The Bully Pulpit with Training Wheels
Folks are still arguing about whether Obama’s statement about the Cordoba House was sufficiently impassioned or whether his subsequent statements backtracked off the original statement.
Now, that’s not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. (Applause.) And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.
We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the response to that attack -– from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us also remember who we’re fighting against, and what we’re fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam -– it’s a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -– they’re terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -– and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.
So that’s who we’re fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms -– it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race, or religion, or wealth, or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us –- and that way of life, that quintessentially American creed, stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.
And to be sure, Obama typically conceded the legitimacy of the hurt feelings of all those people in Kansas or Texas outraged that an Islamic cultural center will be built in the general vicinity of lower Manhattan–a city those people will rarely even visit.
But his statement, weak as it was, still allowed the question of constitutionality, of the First Amendment, to begin to contest the din of the fearmongerers trying to use this for political gain.
In response, the fearmongerers have predictably turned on Obama.
But by ascending to the bully pulpit on this issue, it seems Obama has elevated the principles involved (however weakly stated) and made the press enabling the fearmongerers to think twice about the issues involved. Heck, even Mark Halperin is calling on the fearmongerers to stop.
Say what you will about the wisdom of Obama’s policies overall, but his belated commentary on religious freedoms clearly was not done for political gain. Quite the contrary. the President knew that he and his party would almost certainly pay a political price for taking a stand, especially this close to the election, and with few prominent leaders, other than New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on the White House’s side. The reaction since the President spoke has been vitriolic and unvarying from leading voices on the right, painting Obama as weak, naive, out of touch and obtuse (not to mention flip-flopping, after his confusing follow-up comments Saturday suggested to some that he might be hedging his position).
Yes, Republicans, you can take advantage of this heated circumstance, backed by the families of the 9/11 victims, in their most emotional return to the public stage since 2001.
But please don’t do it. There are a handful of good reasons to oppose allowing the Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero, particularly the family opposition and the availability of other, less raw locations. But what is happening now — the misinformation about the center and its supporters; the open declarations of war on Islam on talk radio, the Internet and other forums; the painful divisions propelled by all the overheated rhetoric — is not worth whatever political gain your party might achieve.
It isn’t clear how the battle over the proposed center should or will end. But two things are profoundly clear: Republicans have a strong chance to win the midterm elections without picking a fight over President Obama’s measured words. And a national political fight conducted on the terms we have seen in the past few days will lead to a chain reaction at home and abroad that will have one winner — the very extreme and violent jihadists we all can claim as our true enemy.
Maybe Obama will even respond in turn, and point out just what Halperin does: that fighting the Cordoba House only helps al Qaeda. Then we’d really have a useful discussion about how the most aggressive stance often embraced by the fearmongerers is actually counter-productive.
In any case, it was a cautious, rare attempt to use the bully pulpit. But it was a welcome one. And if we can win this argument, Obama might just learn to like this bully pulpit thing.
As long as the pulpit does not include this.
What’s going on?
Could this be the start of Obama 2.0?
http://www.deciminyan.org/2010/08/obamas-muslim-problem.html
Media driven BS. As the President of the United States, it’s his sworn duty to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and that includes the first amendment. As for him later “backing off” from his defense of their right to build, that’s only true if somebody is determined to imagine controversy or is looking to cast everything the man says into as poor a light as possible in my opinion. This guy gives us more than enough reason to criticize him without making it up.
As for Halperin….I can’t imagine myself ever caring what his opinion is whether I agree with him once in a while or not. Being on the right side of an issue from time to time doesn’t excuse his history or Tweety’s or Gregory’s or O’Reilly’s, etc.
Spot on comment – I agree
This is a local issue – one that politically he could have and should have avoided.
Reminding folks that there is a Constitutional freedom of religion was NOT a bad thing to do.
Not saying in the initial speech that he was not commenting on the wisdom of the choice of locations was Obama being Obama – trying to imply more than he was saying. He has no real local population knowledge (when I lived in lower Manhattan the Muslim population concentration did not exist on the west side WTC area – and it does not exist there now – what relatively small concentration that does exist is in “alphabet city” – the “A street, B Street, etc. area), but they have the right to build anywhere subject to zoning laws and building codes – and distances between locations are small on the island.
Obama did nothing wrong in reminding folks that we are a nation of laws and Constitutional rights – I just wish he would remember that fact when he thinks about terrorist “required” modifications of our laws.
Not to mention tha the “911 widow” meme is a crock. The howler is really only one widow who is long known to be a bit of a right wing activist. The others are mostly quiet. It is ginned up. Also, the mosque is about as far from al Qaida radicalism as possible.
We must have hugely different ideas about what it means, to use the bully pulpit.
