The Moral Cowardice of Harry Reid

[Costanza]

Harry Reid weighs in on N.Y. mosque: It 'should be built someplace else'​

Now that President Obama has addressed and amplified the issue, the political debate over the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero is being felt far from Lower Manhattan, in political races across the country.

But candidates could find it difficult to straddle the issue, as Obama did, by expressing their support for religious freedom while refusing to take a stand on the construction of the Islamic center.

The latest to weigh in: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), who is battling to keep his seat in Nevada.

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."

He added: "If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 9/11, rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation."

Reid issued the statement after the campaign of his Republican opponent in the election, Sharron Angle, demanded that he take a position.

"As the Majority Leader, Harry Reid is usually President Obama's mouthpiece in the U.S. Senate, and yet he remains silent on this issue," Angle communications director Jarrod Agen said. "Reid has a responsibility to stand up and say no to the mosque at Ground Zero or once again side with President Obama -- this time against the families of 9/11 victims. America is waiting."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/harry-reid-weighs-in-on-ny-mos.html

The Moral Cowardice of Harry Reid​

So Harry Reid has contradicted President Obama and capitulated to the mob denouncing the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero, has he? Oh, Reid says, via his spokesman Jim Manley, that he respects religious rights. Then came the "but." But it should be built "someplace else." Like in Nevada, Senator Reid? Thought not.

Reid's cringing performance, too cowardly even to make the statement personally, leaving it instead to a flack, is particularly shameful coming hard on the heels of Newt Gingrich's likening of building a mosque to the Holocaust. But his actions do provide a kind of crystallization of what's gone wrong with the Democratic party, or, to put it more precisely, has been wrong with it for decades. Republicans seize upon an issue, whip up a firestorm of indignation, and, rather than seek to douse it, or, heaven forbid, turn it around, Democrats, more often than not, cower abjectly. This has pretty much been the Obama strategy over the past year, as the GOP has, by and large, set the terms of debate.

No, the Saudis, as Gingrich observed, wouldn't allow the construction of a mosque near Mecca. That's why America isn't Saudi Arabia. We don't prevent women from driving. We don't have religious squads roaming shopping malls, trying to enforce a medieval version of morals. And so on.

Why can't Obama and Reid make these obvious points? Obama himself issued a clarification of his views after tepidly standing up for religious freedom. Instead of quaking before America's right, Obama and Reid should be going on the offensive, affirming the nation's proudest traditions. The mosque issue, however, is further unmasking the leadership of the Democratic party.

George W. Bush never demonized Muslims living in America. He visited a mosque shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Gingrich and his confreres, by contrast, are engaging in reckless analogies to Nazi Germany. They may well stir up violence against mosques and Muslims. The GOP, it must be said, is lurching out of control.

But the leadership of the Democratic party doesn't want to say so. Instead, it is cowering in abject fear. If the Democrats lose the midterm elections, it won't be because they were too bold, but because they never even began to fight in the first place.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/the-moral-cowardice-of-ha_b_684158.html

 

[Nzinga]

I agree with Senator Harry Reid... Obama is making the Democrats fight an unnecessary fight..He should have kept quiet...

 

[Costanza]

I agree with Senator Harry Reid... Obama is making the Democrats fight an unnecessary fight..He should have kept quiet...

Why is this an unnecessary fight?

 

[mk23666]

More like the moral cowardice of the Democratic and Republican Parties as a whole. They should all weigh in on the debate.

 

[Pworld297]

Why is this an unnecessary fight?

Yeah I would like to know that answer to that as well.

 

[sharkbait28]

Either we're a secular democracy or not. Fuck the capitulation to religious bigots. Build your shit wherever you want to.... it wasn't any American muslims on them planes. And it was a grip of them in the towers.

 

[Costanza]

Remember when Reid's fellow-Mormon Mitt Romney wanted to do anything but focus on religion when he was running for President?

Tricky Mitt: Romney's mosque calculations
Don't think it was an accident that he waited more than three weeks to say anything about the "ground zero mosque"

Ben Smith has a helpful post documenting the likely 2012 GOP contenders' public statements on the "ground zero mosque." Not surprisingly, none of them are for it. What is surprising, though, is how long it took Mitt Romney to express his opposition.

