actually, yes. Very much so. If those feelings aren’t justified then they certainly ARE an issue. This is, again, you trying to claim that the bigotry on display is irrelevant and that things not relevant in other similar cases are vitally important in this one.
.
Why are the feelings of the opponent side irrelevant on one hand (“whether they’re justified is not the issue”) but of paramount importance on the other (“The main thing is our feelings are hurt.”)?
.
.
Seriously, what is the actual objection to having the community center there?
Fears over what it might maybe perhaps possibly be? Any answer other than “No” demonstrates the objections stems from a certain level of bigotry.
That it somehow impinges on some sanctity of the area? How more so than than any of the other business in the area? I understand that there are numerous businesses in the vein of strip clubs in the area.
People keep saying that we shouldn’t let the terrorists win. If we’re willing to throw the First Amendment under the bus because we’re afraid of unproven insinuations, isn’t that the way we’re indisputably giving the terrorists what they want? Showing that we’re willing to dump religious freedom because we’re afraid of them? If they make us forget who and what we are…don’t they win?
.
For almost nine years I’ve been thinking we’re playing out The Monsters are Due on Maple Street. I picture bin Laden sitting in a cave in 2000 saying “We can’t destroy them, they’re too large. But if we scare them just a bit they’ll willingly give up their freedoms themselves.”
I responded earlier but the post went up above my original one. Here it is again, hopefully in the correct position.
It is the crux of the controversy
.
No, it isn’t.
.
The real crux is that Muslims dare build something near Ground Zero.
.
The claim about the source of funding is just a poor cover for your poor argument.
.
Calling it a poor argument doesn’t make it one.I’ve heard about the financing issue since this started. Don’t know why you haven’t. I’ve pointed out how funding for any project is open to scrutiny with the example of my own church’s building plans and our budget is 40 times less than the mosque. Granted their real estate is bit more expensive.
.
I’ve drawn comparisons to the situation that innocent priests find themselves in and so do not rely on the presumption of innocence. They know it is not realistic yet the mosque builders apparently have no such insight or willingness to compromise. As I said before, if the Imam doesn’t want to be viewed with suspicion, he shouldn’t act so suspiciously.
.
Some Muslims have acknowledged that whatever good intentions may exist, this community center will be a lightning rod for radicals simply because of its location. Here is an opinion piece from Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah who think the location is insensitive.
.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html
.
So go ahead and ascribe racist motivations to me and call the writers I cite above Uncle Toms. It appears to be your only argument.
Calling it a poor argument doesn’t make it one.I
.
Calling the community center a mosque doesn’t make it one.
Saying it’s ON Ground Zero doesn’t mean it is.
Saying the community’s interest in building it is insultingly irreverent doesn’t make it so.
Saying where the financing comes from is an important issue doesn’t make it one.
.
Tit for tat is fun!
.
But regardless of how much that you want to throw about, it the hand wringing over financing remains a poor argument. It isn’t a concern made about other business and facilities in the area. It wasn’t a concern expressed until the original “concern” was dope slapped and something more legitimate sounding was needed.
.
And those are just two points that have been made several times that you have studiously left undisputed.
.
’ve pointed out how funding for any project is open to scrutiny …
.
Your claiming they are doesn’t make it true. In my area a private company is building a large facility on land they own. Their financing is’t open to public scrutiny. IN general the rule is, with proper permits in hand and absent any evidence of a crime being involved, the financing of private development on private land isn’t open to public scrutiny.
.
I’ve drawn comparisons to the situation that innocent priests find themselves in and so do not rely on the presumption of innocence.
.
A fair point. And I feel for the priests who must now take greater care due to guilt-by-association. Far more, clearly, than you do for the Imam and his flock.
.
But I don’t think saying that because one particular group is mistreated (innocent priests) is justification for saying another group should be similarly mistreated. You’re tkaing one wrong and using it to justify another.
.
If the Imam doesn’t want to be viewed with suspicion, he shouldn’t act so suspiciously.
.
By, for example, attempting to build a community center.
.
Some Muslims have acknowledged that whatever good intentions may exist, this community center will be a lightning rod for radicals simply because of its location.
.
The solution isn’t to then forbid the center. The solution is to object to the radicals that wrongly attack it. Would you blame the person who has a nice car, or the jealous person who key’s it? Would you tell someone they can’t go to college because nobody else in their neighborhood can afford it and will resent them? Would you tell a bi-racial couple they can’t get married because their WASP neighbors would be offended?
.
So go ahead and ascribe racist motivations to me … It appears to be your only argument.
.
If the foo šhìŧš….
Others have already responded to most of what you said, so I’ll simply point out that Obama DID use the bully pulpit of the presidency. He used it to reinforce the notion that he is the foremost guardian of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.
.
You just don’t happen to like what he said.
.
PAD
Actually, I don’t care what he said. Because what he said was pretty much irrelevant.
.
His statement answered questions that no one asked. Virtually no one has challenged the constitutionality of the mosque, but it’s good to know that Obama is behind the Constitution.
.
It’s the questions that don’t relate to the Constitution that need answering.
.
Or what?
.
Nothing, really. Just that they’ve just earned a whole lot of suspicion and enmity, when they could have instead shown a bit of sensitivity and compassion and respect.
.
In the process, they’ve affirmed the attitudes a lot of people already hold.
.
They will get their building. And the costs will be a hëll of a lot more than $100 million.
.
J.
Nothing, really. Just that they’ve just earned a whole lot of suspicion and enmity, when they could have instead shown a bit of sensitivity and compassion and respect.
.
Earned? The suspicion and enmity were there when the first wingnut declared “OMG they’re building a mosque ON Ground Zero!”
.
You’re, again, blaming them for not responding well to prejudice, persecution and suspicion. For not treating bigots with respect.
It seems to me that Jay (and many others) has fallen into the dangerous practice of assuming Muslims are guilty until proven innocent. When a church or a Christian centre of some sort is planned, does he make these same demands to know where all the money comes from? Or what connections to radical groups the person in charge might have? Or what the planned centre may or may not be intended to symbolise? I can’t recall any other religious facility facing this sort of scrutiny.
Over the past decade this sort of anti-Islamic paranoia has been rampant in this country. I can’t count the number of pundits I’ve heard say that they’re willing to trust some Muslim group or another, if they would fully denounce all terrorism and show their dedication to American values. And yet, no matter how many times some Muslim does just that, it’s never good enough. For some reason or another, it’s decided that the denunciation of al-Qaeda doesn’t sound completely honest or something. So often, American Muslims are asked to ‘prove their patriotism’, but the ones who ask never seem to do much to prove their own, at least not in any way that would satisfy them if a Muslim did it.
Innocence can never be proven completely. There can always be some doubt as to whatever evidence is presented, because a presumption of guilt always includes a presumption of dishonesty.
The sad thing is… she doesn’t have to, and she won’t.
She won’t because she’ll fully internalized the lesson of Talk Radio: you can get filthy rich simply by being a figure of controversy. Logic doesn’t matter. Facts don’t matter. Say whatever you want. There are no negative consequences because somebody out there will pay you money simply to open your mouth.
This is also why I don’t believe she’ll ever run for any office again. Her current job of Talking Mouth is just too lucrative, and has the added benefit of conferring no responsibilities, but plenty of power.
Never mind being on different teams; Palin and Obama aren’t even playing the same game.
Dear Sarah,
I know you don’t consider us here in New York City the “real” America.
So since we don’t mind this and want to ignore your drummed up non-controversy, kindly butt out of our business.
And to those lovely media folks covering this. Can’t you tell a fake non-story when you see one?
“Dear Sarah,
I know you don’t consider us here in New York City the “real” America. So since we don’t mind this and want to ignore your drummed up non-controversy, kindly butt out of our business.”
According to this story from NBC Paiin knows more about New York than you.
A majority of New Yorkers oppose plans to build a mosque and Muslim cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll released Thursday.
,
Fifty-two percent of the respondents said they did not want the mosque to be built at all, 31 percent are in favor of it, and 17 percent are undecided.
.
“New York enjoys a reputation as one of the most tolerant places in America, but New Yorkers are opposed to a proposal to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero,” said Quinnipiac University Polling Institute Director Maurice Carroll in a press release.
.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/New-Yorkers-Oppose-Ground-Zero-Mosque-Poll-97602569.html
Wow! 52% That’s enough for me to shred the Constitution.
I didn’t say anything about shredding the Constitution. You said as a New Yorker, “we don’t mind this”. Clearly you do not speak for everyone in New York or even a majority. Other polls put the number at 60% by the way.
True enough, Scott. They aren’t in the same league.
.
Palin’s worked extensively in the private sector.
.
Palin had held quite a few positions of authority and responsibility.
.
Palin has challenged corruption within her own party, instead of turning a blind eye to it.
.
Palin has made a point of not associating with unrepentant domestic terrorists.
.
But back to the subject at hand, at least tangentially: I seem to recall Obama once saying that he didn’t know all the facts of a situation, but “it’s clear that the Cambridge police acted stupidly.” I recall a lot of people saying that what was truly stupid for Obama to insert himself into that situation, but very few — and not likely any of his supporters — saying that it was inappropriate for the president to get involved in a local law enforcement matter.
.
This Cordoba project is a very carefully calculated assertion of dominance and conquest and superiority. It is replete with symbolism and nuance that all combine to be an in-your-face gesture. And while we should not let ourselves respond to the provocation unwisely, we must not simply ignore the reality — and overlook the intentions of the project’s backers.
.
J.
Palin’s worked extensively in the private sector.
.
Palin had held quite a few positions of authority and responsibility.
Best I can tell, Palin’s “extensive” work in the private sector consists of one short stint as a sports reporter in Idaho, and a period in which she “helped run” her husband’s fishing business in Alaska, before beginning her political career in Wasilla.
On the other paw, Palin does have a fine record of decrying “socialism” while living in (and governing) a state that confiscates money from oil interests and distributes it to its citizens as an annual stipend…
Missed a few, Jonathan. Worked her way through college (skipping semesters every now and then when money was tight), usually as a waitress. Helped run the family fishing business, often out on the boats doing actual fishing. Brief career as a sportscaster.
.
In other words, a hëll of a lot more private sector experience than Obama.
.
J.
Worked her way through five colleges before she apparently found on willing to award her a degree.
.
Set new records for bod governance, charging the public for family vacations and attempts to use state agencies for personal vendettas.
.
And quit mid-term as Governor, not to run for higher office (she held on while running for VP, after all) but because she could make more money telling right-wing know-nothings fairy tales they want to believe.
“Palin has made a point of not associating with unrepentant domestic terrorists.”
Her HUSBAND belonged to a political party that wants Alaska to leave the Union illegally.
I agree with Jay tea,
Anytime, anywhere a religious organization of any kind is opened, I want to check out the background of every person who has donated to get it open. I want to make sure that the Catholics arent being backed by the Mafia and church basements arent lined with the bodies of people who needed to disappear. I want to make sure that synagogue’s arent holding golums ready to take over the world.
I think Bush did a horrible job with these wars. Instead of it being called the war on terror. He should have said it was the war on muslim religion and then kicked out everyone of muslim faith out of this country, then he could have turned the mosque’s into something cool, like gay bars or stip clubs.
The Republicans dont care that the muslim cultural center is blocks away from “ground zero”. They make this clear in their message that they dont want any mosques anywhere in this country.
The Constitution, right to privacy and logic do not matter to Republicans, fear and emotion are what they are all about.
I do agree with Jay Tea (delicious drink by the way). We need to kick out all muslims and close down their centers. We then need to do the same with all the other religions that people like Jay might have a problem with until America is a theocracy ruled by only one true religion. Then as an athiest with all my athiest friends, we only have to concentrate on ridding America of one religion rather than the hundreds currently operating.
Splendid response to me there, CJ. You can be quite persuasive when you’re not constrained to dealing with reality.
.
There’s about a hundred million dollars planned for this project. Apparently you’re unfamiliar with the many, many cases of Islamic “charities” being used as money sources for terrorism — take a few moments to familiarize yourself with the Holy Land Foundation case, for starters. Wanting to know how deeply involved various groups are — such as, say, the Wahabists — is hardly paranoia.
.
I happen to prefer the phrase “War On Militant Islam,” as it’s a bit more accurate and less nebulous, but didn’t say that. I also don’t recall ever calling for the closing of all mosques and expulsion of all Muslims. Arguing against this one, yes. Recognizing the dangers of “Sudden Jihadi Syndrome,” absolutely.
.
This “cultural center” (that’s a new phrase on me — it started as a mosque, then became a “civic center”) is two blocks from the World Trade Center site. It was arguably part of Ground Zero, though; as I noted above, it was damaged in the attacks and coated in the dust and ashes of the attack.
.
I also don’t have a copy of the Constitution that discusses “privacy” and “logic.” It’s far more precise and specific about specific powers and rights, and the apportionment thereof to the federal government, the states, and the individuals.
.
I dunno who you’re agreeing with in that last paragraph, cuz it bears no resemblance to anything I’ve said here or elsewhere, or even believe in my heart of hearts. And while I’m no “athiest” (or even “atheist”), I’m a proud, born-again agnostic and don’t belong to any particular faith that I want to see reign supreme.
.
So, CJ, if you can pry your head out of that fantasy world (which appears to be about three feet up your lower intestine) and deal with reality, let me know. Otherwise, feel free to take a flying fornication at a rolling donut.
.
J.
It was arguably part of Ground Zero, though;
.
So, how far would you like to extend the No Muslim Zone around Ground Zero?
.
Maybe we can post such signs at drinking fountains…
OK, how about “buildings that were damaged in the attack?” Is that good enough for you?
.
J.
OK, how about “buildings that were damaged in the attack?” Is that good enough for you?
.
No.
.
How damaged? Would structural damage have to occur or is a light coating of dust sufficient?
.
Yours is an notably stupid argument to make. For nearly a decade “Ground Zero” has applied to site of the buildings that fell, the area that was formerly known as the WTC, the area that has been fenced off awaiting some kind of rebuilding.
.
NOBODY ever referred to the old Burlington building blocks away as part of “Ground Zero” until this made up offense made news.
Is that good enough for you?
.
Is that a Palin Approved thought from you, or one of your own for once?
.
And, as Sean said, no, it’s not good enough, because suddenly Ground Zero is a lot bigger simply because people don’t want a mosque anywhere near there. A point you’ve conveniently missed.
“here’s about a hundred million dollars planned for this project. Apparently you’re unfamiliar with the many, many cases of Islamic “charities” being used as money sources for terrorism — take a few moments to familiarize yourself with the Holy Land Foundation case, for starters. Wanting to know how deeply involved various groups are — such as, say, the Wahabists — is hardly paranoia.”
Then we need to examine all Catholic charities because of the money American Catholics sent to the IRA over several decades? How about Jewish charities, in case someone’s grandfather sent money to a Zionist organization during the British occupation? Once we start on this slope, where does it end?
Every few years, a neo-nazi hate group of some sort decides to attack my synagogue. We get spray-painted, bomb threats, all sorts of fun things. Nothing more serious than broken glass, thank G-d. Nearly always we get “Christ killers” and other such things. Westboro Baptist even made my synagogue a stop on one of their recent insanity tours.
A YMCA was build a few blocks from the synagogue not long ago. I think we should have protested. Not to mention the private Christian day school across the street. How dare they!
Sarah who?
Wasn’t she a fictional parody of a politician created by Tina Fey?
In the early 80’s, there was the 4th and 5th Doctor companion Tegan. She once described herself in a story as “a mouth with legs”.
.
I believe that’s how I’m going to start referring to Palin.
Tegan Jovanka. Played very well by Janet Fielding. Stewardess, back before they started call them flight attendants. And yeah, she called herself a mouth with legs. At least what came outta her mouth was intelligent and comprehensible.
I never saw any of Tegan’s episodes that i can recall.