Didn’t he begin using it on election night? Funny that there’s no mention of embracing and extending our heinous torture and state secrets policies.
Wasn’t he using it at West Point in 2009, when he unveiled Vietnam-lite?
How ’bout that whole health care debate, no use of the BP there?
I’d say he’s been using the power of that peculiar podium, to give shape to his version of his bank-roller’s and Top Secret America’s vision for our future all this time.
Maybe we’re talking about two versions of the same pulpit. There’s the bullshit pulpit, from which our presidents make the myths that jack us to ever more war or ever more welfare for Wall Street; and the one only too rarely used for good, as in defending Cordoba House.
It looks like the millions of people on Medicare paying through the nose for prescription drugs or the millions of people on social security who got no inflation increase in 2010 or the millions of people who don’t have health insurance have to pay through the nose for medical treatment or the millions of people making less than $10 an hour or the progressives who want to help those people will appreciate Obama speaking out on people having the right to build a mosque two blocks away form ground zero.
Yes, this should put money in those people’s pockets I mentioned above.
I have seen and had ENOUGH failure from the progressive side of politics. ENOUGH! I want progressives to succeed. We cannot play nice with conservatives. I save my compassion for the poor, the unemployed, the retired elderly and disabled and the disenfranchised. This failure comes from the REFUSAL to use boycotts against conservatives and their friends by progressives suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. In fact I now refuse to help so called progressive organizations that will not boycott the friends of conservatives in order to put pressure on the conservatives to do as we demand.
I do not have compassion for bull headed conservatives bent on ruining other people’s lives.
The way we do not play nice involves what Gandhi would do, namely shun those and their friends who seek to ruin other people’s lives. I did not originate boycotts but I appear new in adapting the boycott to political and legislative outcomes.
I have created the following strategies for getting other legislation and it appears easy to create something as I had for busting up the deal between google and Verizon. I cannot easily drop Verizon but I wrote to Google and told them I stropped using their search engine and other products and I told them that I will get other people to contact them to threaten a huge boycott of them until they capitulate to our demands that they stop that deal with Verizon!
Also
I have created a new legislative political party: The Liberal Democratic Party of the United States.
We do not raise money.
We do not handle money.
We do not break up the Democratic Party. You remain in your own chosen party for the purpose of elections but you also join mine for the purpose of getting needed legislation and political action.
We tell you how not to spend your money and get legislation for
not spending money with well known conservative contributors.
It costs nothing to join this party but some of your day
sending these emails and getting many others to send these emails.
We can get progressive legislation with a new strategy.
Please pass this email to your friends as soon as possible. Thank you.
Instead of petitioning a corporate corrupted congress for legislation, petition the corporate friends of conservatives in both the GOPranos and the Democratic party for legislation and include a boycott threat in your email petitions as you see below. Spread the word please.
You can find the full list of emails here
http://www.hoflink.com/~dbaer/help-me-change-america1.htm
send this email to [email protected] at Rite Aid for a strong public option.
To the Rite Aid CEO:
I join with many other people who demand that you get congress and the President to enact a single payer health care plan that will work like HR676 but will not ban private insurance. Your company PAC has given money to conservatives over the years.
This public option will get fully funded by US government general federal taxes.
People will have no monthly premiums, no copays, no yearly deductibles, no coverage gaps, no means tests and no yearly or lifetime caps for coverage.
This public option will cover 100 percent of the cost of: all doctor’s visits including dental visits, all generic and patented medications, surgery and all hospital visits, hospice and nursing home residence and abortion, contraception and other family planning costs.
People can choose this single payer public option health care plan at will even if they had or have private plans presently.
People will have the option to choose private plans or keep the private plans that they have now.
This legislation should appear implemented as amendments to HR676
Until this legislation gets enacted into law, I REFUSE to do business with Rite Aid Pharmacies
Do as I demand, or you will lose my business and the business and income from many other people as myself.
Good day.
send this email to [email protected] at Brown Forman to stop conservatives from filibustering legislation.
To the Brown Forman CEO:
Your company PAC has given money to Sen. Mitch McConnell in the past. I will not buy Jack Daniels Whiskey and Southern Comfort until you convince Mitch McConnell to stop all filibusters on legislation and holds on appointments for the duration of the Obama administration.
Good Day.
send this email to [email protected] at Rite Aid for a Real prescription drug benefit in Medicare Part B.
To the Rite Aid CEO
Congress and the President must enact a new prescription drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80% of the cost of all patented and generic drugs with no extra monthly premiums, no extra yearly deductible, no means tests, no coverage gaps, no late sign up penalties and remove the means test for Medicare Part B and this benefit will get administered by the government and not any private company and until that happens, I refuse to buy ANYTHING from Republican contributor Rite Aid Pharmacies.