It was, after all, more than three weeks ago that Sarah Palin called on "peace-seeking Muslims" to "refudiate" the planned community center -- a pronouncement that spurred Newt Gingrich to declare that the Cordoba House shouldn't be built until churches are constructed in Saudi Arabia. Others have followed suit, and the political incentive is obvious: As I wrote on Sunday, Islamophobia binds the GOP's voters together today like anti-communism did a generation or two ago. The mosque is an easy red meat issue for any Republican thinking ahead to Iowa and South Carolina.

And yet, Mitt has been AWOL from the pile-on. We asked his spokesman for a comment more than a week ago, and never heard back. Smith, apparently, had a similar experience. Only after his piece went up this morning did Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's press guy, say that his boss opposes the mosque because of "the wishes of the families of the deceased and the potential for extremists to use the mosque for global recruiting and propaganda."

At first glance, it seems like Team Romney may have been caught sleeping. But I doubt that's what's going on. Romney has been pursuing the presidency with single-minded determination since 2004, when he began junking the moderate image he'd used to win election as Massachusetts' governor in 2002 and rebranding himself as a fire-breathing conservative.

Back then, Mitt had a lot of compensating to do. He'd left an extensive paper (and video) trail of cultural liberalism (and a boast that he'd voted for a Democrat for president) in the Bay State. So his strategy was simple: get as far to to the right as possible and do it as quickly and loudly as possible on every issue that resonates with the national GOP electorate -- abortion, gay rights, immigration and so on. Past positions be damned. If doing so threatened to make him a tougher general election sell -- well, he'd deal with that when he got there. And he'd never get there if he couldn't overcome the skepticism of the GOP's very conservative base. This was the Mitt who, for instance, called for the wiretapping of mosques in 2005.

It worked well enough in 2008. Romney won a lot of admirers, briefly emerged as the GOP front-runner, then finished in second place. Which was fine with him: By February '08, when he dropped out, it was clear that the fall campaign would be a very heavy lift for any GOP nominee. So finishing second in the primaries and establishing himself as the next-in-line candidate for '12 wasn't a bad consolation prize.

And now, as '12 approaches, the challenge is a little different for Mitt. His Massachusetts past is more distant. There's still skepticism on the right about his commitment to the cause (and there always will be), but it's not as intense. He has, in other words, just a little more wiggle room -- more of an opening to balance general election calculations with GOP primary imperatives.

Here, a parallel can be drawn to Richard Nixon, like Mitt an ideological chameleon with an overpowering drive to claim the White House. Back in 1966, when a midterm election with eerily similar dynamics to this year's, was playing out, Nixon was furiously positioning himself for the '68 presidential race. With riots breaking out in cities and Vietnam protests growing in size and volume, the major issue, by far, was "law and order." With little subtlety, GOP candidates were playing on white America's racial fears and resentments, peeling off the white ethnic base of the Democratic Party. It was a political gold mine -- the GOP ended up picking up 47 House seats. But, as Rick Perlstein points out in "Nixonland," Nixon -- who kept up a frantic schedule campaigning with GOP candidates all year -- tried hard to avoid talking about "the hottest Republican issue":

It served a political requirement. What Richard Nixon was campaigning for now was respectability. Yes, law and order was breaking down; the crime rate was making ordinary Americans terrified to walk the streets; "the cities" were becoming wastelands. But others were doing just fine tying these facts to Lyndon Johnson, softening him up for 1968: George Wallace, Ronald Reagan, dozens of lesser figures. There was no percentage for Nixon in adding to the pile-on. The task now was making sure the pundits and the papers no longer considered the idea of him competing for the presidency as a joke. The key to that was raising his stature.

I'd chalk up Mitt's mosque reluctance to the same basic calculation. Sure, he's staked out his share of embarrassing red-meat positions this year; he only has so much wiggle room, after all. But where's the percentage for him in the mosque issue? The Mitt of 2006 and 2007 would have been all over it, but in 2010, he has a little less to prove to the right. Which made staying out of the fight a chance for Romney to gain a subtle stature advantage over the rest of the field. Of course, once the media started asking questions about his silence, he had no choice but to dive in, lest the GOP's Islamophobic base think he was going soft on Muslims. But I'd say Mitt's silence these past few weeks was quite intentional.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/10/romney_ground_zero_mosque

It isn't that he has any less to prove to the right than Palin or any other potential 2012 rival. What separates Romney is that he has more to lose in the area of religion than any other candidate.

