Don raises an interesting point: if supporting the Ground Zero Mosque was such a no-brainer, then why are Democrats getting so bent out of shape about Bob Turner (R) pointing out that Dave Weprin (D) enthusiastically supported it being built?
Don already knows the answer, of course:
If supporting the building of the mosque is the right thing to do, why not stand by those words that were said 13 months ago? Oh wait, that high-moral-ground stand might cost Democrats a seat in Congress. So what liberals are saying is that they are willing to stand up for unpopular causes — unless doing what they say is right may cost them a few votes.
Continue reading #rsrh Don Surber, Turner/Weprin & the Ground Zero Mosque.
…judging from his Twitter account (H/T: The Campaign Spot) Armour despises and loathes the roughly 60-70% of the population* of the United States that had a problem with the Ground Zero Mosque. Extra points: Armour apparently also thinks that the expression of said problem demonstrates an ignorance of the purpose of the First Amendment, instead of it being what the First Amendment is for. I note “extra points” because Armour probably ran around yelling about how dissent was the highest form of patriotism, back when he was fighting the establishment instead of cashing its checks. He seems the sort who would do that.
Here’s the screenshot, for when Armour takes down the tweet: it uses too many obscenities to be safe for work. The real question is, of course, whether Jan Schakowsky agrees with her own Chief of Staff: if the answer’s no, she should probably say so quickly. Note that I am not calling for any kind of sanction, though. Unlike Armour (and apparently Schakowsky), I respect these fools’ right to sound like fools in public…
Moe Lane (Crosspost)
PS: Joel Pollak for IL-09. Not a fool.
*No real national polling on this recently, sorry.
Probably not, more’s the pity.
As you might have gathered, there’s been a surge of Strange New Respect for George W Bush lately from Lefty pundits and commentators who have abruptly become aware that they have somehow become part of a fringe extremist movement (in reality, many of them always were; they’re just getting ‘credited’ for it now). Jim Treacher lists some of these new supplicants to Bush, and offers the former President some advice on how to respond to them:
I’d love for somebody to ask Bush about it, and for him to say something to this effect: “Thanks for asking, but according to President Obama, I’ve caused enough problems already. I’m sure you folks can figure it out without me.” And then smile, and wish the questioner a nice day, and walk away.
I am completely in agreement with that attitude. Why? Because of this:
Continue reading Bush’s Rorschach moment?
The audio is here – he’s definitely of the opinion that while the backers of the Ground Zero Mosque have the right to build one on their own property (the mainstream position), they should show some delicacy and consideration for national feelings on the matter and move the mosque somewhere else (which is also the mainstream position). Of course, being Howard Dean he later called the Republicans a bunch of race-baiters, but that’s just Howard Dean being Howard Dean. The man has never recovered from the embarrassment of being Governor of what may be the single most Caucasian state of the Union, so he tends to overcompensate for that whenever possible. I suppose that it’s cheaper than therapy… Continue reading Howard Dean… wants the mosque moved.
It is as follows: the Democratic candidates that come out wholeheartedly in support of President Obama’s position – whatever it actually ends up being – are the ones who must rely on the President’s largess in order to have any hope to survive.
This is why we see Alexi Giannoulias* and Lee Fisher** echoing the President’s language in Illinois, while Harry Reid*** in Nevada does not; and why Jeff Greene in Florida doesn’t, yet Charlie Crist**** does. I’m not going to claim that this is a law of physics, or anything – but if you’re wondering why any Democrat to the right of Dennis Kuchinich is being loud and supportive of the Ground Zero mosque, well, check their cash-on-hand totals. This issue may be the latest price for support, such as it is, from the White House .
Which is going to make Dick Blumenthal***** of Connecticut’s eventual response interesting….
Continue reading A theory on 2010 candidates and the Ground Zero Mosque.
Sharron Angle went off on Harry Reid on the subject of the Ground Zero Mosque this morning – she takes the position that while people have the right to build a mosque there, they should show some delicacy of their own and build it somewhere else – and Greg Sargent was practically licking his chops in response. He was of the opinion that making opposition to the President’s position – once we figure it out – a midterm issue would be a bad idea for Republicans, and he leaped on Angle’s opposition:
Angle’s position, apparently, is that the group has the right to build the center but Obama is wrong to have voiced support for that right. After all, he didn’t directly endorse the project anywhere, nor should he have. I would like to hear Reid break his silence on the issue, though.
I’m guessing that Sargent reconsidered that wish, once Reid actually spoke out… and took the position that while people have the right to build a mosque there, they should show some delicacy of their own and build it somewhere else. Which is not surprising: the mosque is extremely unpopular, to the point where it’s even less so than, well, Harry Reid. So much so that Reid’s reflexive adoption of his opponent’s position (no matter how matter it makes knee-jerk liberals pound their heads against the wall) was preferable than taking a contrary stand. Continue reading Reid’s new Angle on 9/11 mosque.