Dean screws the pooch: The “Ground Zero Mosque”

(note: Julie posted a diary about Dean’s comment as I was writing up mine – she brings up some great points about idiocy, but I think there’s something else worth mentioning – JD)



We all know the typical Republican playbook by now: come up with some sexy wedge issue that has nothing to do with the lives of 99.9999999% of the population, but get it out into the right-wing noise machine so it dominates the news cycle ad nauseum and tears away millions of Americans from Dancing With The Stars long enough to vent their poutrage. Then that becomes the story.

Nothing in recent memory has stuck in my craw and reminded me how America really is becoming Redneck Nation more than this “Ground Zero Mosque” nonsense. I’ve never seen so many politicians squirm, equivocate, and pander over something so inconsequential. The meme du jour: “they have the right to, but they shouldn’t”.  The latest purveyor of this crap? Howard Dean.

More below the jump.

It’s not just the teabaggers. A lot of polling is suggesting that Americans don’t want the Cordoba House built. And that’s just ducky, because oddly enough, there’s also a majority of people who believe they have the right to.

So, of course, we’re seeing politician after politician follow that same course of action: say they have the right to, but they shouldn’t. Obama came out a few days ago with a strongly worded statement reminding people about that pesky Constitutional protection afforded all religions. Given all his disappointments of late, it was refreshing. But, alas, in typical Obama fashion, there was the pander to the right wing, the very next day – they have the right to, but shouldn’t. The POTUS himself telling people that they shouldn’t exercise their constitutionally protected rights, as though they’re some kind of nuisance or triviality. And this guy’s a constitutional scholar. Beautiful.

Yesterday, it was Harry Reid. Today, Nancy Pelosi gave a similar twisted statement. Now, looking at what we’ve seen so far from the party in power, that kind of capitulation seems to be par for the course. So I’m not surprised. Not pleased, by any means, but not surprised.

Howard Dean, who, in his post-presidential candidate phase has surprisingly often bucked the Dem establishment, jumped on that bandwagon today, too (emphasis mine):

“I’ve gotta believe there has to be a compromise here,” Dean said during a radio interview. “This isn’t about the right of Muslims to have a worship center, or Jews or Christians or anybody else to have a place to worship, or any place around Ground Zero. This is something we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith. And we have to understand that it is a real affront to people who’ve lost their lives — including Muslims. That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion, it belongs to all Americans and all faiths. So I think a good, reasonable compromise could be worked out, without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit.

It’s an affront to people like Sarah Palin, who can’t tell the difference between the Muslim terrorists and, uh… moderate American Muslims (or the the English language and whatever that gibberish she speaks, for that matter). And Dean fails to see the gross error in his last statement… if they’re caving to public opinion, they’re obviously not “worshiping as they see fit.”

Is the other mosque that’s four blocks from the WTC an affront to those lost their lives? Should we tear that down? What about the titty bars? The porn store?

Dean goes on to basically lay bare and apply the strategy that we’ve seen from most of the national Dems since who knows when:

I think the people who are trying to build the mosque are trying to do something good. But there’s no point in trying to do something good if it’s met with enormous resistance from a lot of folks.

Sound familiar? There’s no point in trying to do something good if it’s met with enormous resistance from a lot of folks. Should be in the party platform at this stage of the game, no? That would have worked out real well for, say, ending slavery, or passing the Civil Rights Act, right?

We’re dangerously straddling the notion of turning into a nation of mob rule, not to mention one where the double standard runs rampant. How would Catholics react if major politicians came out and said that no churches could be built within two blocks of any place children congregate? Or, if Greg Palast aptly noted,

Given that white Christian supremacist Tim McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building, shouldn’t we ban white churches from Oklahoma?

Now, mind you, I’ve never been a Deaniac or anything, but I found myself surprised that one of the few Dem critics of Dem policies and strategies so quickly, and clearly used the exact same strategy that’s going to ensure Republican gains in the fall. I appreciate the honesty, Doc, but standing up for principle would’ve been much nicer.

11 thoughts on “Dean screws the pooch: The “Ground Zero Mosque”

  1. The Cowardly Bigots of America(tm) have the vapors! Quick, everyone, Pander! We can’t upset their delicate sensibilities.

    Land of the free? Home of the brave? Pshaw! Not when there are cowards and bullies to appease!

    Sigh. I’m disgusted.

  2. But I don’t quite share your shock/surprise.  Well-written, articulate, and on the mark though.

    I read a similar commentary elsewhere: if it’s inappropriate to build this Islamic community center 2 blocks from the future site of a corporate high-rise, certainly it’s way inappropriate to allow Catholic Church’s to be anywhere near schools, or for that matter, house’s with children in them.

    And as for the notion of this being a “victory mosque”- certainly the “green zone” (aka future site of the world’s biggest American military base) or Guantanamo Bay (an offensive incursion into the sovereign land of another nation/culture) or 2 dozen other U.S. ventures are WAY more offensive/intrusive than this.  I mean, the proposal is essentially for a YMCA except it’s a YMIA.  Not so threatening or really evil, as far as I can tell.  Unless of course you’re a racist shitbag, in which case, yeah, it’s threatening to you.

  3. Good post JD.

    This other post on GMD is interesting and quotes from a Washington Post column that juxtaposes quotes from George Washington following his visit to a synagogue with the nasty bigotry espoused today by so many who claim to be real patriots walking in the path of our country’s founders.  This Washington Post column clearly shows the difference and these quotes by George Washington are clearly against the bigotry being espoused today.  Read the whole column which shows the bigotry in a unique way.  http://greenmountaindaily.com/

    The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

    It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

  4. I keep waiting for SOMEONE to point out that Obama did NOT, the next day, say “they have the right to but they shouldn’t.”  It was Politico that started calling his extended remarks a walk back — more responsible media reporters and commenters merely said, correctly, that Mr. Obama extended his remarks. I think the statement about not endorsing the wisdom of a specific plan has been tortured to indicate that the president said, “they shouldn’t.”  (I thought TPM’s take on it was the most thoughtful.) I was very happy about his comments at the Iftar dinner (and believe me, I’m not often happy with him these days)but even that night I wished he’d make it clear that he wasn’t approving or disapproving of this or any other plan for a religious group to build — because, as a CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, he knows that would be most inappropriate.  I’m just sorry he didn’t include that statement the first time around, as the separation allowed a small slice of air for misinterpretation.

    More to the point is his saying that he has no regrets about the statement at the Iftar dinner.

    Lumping him with Reid, Pelosi, and — sigh — the ineffable Mr. Dean really is not accurate in this instance.

  5. 1. There is no “controversy” in any rational sense of the word.  I challenge anyone on the face of the earth to identify one-single-fucking-solitary-person in the entire universe who has raised a single credible objection, or reality-grounded concern, about this cultural center. There isn’t anyone out there who has.

    2.  It’s not a mosque. It’s a cultural center. It has a goddamn basketball court. I can already hear conservatives shaking as they cower in fear at the sound of squeaky shoes on a wooden floor.

    3.  The Burlington Coat Factory renovation project (the cultural center) is NOT at “ground zero” assuming that misnomer (“Ground Zero?”) has any relevance to this discussion in he first place.

    4.  The United States has been creating hundreds of “Ground Zeros” next to Islamic Mosques & Cultural Centers since 2002. And what’s the big deal?  

Comments are closed.