They say blacks should know better than to discriminate against gays due to the history of discrimination in this nation but nobody says the same of the Mormons who not only seek to legalize discrimination against gays on the marriage issue but also, based on the two leading Mormon political figures in this country, against other religious groups. And Romney will be the first to complain about an unfair religious test for the presidency and try to emphasize that "we are all Christians" and his church's belief in Jesus Christ, even though constitutional principles on freedom of religion make no mention of Christ and no differentiation between, say, Mormons and Muslims. Where are the cries of Mormon hypocrisy?

 

[ganjababy]

Why is this an unnecessary fight?

because neither party is willing to fight for the constitution rather they fight for power

 

[Costanza]

Romney Campaign to Surrender Evangelicals in 2012

 

[Pworld297]

Either we're a secular democracy or not. Fuck the capitulation to religious bigots. Build your shit wherever you want to.... it wasn't any American muslims on them planes. And it was a grip of them in the towers.

C/S bruh! My problem is with Obama and the backtrack he did, what he said Friday is what he should stick by because in all honesty he said absolutely nothing wrong at the dinner he was at with a bunch of Muslims.

 

[Costanza]

More like the moral cowardice of the Democratic and Republican Parties as a whole. They should all weigh in on the debate.

I think Reid is emblematic of the Democratic Party and the author meant to portray him as so.

As for the Republicans... The man who knows discrimination is wrong and chooses not to fight against it is a coward. The man who actively promotes discrimination is simply immoral.

The lines are becoming more and more blurred but I would distinguish between the two.

 

[sharkbait28]

C/S bruh! My problem is with Obama and the backtrack he did, what he said Friday is what he should stick by because in all honesty he said absolutely nothing wrong at the dinner he was at with a bunch of Muslims.

Yeah I was disappointed with the back-pedalling too man. Politics is silly like that.

 

[Costanza]

Bump

 

[actinanass]

Damn just build the damn thing already.

I mean damn, they really don't give a fuck about how we feel anyway. They are protected by the first amendment. So who really give a shit?

Personally, it is distasteful if you ask me. It's kinda like building a white supremacy church right next to the MLK memorial, but it really don't matter.

BTW, this shit further proves that 9-11 was real.... *watches the tinhats come in*

 

[Costanza]

BTW, this shit further proves that 9-11 was real.... *watches the tinhats come in*

This does? How so?

Damn just build the damn thing already.

I mean damn, they really don't give a fuck about how we feel anyway. They are protected by the first amendment. So who really give a shit?

Personally, it is distasteful if you ask me. It's kinda like building a white supremacy church right next to the MLK memorial, but it really don't matter.

Horrendous analogy.

Does White Supremacy go against all Martin Luther King stood for or claimed to stand for?

Yes.

Does Islam go against all that America claims to stand for?

 

[actinanass]

This does? How so?



Horrendous analogy.

Does White Supremacy go against all Martin Luther King stood for or claimed to stand for?

Yes.

Does Islam go against all that America claims to stand for?

1. Do you see the significance of building the mosque right there? Have you researched the organization who is building the Mosque?

2. It could be argued that it contradicts our way of government when it comes to civil rights as a whole.

 

[Costanza]

1. Do you see the significance of building the mosque right there? Have you researched the organization who is building the Mosque?

2. It could be argued that it contradicts our way of government when it comes to civil rights as a whole.

1. Possibly and no.

2. Our way of government contradicts itself... For instance, my earlier comments about Mormons and religious discrimination. The first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. Were Mormons allowed to practice their religion freely or were they prohibited?

Prohibiting the construction of a mosque is not religious freedom. It is the opposite. America claims to be a proponent of religious freedom. The proper analogy, if you must involve MLK in this, is to build a monument paying tribute to MLK and then bar white people from the site.

 

[destrehan]

1. Do you see the significance of building the mosque right there? Have you researched the organization who is building the Mosque?

