home

Sometimes, Silence Is Golden

I've spent a week saying this, but Josh Marshall seems to finally get it:

Maybe Better Not to Speak At All

Some of these Democrats speaking out on the Cordoba House project, I mean, jeez, maybe it's just better not to say anything at all.

Marshall is referencing Howard Dean's awful statements, but I think it applies to all the pols, starting with the biggest one, the President. Remember where we were on this "issue" before the President made his admirable but unwise statements -- Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League was defensively trying to explain how an alleged anti-bigotry group could be endorsing bigotry. Fareed Zakaria had embarrassed Foxman with his eloquent words and his return of an ADL award. Since the President weighed in, it has been a disaster, both for the principle supposedly being defended and for Democrats politically.

People protest stuff all the time. A lot of the time, the protests are stupid and oftentimes ugly. The anti-Cordoba Center protests were both. But politics thrives in ugly and stupid. And the President joining the "issue" made it political. And let's remember what we are talking about:

The efforts to launch the $100 million Cordoba House (now dubbed Park51) two blocks north of the World Trade Center site have been an uphill battle from the start, and not just because of controversy. [. . .] New York government officials and real estate insiders are privately questioning whether the project has much chance of coming to fruition. The Cordoba Initiative hasn’t begun fundraising yet for its $100 million goal. The group’s latest fundraising report with the State Attorney General’s office, from 2008, shows exactly $18,255 – not enough even for a down payment on the half of the site the group has yet to purchase.

The group also lacks even the most basic real estate essentials: no blueprint, architect, lobbyist or engineer — and now operates amid crushing negative publicity. The developers didn't line up advance support for the project from other religious leaders in the city, who could have risen to their defense with the press.

[. . .] “As I understand it there’s no money there,” said another prominent business official. A prominent supporter of the project was blunt: “This is amateur hour,” he said. “That’s why the idea that this is some big conspiracy is so silly,” said the supporter. “Yes, you could say this is not a well-oiled machine.”

Who knows if this is even a serious project? But most important is this:

[The Cordoba Group] can build on the site as of right[.] [A Community Board] hearing gave the impression nationally that there was some kind of government approval required, when in fact it wasn’t the case. A subsequent New York City Landmarks Commission hearing was forced by opponents trying to stop it.

A major piece of misinformation is the idea that government has a role in stopping the center[. . . .] The project is a completely as-of-right project, meaning it requires no governmental approvals.

“The mosque has no money, the politicians have no money, the politicians have no say about the money because it's a charitable institution,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic strategist[. . . .]

The government has no role in this and yet pols are being asked to give their "position." I ask position on what? Are they being asked to vote on anything?

Everyone should have kept their mouths shut, like Anthony Weiner wanted to do, until the Greg Sargents of the world hounded him onto making a statement.

As I said, sometimes, silence is golden, and this situation is proof positive. No good has come of pols speaking about this "issue." None.

Speaking for me only

< Blagojevich: The Retrial and More From the Jurors | Jobless Claims Jump >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Politically, maybe (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:54:19 AM EST
    but morally no.  This episode; Shirley Sherrod, Arizona and Prop 8 before it are all teachable moments.  In light of the historical election we had, these are all opportunities to faciliate discussion at dinner tables, at the work place, online, wherever.  We are only going to beat back the cancer that is intolerance when we confront it.  It's a d@mn shame the politicians either don't have the personal development or stomach to see it.  Too many it seems don't deserve the title of leader, better they be called spokesperson lest their views been seen as approval to remain a bigot.

    Morally what? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:57:30 AM EST
    What moral good has been advanced by pols speaking about this?

    That is horsesh*t imo.

    Parent

    That we are talking about the side of people (none / 0) (#4)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:05:42 AM EST
    that apparently many believed did not exist seems a benefit to me.  YMMV.

    I don't know about you, but I think many are shocked that more than half of NY'ers, let alone Americans are against this thing.  That this many folks can's see their own bigoted natures is something I think to many is eye-opening.  At the very least, it will make some look for better leaders.  

    Parent

    *can's (none / 0) (#5)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:06:21 AM EST
     = can't

    Parent
    Side of people what? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:10:05 AM EST
    What didn't exist?

    People protest stuff all the time - oftentimes for stupid, ugly and bigoted reasons.