.
Were they good legs?
In her audition, she claimed that she was the minimum height for an Austrialian stewardess, saying that she applied for such a job while living Down Under.
.
It was a total lie. But, she said in an interview that she believed it helped get her the part.
.
Theno
Please don’t sully Dr. Who with this nonsense.
I’m sort of glad that Obama stepped up and pointed out the constitutional right to open a religious center near Ground Zero; it’s just a shame he followed that statement with some ham-fisted ‘clarifications’ that pretty much destroyed his original message. And by the way, I agree about the previous poster who pointed out that similar objections are being raised about mosques being built across the country where the basis for those objections seems to be no more substantial than ‘anywhere but here.’ If there are other posters here from some of those areas, I would be hugely interested in hearing what the reasoning is for objecting to mosques in their neighborhood.
.
Incidentally Jay Tee, since Sarah Grizzly Mama seems to be in regular touch with you, could you tell her that I would respect her previous position as a high-ranking government official if she, you know, didn’t quit that position halfway through?
Dennis Miller pointed it out a couple weeks ago, and Glen Beck said there was no legal reason to stop it.
If someone says it shouldn’t be done, it doesn’t mean they think it can’t be done.
The protest against it is kinda like protesting a war isn’t it.
Shucks, Joe, doesn’t take any special hot lines to get an answer to that one — you just had to listen to her when she resigned.
.
About 18 bûllšhìŧ “ethics” charges — groundless ones — had already cost her about half a million dollars in legal bills. That was about double her family’s annual income and 40% of their net worth. The latest round of charges were aimed at denying her a legal defense fund (meaning she had to pay all the bills herself) and going after her staff (one staffer was asked a question about the campaign in a hallway. The staffer took 30 seconds to answer the question, and was charged with “conducting political business on state time and property.”)
.
She saw that she and her staff were spending all their time fending off the bûllšhìŧ, and were looking at being bankrupted by the process — so she resigned.
.
Amazing what you can learn when you just listen, isn’t it, Joe?
.
J.
You mean the thousands of dollars she spent hauling her family around on “business” trips that were only marginally-justifiable for her to be going on?
.
You mean like allowing her husband to act as if he were conducting official state business, from an office in a state office building, using a stae e-mail account?
.
You mean like her attempts to use the State Patrol to to prosecute a personal vendetta?
.
And, since her resignation short-circuited the investigations, how do you know they were groundless? Because she told you so?
Amazing what you can learn when you just listen, isn’t it, Joe?
.
In other words, when the going got tough, Sarah went to have a little cry.
.
The fact that you so readily regurgitate her stupidity says a lot more about you than the rest of us.
Yeah, it was really brave and noble that Obama pointed out the Constitutional right of the mosque-builders.
.
Wait, just how many people were challenging that, anyway?
.
Best straw man since Michael Jackson starred in “The Wiz.”
.
J.
I’d say that when Peter King said that President Obama was wrong it was sort of an indirect attack (though attack may be too strong a word) on the First Amendment in that when making a move to deny those rights to one the first step is taken to deny those rights to all. I can’t say that was Peter King’s intent, and I doubt that it was, but it can have that kind of effect.
“Wait, just how many people were challenging that, anyway?”
.
Everyone who said that they shouldn’t have the right to build it?
.
Theno
Personally, I have to admit they do have a *right* to do it. I do, however, find it in rather bad taste. Much like Westboro Baptists’ protests at Military funerals – whether or not those are *legal*, they are in appallingly bad taste, and even if no legal sanctions can be applied, certainly social ones can be.
However, Peter is right – the US Government really has little to no say in this, unless they had previously designated the site as a memorial zone (which, I believe, there was talk of). Now, if this site is in an area that previously was so designated by the Government, and it was somehow released to this organization specifically, perhaps some investigation should be made.
I have little doubt most of the buying of the land was done through dummies, to help prevent notice of this before the deal was done.
Seriously – *any* kind of religious facility at Ground Zero? Tacky, tacky, tacky.
I’m cursed with seeing all sides here, whether I agree with one or the other is the prob.
The Constitution does guarantee the righ to worship as you see fit, yes. They can build a mosque there. Doesn’t make it any less tacky to put it in that location, though. It’s comparable to plunking down a Baptist church in an all-Jewish neighborhood. But as that area has a large Muslim population, then why not? They deserve a neighborhood church.
We’ll never settle our cultural differences if we don’t make an effort, and while many are looking at this as an up-yours from the Muslims to America, it really isn’t, not intentionally. 9-11 was an attack on America, not Christians. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans and yeah, Muslims died that day. And we need to get our heads outta our áššëš and focus on fixing what created the problem in the first place.
It’s comparable to plunking down a Baptist church in an all-Jewish neighborhood.
.
The difference being, of course, that the media would depict the objecting Jews as being unAmerican.
.
PAD
The ambiguous backpedaling from Washington has already begun.
I’ll oppose the cultural center in NYC as soon as it’s illegal to build a christian church a similar distance from the site of the Oklahoma City bombing.
Who would object to a Christian church near the former Murrah Federal Building? McVeigh was an atheist.
.
J.
Let’s compormise and tax ALL churches.
Come clean PAD. This Jay Tea persona is just some parody of a loony right wing, tea partier that you are writing.
I mean it’s humorous, but a little over the top, don’t you think.
Maybe I’m stupid, but hallowed ground sounds like a pretty good place to build a mosque near.
Sorry, edhopper. I’m real. I even have a picture of us together at a convention.
.
Should I post the link?
.
J.
It’s called sarcasm.
Ok, since so many refer to the site of the former World Trade Center as ‘Hallowed Ground’ I have taken the trouble to look up the word hallowed at Dictionary.com and it just doesn’t seem to sit well with me. In part because of the religious overtones involved but mostly because it’s a symbol of one our great failures on many levels.
.
It’s just plain bugs me that, as a nation, we seem to celebrate our failures more than our achievements. Alright ‘celebrate’ may not be the right word and I’m not suggesting that we forget our failures because to do so would be to repeat them, but this business (and it is a business, The Regret, Guilt, and Victim Industry) of dwelling on such failure makes it difficult to envision and work toward a better future for us all regardless of religious, national, or whatever other labels we choose to limit ourselves with.
.
I’m thinking that our time and energy would be better spent on giving preference to the great things we’ve done as a species, without forgetting the failures, so that those examples of greatness may inspire us to create all new and improved great examples.
.
Let these people build their mosque/civil, community, cultural center/juice bar. Hëll, if you’re close enough drop by just to say hello. Who knows, something good might follow that simple act.
Oh, and can we please stop rolling out these talking heads like (for the purpose of staying on topic) Sarah Palin? They only serve to divide us, that is if we allow them to do so by giving them the attention they crave.
Mitch, I’m sorry there isn’t a better term than “hallowed,” but there is something about a place where so many people died. I’d apply the same term to Gettysburg or Auschwitz or Wounded Knee.
.
J.
Jay Tea:
“Mitch, I’m sorry there isn’t a better term than “hallowed,” but there is something about a place where so many people died. I’d apply the same term to Gettysburg or Auschwitz or Wounded Knee.”
.
Hi Jay Tea,
Please clarify something for me. Does the something you mention above arise out of many people dying there or does it arise out of us knowing they died there? I think it’s the latter and that has me questioning the entire concept of hallowed ground.
.
How many deaths are required to make a piece of real estate hallowed? Does it depend on who died there? What are we allowed to do on said ground after it’s been declared hallowed? Who decides?
.
Maybe I just have a thick skull, but it honestly doesn’t make sense to me. I swear I’m not trying to be a smart-ášš here. In fact I’m trying not to be. The whole hallowed thing just seems like a mumbo jumbo tactic to me and I wonder if others might see it as such too.
Ran across an interesting article in the New York [i]Daily News[/i] (and I wish I knew how to format links in HTML):
.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/16/2010-08-16_a_sea_of_filth_near_ground_zer0_mosque_gets_all_the_press_but_porns_around_corne.html
.
“In a walk of the streets within three blocks of Ground Zero, the Daily News counted 17 pizza shops, 18 bank branches, 11 bars, 10 shoe stores and 17 separate salons where a girl can get her lady parts groomed.”
.
How very hallowed…
“It’s just plain bugs me that, as a nation, we seem to celebrate our failures more than our achievements.”
.
I honestly believe that the reason nothing has yet been built on the WTC site is because it is politically important for the wound to remain fresh.
.
Theno
Theno:
“I honestly believe that the reason nothing has yet been built on the WTC site is because it is politically important for the wound to remain fresh.”
I agree. “All the better to fear monger with, my dear,” and all that.
Just to be clear:
Building an Islamic cultural center near “hallowed ground” = Bad
Building a large commercial building ON “hallowed ground” = Good
Of course. The American god, Capitalism, must be worshipped everywhere, from sea to shining sea.
I’m really bothered by all the people calling it ‘hallowed ground’ also. Or ‘sacred ground’– I’ve heard that one as well. I heard the same terms used for the Murrow Building site here in Oklahoma. (A local TV station even advertised their coverage of the dedication ceremonies for the memorial as ‘Ceremony On Sacred Ground’.
As far as I can tell, the reason people are calling these places sacred or hallowed is because of the large number of people killed there. Is that correct? So apparently, our society now accepts the idea of human sacrifice. If killing someone sanctifies a place, then what else would you call it?
.
It was bad enough when everyone was trying to turn this country into a Christian theocracy. But this new death cult sounds even worse.
“But this new death cult sounds even worse.”
New? Seriously, now?
“We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
“But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.” — Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, PA, November 19, 1863
Jay Tea: Sarah Palin is busy right now, PAD…
Luigi Novi: Doing what? Off on another shopping spree? (I do hope she’s no longer using RNC money.)
.
Jay Tea: A president doesn’t forfeit his 1st Amendment right when he takes the oath of office.
Luigi Novi: No one has implied that Obama “forfeited” his First Amendment rights or his opinion. Obama simply may not harbor the opinion that Palin expects him to, and that’s what she’s really complaining about.
.
Jay Tea: People have asked the Cordoba people for a sit-down. Greg Gutfeld, for one. He’s been blown off.
Luigi Novi: The same Greg Gutfeld who responded to the plans for the mosque by announcing that he would build a Muslim gay bar near it? (http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4696) Gee, I can’t imagine why the Cordoba people wouldn’t have wanted to speak to him! Maybe because when he asked them for a “sit down”, they refused because they feared it would be in another man’s lap?
.
Jay Tea: Why is it so important that it be built in a building only two blocks from Ground Zero, a building that was covered in the dust and soot of the 9/11 attacks, and was damaged by debris from one of the airliners?
Luigi Novi: If you really were interested in their answers, why didn’t you do a simple Google Search or Wikipedia search? A casual look through the location’s Wikipedia article brought me to this New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1, which bears this quote by Imam Feisal, the cleric leading the project:
.
The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11…We want to push back against the extremists”
.
And this one by Fatima Shama, the mayor’s director of the Office of Immigrant Affairs:
.
“We as New York Muslims have as much of a commitment to rebuilding New York as anybody,” Ms. Shama said. Imam Feisal’s wife, Daisy Khan, serves on an advisory team for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, and Lynn Rasic, a spokeswoman for the memorial, said, “The idea of a cultural center that strengthens ties between Muslims and people of all faiths and backgrounds is positive.”
.
And this one by Joan Brown Campbell, director of the department of religion at the Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York and former general secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ U.S.A., who is a supporter of Imam Feisal:
.
But, she added: “Building so close is owning the tragedy. It’s a way of saying: ‘This is something done by people who call themselves Muslims. We want to be here to repair the breach, as the Bible says.’ ”
.
The fact that the building’s former owners couldn’t sell it for what they wanted may also have been a factor. They asked $18 million for the property at one point, but after the recession hit, they sold it for $4.85 million.
.
Jay Tea: Why was the opening date chosen as 9/11/2011, the tenth anniversary of the attacks?
Luigi Novi: It wasn’t. Nice to see you’re getting your facts from Fox News, though. (Source: http://mediamatters.org/research/201007200004)
.
Jay Tea: Does the Imam heading up the project still believe, as he stated in 2002, that the United States was complicit in the attacks?
Luigi Novi: You have not established that he believed any such thing. While Rauf did state that the U.S. needed to examine the roles its policies had in leading to it, (and yes, he did use the word “accessory”), it is far more grave to say they were “complicit” in them, which implies intentional assistance.
.
Jay Tea: Palin’s worked extensively in the private sector.
Luigi Novi: And Obama worked as a Church-based community organizer, and for a law firm, he worked as an instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a teacher in Chicago, and a lawyer at a law firm. Are those not private enough?
.
Jay Tea: Palin had held quite a few positions of authority and responsibility.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, mayor of a town that my cat could’ve been elected in, and a governorship which helped sink her running mate’s campaign, which she abandoned halfway through in order to cash in her chips with a media deal, and conveyed to the world how misinformed and unqualified she is. I’m impressed.
.
Jay Tea: Palin has challenged corruption within her own party, instead of turning a blind eye to it.
Luigi Novi: And exhibited quite a bit of her own as well. Bridge to Nowhere, anyone?
.
Jay Tea: Palin has made a point of not associating with unrepentant domestic terrorists.
Luigi Novi: No, she simply associates with America-hating Alaskan secessionists, and thanked them for their work at the Republican National Convention.
.
Big difference.
.
CJ: I agree with Jay tea, Anytime, anywhere a religious organization of any kind is opened, I want to check out the background of every person who has donated to get it open. I want to make sure that the Catholics arent being backed by the Mafia and church basements arent lined with the bodies of people who needed to disappear.
Luigi Novi: As an Italian-American who was raised Catholic….ouch. 🙂
.
Jay Tea: I also don’t have a copy of the Constitution that discusses “privacy” and “logic.”
Luigi Novi: First of all, CJ didn’t say that it did. He simply mentioned three things that he claimed don’t matter to Republicans. He did not say that one “mentioned” the latter two.
.
Second, even if you want to insist that his comment implied this, privacy is indeed inferred by the rights recognized by the Constitution, as indicated by the Supreme Court. It’s also specious to argue that logic is not assumed to be a given where law are concerned in free and just societies. But if you can explain how a country can commit to being free and just without “logic”, by all means, let’s hear it.
.
Jay Tea: OK, how about “buildings that were damaged in the attack?” Is that good enough for you?
Luigi Novi: Why does the fact that the building was damaged even matter? Its’ not considered “sacred ground”, and even the building’s owners, Stephen Pomerantz and Kukiko Mitani, had been trying to get rid of it for some time, and it was abandoned until 2009. If there was such a reverence for it, why didn’t someone else buy it, given that they were selling it for so much less than they originally asked for?
.
Jay Tea: Mitch, I’m sorry there isn’t a better term than “hallowed,” but there is something about a place where so many people died.
Luigi Novi: Did anyone die on that block? If not, then your point doesn’t apply to it. The problem with this criterion you raise—which is what Peter touched upon—is that where that “place” is can be subjective, and be different from person to person. To some people like you, two blocks from Ground Zero is still part of that “place”, regardless of whether anyone died there. And for many others, anywhere in the United States is inappropriate for a mosque. The only difference between the former and the latter is the goal posts, which seem rather arbitrary.
Thanks Luigi,
Now I don’t have to reply to any of this.
Travis
All part of the service, Travis. 🙂
Sarah Palin has become an interesting thing in American politics. Which side she ultimately helps is open for debate–I think if she gets the nomination for pres she will go down in flames and take a lot of the Republican party with her. For now though, all she has to do is exist and she seems to get more done than a lot of the smarter people in the party. last week she took out 2 members of the New Hampshire Democratic party and all she had to do was not die in a plane crash. That seems easy.
.
I would like to agree with PAD’s larger point about what the president should or should not do but really, all presidents, Obama included, stick their nose into all kinds of things small and petty, so it would be hardly legit for him to suddenly claim to be unable to comment on such things.