2. It could be argued that it contradicts our way of government when it comes to civil rights as a whole.

who is the organization? and "our" way of govt is the crookedest shit in the world.

as for this dumb ass "issue", i think it's ridiculous from both angles. why do these fucks wanna build a mosque there? i think they may have just wanted to stir up some shit.

second, why the fuck are people being bothered by this? they don't wanna build the shit ON ground zero.

FUCK OUTTA HERE WITH THIS BULLSHIT! I THINK THIS WHOLE THING IS A FUCKIN RUSE TO DRAW THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION AWAY FROM REAL SHIT. SORT OF HOW 911 HAS BEEN USED EVER SINCE!

 

[actinanass]

1. Possibly and no.

2. Our way of government contradicts itself... For instance, my earlier comments about Mormons and religious discrimination. The first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. Were Mormons allowed to practice their religion freely or were they prohibited?

Prohibiting the construction of a mosque is not religious freedom. It is the opposite. America claims to be a proponent of religious freedom. The proper analogy, if you must involve MLK in this, is to build a monument paying tribute to MLK and then bar white people from the site.

I think we are making a mistake of making this a constitutional matter when it is clearly a taste matter.

This mosque, the group who wants it, and the symbol it creates is disrespectful. Now, legally speaking, they did go through the proper channels. NO argument there. However, to act as if it's not disrespectful shows how moral cowardly you are.

 

[Costanza]

who is the organization? and "our" way of govt is the crookedest shit in the world.

as for this dumb ass "issue", i think it's ridiculous from both angles. why do these fucks wanna build a mosque there? i think they may have just wanted to stir up some shit.

second, why the fuck are people being bothered by this? they don't wanna build the shit ON ground zero.

FUCK OUTTA HERE WITH THIS BULLSHIT! I THINK THIS WHOLE THING IS A FUCKIN RUSE TO DRAW THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION AWAY FROM REAL SHIT. SORT OF HOW 911 HAS BEEN USED EVER SINCE!

I don't know anything about the organization behind this but I ask you what is wrong with stirring shit up?

Listen to Malcolm X's critique of the sit-in movement:


What are his problems with it? It is passive. Not masculine. He sees it as low to want to be in a white man's store when not wanted there.

Well, what would Malcolm X say of this Mosque project? It is not at all passive. I see it as an aggressive protest of anti-Islamic bigotry, in effect. And they're not asking to use anything but using what power they have to establish what they rightfully can for themselves.

 

[Costanza]

I think we are making a mistake of making this a constitutional matter when it is clearly a taste matter.

This mosque, the group who wants it, and the symbol it creates is disrespectful. Now, legally speaking, they did go through the proper channels. NO argument there. However, to act as if it's not disrespectful shows how moral cowardly you are.

I already illustrated how this charge of moral cowardice is easily misapplied...

I think Reid is emblematic of the Democratic Party and the author meant to portray him as so.

As for the Republicans... The man who knows discrimination is wrong and chooses not to fight against it is a coward. The man who actively promotes discrimination is simply immoral.

The lines are becoming more and more blurred but I would distinguish between the two.

Perhaps you could label me immoral if that is how you see it but how am I a coward? Because our interpretations differ? I see the building of this mosque as a testament to religious freedom and an offense only to the ignorant. The notion that no mosque can be built near the WTC-- And why stop there? Why should mosques be allowed in New York City? New York State? The United States?-- is disrespectful to all the Muslims who lived there prior to 9/11 and the religion in general. It is the judgment of an entire group for the actions of a few and the few should never stand for that. This is not disrespectful-- It is assertive and demands respect for a disregarded and vilified group.

 

[destrehan]

I don't know anything about the organization behind this but I ask you what is wrong with stirring shit up?

Listen to Malcolm X's critique of the sit-in movement:


What are his problems with it? It is passive. Not masculine. He sees it as low to want to be in a white man's store when not wanted there.

Well, what would Malcolm X say of this Mosque project? It is not at all passive. I see it as an aggressive protest of anti-Islamic bigotry, in effect. And they're not asking to use anything but using what power they have to establish what they rightfully can for themselves.

would they want to build a mosque there if the wtc was still there? and fuck religion.