Good day.
send this email to [email protected] at Wendy’s corporation for a $10 an hour minimum wage.
To the Wendy’s CEO
Congress and the President must enact a $10/HR MINIMUM WAGE into law and until this happens I will not go to any Republican contributor Wendy’s Restaurants.
Good Day.
send this email to [email protected] at Brown Forman to get the employee free choice enacted into law.
To the Brown Forman CEO
Brown-Forman of Kentucky, the maker of Jack Daniels Whiskey and Southern Comfort gave Mitch McConnell money for his campaigns. SENATOR McCONNELL MUST MUST GET CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT TO ENACT HR 1409,S 560 THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT INTO LAW AND AND UNTIL THAT HAPPENS I WON’T BUY JACK DANIELS WHISKEY OR SOUTHERN COMFORT OR ANY OTHER OF BROWN-FORMAN’S PRODUCTS.
Good Day.
send this email to war contractor General Electric Corporation at [email protected] and demand a resolution from congress ending the Iraq and Afghan wars.
Dear Sir
I demand that your CEO get the Congress and the President to enact a resolution to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and remove the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and until then I will not buy any consumer items from war contractor and Republican contributor General Electric Corporation.
Good day.
That should do it. Good job.
I think it is very true that if this center was intended to glorify George W. Bush, you would be screaming to kick it’s ass out of New York as fast as humanly possible–rights or no rights, first amendment or 40th amendment.
It is the “stick in the eye” aspect of it you like.
Now, if I had seen a great deal of defending of people and groups of religious faith of all types on this site, I might think the motivation was otherwise. But, usually, I’ve seen ridicule and put down.
So, pardon me if I don’t think this is motivated by the 1st amendment or any amendment.
Aside from that, it isn’t a question of whether they have a right to build it. They do. It is the judgment to do it.
Yes, I suppose having a German monument near Auschwitz in the 1950’s might have helped the Jewish people heal sooner, but that wasn’t really up to the German’s to decide–or the Polish government.
Who gets to decide how close they can stick their face to your face? Does the person shoving their face into yours get to decide what is close enough, or you? And do you need to back up your comfort or discomfort with some documented proof of some kind or have a necessary logical reason?
And lastly, people can protest whatever the hell they want in this country. People protest against things that others have the right to do all the time. There is no requirement they stand idly by because someone has a “right” to do something.
Obama is going to get killed on this. He should have used the bully pulpit for something else. The results of this are going to back him off from using it in the future. So, if you wanted him to use the bully pulpit–which I agree he has not used so much and ought for your side–another subject would have been better.
I guess you’ve missed all the defense of the Constitution in general on this site, even against–or especially against–attacks made on it by our Democratic President.
Really, you know us better than that.
What a bunch of petulant right wing false equivalency this is.
No, I think it is the real world.
I mean, would you be all happy to see the Prop 8 organizers open a big store front and office in the middle of the Castro District in SF? How strongly would you be fighting for that right (assuming the landlord rented space to them as he has the right to)?
Would you be writing posts critical of those who opposed it?
I am saying there is another unspoken reason for many insisting on having this center there, and it isn’t related to rights.
And, aside from that, the question isn’t rights. There is almost no disagreement on that point, yet it’s still being argued.
You have a fair point on the SF Prop 8 thing (not that they wouldn’t have a right to have a place there, but it would likely cause a stir and they’d be wiser not to have it there).
But it’s apples and oranges IMO.
It’s NOT the local people in Manhatten that are largely complaining. Or at least it wasn’t originally. I suppose the right wing is good at theatrics and hiring fake protesters (ala Florida 2000) so I suppose now you might find it there.
But originally all the opposition was from everywhere BUT the locality.
Your example would only work if you said the Prop 8 folks put an office in Carson, CA. And all of the folks in San Fransisco threw a tizzy and wanted them to shut it down.
Should they then?
You have a good point.
I do think this is more a national issue than a local one. Meaning, the entire country feels some ownership of Ground Zero emotionally. And, Obama, stupidly I think, has nationalized it even more. Now, all Democratic candidates are going to have to get involved because he got them involved. And, it’s a loser issue.
Back to the original point, it’s going to burn the bully pulpit and he will use it LESS rather than more. And, he ought to use it more in order to help your causes.
With the retractions and recalibrating and clarifications, he has now pissed off everyone from all sides–something he is getting very practiced at.
Apparently, I need to remind you that American citizens, who also happened to believe in and practice the Muslim faith, were in the twin towers when the jets hit and they also lost their lives.