.
I don’t agree with those who are now claiming that he is backtracking–I did not read his statement as saying that he thought the mosque was a wise idea, just that it was legal. Of course, it could be pointed out that that is not the issue most of the critics are focusing on, so the statement was no big deal. Some of the folks on the left saw the statement as being far more far reaching than it was and are now grousing about backpedaling–I think they are just compounding their own initial error.
.
I don’t know if I agree with Obama that the area is hallowed ground. If so, perhaps we should have had some idea of what to do with it by now.
You know, up until 2000, Muslims usually tended to vote Republican. That’s not surprising when you consider the general level of conservatism and family values most Muslims believe in. Until recently it was fairly common for Latinos to vote Republican as well, at least in some states.
It really makes you wonder what sort of spiraling moral panic has been turning the American Right-wing against so many of its closest allies. They’ve been doing their best to drive away the libertarians, too.
Well, they should be crushed like insects in November then, what with all that diminished support. Make me wonder where all this talk of them picking up seats is coming from.
Arguably, the Republicans’ increasing appeal to white, strongly Christian families is more than enough to offset the loss of the Muslim vote. It’s my perception that they’ve energized in the last decade quite a few church-goers that would not otherwise care much about politicians.
.
The loss of Latino votes I think will hit them far harder.
You might be surprised at how many Latinos are not exactly pro-illegal immigrants. I know I was. At this point–and this is subject to change–coming out strongly against illegal immigration is one of the better polling positions in the country. Of course, by itself it may be insufficient. There is some evidence that African Americans are strongly opposed to illegal immigration but I don’t know that that would be enough to get them to vote Republican. But they might stay home on election day, which would amount tot he same thing.
Craig,
“In other words, when the going got tough, Sarah went to have a little cry.
.
The fact that you so readily regurgitate her stupidity says a lot more about you than the rest of us.”
.
How remarkably sexist that first statement is.The rest is simply devoid of any intellectual reasoning or thoughtful analysis and full of your usual knee-jerk, hateful bile.
.
And at least Palin,whatever you think of her intelligence or credentials, never publicly wished one of her political opponents died in an airplane crash.
.
Do you at least condemn those death wishes or is your hatred for this woman that all-consuming you can’t even bring yourself to do that?
Jerome, in fairness, I don’t think it’s appropriate to expect that Craig or anyone else has to publicly condemn every stupid thing said by someone who may be a member of his preferred political party. Give the rampant stupidity on constant display among our political class it would leave little time for anything.
.
Palin does a good job of bringing out the worst in some of her opponents. I don’t know that this is something she has any control over (if so, she’s a political genius) but it certainly serves its purpose. But unless someone expresses a hateful comment or supports those who do (and I see no evidence that Craig’s antipathy to Palin extends any further than, say, your own toward any Idiot Democrat Du Jour–Maxine Waters, perfect example) they should not be called on it.
.
For the record, I thought (as did many others)that Palin resigning as governor was the end of her career and influence. Clearly, I was wayyyyyy off on that one.
How remarkably sexist that first statement is.
.
My statement wasn’t sexist. Men cry too, you know. But thanks for once again showing your complete disdain for me.
.
It’s yet another fine example of why I shroud you, because for several years you’ve enjoyed trying to make an example out of my posts at every opportunity. By holding me to a different standard than others here.
.
You and the quitter, The Mouth With Legs, can pìšš øff.
Oh, and for what little it’s worth, I’m done with Jay Tea, too.
.
If I feel the urge to converse with a parrot any more, I’ll just go buy one instead.
Bill,
“Sarah Palin has become an interesting thing in American politics.”
.
She is a true phenomenon.
.
“Which side she ultimately helps is open for debate”
Depends who you ask. Many even in the Republican party don’t get her appeal and the real attraction many voters have toward her. But ask Sharron Angle,Nikki Haley and Fiorina if she has appeal. She has star power and true political power.
“I think if she gets the nomination for pres she will go down in flames and take a lot of the Republican party with her.”
.
Because you’re buying into the caricature. People quickly forget that A.) She gave one helluva speech at the convention and is capable of rising to the occasion and put Couric and all the other stuff in the rear view mirror. B.) Obama could be in the middle of a double-dip recession and facing even lower approval ratings than he is now and C.) She continues to draw HUGE crowds wherever she goes.
.
She connects with everyday American women of all demos. Which is what Democrats fear, because if she can turn women to the GOP and turn “women’s issues” into Republican strengths,the Democrats are dead. It is women who have put Democratic Presidents in power. Even in 1996,men voted for Bob Dole and men voted for McCain. This is what has them panicked and why they try to diminish and destroy her at every turn. And just remember, Democrats were licking their chops at the prospect of facing Reagan,too.”
.
“For now though, all she has to do is exist and she seems to get more done than a lot of the smarter people in the party. last week she took out 2 members of the New Hampshire Democratic party and all she had to do was not die in a plane crash. That seems easy.”
.
Because she brings out an irrational hatred from people the likes of which I’ve never seen. The bile toward everyone from Dubya to Hillary seems tame by comparison – and again,it’s because her opponents have a LOT to lose the more she succeeds.
.
“A.) She gave one helluva speech at the convention and is capable of rising to the occasion…
.
Actually, she gave a hallow talking points speech. She delivered it well, but it was hardly the speech many seem to want it to be.
.
… and put Couric and all the other stuff in the rear view mirror.”
.
Except she has yet to do that really. Even up to early this year she’s been complaining about how badly she thinks Couric and others treated her in those interviews. If her ambition is the presidency it certainly doesn’t help her cause to act like a whining crybaby about press interviews. Seriously, if she can’t handle being asked what she reads and then cries about it for two years… What does that say about her ability to deal with adversarial or belligerent world leaders in summits and meetings?
.
“B.) Obama could be in the middle of a double-dip recession and facing even lower approval ratings than he is now…”
.
Of course, the way for the Republicans to take advantage of that would be to run someone who inspires confidence where such matters are concerned. Palin doesn’t and too many people rooting for her seem to confuse popularity with being electable.
.
… and C.) She continues to draw HUGE crowds wherever she goes.
.
Yeah, and the WWE draws bigger crowds whenever its wrestlers do an autograph signing or a TV taping. For that matter Oprah, Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, KISS, The Rolling Stones, JK Rowling and The Fighting 501st Legion of Stormtroopers draw huge crowds wherever they go. I don’t see any of them making a successful bid on the White House.
.
Being popular doesn’t mean someone is electable. Palin is popular with a set of fans like any celebrity is. However, she is not seen by enough people as a credible politician to make a go at such an office and every time she opens her mouth on a serious subject she shows how ill prepared she really is.
.
If the Republicans want to blow their shot at 2012 then by all means put Palin on the ticket as the front runner. There are Republican voters out there that don’t think she’s qualified to be POTUS and most of the independent voters out there will have no desire to replace an empty suit with an empty head.
.
“She connects with everyday American women of all demos. Which is what Democrats fear, because if she can turn women to the GOP and turn “women’s issues” into Republican strengths, the Democrats are dead. It is women who have put Democratic Presidents in power. Even in 1996, men voted for Bob Dole and men voted for McCain. This is what has them panicked and why they try to diminish and destroy her at every turn.”
.
Sorry, no. I know a lot of Democrats. I even know quite a few elected Democrats. Hëll, I know quite a few elected Republicans as well. The Democrats don’t fear Palin. It’s a lovely talking point, but it’s just not true. For that matter, the Republicans I’ve been around don’t talk about Palin in glowing terms either when the cameras aren’t on them.
.
“And just remember, Democrats were licking their chops at the prospect of facing Reagan,too.”
.
Yes, but the only thing Palin has in common with Reagan is the ability to read a speech well. Reagan could deflect criticism or defuse it with some level of style and grace. He was quite good at turning someone’s barbs at him into a sound byte that worked in his favor. Palin reacts to questions or criticisms she doesn’t like by pouting, whining about them for years on end and crying on Fox News hosts shoulders about how mean the MSM is to her.
.
Palin V Obama in 2012? Think the 84 election results, just with the Sarah playing the part of Walter Mondale.
Also Reagan wasn’t an idiot, he just played one on TV. Reagan’s politics may have changed over the years, for the worse in my opinion, but his knack for making people underestimate him didn’t. Reagan helped form SAG in the 40’s, sell GE’s agenda of corporate greed in the 50’s and 60’s, convinced a liberal trending California to elect his ever more right leaning self to two terms as Governor; then convinced an American public that thought the idea of an actor in politics was idiotic, to elect him to two terms as President. Palin found half a term as Governor in a state with minimal government, that pays people to live there, too taxing and quit. She is an idiot.
Palin showed far more character, courage, and strength in one critical area than Obama ever did. When she discovered major corruption within the ranks of her own party, she took the crooks on — and took them down. She took out a sitting Attorney General, GOP state chairman, and a governor.
.
Obama came out of the amazingly rank and corrupt Chicago political machine, and never once stood up to the corruption around him. Not even when his old Senate seat was being sold off.
.
Obama reminds me of Martha Coakley, Massachusetts’ Attorney General. The last three Speakers of the Massachusetts House have all been indicted and convicted on corruption — all by the feds. Coakley’s office wasn’t involved in any of the three major cases of corruption in the state where she was responsible for enforcing the laws.
.
Coakley, Obama — they’re both Sergeant Schultzes of corruption. They see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing about anything. Because that might put their ambitions at risk. They’ve both been happy to go along to get along.
.
J.
I have to agree with Jerry on most of this, though I will keep open the possibility that Palin is badly underestimated. certainly her “dumb moves” have brought her power and money so one can question how dumb they really were.
.
I think that a lot of her popularity is not so much that people are Palin fans so much as they are contemptuous of some of the people attacking her.
.
Hëll, they should replace Michael Steele with her. She could perform that job exceedingly well and hardly do a worse job than Steele. Actually, most English speaking people could outperform Steele.
act like a whining crybaby about press interviews
.
Now now, Jerry, there’s no need to resort to such *obviously* sexist comments.
Rene said: I do think it’s too facile to condemn everyone suspicious of Muslims of being a bigot.
.
Nope, it’s entirely on point. If you treat anyone who belongs to a religion as automatically suspicious because of the actions of a minority, then it’s bigotry. Try substituting “Muslim” for “Catholics” or “Blacks” in that sentence; if it would be bigoted to say that sentence with those words instead of Muslim, then it’s bigoted to say about Muslims.
Rene said: Just imagine if the Black Panther Party in the 1960s had destroyed two landmark buildings and killed 3000 people at once. And Martin Luther King were nowhere to be found.
Great example. A group of militants commit a horrible crime, and so, because you can’t find a man of similar ethnicity who is an open advocate of peace, then you immediately suspect his involvement? So, when the IRA (who claim they are Catholic) used to blow things up, I guess you suspected Mother Theresa was behind them?
.
Rene said: And that not counting the constant news of Muslim terrorists killing someone in other (multiple) countries.
.
“Constant” news? Discounting Afghanistan and Iraq, which is, after all, very close to home territory for these guys, we hear about (successful) Muslim terrorist attacks once every couple of years. The IRA were way more frequent, and by those standards, comparing the two groups, only the Twin Towers stands out. Everything else they’ve done the IRA did as well, and often with more casualties.
.
Rene said:But can’t you guys accept that many “normal” people who are not intolerant of any other groups could understandably be suspicious of Muslims?
.
Not Muslims as a whole group, no.
.
Rene said: I do think there is no comparision to the Catholics in the IRA (who never attacked outside of one country).
.
You are so far wrong about that one it isn’t funny. The IRA struck in Northern Ireland, mainland Britain, Germany and the Netherlands. The only reason they never tried anything in the USA was because they knew it would hit their funding, since the US was one of their major sources of income.
.
.
Rene said: But I understand why many people think any peaceful Muslim groups out there are not doing enough, when they seem to be so ambiguous, to the point of spending half their time condemning violence and the other half berating the same things the terrorists do.
.
How do you know they aren’t doing all they can? And what is so bad about being prepared to speak out when the US or its allies do something that is only going to play into the terrorists’ hands? I support our troops, but when they not only tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib, but posed for photos with their victims mid-torture and abuse while smiling and doing thumbs ups for the cameras, I said to people “that’s only going to drive moderate Muslims towards supporting the extremists.” The extremists keep telling the young, impressionable, disaffected teen Muslims that all non-Muslims hate them and are evil; every time we mistreat Muslims simply because they are Muslims, we prove the extremists right and help them recruit.
.
Rene said: And the left keeps saying that there ARE commited, peaceful Islamic groups out there, it’s just that such voices are not heard in the media.
.
I consider myself fairly to the right, but I agree with those who are saying there are committed, peaceful Islamic groups out there. http://www.fatwaonterrorism.com/
Rene said: Isn’t that paranoid thinking too? The Conservatives control that much of the media? Or is it also likely that there aren’t that many such voices with conviction and commitment and charisma to make themselves heard?
.
Though who influences the media is part of it, a lot of it is down to the simple rule of news – bad news sells better than good. Muslim speaks out saying “kill all infidels” will make the news; Muslim speaks out saying “we should love everyone, whether they are Muslim or not” is boring and so not newsworthy.
I really, really doubt someone who paints oneself as hyper-Christian can turn “women’s issues” into a Republican strength, not matter that Palin’s pumbling happens to be female.
Bill,
I understand what you’re saying.But when some people’s response on virtually any topic – but let’s use any topic regarding Muslims and/or their involvement in terrorism – seems to always be a knee-jerk “Well, what about the Christians”or to bring up the handful of abortion doctors that have been shot by INDIVIDUALS as somehow having the moral equivalence of groups that have dedicated themselves to killing thousands in the name of their religion,then it gets more than a little tiresome,irritating and frustrating.
.
I went to college with someone whose grandfather was killed by the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and was there because he sent his descendants to America to live a better life.One of my favorite people in this world is Zoreh, a young woman of Arabic descent who is a lawyer in Philadelphia and who I would defend with my dying breath.
.
However,both of these women KNOW the nature of the threat we are facing. They also don’t mind security measures,even if it disproportionately might affect people that look like them because -just like a majority of blacks in high-crime neighborhoods don’t mind if a “disproportionate” number of thugs who look like them are arrested or dealt with by the police because they have to live with them and fear them and they want to feel safe walking the street at night rather than being another victim of black-on-black crime -they don’t want to die in a terrorist attack either – and they have a better insight into Islam than many on this board. As far as I know no one here has mentioned a grandfather who was killed by the Ayatollah or a family that came here to ESCAPE the radical perversion of Islam and knows it’s true nature better than most.
Jerry Chandler,
Nice analysis.I respect it even if I disagree with it,especially the Reagan/Mondale comparison. Time will tell.
Indeed. I can, at least, vouch for the fact that Reagan was anticipated with gleeful rubbing of hands back when I was in college. Saw a speech by Ralph Nader and he had the crowd rolling with talk about how easy it was going to be to beat Reagan if the republicans were dumb enough to nominate him. Political history is strewn with the bodies of wrong predictions.
Governor Pat Brown of California did all he could to help Reagan get the GOP gubernatorial nomination for the same reason. History tell us how well that worked out for him.
.
Jerome, all I would like in 2012 is a reasonable alternative to what we have now and Palin isn’t anything close to that. When she speaks in generalities or gives the talking point speech of the week she almost sounds like someone who knows what she’s talking about. But whenever she tries to discuss details she comes off sounding like some clueless high school kid who couldn’t be bothered to pay attention in class, crammed all night before the test and still only remembers enough to get a high F.
.
She even comes off as clueless talking about things she’s supposed to know from first hand job experience. She’s still getting the facts and figures wrong whenever she talks about Alaska’s energy production and what percentage of the US’s oil and energy Alaska supplies. She got spanked over that back in the ’08 election for a time substituted vague terms such as “a substantial amount” for actual figures. She then came back from her leaving her half term as governor and started right back in with the false figures. And she uses those while touting her supposed expertise in the field of energy.