 

[ganjababy]

maybe if after 9+ year they would have actually built something at WTC they wouldn't be here bitching about a community center 2 blocks away

 

[Costanza]

would they want to build a mosque there if the wtc was still there? and fuck religion.

I don't know. I don't see any special reason to in that circumstance.

 

[geechiedan]

I agree with Senator Harry Reid... Obama is making the Democrats fight an unnecessary fight..He should have kept quiet...

and if he did they would call him a coward NOT making a statement on it..

C/S bruh! My problem is with Obama and the backtrack he did, what he said Friday is what he should stick by because in all honesty he said absolutely nothing wrong at the dinner he was at with a bunch of Muslims.

Yeah I was disappointed with the back-pedalling too man. Politics is silly like that.

stop falling for the media bullshit..obama did NOT..NOT back track or walk back his statement at all..

on friday he said (paraphrased): Muslims have a right as much an anyone else to build a mosque wherever they want.. as american citizens we shouldn't just tolerate that we should embrace that thats america at work.

on saturday he said: I'm not going to comment on the wisdom of their decision to build a mosque there..

the two statements are NOT contradictory. thats media/pundit driven BULLSHIT.. Thats the shit they do..make a controversy where is none..

This is why the press secretary said the professional left are a bunch of bullshitters..heres how it works..

The GOP creates a wedge issue..
Conservative media (primarily fox news) plays it up...

Liberal media (the professional left) initially ignores it but then starts to echo it..more and more..

The Obama adm is asked their stance on it..they give one against their better judgment..

It gets picked apart by conservative media who then grabs ONE statement and runs with it. The liberal media then picks up on THAT.

EVERYONE starts saying that Obama "inserted himself" into some issue he shouldn't have.

The liberal media PLAYS THAT UP.

And suddenly its Obama's fault for making a controversy out of something he should have ignored. BUT if he had then he's weak if he DOES ignore it.

Its lose-lose no matter what obama does and the liberal media is complicit in that. Thats why robert gibbs called them a bunch of pussies.

and for the record harry reid statement does NOT contradict what obama said either..

 

[Damn Right]

C/S bruh! My problem is with Obama and the backtrack he did.

listen to BOTH statements closely. he didn't back track. not a diss, but it's real easy for many to not understand what he was saying. the 1st comment was in regard to the RIGHT to practice their beliefs and build wherever they want. the constitution doesn't allow the govt to pick and choose which belief it will allow people to adhere to. . . . but the 2nd comment was about whether or not it was THE RIGHT THING to do to build it there....meaning he wasn't gonna comment one way or the other. it's a local issue. one that was already settled. people all over the country have something to say about it but it really doesn't have sheit to do with them. why tha fuk should somebody in arkansas weigh in or give a fuk about the a community center being built out here in l.a.?

 

[Pworld297]

and if he did they would call him a coward NOT making a statement on it..





stop falling for the media bullshit..obama did NOT..NOT back track or walk back his statement at all..

on friday he said (paraphrased): Muslims have a right as much an anyone else to build a mosque wherever they want.. as american citizens we shouldn't just tolerate that we should embrace that thats america at work.

on saturday he said: I'm not going to comment on the wisdom of their decision to build a mosque there..

the two statements are NOT contradictory. thats media/pundit driven BULLSHIT.. Thats the shit they do..make a controversy where is none..

This is why the press secretary said the professional left are a bunch of bullshitters..heres how it works..

The GOP creates a wedge issue..
Conservative media (primarily fox news) plays it up...

Liberal media (the professional left) initially ignores it but then starts to echo it..more and more..

The Obama adm is asked their stance on it..they give one against their better judgment..

It gets picked apart by conservative media who then grabs ONE statement and runs with it. The liberal media then picks up on THAT.

EVERYONE starts saying that Obama "inserted himself" into some issue he shouldn't have.

The liberal media PLAYS THAT UP.

And suddenly its Obama's fault for making a controversy out of something he should have ignored. BUT if he had then he's weak if he DOES ignore it.

