Time's Mark Halperin keeps
searching the Republican party for a shred of decency when the Republican party will do
whatever it takes to win (emphasis mine)
Say what you will about the wisdom of Obama's policies overall, but his belated commentary on religious freedoms clearly was not done for political gain. Quite the contrary. the President knew that he and his party would almost certainly pay a political price for taking a stand, especially this close to the election, and with few prominent leaders, other than New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on the White House's side. The reaction since the President spoke has been vitriolic and unvarying from leading voices on the right, painting Obama as weak, naive, out of touch and obtuse (not to mention flip-flopping, after his confusing follow-up comments Saturday suggested to some that he might be hedging his position).
Yes, Republicans, you can take advantage of this heated circumstance, backed by the families of the 9/11 victims, in their most emotional return to the public stage since 2001.
But please don't do it. There are a handful of good reasons to oppose allowing the Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero, particularly the family opposition and the availability of other, less raw locations. But what is happening now — the misinformation about the center and its supporters; the open declarations of war on Islam on talk radio, the Internet and other forums; the painful divisions propelled by all the overheated rhetoric — is not worth whatever political gain your party might achieve.
It isn't clear how the battle over the proposed center should or will end. But two things are profoundly clear: Republicans have a strong chance to win the midterm elections without picking a fight over President Obama's measured words. And a national political fight conducted on the terms we have seen in the past few days will lead to a chain reaction at home and abroad that will have one winner — the very extreme and violent jihadists we all can claim as our true enemy.
Somewhere, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Ed Gillespie are laughing their asses off at this despite the fact that Halperin is completely correct and makes a laudable effort here to tamp down the insanity.
To which I have to respond to Mark by saying "Have you been paying attention to the two decades even one iota?" At what point has the Republican party refrained from playing as dirty as possible in order to destroy utterly a Democratic politician and Obama in particular?
It's like handing a pyromaniac a flamethrower and a lighter and a note saying "now play nice" -- written on flashpaper. I don't know if Halperin's trying to be all noble centrist here or if he's just a little woozy from some sort of recent concussion, but the odds of the GOP going full-bore anti-Islam between now and November is as close to a sure bet in the history of American politics as it gets.
Then again if you know something's a sure bet in politics, might as well try to score points off of it. Looks like Halperin's pretty comfortable betting on the blackjack table when there's nothing but aces and face cards left in the shuffle.
6 comments:
Are you stupid or are you Zander? The GOP is no more dirty than the Democrats- in fact, based on impeachments and prison terms (a possible objective way to view dirtyness of politicians), Democrats are considerably more dirty. So exactly what measureable are you using to measure how 'dirty' the parties are? or are you just a stupid fool who likes to throw out unbased uneducated generalities?
They are not unbased Conservative teacher, au contraire, I'll have you know he uses other liberal blogs and sites like Media Matters, TPM, HuffPo, memorandum, Balloon Juice, etc for his information
The nerve of some people Z...
Re this from Halperin:
"And a national political fight conducted on the terms we have seen in the past few days will lead to a chain reaction at home and abroad that will have one winner — the very extreme and violent jihadists we all can claim as our true enemy. "
Hmm - the enemy will triumph unless my political opponents pipe down. How did Zandar score that argument when it was directed against the anti-war left, one wonders?
Tom Maguire
I disagree with you on what you believe Halperin is saying, Tom. Flat-out anti-Islam bigotry really does only help the most extreme elements of jihad by playing into their hands.
That's a legitimate argument on Halperin's part.
Uh huh. And anti-war rallies emboldened Saddam prior to March 2003, and embolden the Taliban today (or would, if we had any rallies.) Also legit?
Halperin does say that "There are a handful of good reasons to oppose allowing the Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero", but his position is that our democracy is not robust enough to air those reasons.
Well, since Halperin can read the minds of jihadists and moderate Muslims, I suppose I can, too.
In my vision, some Afghan village elder is being asked to choose Petraeus/Karzai and the local Taliban. Sometime soon the Taliban leader will slap a picture of the Ground Zero Mosque in front of the guy and say "Look - the infidels will not even fight against us in their own city. Do you really think they will fight for you here?"
The vilage elder then says one of two things:
(a) "Actually, I have researched this carefully, checking the background of the investors and the imam as well as the speeches of the New York mayor- this is a very moderate project and they repudiate you".
or (b) "Yike!".
I think in plenty of villages the prevailing answer will be "Yike!" But people intent on projecting our own values onto other cultures will insist on seeing this as a Tolerance Mosque rather than a Victory Mosque.
Tom, you do believe there's a difference between:
"Anti-Islam bigotry is against what America stands for and plays into the hands of jihadis"
and
"Anti-war sentiments are against what America stands for and plays into the hands of jihadis"
The first statement I agree with. The second one is rubbish. Halperin can normally go frack himself, but he's right about the first statement being true.
Post a Comment