.
And so far I’ve found most of her attempts to talk about things with hard facts and figures to be about as pathetic as that.
.
Plus, as I mentioned above, she pouts and gets whiny about things that she sees as not having gone her way. She still can’t get over the relatively softball interviews she had in ’08 and she turns absolutely catty in interviews where Couric is brought up. If she hasn’t mastered not acting like a petulant beauty queen by this point in her political career I don’t see her doing it in the next 18 months. It won’t play well on the campaign trail.
.
Her political clout is questionable as well. Several here have pointed out that she has endorsed several candidates who then won their primary elections. It’s a nice idea, but it’s only a supporting argument for her power and coattails in a vacuum. Palin has also endorsed several candidates who got soundly trounced. Ward, Tiahtt, Heil, McConnell, Handel and Bledsoe (a name Palin misspelled every time she wrote it in her endorsement on her Facebook page) all lost their primary bids even with live event visits by Palin in the case of some of them. And Angle, seemingly desperate to show the world what a novice political student she is as well as a mild nutcase, is hemorrhaging support amongst the voters.
.
Palin has a nice level of pop culture style popularity. There’s no question about that. She is also popular with a good chunk of the male conservative base out there. The reasons are obvious and alluded to by this guy here.
.
Projecting through the Screen By Rich Lowry: “A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It’s one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O’Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.”
.
Lots of them out there to be sure. However most of them, come time to vote, will allow enough time for the blood to start flowing to their brains again. Not all of them, but most of them.
.
And people can make whatever excuses for her quitting halfway through her term that they want, but the fact is that she quit and that will hurt her with most serious conservative voters.
.
And she winks way dámņëd too much.
.
I am not happy with Obama. I am not happy by any means right now. However, as I said above, I really have no desire to replace an empty suit with an empty head and I’m sure that the general population, based on most of the polling I’ve seen done on Palin and a possible run as POTUS, agree with me.
I want Palin to stick around for years… But ONLY because she provides such wonderful fodder for the Daily Show and Colbert Report.
Really, every time she opens her mouth, a comedian gets their bit for the night.
Looks like PAD’s position is the same one the hosts of Fox & Friends have. Didn’t think I’d be typing THOSE words.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5F-3OTxdKk&feature=player_embedded
That’s twenty seconds. I’d be interested to know what they went on to say.
.
PAD
Yeah, I almost get the sense that there was a big “BUT………..” coming up after that. I don’t know that there was, mind you, and I could easily be wrong, but I’m curious as to what was said after that.
According to the “Washington Post,” it looks like Harry Reid thinks the mosque should be built elsewhere. The “Post” wrote: “In a statement issued by his spokesman, Jim Manley, Reid came out against the building of the Islamic center. ‘The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,’ Manley wrote in an e-mail. ‘Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.'” It’s pretty obvious at this point that this whole brouhaha isn’t a partisan political issue, so linking WTC mosque “intolerence” with Sarah Palin, the Republicans, the Tea Party, or some other favorite Democratic Party bogeyman is a hollow, doomed-to-fail strategy.
It may be broken clock syndrome, but Glenn Beck has come out as pretty supportive of their right to build the mosque, for the same reasons you and President Obama has mentioned.
.
Contrary to popular belief, the right can be just as fractured as the left. They just SEEM more organized at times.
The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,’ Manley wrote in an e-mail. ‘Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.’”
.
And hey, sure, black children should receive a good education, and black people are certainly entitled to quality medical care. Just not in our schools and hospitals.
.
As noted, the building of Muslim centers of worship is being fought shore-to-shore. Leaders should gøddámņ lead, and if Reid is embracing a mindset similar to what was used to try and block equal rights sixty years ago, then he doesn’t respect a dámņëd thing.
.
It’s pretty obvious at this point that this whole brouhaha isn’t a partisan political issue, so linking WTC mosque “intolerence” with Sarah Palin, the Republicans, the Tea Party, or some other favorite Democratic Party bogeyman is a hollow, doomed-to-fail strategy.
.
Considering that various liberals on this thread are pointing out major Fox talking heads are supporting the center’s construction, and that no one is denying that Democrats can be just as candy-assed as anyone else when it comes to supporting the First Amendment, I’m not sure anyone here is advocating that this is an us vs. them topic.
.
However, I think it reasonable to say that since the Democrat’s standard bearer has come out in favor of the mosque builders’ First Amendment rights (although apparently he’s now trying to walk it back slightly, probably to leave Dem candidates some wiggle room, which I find annoying) while the most prominent GOP talking head is against it…and considering polls show 70% of Americans who want freedom for themselves but not others are also opposed to it…if you don’t think the GOP is going to try and milk this in order to lock up November, you are quite simply kidding yourself. This is an even better wedge issue than gay marriage.
.
PAD
Here’s the full fox and friends segment for those that want to see – http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-hosts-on-obamas-support-of-nyc-mosque-he-has-to-stand-up-for-religious-freedom/
.
They stay pretty consistent.
.
I think they make a good point. Most Americans agree that they have the RIGHT to legally build they mosque/communitycenter/whater but a similar majority believe they shouldn’t. It’s an interesting poll result.
The problem I have with all of this is the “Ra Ra Ra we are PATRIOTS and we are a “Christian” country” that the GOP are courting trying to get to vote. They are so desperate to regain power that are pulling out all stops in the final eight weeks of the compaign. I live in Tennessee and there is a college town of Murfreesboro (population 100,000) and there is a similiar protest going on there about moderate Muslims building a community center and they are getting resistance from everyone it seems. I saw the protest covered on my local news stations and I was embarressed WHAT kind of people showed up. Most of them where white and “christian” and waiving american flags. UGH. HOWEVER the following week in Nashville a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders led a silent march around the state captial. Was is covered as much as the protest in Murfreesboro? HÊLL NO! My conclusion is this: as long as we live in a 24 hour news world and as long as there is Fox “News”, you can bet the farm that the “Sara Palins” and “Rush Limabaughs” of the world are not going away. I am depressed and I think I am going to re-read a couple of my New Frontier novels. 🙂
The thing I don’t understand is how St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was present before 9/11, can be denied rebuilding rights, while we accept the new Mosque. It’s the double standard I oppose. I don’t see people here wetting their pants because the Greek Orthodox are actually denied their first amendment/property rights like they do because someone questions the wisdom of building a Mosque so close to Ground Zero.
.
I guess since the Greek Orthodox didn’t murder three thousand people in the name of their Deity, it doesn’t show tolerance to allow them their rights.
Because it hasn’t been denied? At least, not according to this
.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8RFYzm0NwEIC&pg=PA16&dq=%22St.+Nicholas+Greek+Orthodox+Church%22+%22new+york%22&hl=en&ei=wfxZTIbpAYP-8Abd0omcCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22St.%20Nicholas%20Greek%20Orthodox%20Church%22%20%22new%20york%22&f=false
.
Mind you, that appears to be a somewhat old note, so things may have changed. But from what I can see, the difference is, where they want to rebuild is part of the area demolished by the collapse of the towers. So either they have to relocate away from their original position, or they have to wait until rebuilding commences on their original spot.
$20 million dollars is “deny(ing) rebuilding rights”?
.
I know that figure comes from Wikipedia, and so is suspect. So, I went to the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church’s website. I don’t see anything reported there to say that rebuilding is prohibited.
.
Just that they need money from the government in order to rebuild.
.
As I said above, I think that the reason that there is no rebuilding at Ground Zero is because it is politically convienent to keep the site empty, and the emotional wound festering.
.
I don’t think it has anything to do with whether or not Greeks murdered people in the name of their Diety. (At least, not in the last few decades, anyway.)
.
Theno
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/mayor-bloomberg-says-deal-to-r.html
.
This church is trying to get land owned by the Port Authority, where as the Muslim group bought land from a private landowner.
.
Now, what was that about a double standard that doesn’t actually exist?
.
And why aren’t people more upset about the fact that it’s been 9 years and we can’t even get a decent memorial built?
.
Maybe if some of the people who’ve expended this much energy bìŧçhìņg/whining/moaning about this Muslim cultural center directed it toward getting the ball rolling at Ground Zero, something might’ve been accomplished long ago.
That is an interesting point – this center can reportedly be ready to go in about a year, while nothing can be built on the site itself in a nine-year period. (Personally, I still hold we should have immediately rebuilt the towers, only each one should have been five stories taller; while emotional reactions might have caused some businesses to hold back at first, you can’t convince me that much prime office space in Manhattan would have remained empty for long just because 3000 people died there. Heck, I don’t believe it would keep office spaces there empty if you discovered your building was being erected on an old Indian burial ground!)
This from the AOL news feed:
WASHINGTON (Aug. 17) — The political battle over plans to build an Islamic center two blocks from ground zero is reaching biblical proportions as Republicans pummel
President Barack Obama and Democrats for being insensitive to victims of 9/11. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Monday compared the center — which many prominent Jewish officials support — to Nazis trying to protest outside a Holocaust museum. Republican campaign staffers send out e-mails placing Obama on the same page as the leader of Hamas. And GOP candidates in places far away from lower Manhattan quickly launched TV ads declaring, “Mr. President, ground zero is the wrong place for a mosque.”
.
Hard to believe why anyone could possibly think that this is going to be milked for political gain and made into a divisive issue between GOP and Dems.
.
PAD
Ol’ Newt grasping for Godwin’s Law. Talk about desperation.
.
Of course, none of this should surprise anybody. A couple of days ago, a member of the GOP threatened to use this as a political issue this fall. Unfortunately, people in general are more than dumb enough to fall for it.
.
There’s a Time.com article this morning that sums this up nicely:
“However the dispute is ultimately resolved, its impact on the “threat” posed by radical Islam will be negligible. That’s because the threat is receding on its own. Allowing a place of worship to be built in lower Manhattan will constitute neither an American triumph nor a defeat. It will simply tell the world that this nation, wisely, has decided to move on.”
.
As others have pointed out, we will not be allowed move on, not when the politics of fear work so terribly well.
Yeah. After 8 years of Democrats being supportive, cooperative, and nonpolitical with the Bush Administration, it’s hard to believe that Republicans would even think about taking political advantage of a situation.
/sarcasm
So now, instead of the contention being that Democrats are being ridiculous over the notion that the GOP will turn this into a partisan, divisive issue, the stance is that–when the GOP does exactly that–the Democrats have it coming because you think they weren’t cooperative enough with Bush. Talk about shifting the goal posts.
.
By the way, that would be the same Bush who gave an impassioned speech shortly after 9/11 emphasizing that our problems were not with the Muslim religion, which he cited as being peace loving, but instead with extremists who had perverted the religion to suit their own ends. And that peace loving Muslims should be allowed to go about their business unharmed and unmolested.
.
If Obama said that now, in those words, he’d be crucified by the same talking heads who didn’t take issue with Bush.
.
PAD
There is a difference. Obama consistently refuses to denounce real terrorists like Hamas as terrorsts, or tries to lay the blame for their actions where it doesn’t belong. When someone tried to blow up Times Square, we were cautioned that it was more likely a Tea Party adherent than a believer in “religion of peace.” In his first public appearance after the Ft. Hood shooting, we saw him giving “a shout out to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow.” He makes gaffes like bowing before the King of Saudi Arabia, while being rude to our steadfast allies like the UK.
.
Lay this in the context of attending a church where the pastor routinely calls out, “it’s not God bless America, it’s God dámņ America.” Look at his friendship with Bill Ayers who has expressed no regrets over attempting to blow up the Pentagon.
Obama has an image problem on this issue and it’s one he and his administration have done a good bit to deserve.
.
BTW, I heard a rumor that Obama is reaching out to W to get him to voice support for the Mosque.
I don’t know if Obama is reaching out to Bush–that would take some major chutzpa–but a number of pundits are–Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson, Peter Beinart. Given that pretty much the same folks were until recently claiming that Obama was improving relationships with Arabs that had been so badly damaged during the bad old Bush regime, it might be better for the former president to decline to weigh in. Besides, who’s to say he wouldn’t agree with Harry Reid and the apparent majority of those polled? Hëll, at this point I’m not entirely sure if Obama’s position is any different from Reids.
.
Man, if the republican party were not mostly led by incompetents and mediocrities November would be a freaking bloodbath. (I don’t expect them to take either the House or Senate though it would be almost impossible for them not to gain seats in both).
There is a difference.
.
Meanwhile, The Other Side constantly lumps all Muslims together as terrorists – as they are doing in the building of this community center, as they did by insinuating that Obama is a closet Muslim, etc – even when the terrorists are denounced by other Muslims.
.
I’m curious to know though why a group such as Hamas – obviously terrorists – need such condemnation. Is it simply the desire to have Obama act like Bush, where our nation’s leader goes and points fingers at anybody he wants (ie, the Axis of Evil)?
.
Are some of you so hard-wired now to live in fear of the Muslim terrorist boogieman that the first reaction is to blame any and all Muslims, and maybe find out the real facts later? Or do you prefer to just ignore facts in favor of your own little bubble of reality?
.
And please, stop with the crap about what you think Islam means. To you, it means terrorist, we get it.
.
Malcolm Robertson: “There is a difference. Obama consistently refuses to denounce real terrorists like Hamas as terrorsts…”
.
Malcom, that’s a lie. You know it’s a lie and it’s a well documented lie. It’s also not the first time you, Jay Tea and others have thrown that lie around on this blog. And every time you all have, going all the way back to the 2008 election run up when the Right’s talking point was that Obama would be the end Israel, you’ve been shown that it is a lie with documented quotes and links. Quotes and links like this one for instance.
.
“That’s why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas,” Obama said. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.”
.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1636948020080416
.
For an encore, why don’t you yet again drag out the debunked lies that Obama took four to six days to say something about the attempted Christmas bomber and that he refused to use the words “terrorist” or “terrorism” when talking about that event (despite that it took him less than that long to respond and the first few sentences in his remarks used exactly that language.)
.
.
You know, after reading Malcolm’s post I was wondering how Hamas was suddenly coming up so much when the critics of this thing get going. In an interesting coincidence of timing I think I just found out.
.
I was channeling surfing on my XM and one of the left of center talkers was talking about the new cutesy nickname for the thing. He then played a series of quick bits by radio talks from Rush to guys local o their market only and a few Fox News talkers. What’s the new smear name the Right is using for the thing?
.
The Hamasque.
.
If you wanted proof that the mindset of many of the critics, or at least the mindset they’re trying to create in the debate, is Muslims = Terrorist… That would be it.
Somewhat off topic, but the Hamas comment reminded me of this, and it always makes me chuckle.
A few years ago Vanilla Ice appeared on a British reality TV show. At one point he mentioned to the other contestants how hungry he was. Since they were in the kitchen, they understandably suggested he make himself something to eat, and one of the others opened the fridge and began mentioning what was in there, but Vanilla was reluctant to take eggs, milk or meat because he was convinced from US news reports that all British food was diseased (not sure how he thought British people survive, since he seemed sincerely convinced that eating anything might kill him on the spot). Ultimately he decided to have some bread, as a safe option. One of the other suggested dry bread was pretty bland, and offered him some Humus. Vanilla Ice, without no hint that he was joking, responded “No thanks. I used to like Humus till that terrorist group named themselves after it.”
I do think it’s too facile to condemn everyone suspicious of Muslims of being a bigot. Just imagine if the Black Panther Party in the 1960s had destroyed two landmark buildings and killed 3000 people at once. And Martin Luther King were nowhere to be found.
.
And that not counting the constant news of Muslim terrorists killing someone in other (multiple) countries. And the Iranians sentencing people to stoning due to adultery.
.