Its lose-lose no matter what obama does and the liberal media is complicit in that. Thats why robert gibbs called them a bunch of pussies.

and for the record harry reid statement does NOT contradict what obama said either..

listen to BOTH statements closely. he didn't back track. not a diss, but it's real easy for many to not understand what he was saying. the 1st comment was in regard to the RIGHT to practice their beliefs and build wherever they want. the constitution doesn't allow the govt to pick and choose which belief it will allow people to adhere to. . . . but the 2nd comment was about whether or not it was THE RIGHT THING to do to build it there....meaning he wasn't gonna comment one way or the other. it's a local issue. one that was already settled. people all over the country have something to say about it but it really doesn't have sheit to do with them. why tha fuk should somebody in arkansas weigh in or give a fuk about the a community center being built out here in l.a.?

In my opinion he backtracked! He said one thing Friday and then another on Saturday, all he had to do Saturday is just say to the reporters you heard my statement on this Friday and leave it at that. The reason I say that is because no matter what he says the right wing will not agree with it at all, I peeped their game a long time ago, this is what they do and they do it well. This is not the first time Obama has done this, he needs to basically say fuck the Republicans because all they care about is getting back into power, I never seen so much venom for a President who has not even been in power for 2yrs yet.. so I know what they do, my thing with him is show some backbone because they don't give a fuck about you.

 

[VegasGuy]

I think Reid is emblematic of the Democratic Party and the author meant to portray him as so.

As for the Republicans... The man who knows discrimination is wrong and chooses not to fight against it is a coward. The man who actively promotes discrimination is simply immoral.

The lines are becoming more and more blurred but I would distinguish between the two.

Emblematic? Sounds like you and Reid is on the same page and that page is how republicans generally view Muslims in general. They were the group that has Americans in this heightened level of fear of Islam.

They are the group that turned the original BS story of protecting and policing some no-fly zone in southern Iraq on some UN mandate into what we now know as 9/11 and the search for WMD.

This is a constitutional issue and he president took and oath to defend it as did all of these senators who refuse to. Obama was right to weigh in. But if they want to take this into the midterms, let them.

-VG

 

[geechiedan]

In my opinion he backtracked! He said one thing Friday and then another on Saturday, all he had to do Saturday is just say to the reporters you heard my statement on this Friday and leave it at that. The reason I say that is because no matter what he says the right wing will not agree with it at all, I peeped their game a long time ago, this is what they do and they do it well. This is not the first time Obama has done this, he needs to basically say fuck the Republicans because all they care about is getting back into power, I never seen so much venom for a President who has not even been in power for 2yrs yet.. so I know what they do, my thing with him is show some backbone because they don't give a fuck about you.

he didn't backtrack...to backtrack you have to make a statment then the next statement contradicts the first in some way...how does his saturday statement contradict his friday statement?

 

[Costanza]

Emblematic? Sounds like you and Reid is on the same page and that page is how republicans generally view Muslims in general. They were the group that has Americans in this heightened level of fear of Islam.

...

This is a constitutional issue and he president took and oath to defend it as did all of these senators who refuse to. Obama was right to weigh in. But if they want to take this into the midterms, let them.

-VG

"Emblematic? Sounds like you and Reid is on the same page and that page is how republicans generally view Muslims in general."

Emblematic-- of, relating to, or constituting an emblem: symbolic, representative

Yes, emblematic. A coward, just like the lot of them. I did not endorse Reid or his position.

I sincerely doubt Obama shares your "if they want to take this into the midterms, let them" sentiment.

They are the group that turned the original BS story of protecting and policing some no-fly zone in southern Iraq on some UN mandate into what we now know as 9/11 and the search for WMD.

You're citing a no-fly zone in southern Iraq as a cause of 9/11?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

C/S bruh! My problem is with Obama and the backtrack he did, what he said Friday is what he should stick by because in all honesty he said absolutely nothing wrong at the dinner he was at with a bunch of Muslims.

That's not what happened.

and if he did they would call him a coward NOT making a statement on it..

This was going to be a lose/lose either way. He showed leadership and political courage to take an unpopular but correct, legally and morally, stance.
The POTUS takes an oath to protect the Constitution, not victims of 9/11 families (who are split on this) or tight elections for cowardly Democrats who haven't exactly had his back for his term.

stop falling for the media bullshit..obama did NOT..NOT back track or walk back his statement at all..

on friday he said (paraphrased): Muslims have a right as much an anyone else to build a mosque wherever they want.. as american citizens we shouldn't just tolerate that we should embrace that thats america at work.

on saturday he said: I'm not going to comment on the wisdom of their decision to build a mosque there..

the two statements are NOT contradictory. thats media/pundit driven BULLSHIT.. Thats the shit they do..make a controversy where is none..