    You think that is going to stop because pols say one thing or another?

    I am not shocked that America hates "The Other." This is is old as humanity.

    Pols do not lead on these issues. They follow.

    I wrote a long post about this yesterday.

    As for looking for better leaders, I hope you do not mean looking for better pols? The haters will hate and will vote for the pols that echo their hate.

    Are you really unfamiliar with the history of this country, indeed, the history of humanity?

    If you are looking for moral leadership from pols, you are looking in the wrong place.

    Parent

    Read your post yesterday (none / 0) (#9)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:15:57 AM EST
    and it was spot on.  I don't disagree with you.  I guess I just don't want to be as cynical.  Somebody has to step up and confront this crap.

    Parent
    Someone must (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:22:38 AM EST
    Someone won't - pols.

    Parent
    All that is necessary for evil to triumph (none / 0) (#11)
    by Farmboy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:17:06 AM EST
    is that good [people] do nothing.

    Apocryphal, misattributed, and a cliche. Valid nonetheless.

    Parent

    How would evil triumph here? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:21:55 AM EST
    There is no legal impediment to the building of the Cordoba Center.

    They should build it.

    And pols blowing hot air about it will change nothing on this.

    Parent

    Evil is a moral, not legal, concept IMO (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Farmboy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:30:20 AM EST
    Bigotry, hate, and fear are winning here. If they don't build the center it will because of those factors, not legal ones.

    And morality is part of a politician's job description, or else the tar and feathers wouldn't come out when they show feet of clay. It seems inconsistent to hold them accountable for their moral failings, but tell them to shut up when they aim for the moral high ground.

    Parent

    Fine (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:37:34 AM EST
    How does EVIL triumph here if pols say nothing?

    The Cordoba Center can be built. Right now. Without a pol saying a word.

    By all means, hold them accountable. What do you propose to do? Not vote for the Dems in the Fall for failing to speak out on this?

    I'm curious where people draw lines on these things.

    Are you going Firebagger on this non-legislative issue?

    Parent

    Here's the problem (none / 0) (#23)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:52:09 AM EST
    Let's say they raise the money, no politician speaks out, the tensions remain - how long before the neighborhood is the site of daily protests?  How long before some black person going into the building gets into it w/some white heartlander and it becomes more of a racial issue?  It's easy for folks who don't live here.  I don't want that sh!t in my city.

    Personally, I'm not holding this against anyone who doesn't speak out, but the one's who do speak out and revel in their ignorance well that's a different matter.  I'd like to see a united front on this however.

    Parent

    Wait up (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:00:22 AM EST
    No politician speaks out, the tensions remain - how long before the neighborhood is the site of daily protests?  How long before some black person going into the building gets into it w/some white heartlander and it becomes more of a racial issue?

    So you are saying a pol speaking out will stop that from happening? What world do you live in?

    You think pols speaking out will stop the PPam Gellers of the world? They FEED on having a pol speak out.

    You have this EXACTLY backwards.

    Parent

    Exactly backwards is right (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:13:16 AM EST
    Evil seemed to be losing before the politicians got involved. The Cordoba Center folks were taking the protests in stride.

    Parent
    PRECISELY (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:16:58 AM EST
    my point.

    Parent
    The same one you do brother (none / 0) (#34)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:23:55 AM EST
    What world do you live in?

    I know it won't prevent it.  I would rather we be positioned to deal with it and come together in support of it than react afterwards to the inevitable.

    I know pols speaking out wont stop the Pam Gellers of the world.  Pols speaking out will hopefully, galvanize those of us who disagree (and maybe give us a few likeable folks to rally behind) so we as a nation can confront them and shout down the hatred they spew.

    Parent

    Posiitoned to wha? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:29:16 AM EST
    How about we position to where the haters are on the defensive?

    They were you know, BEFORE the pols got in the act.

    Parent

    Where they tho? (none / 0) (#42)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    haters on the defensive

    With poll after poll showing vast majorities either in support of the position that no mosque should be built?

    Seems to me they were flourishing before the prez spoke up (weakly) on this.

    Parent

    In the "discussion" (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:39:35 AM EST
    Absolutely. Zakaria and Bloomberg had the high ground.

    They were winning.