Muslim Americans not only have the right to build the mosque, they should build the mosque and all Americans, regardless of their religious affiliation, should support and encourage them to do so because it is the right thing to do. The mosque will be more than a mosque. It will be a symbol that Americans appreciate and understand that Islam and the Muslim faith are not the enemy. American citizens who practice the Muslim faith are not the enemy.
Why can’t you make that distinction?
You seriously need to reexamine your views because you are deeply prejudiced and hate something you don’t even understand.
What would you think if you were a peace loving Egyptian Christian living in Egypt and a group of fundamentalist Christian dominionists from the United States hijacked and crashed passenger jets into the pyramids at Giza completely destroying them?
If you still don’t get it, I can’t help you, but at least I tried.
The funny thing is these Muslims want to cooperate with the west, they are against violence. Thanks to people like cregan here, they won’t be able to convince anybody of that.
Good job on increasing terrorism conservatives.
Unsupported speculation. Besides, George W Bush isn’t a church except to some of the more truly delusional.
I am of a different opinion, EW. I think this is the first (or second) round in the Obama/Emmanuel administration’s campaign to lay the blame for the coming electoral debacle at the feet and on the heads of the professional left, rather than accepting the truth – that Barry ‘n’ Rahm inflicted it on themselves.
The meme I see coming out of this is questioning – mass media concern-trolling, really – whether Obama standing up for the constitutional rights (and the constitution, generally) will cost the Democrats in November. RW Nutjob Peter King (R-Bensonhurst/Howard Beach) was on the tube this morning arguing that the soclialist islamofascist non-American Obama was selling out ‘murca or something be standing up for the Constitution as written. And predicting a deeper Democratic electoral debacle because of this. (Please don’t mention the irony of wingnuts and their fundie friends having been the motivating force behind RLUIPA (introduced by Sen. Hatch, BTW) and RFRA. RLUIPA grants special – favorable – privileges to religious land owners in their zoning fights….)
I see this pissing contest as Rahm’s idea of a two-fer. He gets to lay off the blame for the electoral debacle not on the policies he effected for Barry, but on the DFHs who made a point of pointing out he and his emperor have no clothes. And, the admin gets to continue the step-wise Constitution shredding they’ve specialized in so far by pointing out that defending Constitutional rights result in electoral losses and seat losses.
I suspect the WH’s internal poll numbers for the fall are worse, much worse, for the Dems than any of the public numbers and they are looking for something, anything that doesn’t point right back at them to blame it on.
And as to Barry talking from the bully pulpit, I’ve long since heard enough of his pretty speechifying. Words cost nothing. I want to see real action to put people to work and cut the banksters off at the knees.
Best thing to do to these clowns is to sit on your hands.
You know, the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts have the perfect right to exclude gays from the Scouts.
Should Obama stand up for that too since he is “standing up for the Constitution?” Should he use his bully pulpit to promote that?
You’ve selected THIS particular action supported by the Constitution for Obama to promote. Me thinks the reason for this has nothing to do with the Constitution or rights or anything like that.
Do you think Obama should use judgment in deciding what he is going to stand up for? That it is not whether you have the right to do something that determines if it ought to be done or promoted? And, therefore, the builders of the center/mosque should have used judgment rather than right to decide to go ahead?
You’re raising a case from 2000, five years before FDL started and three years before I started blogging? Did you also notice that I didn’t weigh in on the June 2010 (long after I started blogging) decision that gave states the ability to deny funding based on the exclusion of gays? I guess according to your theory, that means I’m anti-gay now, right?
You see you’re engaging in some really ridiculous cherry picking.
There’s a big difference between not saying something and promoting something.
The point was easy, you use judgment in deciding which Constitutional rights you are going to promote and which not.
The determination is not whether the right exists Constitutionally. It is by judgment.
The same applies to this center. You have the right to build it, but is it good judgment?
It’s time you stopped trying to hijack the thread and STFU.
[Mod Note: I would suggest that a better tactic to achieve your goal is to ignore, ignore, ignore. Most people go away when none of the other kids will play with him/her. Responses like yours are what they live for. It only encourages.]
Peccavi, mod.
Please forgive me. I needed to take out the urge to punch on someone, and this was a better option than the others.
[:~)]
Mod note: I wouldn’t give a crap if no one responded to what I say. I don’t post to get responses. If I did, I’d have disappeared long ago. I post if I have something to say that means something to me.
And, I don’t hijack threads. I bring up an alternative way of looking at something or an aspect not thought of otherwise.
And, as is well known, I don’t generally engage in personal attacks or answer substantive points by calling others morons, etc. I don’t dodge questions by using personal attacks. And, note, I said “generally.” On rare occasions, when attacked in a particularly dumb manner, it might happen.
The mods are not coming for you.