This is why the press secretary said the professional left are a bunch of bullshitters..heres how it works..

The GOP creates a wedge issue..
Conservative media (primarily fox news) plays it up...

Liberal media (the professional left) initially ignores it but then starts to echo it..more and more..

The Obama adm is asked their stance on it..they give one against their better judgment..

It gets picked apart by conservative media who then grabs ONE statement and runs with it. The liberal media then picks up on THAT.

EVERYONE starts saying that Obama "inserted himself" into some issue he shouldn't have.

The liberal media PLAYS THAT UP.

And suddenly its Obama's fault for making a controversy out of something he should have ignored. BUT if he had then he's weak if he DOES ignore it.

Its lose-lose no matter what obama does and the liberal media is complicit in that. Thats why robert gibbs called them a bunch of pussies.

and for the record harry reid statement does NOT contradict what obama said either..

In a nutshell.

he didn't backtrack...to backtrack you have to make a statment then the next statement contradicts the first in some way...how does his saturday statement contradict his friday statement?

No one has answered this question in three days, here or on any of the talking head shows.

 

[cbm_redux]

I don't think that Obama will survive this issue. I didn't think that he had much of a chance for reelection before this came to a head. But now... he's toast... unless the republicans run an absolute clown, like Sarah Palin.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I don't think that Obama will survive this issue. I didn't think that he had much of a chance for reelection before this came to a head. But now... he's toast... unless the republicans run an absolute clown, like Sarah Palin.

Man, do you think our attention deficit media and society will even be thinking about this come 2012? The Gulf oil spill isn't even front page news anymore and that happened less than 200 days ago.
I think Obama not being reelected is some type of fetish for some of you. You need him to lose now just so you can say you were right about something.

 

[geechiedan]

I don't think that Obama will survive this issue. I didn't think that he had much of a chance for reelection before this came to a head. But now... he's toast... unless the republicans run an absolute clown, like Sarah Palin.

meh..people have already forgotten it

 

[sharkbait28]

and if he did they would call him a coward NOT making a statement on it..





stop falling for the media bullshit..obama did NOT..NOT back track or walk back his statement at all..

on friday he said (paraphrased): Muslims have a right as much an anyone else to build a mosque wherever they want.. as american citizens we shouldn't just tolerate that we should embrace that thats america at work.

on saturday he said: I'm not going to comment on the wisdom of their decision to build a mosque there..

the two statements are NOT contradictory. thats media/pundit driven BULLSHIT.. Thats the shit they do..make a controversy where is none..

This is why the press secretary said the professional left are a bunch of bullshitters..heres how it works..

The GOP creates a wedge issue..
Conservative media (primarily fox news) plays it up...

Liberal media (the professional left) initially ignores it but then starts to echo it..more and more..

The Obama adm is asked their stance on it..they give one against their better judgment..

It gets picked apart by conservative media who then grabs ONE statement and runs with it. The liberal media then picks up on THAT.

EVERYONE starts saying that Obama "inserted himself" into some issue he shouldn't have.

The liberal media PLAYS THAT UP.

And suddenly its Obama's fault for making a controversy out of something he should have ignored. BUT if he had then he's weak if he DOES ignore it.

Its lose-lose no matter what obama does and the liberal media is complicit in that. Thats why robert gibbs called them a bunch of pussies.

and for the record harry reid statement does NOT contradict what obama said either..

Hey, you'll get no argument from me that this is a non-story inflated to a ridiculous degree to satisfy the need for sensational 24/7 news coverage.... but the reality is that Obama's "clarification" represented a bit of hedging. I'll concede that "backtracking" is probably not the right word but it's clear that that his team decided to create a little buffer room.... and I understand why they did that ultimately.

Doesn't mean I have to like it.

At the end of the day I appreciate that the POTUS weighed in on the side of the constitution and I'm mad amused that the right wing douchebags that style themselves it's guardian are always willing to ride over it roughshod whenever it suits their interests.

Fuckin hypocrites.