    Parent

    Some of the tension you speak of (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:08:00 AM EST
    is a true social dynamic of two cultures assimilating each other.  As assimilation occurs the tension dissipates.  For those New Yorkers who saw the location as disrepectful, that isn't going to rage for long. We all deal with "disrespect" every day and most of us don't go postal, every now and then though someone fails us.  Unfortunately though, this has grown far beyond New Yorkers now and small town America has joined this debate and is growing its own outrage on the issue.

    Parent
    I'm really not sure how you're using the FB term (none / 0) (#33)
    by Farmboy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:22:04 AM EST
    I'm not familiar with it, and a quick google returns a spectrum of uses. Instead, here are my answers, and you can judge for yourself.

    If politicians stay silent on the issue of religious bigotry (and that's what this is), then evil wins.

    As to my vote for my representative this fall, once this went from a local issue to a national debate I'd like for him to speak up. I'm curious as to what he thinks. If he reveals himself as a bigot I won't vote for him. Who wouldn't want to know that? However, if he stays silent on the issue that isn't a deal breaker but I will be disappointed - but not surprised. Many pols are acting out of fear currently - see Reid.

    I wanted Obama to speak up. IMO the president needs to stand up for things like the 1st amendment and be against religious intolerance - and if he reveals himself to be on the wrong side of my view of morality (e.g., Bush and Terri Shiavo), I'd really like to know.

    A politician doing the right thing doesn't need to be related to a legislative issue.

    So, am I a firebagger?

    Parent

    Not to me (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    Everyone gets to vote for the reasons they choose.

    If you googled the term, you'll understand my sarcastic use of it.

    Parent

    Never sure about your sense of humor (none / 0) (#40)
    by Farmboy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    I've erred both ways. Thanks for the heads up.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#20)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    It seems inconsistent to hold them accountable for their moral failings, but tell them to shut up when they aim for the moral high ground.


    Parent
    When they aim for the moral high ground (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:45:09 AM EST
    Let me know.

    You think Obama's statements, ALL of them, aimed for the oral high ground?

    Parent

    oral high ground (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by PatHat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:03:02 PM EST
    Freudian slip?

    Parent
    I think so too (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:51:20 AM EST
    It literally spun us backwards in the respect diversity department.  There are complex aspects that will be worked out on the streets, in the classrooms, and all others things we will all share together. Politicians were never going to work any of that out for us.  Focusing attention on it by Dems only gives Repubs something to swing at now where once they had nothing but some Fox News daily drama and a couple of buses.

    Parent
    As for the discussions at the dinner table (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:58:41 AM EST
    You really think pols weighing in has improved them? That is just ridiculous.

    As for your wish that pols were not pols, then what can I say?


    Parent

    Also, this is one of the issues that pols should (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:12:01 AM EST
    be pushed on.  How can we expect them to do right on all those liberal causes when they can't get the basic stuff right?  This more than anything needs requires agitation.

    Parent
    If politicians are pushed on this they will (none / 0) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:16:33 AM EST
    come out against it because they politically have little choice. With nearly 70% of the country against the center supporting it less then 3 months before major elections is a foolish thing to do.

    So center supporters looking to politicians to "do the right thing" are making a big mistake.

    Parent

    Fine (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:20:53 AM EST
    Push the pols. I don't disagree.

    I'm not writing as an activist, but as a bloviator viewing the political scene.

    Parent

    As to your last sentence in this comment, (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:00:11 AM EST
    why keep writing about this issue?  Doesn't the sturm and drang of the media and bloggers keep the controversy alive?  

    Parent
    Cuz I like to talk (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:06:02 AM EST
    So do the pols! (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:11:20 AM EST
    y talk does not (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    do any damage.

    Parent
    What's for them to get right on this? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:57:24 AM EST
    There were some protests but Cordoba House was on Cordoba House schedule and had been approved by the city.  Now that Dems have enabled an giant amping up of the volume and anger I'm just about to place a serious bet that Cordoba House is never built at the location ever due to the desire to avoid the huge outrage and hostility.  Nobody was getting anything wrong though prior to pols all throwing their two cents into the fire.

    Parent
    The question as to whether the center (none / 0) (#27)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:02:07 AM EST
    should be built at the proposed location.  Disputing arguments based on bigotry that it shouldn't.