Your comment is particularly moronic, given that it exactly misstates mine.
Go get some coffee and drink it before you start commenting.
Barry’s use of the bully pulpit is nothing more than sticking a pointed stick in the eye of the wingnuts and stirring, to get them riled up even more. He wants an electoral debacle in November so he can blame the hippies and move even further right. His stand here is full-blown cynicism in operation.
You, cregan, need to get over the idea he is anything other than a DINO Republican.
That, and go try starting a diversionary pissing contest somewhere else.
The Boy Scouts aren’t a government entity. The first amendment doesn’t apply. Congress has passed no laws governing the establishment of bigotry in private organizations but it CAN NOT pass any such laws regarding religious expression, (where you can put a church, synagogue or mosque for example). You’re really good at setting up straw men but that’s all they are. The situations aren’t analogous.
Like everyone else, you think this is a matter of law or rights. It really is not.
I don’t think anyone says they don’t have the right to build the center near Ground Zero.
Someone, on another thread said, “Well, what if the GOP wanted to build an office near the Murrah Building site in Oklahoma and the people there didn’t want it there cause right wingers blew it up?”
My answer is this: I’d say, “If that’s how you feel, we’ll build it somewhere else. If it causes you some kind of pain, we’ll move further away.” Even if only a small percentage of families were uncomfortable.
I wouldn’t get into asinine discussions of, “Uh, you know, Tim McVeigh was not part of the GOP, and blah, blah, blah.” I’d move it out of consideration. End of story.
That’s consideration. That’s human kindness.
Yes. It is. I will quote:
Congress passing a law restricting where a mosque can be built or the President suggesting that such restrictions be made is CLEARLY a violation of both letter and intent of the LAW which is enshrined and codified in the Constitution of the United States. Are you really that obtuse?
Not analogous! NOT analogous! Not! Not! Not!
The GOP isn’t a church!
No, that’s cowardice.
It’s also complete bullshit, not even closely resembling what would actually happen. IMO.
That’s your opinion, which would mean that if a company which was dealing with South Africa in the old days decided to stop doing business with them because their customers were protesting it, that was cowardice.
No, it is consideration and human kindness.
And I don’t give a fuck about the Boy Scouts, gays, and the Supreme Court.
Didn’t you mean to say “anyone?”
was Obama president when the court ruled the Boy Scouts had a right to discriminate? And, was there a huge outcry and issue made of the ruling that would call for a presidential opinion on the matter?
Besides that, I don’t see the controversy over the Boy Scouts. They certainly do have a right, as a private organization, to discriminate. It’s up to them. But, when they choose to discriminate, they also give up their right to government assistance. And, at the same time, they give reasons to private charities such as the United Way to stop providing funding for them.
You’re a little off the point I was making.
Someone was making the point that Obama was standing up for Constitutional rights like he should. My point was, the Boy Scouts have the right mentioned Constitutionally, should he stand up and ballyhoo those rights?
No, he would use judgment not to stand up for them as President because he doesn’t think it’s a good idea.
Well, many others have the right to stand up and say they don’t think this is a good idea even though the Iman may have the right to do it.
Just because someone has a right to do something doesn’t mean anyone has to go along with them doing it silently.
Cigarette companies have every right to sell cigarettes. Am I going to jump up and down to trumpet that?
You do if you’re John Boehner
Thanks, EW. You quoted Obama, including this:
Oh, the irony– it burns.
Oh, if this were the actual instruction given to DOJ!
Oh, if this were the actual approach of DOJ with regard to enforcing the law!
Alas, in Obama’s mouth, it emerges as a hollow platitude.
Who will confront Obama for his hypocrisy?
Who will confront him with a list of the persons of wealth and status who have committed probable crimes, but who have never been indicted or tried?
Bob in AZ
Obama:
“I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.”
So is he saying they’re stupid to build there?
“I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.”
So is he saying they’re stupid to build there?
——————————————————————–
It’s pretty clear he said he isn’t commenting one way or another. Why do you feel the need to try to read more into his statement than was made? Why can’t you just take what he said as he said it?
It’s just an excuse to bring up the post cold war mantra “9/11”. Obama uses this just as much as the concern trolls on the opposition, flogging his Afghanistan war in the bargain. It’s all pretty disgusting filth, this political bullshitting over an entirely private matter.
Josh Marshall has some problems with Halperin’s article.
This is a totally within-the-Beltway controversy. Even in North Carolina, most folks agree with the First Amendment and see through the GOP rhetoric.
But the blogisphere seems fixated on this issue. Sigh.
David Dayen has a fresh cross-post up: Some States Lack Authority to Enforce Health Care Regulations
Ok the conservative assholes in texas and all over the country are suddenly worried about the feelings of people living in manhattan?