I have no doubt that some anti-Muslim people are just good old xenophobes that distrust everyone not like themselves, and shame on the politicians and media figures that exploit fear out of opportunism and ambition. But can’t you guys accept that many “normal” people who are not intolerant of any other groups could understandably be suspicious of Muslims?
.
I do think there is no comparision to the Catholics in the IRA (who never attacked outside of one country).
.
I do realize intellectually that I may be very unfair to any peaceful Muslims out there. It’s just that if several radical groups that claims to represent me were committing so many horrible acts around the world, and I were a peaceful person with a conscience, I would understand how others would be suspicious of me and expect me and other peaceful folks of my group to devote considerable energy to do anything in my power to dissociate myself from such groups and even fight them.
.
And maybe I wouldn’t be brave enough to do it. That is okay, I can understand that it’s a very difficult position to be in. But I understand why many people think any peaceful Muslim groups out there are not doing enough, when they seem to be so ambiguous, to the point of spending half their time condemning violence and the other half berating the same things the terrorists do.
.
And the left keeps saying that there ARE commited, peaceful Islamic groups out there, it’s just that such voices are not heard in the media. Isn’t that paranoid thinking too? The Conservatives control that much of the media? Or is it also likely that there aren’t that many such voices with conviction and commitment and charisma to make themselves heard?
“Malcom, that’s a lie. You know it’s a lie and it’s a well documented lie. It’s also not the first time you, Jay Tea and others have thrown that lie around on this blog. And every time you all have, going all the way back to the 2008 election run up when the Right’s talking point was that Obama would be the end Israel, you’ve been shown that it is a lie with documented quotes and links. Quotes and links like this one for instance.”
I see what you did there… Throw out Candidate Obama as a defense of President Obama. How bout some well documented links of President Obama condemning Hamas and protecting Isreal. Cause I’m having problems finding any.
.
Jerry Wall says: “I see what you did there… Throw out Candidate Obama as a defense of President Obama. How bout some well documented links of President Obama condemning Hamas and protecting Isreal. Cause I’m having problems finding any.”
.
Malcolm Robertson says: There is a difference. Obama consistently refuses to denounce real terrorists like Hamas as terrorsts, or tries to lay the blame for their actions where it doesn’t belong.
.
..
.
Well, Malcolm simply said Obama. It’s also a charge as old as the election so I used a quote that old to show how long the lie that “Obama consistently refuses to denounce real terrorists like Hamas as terrorsts” has been debunked.
.
Has President Obama made such a speech lately? No. But President Obama hasn’t been asked to clarify his opinion on Hamas since the election and Hamas has not been a major news story for a while now.
.
However, we can see where he feels Hamas belongs through some other news stories. Try this one.
.
Carter Wants Obama to Remove Hamas from Terror List
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131909
.
Carter was very vocal and public about his wish to have Obama pull Hamas from the US’s terror list. You can also find Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. links to this story from the middle of last year.
.
What was Obama’s answer to Carter’s request? Well, I don’t know what he actually said to Carter or his reps, but the simple fact of the matter is that neither Obama nor his administration have made one single move to re-list Hamas as something other than a terrorist organization.
.
Then there’s this from the White House website.
.
“Briefing on the Upcoming Visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Dan Shapiro, Senior Director for The Middle East and North Africa”
.
Dan Shapiro: “And all of that must be done, and we place a high priority on doing that in a way that’s fully consistent with Israel’s security needs and preventing weapons from getting in the hands of Hamas, which, of course, has launched many terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens, as well as maintaining our focus on securing the release of Gilad Shalit from captivity. So I think I’ll stop there and let Tommy handle questions.”
.
It outlining for public record the issues they would be dealing with, Obama’s own people made it clear that the discussions would include Hamas’s terrorist attacks on Israel. Funny, but Obama neither fired the guy or apologized for the description of Hamas’s actions as terrorist attacks.
.
He’s also described their actions in a way that puts the lie to Malcolm’s statement that he tries to lay blame for their actions where it doesn’t belong. Again, from the White House’s own website.
.
“INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT
BY MICHELE NORRIS AND STEVE INSKEEP
OF NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO” June 2, 2009
.
“With respect to Hamas, I do think that if they recognize the Quartet principles that have been laid out — and these are fairly modest conditions here — that you recognize the state of Israel without prejudging what various grievances or claims are appropriate, that you abide by previous agreements, that you renounce violence as a means of achieving your goals — then I think discussions with Hamas could potentially proceed.
.
And so the problem has been that there’s been a preference oftentimes on the part of these organizations to use violence and not take responsibility for governance as a means of winning propaganda wars or advancing their organizational aims. At some point, though, they may make a transition — there are examples of — in the past, of organizations that have successfully transitioned from violent organizations to ones that recognize that they can achieve their aims more effectively through political means, and I hope that occurs.”
.
You can also find speeches by Hillary Clinton out there, you know, Obama’s Sec of State, hitting Hamas for supporting terrorism and oddly no rebukes of her comments by Obama.
.
So, no, you don’t have lots of links for POTUS Obama saying it since he hasn’t been grilled about it like he was in the ’08 election run up. However there is the simple fact that the White House has framed discussions about Hamas as discussion about their actions as terrorist and the fact that Obama has not, despite loud requests from a former US President and groups sympathetic to Hamas, lifted so much as one finger to remove Hamas from our lists of recognized terrorists.
.
I know that many only feel good when we have a president yelling “DEATH! FEAR! TERRORISM! WMD’s! EVIL! TERRORISTS!” every other speech, but that got real old real fast with the last guy holding that office.
Apologies – posted a response to Rene, but it’s ended up in the wrong bit of the thread.
@Stuart V –
I’ve read it.
.
You make good points, but I am still very torn about it.
.
I see comments from some right-wingers in the Internet that are absolutely vile, calling the proposed Mosque as a place for pigs, other comments that are paranoid or just clueless, about the future destruction of American society by Muslims.
.
I don’t like to think I have anything to do with these guys.
.
On the other hand, I really think Muslims need more representatives with a clear message of peace and integration. The dude that is trying to build this mosque, when asked to condemn Hamas, said: “I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.”
.
And this is from a moderate, a guy that supposedly is completely integrated to Western society and writes books to bridge the gap between Muslim and non-Muslim. And he can’t bring himself to be seen as an enemy by a terrorist organization.
.
With moderates like these, is it any surprise that people are not reassured?
“I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.”
That sounds like an entirely reasonable thing to say. I’d expect the same kind of words from anyone who truly considers themselves a man (or woman) of the cloth – if you are wanting to spread the word of peace as taught by God/Allah/Jehovah/Buddha/the Great Prophet Zarquon, then declaring people your enemy is counterproductive. In all ethnicities, young men are the most vulnerable to being recruited to dangerous causes. They tend to feel disaffected anyway, unsure of their place in the world. They are usually the most easily molded to become radicals, especially by charismatic types who sell them the idea that the world hates them and it is some other group (usually ethnic) at fault, and that if they take up the cause they will have friends and somewhere they belong. You see it in neo-Nazi organizations, you see it Muslim terror groups. Heck, you see a form of it in most street gangs. If you want to get a vulnerable Muslim who already has started to go down the path of believing all non-Muslims hate him, so he should hate them back, and get through to him that this isn’t the case, then being seen to openly condemn groups whose grievances he empathizes with isn’t going work.
That’s how most extremists groups work. Some of their stated grievances usually have a level of merit; many more don’t. But those grievances with merit are the initial hook; “you see how they won’t even allow us to build a Mosque, despite claiming they believe in religious tolerance? They say they hate only the extremists, yet the target all Muslims…”
What you say makes sense, Stuart.
.
It must be hard to be in the position of this guy.
Jerry,
.
After reading your posts and links, I will concede that you are correct that Obama has in fact denounced terrorism. I don’t recall making the statement that Obama refused to denounce terrorism before, but the lie was not intentional. The reason Hamas has entered into the dialogue is because the Iman associated with is the one who consistently refuses to denounce Hamas (at least the last I knew, which was Tuesday.)
.
That said, Obama’s image of being soft on terrorism is still his fault. The fact the Annenbergs snuggle with the Ayers, doesn’t make Obama’s snuggling any less repellent.
.
Jeremiah Wright still denounces this country and it took his 60 minutes appearance to force Obama to denounce his rhetoric. Wright had still called on God to dámņ this country and Obama said nothing. It was only after Wright expounded on his views on national television that Obama decided it was too much.
.
I didn’t repeat the six day for a reply to the Christmas bombing attempt, though I did recall RINO mayor (and Obama supporter) Bloomberg’s comment on it probably being a Tea Partier.
.
Please note, I have never said he supports terrorism. I have said he appears soft on the issue. He has the bully pulpit, and my point is that he has failed to use it to any effect on this issue. When he does denounce terror he appears bloodless and passionless on the issue. He doesn’t have to scream “terrorism” to appear like he cares, he just needs to show he has a pulse.
Look at his friendship with Bill Ayers who has expressed no regrets over attempting to blow up the Pentagon.
That’s just an ignorant statement. The Annenbergs, supporters of Republicans, are far closer to Ayers than Obama.
You should do better than that. This is easily researchable information.
While it is gratifying that some small percentage of the intolerant religious right acknowledges the constitutionality and legality of Muslims deciding to build a community center in a properly zoned location, it would be nice if it took the last small step:
It is legal for Muslims to build a community center. It is not legal to deny Muslims the rights held inherently by all Americans. The First Amendment is much more than a suggestion: It is federal law.
How long before someone blames the whole imbroglio on the Jews?
Not long.
.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/top-muslims-condemn-ground-zero-mosque-as-a-%E2%80%98zionist-conspiracy%E2%80%99/
.
A number of Al Azhar ulema expressed their opposition to building a mosque near [where] the events of September 11 [occurred], convinced that it is “a conspiracy to confirm a clear connection between the strikes of September [11] and Islam.” Dr. ‘Abd al-Mu‘ti Bayumi, a member of the Islamic Research Academy [of Al Azhar] told Al Masry Al Youm that he rejects the building of any mosque in this area [Ground Zero], because the “devious mentality” desires to connect these events [of 9/11] with Islam, though he maintains that Islam is innocent of this accusation. Instead, it is a “Zionist conspiracy,” which many are making use of to harm the religion.
Well, this makes for an interesting twist:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100819/pl_yblog_upshot/do-islamic-center-developers-have-the-funds-to-build
.
There you go, George, Jay Tea, and the rest of you anti-Muslim bigots. You just may win after all, as it sounds like the $100 mil needed to build this community center doesn’t exist, and very well may never exist.
.
A win for religious zealotry, xenophobia, fear, and all the things that are wrong with the world!
Well, maybe that’s why the Imam didn’t talk about where his funding was coming from: it didn’t exist.
I object to the “anti-Muslin bigot” characterization. It implies that I hate all Muslims when my only issue was with this particular man. Go through my posts and point out racist or bigoted statements. I said the Imam was being insensitive. Saying someone is a racist is an indefensible ploy and immediately shuts down dialogue.
Saying someone is a racist is an indefensible ploy and immediately shuts down dialogue.
.
And yet, you repeatedly made false claims that the reason people oppose this community center is due to the funding, when the truth is that the majority of people really don’t seem to care how or even if this was being funded.
.
As I said, you lead with a poor argument. Take that away, and it leaves few other alternatives as to why you’re so adamantly opposed to this.
And yet, you repeatedly made false claims that the reason people oppose this community center is due to the funding, when the truth is that the majority of people really don’t seem to care how or even if this was being funded.
.
As I said, you lead with a poor argument. Take that away, and it leaves few other alternatives as to why you’re so adamantly opposed to this.
You cannot say with any degree of certainty what the “majority of people” felt. It is just you opinion. And you definitely don’t know me so kindly do not ascribe any other motivation to me other that what I reveal. Your insistence that the only reason to oppose this project is racism is more judgmental than what you accuse the opponents of.
And you definitely don’t know me so kindly do not ascribe any other motivation to me other that what I reveal.
.
Then it shouldn’t take much for you to provide a source where you’ve opposed other such projects in the past, regardless of the group behind the project, correct? We can start with some of those mega-churches that have been built in recent years.
.
You don’t care about anything the imam says or does. You run wild with whole “Well, people don’t like it, therefore they shouldn’t build it” cliche. Such “hallowed” ground that pretty much anything else anybody has wanted to build there has been allowed.
.
Let’s go back to one of your previous comments: “If this project had gone through normal channels and if the Imam was a bit more forthcoming about his financial sources those loud voices wouldn’t resonate so well with so many people.”
.
Well, let’s see. They DID go through normal channels: they bought land, they got approval to build the center. What other hoops do you want them to jump through that others do not?
.
Are you also demanding everybody else answer to you too when you want to question their funding? Is the imam running for public office that he has to turn over financial documentation to the public? I should go try that with some of the stuff being built around here, see what kind of response I get.
.
I also see you conveniently dropped your comments regarding the Greek Orthodox Church once it was pointed out to you that that situation has NOTHING to do with the Muslim community center. I wonder why that is?
.
When PAD says the only reason funding is being questioned is the insinuation to terrorism, you outright agree with him saying “what is the alternative?”
.
So… when a Muslim wants to build something, we have no alternative but to assume that they’re funding by terrorists.
.
And yet, I’m the judgmental one? Let me hold up a mirror for you.
Sorry to be so late responding. Sometimes real life intrudes.
.
Then it shouldn’t take much for you to provide a source where you’ve opposed other such projects in the past, regardless of the group behind the project, correct? We can start with some of those mega-churches that have been built in recent years.
.
Seriously? I should have a list of other projects I’ve opposed? Why would I have such a list? I’m not the kind of guy that goes around opposing things.
.
Well, let’s see. They DID go through normal channels: they bought land, they got approval to build the center. What other hoops do you want them to jump through that others do not?
.
But they haven’t gone through normal channels. This project was pushed through quickly without input from the community. And apparently they don’t own all of the land. The New York Post has discovered one of the parcels the mosque is to be built on is owned by Con Edison, even though Soho Properties told officials and the public it owned all the land. Soho only leases the property. Con Edison mysteriously kept quiet all this time.
.
This Imam portrays himself as a peace-loving moderate Muslim and he may well be. But his actions do not reflect that. He will not disavow Hamas and on his interview on 60 Minutes, which has been getting replayed a lot lately, reveals that he feels the US was complicit in the attacks. This does not sound like a man who wants to build bridges. Given those facts, suspicion is not unreasonable and racist.
I’m not the kind of guy that goes around opposing things.
.
And yet, you oppose this enough to speak out on it and make a number of posts about it here. You’ve made an exception.
.
This project was pushed through quickly without input from the community.
.
Again, since when does the community have a say on everything that goes on?
.
I ask again, and for the last time: Why are you applying different standards for this Muslim community center compared to other projects?
.
reveals that he feels the US was complicit in the attacks
.
So do I.
.
9/11 was completely preventable. And it goes beyond the laziness of corporations of airlines who refused the recommendation to build reinforced doors back in like the 70’s.
.
For decades we’ve intervened in places where we have no business being. And then, we do it all over again after 9/11 by invading Iraq. It didn’t take long at all for history to repeat itself.
.
I guess that just makes me another terrorist. Oh well.
’m not the kind of guy that goes around opposing things.
.
And yet, you oppose this enough to speak out on it and make a number of posts about it here. You’ve made an exception.
.
Yes, that’s exactly right.
.
reveals that he feels the US was complicit in the attacks
.
So do I.
.
9/11 was completely preventable. And it goes beyond the laziness of corporations of airlines who refused the recommendation to build reinforced doors back in like the 70’s.
.
For decades we’ve intervened in places where we have no business being. And then, we do it all over again after 9/11 by invading Iraq. It didn’t take long at all for history to repeat itself.
.