    Parent
    And you care what pol thinks? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:16:07 AM EST
    You care what Newt Gingrich thinks on that?>

    Parent
    I see that as a no brainer (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:18:03 AM EST
    Everything that has happened was legal and we are nation of laws.  It seems to me that you desire to create a power struggle.  And I was taught to avoid the word "should" because it is about me putting my expectations on others and is often very disfunctional.  I think that people's "concerns" need to be heard, that is how  "concerns" lose their fire...even huge ones eventually will if people are heard.  I can even listen to bigots say bigotted things because then I get to ask  questions and/or give my opinions on the issue and a deeper understanding can develop all the way around.

    Parent
    MT (none / 0) (#39)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:33:04 AM EST
    You're right - I do desire we confront this ugliness head on.  Same way you're talking about.  My point in blog-clogging here is because I desire the conversation just as you allude to in your post.

    Re: expectations, there is but one reason to oppose the center other than for bigoted ones.  The only argument families who lost loved ones there could possible make is a hallowed ground argument.  That's not what's being said.  I'd have a different opinion if that was the case.

    Parent

    Conversation with who? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:33:54 AM EST
    With the majority (who I believe silent) (none / 0) (#43)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:39:26 AM EST
    that disagrees.  The loud yellers I may not be able to convince.  

    Anyone who will listen for that matter.

    Parent

    Don't you think (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:45:58 AM EST
    the best thing that could happen to further respect for diversity would be that our laws rule the day and the Center is built, and New York assimilates all that?  Cuz I do.  I think that strengthens our multiculturalism in a HUGE WAY, and Fox News bickering and power struggles only strengthens Fox News and the tea being served.

    Parent
    Of course. (none / 0) (#49)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:00:42 AM EST
    I just don't think disavoing what is patently obvious helps.  

    Being a punk helps those serving the tea just as much as ignoring them.

    Parent

    Who is disavowing? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:15:54 AM EST
    Not wading into the wailfest is disavowing nothing.  It is simply not wading into or attempting to inspire a riot.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#59)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:39:51 AM EST
    Agree to disagree then.  Although, no one is looking for them ti "inspire a riot."

    Parent
    Wouldn't it be ironic (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:14:36 AM EST
    if in an endeavor to get the proposed Cordoba Center to relocate further from the WTC site, the powers that be actually provide the funding for the center to be built.

    That seems the best chance (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:20:03 AM EST
    for the center to actually be built.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:26:10 AM EST
    Jims head just exploded

    Parent
    Here is an idea (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:27:19 AM EST
    Maybe Squeaky could get Fox news and the rest of the "sacred ground" crew across the country to provide the $100m to build the center on the property by his/her house.

    Get busy Squeaky. Don't waste this opportunity.

    Parent

    Already On It (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    This has been a boon to the developer. No one could have bought this much advertising. Raising the money will be effortless at this point, thanks to the haters.

    Parent
    Imagine if that was the plan all along... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:53:23 AM EST
    that would be a hall of fame scam...the developers would be quickly recruited by Goldman Sachs with a scam like that on their resume.

    Parent
    In no way was I trying to imply (none / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    that this outcome was the plan all along. Only suggesting that it could result in an unintended consequence.

    Parent
    Oh, maybe the whole controversy (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:02:52 AM EST
    is a ploy to spur fundraising?

    Parent
    All divisive issues (none / 0) (#65)
    by PatHat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    are pushed by the powers that be to increase fundraising. It is big business now. And there are no end of these kinds of issues: abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, flag burning, etc. Just issues to keep our eyes off the ball. The ball being actually creating a better country.

    Parent
    I was thinking, given the paltry sum in the (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    building fund for the Cordoba project, perhaps the Twittering press rep. was onto something to increase the building fund.  But then I saw this labelled as a "rightwing" meme.  

    Parent
    Just the topic you DO NOT want pols (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    discussing in election season:

    Greenwald:

    The central question raised by this controversy is the same one raised by countless similar controversies throughout American history:  whether the irrational fears and prejudices of the majority should be honored and validated or emphatically confronted.

    You know most of them will go with 'honor and validate' every time. Kudos to Feingold and Giannoulias for bucking the trend.

    Dean thinks there should be a conversation with give and take on both sides. I don't see any 'give' on the anti-Cordoba side possible. The Cordoba backers are the only ones being asked to give anything.