Well that’s great, I’m used to those people preaching about how those effete manhattan limousine liberals and everyone else in that city will be burning in hell.
No! You are wrong! I have never seen a front page author here condemn any section of the United States Constitution or suggest that we amend it to outlaw something because they are “picking which Constitutional rights (they) are going to promote”. The ACLU defends Nazis’ rights to march through a Jewish section of town, not because they think it’s a good idea but because it’s down in the Constitution that the right exists. The ACLU had long been derided by the right as “liberal” and so they are. Intellectual honesty is a liberal trait by the conservatives missed that bus looooong ago. You’re blowing smoke.
Uh, Margaret, I think the post was referring to Obama. The PRESIDENT uses judgment about which Constitutional rights he is going to promote or not.
That’s different from “what to enforce.”
If the Pres doesn’t want to go out and ballyhoo the gun rights decision and that everyone has the constitutional right to own a gun, he ought not to.
People, just stop feeding.
An obsequious, extremely stupid, and ill advised move on his part that is the functional equivalent of saying their prejudice against Muslims is legitimate.
Yeah, that’s why I said he was using training wheels (though I think that’s just Obama). Really, I’m hoping he’ll discover that this teeny risk will have an upside in that it highlights the extremism of those who think the mischaracterizations of the few in the service of fearmongering should not nullify our Constitution. Maybe he’ll like how it feels?
But I admit that I’m engaging in “hope” w/o real basis for it–you’d think I’d know better.
You really “ought to know better” is right.
I continue to maintain he wants the wingnuts parading in full, Mardi Gras-level regalia to emphasize just how Scary Scary Scary they are. The plan is that this will drive the Democratic base to vote against their interests and vote for him and his policies, rather than sit home (which is what they ought to do).
What has he done for the Dem base lately? Nothing other than beat up on them (imagine this: Barry, comin home late to his base, stinking of bipartisan beer and a cig hangin from his lip, wearin’ a torn t-shirt and pissed that his dinner’s not on the table and he’s not sufficiently appreciated though he’s drunk and gambled away the rent, then proceeding to show her who’s boss.).
He needs something to drive the fear that leads to the Dem base voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than letting the demoralization and de-motiviation his own policies have wrought play out to their logical end. After all, there’s nothing wrong with his policies…. The TeaParty wingnuts serve that role perfectly.
Obama ” In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion ”
Really? More than during the crusades? Is this statement bullshit
No not bullshit.
You’re reading it differently than it was meant from Obama is all.
I’ll try to clarify.
AQ has killed more people who are Muslims than they have killed people of any other religion.
Get it?
He’s not comparing the number of Muslims killed by AQ to the number of Mulsims killed by all other religions, he’s comparing all of those killed by AQ, and more of them are muslims than any other religion.
Got it.
Can you explain why Obama thinks Al Queda are terrorists for killing innocents and he and his administration along with the Bush administration are not terrorist?
Can you help me “get it”
No, sorry, can’t get that myself.
Why does he waste his time saying bullshit like that? Does he think most Americans are blind and arrogant? Does he think that most Americans do not value the lives of the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan as much as they value American lives? Oops I guess he would be right.
Still bullshit.
Yep, unfortunately, he would be right.
In fact, it’s been my experience that most Americans don’t give much of a damn for most other American’s lives either.
I think I’ll go get me another flag lapel now. One isn’t working well enough I’m afraid.
Obama ” And let us also remember who we’re fighting against, and what we’re fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam -– it’s a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -– they’re terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -– and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11″
Do members of Al Queda really give a rats ass about what Religion people practice? Or do they just want us out of the middle east? Take our tanks and go home?
Obama “they’re terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children”
This statement is especially insane and irresponsible. As if the invasion of Iraq has not left a huge pile of innocent men, women and children behind that we do not even count. How damn arrogant.
As if Obama’s drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan have not killed innocent men, women and children. What an idiotic and irresponsible statement
No american killed anyone in a bombing strike….drones aren’t human and neither are lumps of burnt flesh we label collateral damage.
If we saw “collateral damage sapiens” as mothers fathers husbands wives and children then we might feel remorse. They’re living up to stalins saying quite nicely.
I don’t believe many people will try to explain or justify that one. Might have to go over to the Orange Satan for clarification there. :)
LOL
And I bet had you asked that exact same question at Orange Satan in the year 2007 (obviously leaving out O at that point since he wasn’t prez yet) that you would get a strikingly different answer than the one you’ll likely get there now.
You think so?
Oh yeah…
So we’ve got a President who supports the First Amendment on Friday, but on Saturday he’s not sure if it always applies. I thought Barack Obama was supposed to be a constitutional law expert.