Many times we have intervened to save innocent Muslims who were victims of tyrants like Slobodan Milošević or Saddam Hussein costing us thousands of lives and millions of dollars. It’s hard to believe we are resented in the Muslim world for that. But mostly what gets us the enmity of Muslims is our unyielding support of Israel. If that is a place you believe we have intervened where we have no business, you won’t find a lot of support in any political party.
.
I guess that just makes me another terrorist. Oh well.
.
You are a not terrorist anymore than I am a racist. And I would hope you believe the same.
.
PAD said: And no one has curtailed Sarah Palin’s First Amendment rights. Considering the amount of stupidity that pours out of that woman’s mouth, she could do with some self-curtailing, but no one is actively lobbying to shut her up.
.
I have to wonder if this thread would have been as volatile as it is if Sarah Palin hadn’t spoken up about the mosque’s location. She has been a lightning rod for criticism since her emergence on the national scene. And it was criticism that was unfounded, at least at that time. Someone named ArcXIX lied about the maternity of her baby. It was said her son joined the military to avoid a jail sentence. She was quoted by Charles Gibson on 20/20 that
she said God was on our side in the Iraq war, when what she actually said was evocative of Lincoln; that she hoped we were on God’s side. She should have called him on that little bit of political sabotage but I guess she was too invested in the notion of the impartial press.
.
If Harry Reid and Howard Dean had spoken up first would the title of this thread have had the confrontational heading of: “I got your answer right here, Harry and Howard.”?
If Harry Reid and Howard Dean had spoken up first would the title of this thread have had the confrontational heading of: “I got your answer right here, Harry and Howard.”?
.
Yes.
.
PAD
Many times we have intervened to save innocent Muslims who were victims of tyrants like Slobodan Milošević or Saddam Hussein
.
Yes, because the first thing that springs to mind with those two names is “Let’s save the Muslims!”
.
(It isn’t.)
.
If that is a place you believe we have intervened where we have no business, you won’t find a lot of support in any political party.
.
Israel is not one of those places. And I have always supported the war in Afghanistan, as well. But nice try anyway.
My answer to Sarah Palin, and those who think (to stretch the definition of the word) as she does:
If you have to lie to make your point, you don’t have one.
It’s not at “Ground Zero.” It’s not a Mosque.
If it were both of those things, it would be not merely acceptable, but deeply moving, a peaceful religion worshipping at the site of a mass murder committed by madman acting in its name.
But it’s not at “Ground Zero” and it’s not a Mosque.
If you have to lie to make your point, you don’t have one.
Shut. Up.
Jonathan,
.
It’s 2 blocks from Ground Zero.
.
It’s a community center containing a Mosque.
.
If you have to lie about or cover up the facts to make your point, you don’t have one.
.
Also, please see this link for why you are so wrong about the significance of this Mosque. It’s a press release put out by a Muslim organization:
.
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=6131
.
Please read and learn. Thank you.
.
Remember in November.
Thank you for supplying that, since it provides a handy example of what I referred to on the other thread: A First Amendment But-Head. Someone who claims that he understands and supports the First Amendment, and then adds “but” and proceeds to demonstrates that he in fact understands and supports nothing of the kind. Case in point:
“As an American Muslim whose family fled persecution in Syria and as someone who has stood in the face of some resistance to the building of many of our houses of worship in the U.S., I fully understand the value of standing for religious freedom in America. But…
.
And right off the rails does he go. The First Amendment But-Head, as always, supports free expression right up to the point where he finds it personally unsettling, and then provides darned good excuses as to why someone else is being abusive of those rights and should be curtailed.
.
He excoriates Barack Obama for speaking out on the subject. But Barack Obama took an oath to be the foremost defender of the Constitution of the United States. If HE’S not going to weigh in on behalf of the document he swore to defend, who will?
.
PAD
Since this doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with the First Amendment, nothing you are saying makes sense. No one that I know of is advocating for the government or anyone else prevent this building from being built. No one.
.
If anyone is going “off the rails” here, it’s those who are trying to invent some type of religious oppression where none exists. The people who are protesting this structure aren’t asking for government intervention. They’re asking for sensitivity and protesting the fact that those who are intent on building it may not be doing it with the purest of motives. (As the Muslim individuals in the two articles I cited pointed out.) When someone goes to court to try to obtain an injunction against the rightful owners of the property to stop them from building there, I will GLADLY join you in denouncing that move as a violation of their rights. It would be outrageous for the government at any level to try to prevent this building from being built.
.
A protest by Americans offended by the idea of a Mosque so close to Ground Zero? Not so much.
.
If a protest or a disagreement is enough to violate someone’s First Amendment rights, there are some who consider themselves champions of freedom of expression who are actually the most vile of oppressors. And Sarah Palin is someone who has had her First Amendment rights violated repeatedly. How many people protest or excoriate her because they find what she says to be “personally unsettling”? Do they secretly want the government to silence her?
Since this doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with the First Amendment, nothing you are saying makes sense. No one that I know of is advocating for the government or anyone else prevent this building from being built. No one.
.
You’re dead wrong. Polls showed that twenty five percent of those surveyed stated the Muslims “did not have the right” to build a place of worship there. So one person in four believes the first amendment does not give them the right to freedom of religion. Now maybe you don’t know any of these people personally. That’s nice. And no one I know would think of burning a cross on someone’s lawn. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
.
Furthermore, to say that you support the First Amendment but then add to that, “But not in this particular place,” is just mealy mouthed. It means that, rather than support freedom of religion wholeheartedly, you do so when convenient. When it doesn’t bother you. When it doesn’t challenge you. It’s no different than supporting the idea of free speech as long as you’re not upset by what’s being said.
.
They’re asking for “sensitivity?” Bûllšhìŧ. The people who live in the area were talked to extensively, before the plans were announced and since. They’re not concerned about the Muslims building a center. They’re concerned about protesters making their lives miserable. Their issues are with the critics, not the people who just want to build the center. And where are the cries of “sensitivity” in response to the people all over the country who are trying to block the building of Muslim houses of worship?
.
If you don’t think this is a First Amendment issue, you’re delusional. This is an issue that cuts to the core of not only the First Amendment, but this country’s foundation: Freedom of religious expression. For all the cries of dumb old liberals like me being unpatriotic, is there any more fundamental display of not caring about this country’s principles than protesting someone’s desire to worship?
.
A protest by Americans offended by the idea of a Mosque so close to Ground Zero? Not so much.
.
Then what’s the line of demarcation? Two blocks too close? What’s acceptable? Four blocks? Six? Eight? Ten blocks? Since places as far away as Wisconsin and California have fought mosques, you tell me: How far from Ground Zero is far enough to satisfy those who believe in freedom of religion for themselves, but not for others?
.
And no one has curtailed Sarah Palin’s First Amendment rights. Considering the amount of stupidity that pours out of that woman’s mouth, she could do with some self-curtailing, but no one is actively lobbying to shut her up.
.
PAD
But you see, PAD, what the First Amendment really means that liberals have the right to speak freely as long as no one can hear them, while right-wingers are protected from any criticism of their statements, and that your freedom of religion is protected so long as you choose one of the Protestant faiths (although in some big cities, it can be acceptable to be Catholic or Reform Jew – no Orthodox need apply, however).
.
At least, that’s the conclusion I am forced to reach if I am to believe that those who call themselves “conservative” aren’t just redefining the term NewSpeak style…
The “sensitivity” issue is total bunk to begin with. Why is it “insensitive” to build a mosque in the area?
.
Because the terrorists were Muslims.
.
But wait, weren’t the terrorists also wearing clothes? Well, that means that the Burlington Coat Factory that used to be at this location was also insensitive, right? Right?
.
Of course not. Having something in common with the terrorists isn’t what anyone objects to. It’s just the religion. Even the seemingly innocuous “sensitivity” argument is just another way of saying that all Muslims (all one and a half billion of them) are terrorists. You can’t *make* the sensitivity argument without saying that anyone who practices the Muslim faith is connected to the terrorist attack.
In this instance, I don’t see anyone saying Muslim’s don’t have a right to worship. The question is the appropriateness of the location certain Muslims have chosen to build a Mosque.
.
Is denying someone the right to build in a certain space a violation of the 1st amendment? Has nearly every major metropolitan zoning board in the country violated this right because they decided the property a church purchased was better suited for a shopping center? Does every zoning board that rules an adult shop shouldn’t be across the street from a grade school do the same?
.
Zoning boards routinely tell religious institutions they have to make other plans. And citizens regularly question zoning board decisions based on what they see as good for the community when churches are approved with questions like “Where will our children play if that vacant lot has church on it?” or statements like “I don’t want more traffic in my neighborhood on a Sunday morning.”
.
For the first time in the recent memory of our country, religion was the central factor in the horrific murder of more than 3,000 US citizens. I think it’s understandable that people have questions and that they’re willing to give voice to those questions. I find it instructive that the left expresses more hatred for those with the questions than they do for those who committed the murders.
.
Others have noted that if modern liberals showed the same zeal for the Second Amendment as they do the First, they’d insist everyone is required to own guns. I used to think this was hyperbole, but now I’m starting to see their point.
.
Malcolm said: In this instance, I don’t see anyone saying Muslim’s don’t have a right to worship. The question is the appropriateness of the location certain Muslims have chosen to build a Mosque.
.
As others have pointed out, there are plenty of people who seem to believe it’s not appropriate to build a Mosque in any location, which certainly gives the impression that they feel Muslims don’t have a right to worship.
.
Malcolm said: Is denying someone the right to build in a certain space a violation of the 1st amendment?
.
Only if the reason building is denied is because of the place of worship belongs to a specific religion. Which certainly appears to be the case here. If this was a Christian church or synagogue, these objections wouldn’t be getting raised.
.
Malcolm said: And citizens regularly question zoning board decisions based on what they see as good for the community when churches are approved with questions like “Where will our children play if that vacant lot has church on it?” or statements like “I don’t want more traffic in my neighborhood on a Sunday morning.”
.
Neither of which is the case here. Here it is “it would be insensitive for Muslims to build so close to Ground Zero.” As soon as the reason for questioning the zoning board decision is down to religion, then it is a First Amendment issue.
.
Malcolm said: For the first time in the recent memory of our country, religion was the central factor in the horrific murder of more than 3,000 US citizens.
.
No. Religion was an excuse used by the killers. Hate was the real reason. Religion was used as an excuse to hate a whole group of people, and treat everyone in that group as their enemies. Which is why it is so sad to see hate motivating those who argue against this building, with religion once again being the excuse to hate a whole group of people and treat everyone in that group as an enemy.
.
Malcolm said: I think it’s understandable that people have questions and that they’re willing to give voice to those questions. I find it instructive that the left expresses more hatred for those with the questions than they do for those who committed the murders.
.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, I’m on the right, not the left (and, for the record, it annoys me that many assume right = bigot, and hence it annoys me even more when someone perpetuates that stereotype). And your point about “more hatred for those with the questions than they do for those who committed the murders” is ludicrous. I don’t think anyone here has anything but disdain for the hijackers. But it isn’t the people who hijacked the planes who are trying to build.
.
Malcolm said: Others have noted that if modern liberals showed the same zeal for the Second Amendment as they do the First, they’d insist everyone is required to own guns. I used to think this was hyperbole, but now I’m starting to see their point.
.
It’s not hyperbole, it’s bølløçkš. I believe the Second Amendment mentions a “right” to bear arms, not a requirement (and we won’t even get into the second part, which is often conveniently forgotten). So it’s an entirely spurious argument.
“You’re dead wrong. Polls showed that twenty five percent of those surveyed stated the Muslims “did not have the right” to build a place of worship there. So one person in four believes the first amendment does not give them the right to freedom of religion. Now maybe you don’t know any of these people personally. That’s nice. And no one I know would think of burning a cross on someone’s lawn. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.”
.
This is total crap. Show me anyone who is trying to force the government or the courts to prevent this Mosque from being built. So, 1 in 4 Americans don’t believe that they have the right to build it? That’s sad. That’s stupid. I would consider it tragic. But censorship? Religious oppression? Violation of the First Amendment? No. It’s none of those things. You can’t believe oppression onto anyone with the power of your mind.
.
I read the other day that some 9/11 families have come out against this Mosque because it is so insensitive. Nice to know that their feelings are just “bûllšhìŧ.”
.
I have said it before and I’ll say it here now – I think one of the greatest threats to our freedoms are self-styled champions of civil rights who, frankly, don’t understand the First Amendment and don’t know what censorship is. Government forcing people to be quiet is censorship. Government banning certain books and trying to keep them from being available to the people in this country is censorship. Going to court to try to control where, when, and how people express their religion is censorship. Using violence and intimidation to silence someone is a violation of freedom. Protesting someone’s insensitivity, bad judgement, or building a community center to celebrate terrorist victory is not. That’s called freedom. And I’ll go you one better – Your complaining about the protests is not a First Amendment issue either. (Although in your mind, I don’t see how it couldn’t be. By coming against the protests, you must be in favor of shutting up the protesters. That’s the thought process, right?) You’re arguing against it isn’t an attempt to take away anyone’s right to protest. Now, if you tried to really stop anyone from speaking their mind on the subject, that would be a different story.
.
The idea that this situation, as it currently stands, has anything to do with the First Amendment is downright silly. Anyone who says that it does is either (to use your word) delusional or is deliberately trying to change the terms of the debate.
.
Anyone can debate or protest anything. It doesn’t become a violation of freedom until you try to stop it by force. This protest isn’t about shutting down Mosques or stamping out the Muslim faith. It isn’t about religious oppression. It’s about the people expressing their displeasure at the poor judgement shown in deciding to build this Mosque so close to the site of a horrible terrorist attack perpetrated by some radical members of the Muslim faith. (Or maybe it was a deliberate “in your face”, as some Muslims I quoted seem to think.) They have that right.
.
But by all means, please keep expressing yourself. Loud and clear. Shout it from the rooftops. I hope President Obama continues to come out in favor of this community center. It would be wonderful if he would make it a cornerstone of his domestic agenda for the next 2 years.
.
November is shaping up to be a perfect storm for the Democrats.
I find it instructive that the left expresses more hatred for those with the questions than they do for those who committed the murders.
.
Wow, this is such a steaming pile of bûllšhìŧ that it’s no wonder that some of us can’t take you seriously.
.
I read the other day that some 9/11 families have come out against this Mosque because it is so insensitive. Nice to know that their feelings are just “bûllšhìŧ.”
.
And some have come out in favor of it. Imagine that: people are allowed to have a difference of opinion, even if they were subjected 1st hand to a terrorist attack.
.
Note: 9/11 was a terrorist attack. Not a Muslim attack. Maybe some day some of you will be able to tell the different.
In this instance, I don’t see anyone saying Muslim’s don’t have a right to worship. The question is the appropriateness of the location certain Muslims have chosen to build a Mosque.
.
As has been repeatedly pointed out–and resolutely ignored–the right to worship is exactly what’s being challenged. Twenty-five percent of Americans actually believe that they don’t have a RIGHT to build a mosque in the suggested location. Furthermore, throughout this country, ANYPLACE where a mosque is proposed is being fought by the locals. They are being singled out and targeted. It’s really very simple: If a church or synagogue is not going to receive blow back for being built two blocks from Ground Zero, neither can a place of worship for Muslims. Not in a free society.
.
Is denying someone the right to build in a certain space a violation of the 1st amendment?
.
Purely on the basis of their religion? Yes.
.
Has nearly every major metropolitan zoning board in the country violated this right because they decided the property a church purchased was better suited for a shopping center?
.
Straw man argument. This isn’t a zoning issue; the zoning board signed off on it.
.
Zoning boards routinely tell religious institutions they have to make other plans.
.
And that didn’t happen here, so you’re continuing to go off on an irrelevant tangent.
.
For the first time in the recent memory of our country, religion was the central factor in the horrific murder of more than 3,000 US citizens.
.
