| 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. |