Sure would like to hear one of the MSM outlets have some of the members of September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows on their programs to hear what they think about the building of a Mosque near that site.
John Titus would be a great guest on one of those outlets. So well spoken, intelligent and reasonable.
“9/11 Families Group Announces Support for Islamic Cultural Center in Lower Manhattan
September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows strongly supports efforts to bring an Islamic Cultural Center to lower Manhattan, near the Ground Zero site. We believe that welcoming the Center, which is intended to promote interfaith tolerance and respect, is consistent with fundamental American values of freedom and justice for all…”
These families led the anti invasion of Iraq march in New York City in Feb 2003
For those of you claiming that this is just an issue of proximity to Ground Zero and of sensitivity, please tell us how far away from Ground Zero a building needs to be. Secondly, please explain why proposed mosques/community centers in WI, TN, and CA are being protested. Certainly they are far enough away from Ground Zero.
Far as I am concerned, the law says the mosque can be, and has every bit as much of a right to be as anything else, right on the fucking footprint of ground zero. Next question.
Oh, and as to the previous question, my problem is the two faced constant duplicitous trying to split every babay in sight and accommodate everybody instead of taking meaningful stands and actually fighting, heads up, for what is right.
Obama is namby pambyism as an art form.
Awesome!!@!!
Why can’t we haz a prez like you?
I inhaled…..
I agree. But, I’d fight all his policies likely.
Obama has screwed this up royally. Clinton could say nothing and please everyone. Obama can say nothing and please no one.
By say nothing, I mean political nothing speak.
But, he makes the kind of mistake the general public does sometimes. They think that kings of old could anything they wanted. No, piss too many people off and you get crunched. There was no stone that said the king could do anything he wanted. Lose enough support and down you go.
By the same token, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. The power behind it is the will of the people. With enough votes, you can change ANY part of the Constitution. When you try to support something 70% of the population doesn’t like, you get crunched–whether the President or the Iman.
I actually doubt the union trade workers will even work on it.
I agree with you 100%. I was really addressing Cregan who is trying to make the case about sensitivity and at the same time claiming those who support building the facility really have an ulterior motive of “sticking it in the eye” of right-wingers. So, my question to Cregan is, what is the ulterior motive of and whose eyes are the protesters in CA, WI and TN trying to “stick it” to by protesting mosques being built in those locations that are in no way remotely linked to the hallowed ground?
Oh, sorry about that then. Heh, I have got no idea; I think nowhere is a good place to locate a mosque for a lot of these people.
not a problem. I also think that Obama’s ability to negotiate with himself before beginning to negotiate with the opposition is his biggest flaw. He admitted his failure in that area after the stimulus bill passed by saying that it was a mistake for him to make his first proposal be the place where it wanted to end up. Then he had to add even more tax cuts to buy the votes of the ladies from Maine. I thought his admission, meant that he learned his lesson. But, we immediately found out in the Health Care debacle that it wasn’t the case.
I’ve also noticed that anytime Obama makes any of his fine speeches and includes lines in them referring to all the fairness and equality in this country, you can easily add to the end of the statement “unless you’re gay” and it flows right off the tongue and sounds just like it was meant to be there.
You know the funny thing is, and never mentioned by the media, is that in 1996, when running for the Illinois Senate, Obama expressed “unequivocal support for gay marriage.”
Apparently Barack Obama is one of the only people around that have actually become less enlightened on equality for sexual choice over the last fifteen years. And funny it only happened after he needed to pander for national financing.
“But, we immediately found out in the Health Care debacle that it wasn’t the case”
Start at public option Seldome if ever mention single payer. End up with neither.
What a negotiation
and, if you believe the stories, Obama had even given the public option away to the Hospital Associations early on while he was still claiming to support it.
Oh, there is now no question on that.
OK, OK, let’s really get real about this. I mean real world, actually the way people are.
I live in a town where people are quite watchful of what goes on and they like to keep out projects and ideas that f’up the town (a very liberal town). So, I see lots of people and groups who want to build bridges and what they do to actually build bridges.
I don’t see ANY intention to build bridges here. None. And if they won’t give any effort to build bridges to get it built, then it can be safely assumed that none will be built after.
I should better say, I don’t see any ACTION to build bridges. If your purpose for the project was to build bridges once built, and you knew there were some hard feelings developing about the idea of getting it built, you would put your bridge building skills to work. Meet with the family groups. Show them what you are going to do, get their support, mitigate any problem they might see, bring them on board. You might send spokesmen out to various news or comment shows, give interviews to newspapers with the top people–like the Iman or deputy. A million things.
That’s building bridges.
NONE of that has been done.