That’s like saying that sex is the central factor of rape. It’s not. Rape is an act of violence. So was this. Or it’s like saying that religion was the central factor when the KKK burns crosses on a black family’s lawn. People have no trouble distinguishing basic Christian beliefs from the actions of a handful of bášŧárdš. A perversion of the Muslim religion was simply the excuse used by terrorists radicals.
.
I think it’s understandable that people have questions and that they’re willing to give voice to those questions.
.
It’s understandable since many people have no demonstrable grasp of, or belief in, freedom of religion for anyone except themselves.
.
I find it instructive that the left expresses more hatred for those with the questions than they do for those who committed the murders.
.
First of all, there are plenty of people on the left who are perfectly capable of acting in as censorious a manner as those on the right. Second, expressing a differing opinion is now “hatred?” That’s just bûllšhìŧ. At most, I feel frustration and sorrow that they have so little fealty to the concept of freedom of religion and are willing to pass up a golden opportunity to demonstrate that we are better than those who want to destroy us.
.
Others have noted that if modern liberals showed the same zeal for the Second Amendment as they do the First, they’d insist everyone is required to own guns. I used to think this was hyperbole, but now I’m starting to see their point.
.
I do have the same zeal for the Second Amendment as I do the First. I absolutely believe that anyone who wants to own a firearm because they’re part of a militia should be able to do so.
.
PAD
.
.
I am not as convinced as some that religion was just a “excuse” on 9/11. And I am a little tired of the “religion of peace” catchphrase.
.
I’m not so much on the camp that says Islam = madness, as I am on the camp that says organized religion has a huge potential for madness.
.
Religion HAS played a huge part in motivating those lunatics, or at least it influenced their ghastly choice of tactics. Would secular humanists be as prone to throw their lives away, when they suspect it may be the only one they’ve got?
.
But hey, I still support freedom of religion. It implies respect for other people’s privacy and freedom of thought. And THOSE little things are majorly important to stop any religious zealot wanting to cram their beliefs down my throat.
Jammed down your throats? What’s being jammed down your throats?
.
Do you even live in New York City? If you do, are you aware of the fact that you won’t even be able to *see* the community center from Ground Zero? Did you know that the final design for the community center looks just like any other building, so even if you could see it, you wouldn’t know it was there unless someone pointed it out to you?
.
This thing is going to have zero impact on your life. It’s existence doesn’t put anything down your sensitive throat.
.
Are you talking about the way people are defending the project? Nobody was saying much of anything until people started yelling about how horrible the community center was. If you’re talking about the objections to those objections, then that’s like yelling, “Mommy, Billy hit me back!”
.
When you express your opinion, that’s fine. When someone disagrees, that’s them ramming something down your throat. If you’re going to have such an obvious double standard, don’t expect to be taken seriously.
“But hey, I still support freedom of religion. It implies respect for other people’s privacy and freedom of thought. And THOSE little things are majorly important to stop any religious zealot wanting to cram their beliefs down my throat.”
.
I missed the part where you were going to be forced to attend the mosque (or, the mosque part of the community center.)
.
If you are in a restaurant where people are eating steak, you are not having steak cramed down your throat. Unless, of course, someone is forcing you to eat steak against your will.
.
I don’t see any religious zealots anywhere on this issue trying to cram any beliefs down anyone’s throat. To continue the steak analogy, all I see are people who are trying to open a vegan friendly cafe in a steak and potatoes city.
.
Theno
Do zoning boards prevent churches from being built? I’ve never heard of that happening. But I live in the Bible Belt; maybe it’s different elsewhere. I know I see churches in residential areas and business areas and pretty much everywhere else. I always just assumed the First Amendment gave them immunity from zoning laws. But I know that was just an assumption.
.
I’ve long been opposed to zoning laws on principle anyway, so even if it were a zoning question I would want to see it built. But that’s just me, I guess.
The Religious Land Use And Institutionalised Persons Act of 2000 explicitly forbids the use of zoning laws to prevent the building of religious facilities (except under limited circumstances in which the local government has to show that the building would interfere with important public services, or something like that). The law was passed with overwhelming Republican support, and it was purposely intended to protect unpopular religions from being blocked by land-use laws.
There’s an article referring to the law on Reason magazine’s website today. There’s also a site called rluipa.org dedicated to explaining and promoting the law.
Given the era, and the backing, I suspect it was intended to keep folks from blocking the building of Christian megachurches, which have become increasingly popular with the Charismatic types.
.
Pity for them that they had to make it all-inclusive in order to get it past public scrutiny…
Alright, as has been pointed out, about 25% of people believe that no Mosque should be built anywhere in America. Nearly 70% overall are opposed to this particular Mosque with a quarter of Americans opposing all Mosques. That means a plurality of Americans have only a beef with a Mosque near GZ with opinion nearly evenly divided on both sides between Mosques wherever and no Mosques (which I think was first uttered by Roberto Duran).
.
Now for the record, I actually think if the property is theirs, they can do with it as they please. However, I the think the Mosque is in bad taste. I do feel outrage over it. Just because it’s their right doesn’t make it right. If a guy wants to smear feces over himself and call it art, we’re told it’s his first amendment right. That’s fine, but I feel it’s my first amendment responsibility to call him a dumb-ášš for doing it. So it is with this Mosque.
.
How are you going to respond when the Mosque is picketed? In Dearborn, Michigan people were threatened by the police with arrest for handing out copies of the Gospel of John outside an Arab festival for fear that Muslims might be offended. Hypothetically, will you show the same indignation you show now if that occurs outside this Mosque? Will your blood boil like it does now over the opposition to its initial construction?
.
“Smear merchant” Andy McCarthy posted an interesting thought exercise on this over at NRO. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244406/ground-zero-thought-experiment-andy-mccarthy
.
I think I would show the same indignation.
Alright, as has been pointed out, about 25% of people believe that no Mosque should be built anywhere in America.
.
No, that hasn’t been pointed out. What has been pointed out is that 25% of those polled believe that the builders do not have the right to build a center at the proposed site. Do you see the difference? One out of four think that the First Amendment does not cover religious freedom for Muslims, at least in this particular instance.
.
What has been further pointed out is that, coast to coast, people are protesting the building of mosques everywhere. From sea to shining sea, the Muslim religion has been singled in a religion-based manner that hasn’t been seen since…
.
…well, since people in the U.S. resisted the building of synagogues because they were convinced that Jews would use them as places to meet and put together their evil Zionist plans, or perhaps sacrifice babies and drink their blood.
.
The times change. The names change. The reasons change. The bigotry remains the same. In a country predicated on religious freedom…that’s just sad.
.
As for the “thought experiment”…Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a First Amendment. They don’t believe in religious freedom, period. Is that the example we’re to aspire to? Following the lead of oppressive countries? That’s the model we’re to hold up to guide our own actions? WWSD? Would Would the Sultan Do? What do we argue next? That we should cut the hands off pickpockets or stone a woman to death if she’s sexually liberated?
.
Here’s a thought experiment: Let’s experiment with the notion that we’re better than countries with repressive governments.
.
PAD
.
“As for the “thought experiment”…Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a First Amendment. They don’t believe in religious freedom, period. Is that the example we’re to aspire to?”
.
If you’re Newt and/or some of the Fox crew and Right Wing talkers… Yeah. They’ve even said as much over this matter in their own words.
“Here’s a thought experiment: Let’s experiment with the notion that we’re better than countries with repressive governments.”
I’ll admit that I don’t know your specific views on oppressive governments, but the Left has a long history of ignoring them or vouching for them. They’ll rightly excoriate the Nazis for their many evils, but excuse the evils of Soviet or Maoist communism. They’ll preach about human rights abuses under Pinochet, and then fawn over Castro or Hugo Chavez. Che Guevara is a fashion statement, not the Butcher of La Cabana.
.
Sure, 25% of Americans have effectively said they don’t believe in the 1st amendment. It’s not that I agree with them. It’s that I think the Left’s motive is more about taking joy in ramming this down the throats of those they oppose. If the idea of the Mosque is to promote healing, it’s clearly failing. In fact it’s become counter-productive. If the Left really cared about that, they’d quietly point that out rather than try to out-scream the other side.
I agree. The Left has a shameful history of ignoring or approving repressive regimes. That is why I would only be considered a leftist in the US, where everyone who is not an ultra-conservative is considered a leftie.
.
Here in my country, where many of the real lefists are Chavez fanboys, I’m a decadent burgouis, and proud of it.
.
I think Chavez is a thug, Castro is a two-bit dictator, and the Soviet regime was monstrous and good riddance to it.
PAD: The times change. The names change. The reasons change. The bigotry remains the same. In a country predicated on religious freedom…that’s just sad.
.
Very true, and very sad. We like to believe our founders came here to establish religious freedom, but for the most part all they really wanted was freedom for their own religion. The colonists could be just as intolerant as the regimes they escaped from. Look at the story of Rhode Island — it was founded by groups that were escaping religious persecution in Massachusetts. It was shameful that so little progress was made then, and it is just as shameful that we do no better today.
I’ll admit that I don’t know your specific views on oppressive governments, but the Left has a long history of ignoring them or vouching for them.
.
How generous of you to ignore the extensive ties between Republican administration and various dictators and repressive despots, as if they’ve never been in the pockets of oil-rich dictators. For that matter, are you suggesting that conservatives, who are currently holding up repressed governments as the lead we should follow, are somehow far more clear-eyed on the topic?
.
It’s that I think the Left’s motive is more about taking joy in ramming this down the throats of those they oppose.
.
Well, thanks ever so for setting up shop in the heads of those you despise and coming up with the worst possible spin. How about that the motive of people who support the project is that we’re patriots who believe in religious freedom for all, as opposed to those who believe in religious freedom for themselves.
.
PAD
I don’t ignore the extensive ties between oil rich dictators and the right. I understand the need for oil, but I don’t condone bending over for those who have it. For example, my complaints against BP have nothing to do with the Gulf disaster and everything to do with them using their influence to free the Lockerbie bomber in order to get oil contracts. Ditto their financing of the slaughter of Christians in the Sudan. The politicians behind these things and their corporate sponsors are beneath contempt, and, if proved in court, I’d favor their outright executions. And don’t get me started on the House of Saud.
.
I’m using a generality when I talk about “the Left.” I’m not saying every progressive thinks along those lines, but I do believe the majority do. I don’t know how else to explain their new found respect for freedom of religion. I didn’t see it in the 80’s when a catholic girl was forbidden to bring her rosary on a school bus. At the same time churches were padlocked for running private schools, and they received no help from the ACLU.
.
The only time I’ve ever seen the Left care about religious freedom is when it embarrasses or offends people who hold to Judea-Christian values. Fred Phelps and the kool-aid drinkers of the Westborough Baptist Church are prime examples of this.
.
I’m not personally accusing anyone, but I am generally accusing the Left as a whole. If I question their motives, it’s because of the usual history of silence on the issue. Now, I did grow up at during the end of the Cold War. Maybe the Left has changed and I haven’t seen it. I sincerely look forward to being proven wrong in the future.
The only time I’ve ever seen the Left care about religious freedom is when it embarrasses or offends people who hold to Judea-Christian values.
.
Then you’re seeing what you want to see. Meanwhile I could point out that the Right is consistently aggressive about religious freedom…right up to the point where it comes to defending freedom for someone other than themselves. So basically you’ve got the dubious claim that the Left is only interested in this issue in order to make the Right look bad–a ridiculous claim since the majority of Americans are opposed to building mosques, so there’s nothing to be gained–while I can present the indisputable view that the Right consists of opportunistic hypocrites.
.
PAD
I don’t really see how your generalization of what “the right” “is” is any less dubious than his generalization of what “the left” “is”.
.
granted, your simply replying in the same tone as his initial post but, as you say, is that really the model we want to hold up?
.
At this point I’m beginning to get a sense that this issue is being set up as the “ah ha!” talking point for the possible Republican resurgence come election time. Should the GOP win control of the House (I totally discount the likelihood they could win the senate) the Democrats will need that “ah ha!” issue to explain it away. It will be the Willie Horton ad of 2010, as in the thing that supposedly was responsible for the purely emotional, irrational decision by the voters that otherwise they might have to take some of the blame for.
.
Which would be bad if it’s believed. The Democrats deserve to get stomped. and the Republicans, if they don’t get why that is the case, will deserve to get stomped at the next opportunity if they do, as I fear they will, and spend all their time just trying to cling to power once they get it back. and then who do we turn to?
.
People said it was foolish for the republicans, after 2008, to employ a simple strategy of just waiting for Obama and the Democrats to do badly, act corruptly, and pìšš øff the electorate (as opposed to the much more difficult tactic of actually coming up with some bold new ideas). Well, it worked. Now, is there any reason why, assuming they take power, the Democrats shouldn’t expect to get the same results from doing the same?
I don’t really see how your generalization of what “the right” “is” is any less dubious than his generalization of what “the left” “is”.
.
I don’t pretend that it isn’t. In fact, I’ve said in the past that the Left can not only be as censorious as the Right, but frequently has been. In fact, I’m pretty sure that plenty of people who fancy themselves liberals are right up there with the conservatives protesting the mosque. You don’t get seventy percent in opposition without crossing philosophical lines.
.
That, of course, does not deter people from asserting that my criticisms remains one-sided.
.
All I’m saying is that the notion that liberals have seized upon this issue as some sort of zealous attempt to stick it to the conservatives is unfounded and unsupportable, whereas an argument could easily be made that the very same conservatives who have a keen eye for religious freedom–when it’s their own–have no trouble hypocritically drawing the line at religious freedom for others.
.
Which isn’t to say that Liberals can’t likewise be mealy mouthed when it comes to supporting free expression right up to the point where they don’t like what someone is saying. I just expect more of liberals; I’d like to see them remain true to their convictions. But I see it as SOP for conservatives, who believe that government should stay out of people’s lives…except when it comes to telling them who they can marry. And who believe that the government can’t be trusted to act in a competent manner…except when it comes to the death penalty; then the system can be trusted to act in an above board and trustworthy manner.
.
PAD
I have no problem with that, though I would say that there are probably more conservatives who are indifferent to supportive of gay marriage than is generally acknowledged–one wonders whether the people on the left who excoriated Ted Olson as some kind of rightwing monster have had second thoughts after his heroic fight in California. On the death penalty I freely admit to hypocrisy–I don’t support it, for the reasons you give but at the same time I lose not a wink of sleep when someone who is beyond all shadow of a doubt gets what’s coming to them and, were said killer guilty of killing one of my own loved ones, I would wish for them a death that would make Vlad the Impaler mutter “Whoa, that’s some pretty f****** up s*** right there.” So I don’t pretend to have any high minded moral stance on the issue.
.
And of course, if the main objection is simply that the state has a history of condemning innocent people to death, that can be easily fixed in a way that would allow the death penalty to continue. When one looks at those who have been sentenced to death and later exonerated it becomes clear to me that the evidence was thin at best, certainly not reaching the level of beyond a possible doubt that should accompany such a punishment.
I want to apologize if my generalization of the Left was over-reaching. I post on this blog in hopes of trying to find middle-ground with those whom I disagree.
.
PAD, I know you have been excellent about calling out hypocrisy on your side of the aisle when you see it. I was trying to to take care to make generalizations so it wouldn’t appear I was specifically calling you out on this issue. I failed in that.
.
I think we both agree that they have the right to build the Mosque at the sight. Even if it turns out to be true the that the Iman behind it really said the US is worse than Al Qaeda, it’s irrelevant to the right to build. This said, I still think it’s a bad idea, and I do question the motives of those behind it.
.
As for my characterization of Leftist motives as mere contrarianism (if that’s a word) or even schadenfreude, I suppose that was wrong of me and I apologize. It did nothing to further civil discourse.
Okey-doke, then.
.