    That's a helpful GG (none / 0) (#46)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    post, w/update, to show that the anti-Muslim sentiment was beginning to boil over both in NY and elsewhere in the country where mosques were being planned and before Obama decided to weigh in.

    Obama did the right thing last Fri night, as US history shows that when the forces of bigotry and hatred are not confronted directly, forcefully and sooner rather than later, they tend to get a foothold and take over.  And Glennwald is right to note the importance of speaking out, but not in the sloppy way Dr Dean did.

    Parent

    I like Greenwald a lot (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:50:23 AM EST
    But Glenn would rather emphatically confront things from Brazil.........that's pretty ironic :)

    Parent
    He is an emphatically confronting (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:04:37 AM EST
    blogger.  

    Parent
    He lives where he lives (none / 0) (#52)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:05:05 AM EST
    just as other frequent bloviators live often in far-away locales, but with fancy modern communications, the vast distances can be largely made into a non-factor.

    He speaks out plenty on his blog, and is on the teevee machine frequently confronting things just in the way some say is entirely fitting and proper in such controversies (but not for the pols).

    Parent

    He chooses to live in Brazil (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:11:13 AM EST
    though and have his same sex marriage legally respected.  He chooses to live his dream and live by example instead of moving them to the United States and "emphatically confronting" his own country :)  Still ironic to me :)  But I'm all about picking my battles seeking the ultimate win too :)

    Parent
    No, ironic (none / 0) (#54)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:09:13 AM EST
    is when Pat Buchanan calls out Newt Gingrich for racism

    Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan casting Newt Gingrich as a "political opportunist" who is using the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" issue to position himself for a run at the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

    Gingrich on Monday accused President Obama of "pandering to radical Islam" by expressing support for building an Islamic cultural center which includes a mosque two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks, adding: "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a sight next to Pearl Harbor. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center."

    Buchanan, himself a former presidential hopeful, said on MSNBC that Gingrich is "trying to get out and be more flamboyant and more charismatic if you will, and more controversial than Sarah Palin, who is his primary challenger if he gets into Iowa and New Hampshire."

    Continued Buchanan, who himself has made controversial comments in the past: "How do you get more attention than Sarah Palin, who's very good at this, is to go two steps further. I mean, I think bringing the Nazis into the argument is always absurd in American politics because there is no valid comparison there. And secondly, you know, you bring that in and that's all we start talking about."

    "So I think Newt went too far with that comment - but I know why he's doing it," he added.

    Gingrich has openly flirted with a presidential run and has used the mosque issue in his fundraising materials on behalf of the group Renewing American Leadership Action, telling supporters over email (as Salon reports): "Please SELECT HERE to STOP the Ground Zero mosque! Your decisive DONATION to Real Action will help us to RALLY and ACTIVATE all Americans, to TAKE REAL ACTION!"

    or Dr. Laura claims that her 1st Amendment rights have been violated ;-)

    Parent

    Giuliani slimes in. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    "Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani says a proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero would create more division, anger and hatred."

    When did he start worrying about "division, anger and hatred?" That's not the Rudi Giuliani I know.


    Yup (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:43:16 PM EST
    The Right is tearing itself apart over this.... of course that is what he is concerned about... lol

    Parent
    Half Time Quarterbacking? (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:54:28 PM EST
    Is that the correct term, BTD.

    I think Obama's statement was needed, and along with Bloomberg's statement will come around to  the center. The GOPers have been overtly generating extreme racist statements, which will come back to bite them in the a$$.

    This controversy will wind up being a net positive for Democrats who took a stand against the abject bigotry which appears to be the flavor de jour..

    Monday Morning QB-ing (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 07:50:15 AM EST
    To be clear, it never occurred tome that Obama would wade in and I was critical the day after he did.

    Parent
    I Understand (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    And I thought your post was good..

    My point of view is that this is going to continue as an mid-term election topic, with or without Obama's input. There is a huge rally set on 9/11 or 9/12 at WTC, it is international at this point.

    The GOP is split, Obama made the right choice to make a statement, early on Ramadan. No matter what he does the GOP will make it central to their racist agenda. Islamophobia is a winner in the US right now. I think it is toxic and will burn the GOP in the end (Nov).

    Had Obama said nothing that would be the talking point, loaded with many thoughtful people, wondering if he was supporting bigotry.

    Parent