Of course, maybe they watched the bridges the Democrats built in early 2009 when they put together the stimulus package without any consultation, contact or input from Republicans (and then wondered why the GOP didn’t like it–OK, yes, they knew why and purposely wanted that result).
Some people take the intention as some quiet monument signifying the triumph of what was termed in Gaza as “the operation of the century.”
But, then, Gaza is not part of Al Queda, so, they obviously didn’t support the attacks.
I don’t know if that is the intention. But, I don’t see ACTION indicating some other intention.
Wow! So I guess the 1/3 of the stimulus that was tax cuts was purely Democrats? I don’t think so.
Contrary to the whining from Boehner and McConnell, Republicans were consulted on the stimulus, just as they were consulted on the Health Insurance Reforms. It did no good just as none of the other “consultations” of Republicans by Dems have worked since the whole Republican MO has been to obstruct. Because their entire reason for being in DeeCee since 1/09 has been to see what they can do to make the Obama admin fail.
(and trust me, I’m not giving the Dems a pass on any of that since Bush managed to get his agenda through with much smaller majorities in both houses than the Dems have had.) We can only wish that the Dems hadn’t spent so much time consulting with Rs for nothing
Like to answer, but it’s off on another subject.
As far as I know, no one was called in, let in a meeting, consulted, etc. on it. But, I’d be happy to see evidence otherwise.
Again, it’s an argument for another day.
Negotiations stall on stimulus package via the Boston Globe
Senate adjourns without deal on stimulus package
As a start
Oh, that’s what you meant.
The “negotiations” with a couple GOP members at the end when the entire bill was pretty much set.
I’ll remember that when the GOP takes over the House and maybe Senate. They’ll negotiate with Lieberman and Nelson. The other 46 or 47 Senators and 205 House Democrats will have nothing to say on it.
But, ah! I digress, and it’s off the subject.
You could sure see that in his two years in the Senate. Kept wondering what everyone was so excited about? Great PR campaign team
Obama’s rhetoric funneled into a martial screed of scrotal bloat. Like Teddy Roosevelt. Why is it called a ‘bully pulpit’ instead of a ‘steering wheel’? Maybe because steers are castrated bulls.
From Wikipedia:
“The Syria Mosque was a performance venue, located in the Oakland neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Constructed in 1912, it was designed by Huehl, Schmidt & Holmes architectural firm of Chicago.
Located along Bigelow Boulevard, over the years it held numerous events, mainly highlighted by concerts of the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra and numerous internationally recognized music performers, such as Buddy Holly (4 times in 1957-1958), Bob Dylan in 1966, [the Chicago Transit Authority in 1969] The Allman Brothers Band in 1971, Carly Simon in 1972, Pink Floyd in 1972, Frank Zappa in 1974 & Genesis in 1976 [and B.B. King in 1980].
Syria Mosque was torn down in August 1991, and the site is now a parking lot.”
It was a beautiful hall. The University of Pittsburgh’s Cathedral of Learning towered above it, and of course overshadowed it when it was constructed. The university bought the property and used it to help make the world safe for automobile drivers.
On Sundays I didn’t go to church; I listened to Casey Kasem count down the Top 40.
Now is the time to put some Political Judo on the Goopers!
Let the Palin/Gingrich/Angle crowd keep pushing the Raging Goopers out to the extremist end of the political plank with their religiously intolerant, racist hate speech…the further the better.
Then, after Labor Day:
– President Obama proposes a sweeping new Jobs Program to employ Millions of out of work Americans,
– Have the House pass it right away, and
– the Senate debate it.
Then let’s have the mid-terms…
Even Our fumbling Dems can saw-off that plank and win the campaign in a rout!
With Unemployment on the decline and consumer spending on the rise, Obama would easily win a second term in 2012, and the Goopers would be relegated to the role of a dwindling Regional Party with little, to no, National clout.
In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that the Party that announces a meaningful Jobs Program *first* – will be the dominant Party in ’10 and ’12.
What’s it gonna be Dems?
Nevermind…Reid threw-in with the Goopers on the Islamic Center in Manhattan – there will be no brilliant moves by the Dems…
Heh, sounds like a lot of tactical smarts – for Democrats.
Welcome home!
I am totally against there being a mosque being built anywhere! But then I have the same opinion of all the myth believers. I believe in science not fairy tales and supreme beings. Not one person on this Earth can prove the existence of any supreme being of any shape or size. As to the fight to see who’s imaginary friend is better is comperable to kids fighting over whether the like Woody Woodpecker or Mickey Mouse.
Yup, my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend. The adult view?
TPM does have a funny pic and story about the strip club that is a block from the Mosque site. Apparently nothing says sacred like strippers.
If they are card carrying union members then they’re like apple pie.