And honestly, Malcolm, I too would be questioning the wisdom of the site choice except for a few things: 1) They originally wanted to build on 23rd Street but the site fell through, so it’s not as if they were single-minded; 2) No one has answered the reasonable question of: If two blocks isn’t acceptable, how about four blocks? Ten blocks? What is the acceptable line of demarcation?; 3) Muslim places of worship are being fought everywhere. This isn’t about geography; it’s about religious tolerance. We have to draw the line somewhere, and this is as good a place as any.
.
But I appreciate your clarifications.
.
PAD
If you’re Newt and/or some of the Fox crew and Right Wing talkers… Yeah. They’ve even said as much over this matter in their own words.
.
Jerry, this might explain why:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner
When the Danish cartoonists did those cartoons of Muhammad, I defended their freedom of speech and opposed those who threatened them, but I felt that that the act itself was in poor taste — an act that offended people needlessly.
The fact that some sections of Islam are not offended by images of the prophet was irrelevant. It was sufficient that some Muslims were sincerely offended. Yet of course, that did not justify violence, threats, rioting or any threat to their freedom of speech.
My position on the issue of the mosque is identical.
Jerry Chandler,
This has the potential to be huge and could be a sign that the Republicans will not only win the House and senate but do so handily:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38696
It will also increase the political stock of a certain ex-Governor of Alaska tremendously.
I’m not surprised. I’d recommend a book about voters: “Just How Stupid Are We?” by Rick Shenkman. It should answer any questions as to why this is happening.
.
PAD
I don’t know why a massive turnover of congress would be a sign of voter stupidity so much as congressional stupidity. really, I’ve had to wonder if some of these dolts WANT to be re-elected, given the tone deaf attitude of lifetime entitlement coming out of Washington.
.
I don’t know that Miller winning puts the Senate any more in play than it was before–the republicans own that seat, to the point where the DNC spokesman could not even name the Democratic nominee for the position.
.
What IS encouraging for republicans is how good the turnout was for their primaries. Ultimately it comes down to the ground game and the Democrats have a lot of money to put the butts in the booths. But if your base is less motivated the money doesn’t do much good.
.
“It will also increase the political stock of a certain ex-Governor of Alaska tremendously.”
.
Not sure how it does that. She was still very popular in Alaska, more so than many other places, so clout there is almost a gimme. And the guy she was backing was pro-life while the other candidate is pro-choice. Not a smart thing in most Republican primaries. Even then though, if her supported candidate wins it’s by a slim margin and her overall success rate is about 1/3 of her endorsements. There are still twice as many people out there who she supported who lost than there are Palin backed winners.
.
Not really sure how to count McCain since he was already popular with many in his home state and the gains he made in the polls came from his going to the hard right, even more than JD, and abandoning statements and principles he had voiced as little as a year and a half ago. Palin gave him very little bump with her early public support.
.
Besides, JD being a perfect example, she’s hurt her standing with the Tea Party by (A) telling them they need to get in line and vote for the Republican Party’s choice whether they want to or not and (B) backed Party supported candidates against Tea Party candidates. That was a big ticket deal for her stock this time last year. Now she may have alienated more of them than she bargained for.
.
Not that it matters substantially. They would never vote for the Democrat in the race anyhow since most of the “Interdependent” Tea Party people are long time Republicans and Republican voters. But it may keep a few of them at home when they realize that they’re less a real movement than they are a GOP toy.
.
“This has the potential to be huge and could be a sign that the Republicans will not only win the House and senate but do so handily:”
.
I’m really not sure how you got that out of this. I have no doubt that they’ll pick up a few seats in the general election, but I don’t see where this indicates they’ll win handily. You still have a lot of incumbent Republicans in power and a lot of the polling data I’ve seen shows that, while the general public is down on Obama and Congress, party breakdowns show more people unhappy with the Republicans in Congress than the Democrats in Congress.
.
You also have the Tea Party people beginning to question some of the treatment they’ve gotten by the Republicans and that may keep some of them at home. Michael Steele is doing whatever he can to alienate Hispanics by talking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to immigration and Arizona and pìššìņg øff some Republicans to boot.
.
You should also take note of a pattern here that even the writer acknowledged. These people won by going hard right. A lot of middle ground voters are as sick of the far right as they are the far left. Moves like this may end up leaving a lot of people at home who might have voted Republican and in some races it may even help the Democrats by having someone who looks so far right as to appear as a loony toon candidate (Sharron Angle)who makes the Democrat in the race seem a lot more acceptable to the middle ground voters.
.
For sure be optimistic for your team, but I wouldn’t be too overly optimistic over this bit of news. Too many loose cannons and wild cards in the game right now.
I think it does increase her stock because Miller was down by double digits in most polls and a number of pundits went on the record as saying that his inevitable loss was evidence of her lack of influence. Now they have to eat crow and give her props. If his losing was evidence of her weakness his winning must be evidence of her strength, simple as that.
.
At the new york Times nate Silver predicts a likely loss of 6 or so seats in the Senate for the Democrats: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/new-forecast-shows-democrats-losing-6-to-7-senate-seats/
.
There’s also a 20% chance, he says, of an actual loss of the Senate, which would be seismic.
.
I’m still not sure that a win in Alaska, where she she has her highest popularity in polls, holds much meaning. Even here with the come from behind win by Miller you’re still talking about Palin’s home turf and most loyal voter block.
.
The true test of her stock insofar as performance on a national stage can be found in the races not in Alaska. Outside of Alaska she’s still holding a record of 10 or 11 failed candidates to 5 or 6 successful ones. Those who were successful with her support have not won with huge margins of victory while several who have lost after a Palin endorsement have done so by a wider margin.
.
I’m just not convinced that Palin is all that a slice of fried gold. If she were a fighter with a record of 5-10-0 (or whatever the number is as of today) we would be laughing at the people talking her up as a championship contender. If she was a sports team with a record of 5 wins and ten losses for the season we would be laughing at the people saying that Team Palin was the best team in the league.
.
Seriously, let’s just start talk up Obama’s coattails now by pointing out that he supported Kendrick Meek who “overcame a 5-to-1 spending advantage from millionaire primary opponent Jeff Greene” to win his race. Sure, we have to ignore all the people who lost with his support, but that guy won big with his support the other day.
.
“At the new york Times nate Silver predicts a likely loss of 6 or so seats in the Senate for the Democrats:”
.
Like I said above, I fully expect the Democrats to drop a few seats. I’ll certainly be amazed beyond words if they hold on to every seat. Not too sure about that Senate prediction though.
The last time Jerome the Cowardly Stalker posted on this thread was 9 days ago, when he accused me of being sexist and I called him out on it.
.
Predictably, he did not respond to me, nor did he accuse Jerry, who also rightly called Palin a crybaby, of being sexist.
.
Maybe some day Jerome will admit to why he applies such a standard to me that he does not apply to anybody else. As well as why he himself tends to run away to have a little cry.
.
And Jerry is right once again: this race in Alaska really doesn’t mean squat for the rest of the country. To call this the “biggest political story”, as the writer in that link did, is a silly proclamation.
.
The fact that folks are pinning their hopes on a quitter (is that sexist too?) says a lot about where we are today, and none of it good.
It’s true that not all of the candidates she supported won but one has to factor in the reality that some of those candidates were long shots at best and might not have been factors at all without the publicity they got from her endorsement. But who knows?
.
I’m not a big Palin supporter but I’ve been more impressed with her effectiveness lately than I thought I’d be. I still don’t see her winning a national election but we’ll see. She’s the most unpredictable political persona I’ve ever seen.
.
Look, I’m not saying that she can’t get the base fired up and ready to go, but I don’t see her appeal crossing over strongly to casual voters, very moderate Republicans, independents and people who may not see themselves as Republican voters. So far the only places we’ve seen her do anything effective in regards to boosting another candidate is in areas where there was a larger, stronger hard right base and in her home state. I haven’t seen any real evidence that her coattails work well beyond that.
This might well be a classic case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The assumption is that Sarah Palin is formidable partly because candidates she pushed for won. But there is nothing to say that if she had not given them their endorsement, they wouldn’t have won anyway.
.
If you look at it purely as a binomial problem, each time the odds are fifty/fifty. Either her candidate will win or they won’t. On average, she should be right half the time. Since only one third have won, she’s actually behind.
PAD
But of course the odds of a particular candidate winning is seldom exactly 50%. I mean, anyone who gave Miller even odds a few months ago would have been laughed at.
.
If one tends to endorse and support longshot candidates–and I don’t follow Palin close enough to know if this is the case, but I’ve heard her endorsement described as often being outside the mainstream–you will have a low rate of success but those successes could be more meaningful. 74% of the candidates backed by Emily’s List failed in 2008, a good year for democrats. That is not necessarily a reflection on the PAC as they often back candidates who start far behind the favored candidate.
.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think she is the kingmaker some of her fans make her out to be. But given that she was all but written off when she resigned the governorship it is clear she has been underestimated.
Correction, the 74% rate was for 2006.
Craig,
I haven’t responded to you because I find anyone with your apparent lack of maturity, intellect and/or unwillingness to have a meaningful discussion huge reasons not to waste my time.Jerome the Cowardly Stalker? Gone to have a little cry? Seriously? Are you a seven year old? I’ll continue to have intelligent discussions with the likes of Bill Mulligan and Jerry Chandler and you can go have a nice time sitting at the little table with the paper plates and plastic forks.
You? Mature? Showing intellect? Meaningful discussion? Like calling me sexist. That was incredibly meaningful!
.
Your words simply hide your bûllšhìŧ.
.
Are you a seven year old?
.
Ahh, you still can’t admit the truth, can you? Backed into a corner and claiming innocence. Is this how you deal with everybody you stalk on the internet, by treating them like a child?
.
And yet, I’m sure you’ll target me again, because it’s apparent by now that you just can’t help yourself.
.
Be sure to pick me out of a crowd again some time!
Jerry Chandler and Bill Mulligan,
It is not simply a case of Alaska being “Palin’s home-turf”. The Murkowski family in Alaska is like the Kennedy in Massachusetts. But she has now beaten the father directly and the daughter indirectly in a REPUBLICAN primary, with the establishment and name recognition against her candidate. It was ONLY when Miller got Palin’s endorsement that he became more than a blip in the polls. The Tea Party worked their áššëš to get people out to the polls as well, always a tough thing in off-year primaries, when far fewer people typically vote. Yet she and they convinced enough of them to – it looks like – push a recent unknown to victory. And, like you said, basically into the Senate since Alaska is solidly red.
That said, here’s how I see Republicans winning the Senate:
1.)Connecticut
Blumenthal, as we know, has been caught repeatedly fabricating a record of service in Vietnam. While he constantly claims to have fought, the fact is that he never went near the place. His candidacy fell apart as a result and he has yet to completely recover.
While Linda McMahon should still be formidable, I would be more comfortable with someone without her World Wrestling Federation ties. I felt Rob Simmons was much more likely to beat Blumenthal. His two Bronze Stars would have been the perfect contrast to Blumenthal’s lies. I really wish Palin had tried to help out Simmons. That said, it still feels like Blumenthal’s baggage will be viewed more seriously than Mcmahon’s in year that will be hostile to Democrats.
2. Wisconsin
Ron Johnson — an independent, successful businessman with great access to funding — won the Republican nomination to run against Russ Feingold. A true conservative, Ron has an excellent chance to win. Feingold, who is way too liberal even for Wisconsin, is under 50% in the polls.
3.) Washington
Patty Murray looks in serious trouble here.
4.)Delaware = No problem.
5.)North Dakota = No problem.
6.)Indiana = Should be no problem. Coats is far ahead of Ellsworth.
7.)Illinois = Mark Kirk ahead thanks to scandal engulfing the Democratic candidate.
8.) Arkansas = Blanche Lincoln is extremely week and Republican Congressman John Bozeman should defeat her.
9.) Nevada = After spending millions on driving Sharron Angle’s negatives up, Angle finally has enough money to counterattack. Reid remains extremely unpopular and Angle even has Ðìçk Morris to advise her, the Tea Party backing her and seems to have survived the most problematic period of her campaign. Most important, Reid remains under 50 % approval.
10.) Pennsylvania = Joe Sestak will not be harder to beat than Specter was (conventional wisdom says he will be). He is waaaaayyy to liberal for Pensylvania and Pat Toomey should beat him.
11.) Colorado = Former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton is ahead of the appointed incumbent Michael Bennet, but both face tough primaries. Tide is shifting red here.
12.) California = With Boxer far under 50% and Fiorina’s name recognition increasing, GOP should win this seat.
Toss in the fact that even those who appear safe, like Gilibrand in New York, are extremely weak incumbents and could be in trouble if the GOP candidate catches fire.
Murray’s pretty safe in Washington, actually – Rossi’s been running for governor for over a decade, and never been elected. Also, Murray’s been able to make hay over the Air Force tanker flap, since she was one of the senators who kept the contract with Northrup-Grumman/EADS from going through. (She’s selling it as protecting Washington jobs, rather than the national-security issue I thought it should be – but then, she’s the one with a history of getting elected to office, not me.)
.
And the whole Tea Party thing is treated as more of a joke locally. The TPs themselves take it all very seriously – but they’re about the only ones who do…
I can see Mcmahon winning–she has lots of money and her opponent is running out of feet to shoot. I think that California and Nevada will stay Democratic.
.
That said, I suspect that if a genie offered the Democrats a chance to switch their prospects with the GOP at this point they’d grab on to the chance. There is a lot of anger out there and a motivated base. This will be a negative election to an amazing degree but I think that is likely to turn off the once optimistic Obama voters and charge up the angry tea party voters.
.
If that happens I will maintain, as I have before, that the Democrats blew a chance to co-opt the tea party people. By dismissing them as cranky racists they lost the chance to get their support and I believe there WAS a chance they could have gotten it or at least defused it. But dismissing genuine voter anger AND going on what almost seemed like a deliberate attempt to appear out of touch and possessed with a sense of entitlement…just mind bogglingly dumb.
.
I still am not convinced that the republicans will do as well as you think but I have to agree that the odds are getting better. If we start to hear mutterings about rigged voting machines (said muttering oddly muted during the last two election cycles) we’ll know they are hitting the panic button.
.
I just hope that if the republicans win big they do not just start running for an even bigger victory in 2012. Get some stuff done.
Bill Mulligan,
“I just hope that if the republicans win big they do not just start running for an even bigger victory in 2012. Get some stuff done.”
.
Exactly. Obvious partisans from Coulter to Malkin to Hannity have stated repeatedly that A.) Republicans can’t take anything for granted this fall. They must run hard and come up with a plausible alternative/agenda and B.) if thet do regain one or both hoses, they have to actually do what they say they are going to do and stand behind conservative principles. Boehner gave me hop that they will this past week.
Also, California and Nevada are far from slam dunks, especially when you’re talking about California and the Senate Majority Leader. But both incumbents still appear weak late. Boxer is getting hammered over the arrogance crystallized by the infamous “Could you please call me Senator and mot maam comment and the that she is running against another strong woman does not help either. Toss in that California is a mess and that the voters want to throw all the bums out and that Forina has the money to go toe-to-toe and there’s at least a good chance she falls.
In Nevada? The key is if Angle can present herself as a plausible alternative to Reid, because his popularity is in the toilet. With Morris helping her directly I believe she will. Toss in that the Tea Party is energized behind her and she could definitely do it.
I think i’d actually give CA a greater likelihood of flipping than Nevada–stronger candidate and, for all of Reid’s unpopularity, he will have endless buckets of money to spend.
.
I hope that, if they win, republicans will look at Christy in NJ as an example of how to do it–even if you don’t agree with his politics it’s nice to see a politician who isn’t a mealy mouthed weasel.
.
Can’t say I’m encouraged that this will be the case. At this point I’d be happiest at the prospect of a total sweep by the GOP just on the extremely likely chance that it would result in Ed Schultz’s head literally swelling up like a pumpkin and exploding. On live TV. How cool would that be?