Thursday, August 19, 2010
Shorter David Broder:
The Democrats have been timorous in reaction to [Republican-generated] public hostility towards the mosque in New York.
And the Republicans have been unanimous in their opposition to national-interest policies such as the economic stimulus, health care, energy, climate change, financial regulation, and arms control.
So the parties are equally bad.
He really did say that. The only failure he chides the Democrats for is their stance on the mosque in New York, which he does without discussing how active Republicans have been on this topic
. He mentioned by name the various policy areas, legislation, and treaties that the Republicans have worked against, all which Broder deemed to be in the "national interest". But his conclusion (which is really in his opening sentences) is that voters have no good choices for the November elections.
Makes you wonder what Broder would have written if the "mosque in New York" issue never came up. Because it did
come up, Broder gets to pen a moral-equivalence editorial. If it hadn't, do you think Broder would have written a full-throated essay lambasting Republicans?
The "mosque" is simply the chip on top of the pile. If it wasn't there, Broder would have been building a moral-equivalency case using any of the following:
The sad, sad display of Democratic intolerance shown in their condemnation of Dr. Laura.
The sad display of Democratic profligacy in trying to stem unemployment through stimulus spending.
The tragic over-reaching of Democrats as they attempt to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of the population.
And so on. Republicans have spent the last 12 years systematically dismantling everything this country ever stood for--including making it A-OK for us to arrest people without charges, hold them without trial, and torture them to death--and Broder can still pen columns stating that the Democrats are just as bad.
So just to tally up the actual conservative objections to this particular mosque --
o The existing building on the site was actually hit and damaged by the 9/11 attacks. One of the airliner's landing gear flew through the WTC and hit and damaged one of the buildings on the mosque site. The site actually is a ground zero site, even though it is a few blocks from the WTC hole.
o The Cordoba Mosque is a mosque, built in Spain, on the ruins of a Christian church, to commemorate the Islamic conquest of Spain. Why is the project named after the Cordoba Mosque, if not to imply an Islamic "conquest" of New York?
o It's being widely reported that the scheduled groundbreaking (or opening) date for the mosque is September 11, 2011. The 10 year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
So in the face of a plan to build an ostentatious $100,000,000 Islamic war memorial, paid for by enemy agents, built on the site of the September 11th attacks, named after a mosque constructed to celebrate the Islamic conquest of another country, being deliberately built on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, liberals can't figure out any reason why 60% of Americans could possibly oppose this particular mosque other than a general hostility towards Islam in general.
Keep it up. Keep calling us bigots and racists. You'll get our response in November.
The Mosque issue is probably the biggest gift to the Republicans that the Democrats could have offered. It's probably going to cost them 30 house seats compared to if the issue had never arisen.
Frankly, I never, ever thought I'd live to see the day when the president of the United States came under fire FROM BOTH SIDES for defending freedom of religion.
But, then, I never thought I'd see the day when both of the political parties in the United States were defending the right of the U.S. to torture prisoners to death.
There are two separate issues. The first issue is whether the organizers are "free" to place the mosque on the ground zero attack site, to name it after a foreign mosque of Islamic conquest, and to break ground on the anniversary of a brutal attack on America done in the name of Allah. By free, I mean, is the government allowed to stop them.
The answer to the first issue, as agreed upon by both conservatives and liberals, is no. The force of government may not be used to stop them. Just as Rev. Phelps is "free" to picket military funerals with "GOD HATES FAGS" banners, so are the perpetrators of this "mosque" perfectly free to build this divisive, insulting monstrosity.
The other issue is whether their efforts to build this monument are to be applauded and welcomed, ignored, or protested and fought against in the sphere of public opinion.
Liberals seem to applaud and welcome the mosque, and have been admonishing conservatives that if they do support the mosque, then they must ignore it and may not protest or fight it, because that would be bigoted, or racist, or something.
Conservatives feel that it is important to fight to stop the project in the court of public opinion, but are ready to hold their nose should the enemy prevail and deface ground zero with a hateful war memorial. They completely reject the notion that it is somehow bigoted or wrong to oppose the ground zero mosque for simple reason that the symbology of where it is to be built, what it is to be named, and when it is to be constructed far overwhelms the notion of this mosque as a meeting space for prayer. This is a huge middle finger in the face of America. The message is: We can destroy your cities and raise mosques in the rubble, and you are powerless to stop us.
The liberal position on this issue is akin to slapping a man in the face, then calling him a bigot for getting mad.
1. It's not a mosque
2. It won't be at Ground Zero
Anonymous - stop lying. Now.
Are you daft? Even the Cordoba Initiative's own freaking website FAQ acknowledges that they are building a mosque:
It will be a multi-floor community center open to all New Yorkers, much like a YMCA or Jewish Community Center (JCC) with a designated prayer space (mosque) in one area to serve the needs of the large existing community of American Muslims in the neighborhood.
Yes it is on ground zero:
(United Airlines flight 175) penetrated through the tower, and part of the plane's landing gear and fuselage came out the north side of the tower and crashed through the roof of 45–47 Park Place, and through two of its floors. The plane parts destroyed three floor beams, and severely compromised the building's internal structure. (Yes, I know it's wikipedia. 5 references listed there, including the NYT.)
If a prayer room turns a community center into a mosque, does a chapel turn a hospital into a cathedral?
What happens when the Freedom Tower opens and a business wants to designate a prayer room for its Islamic employees?
Cordoba has changed its owners quite a few times in history. The first settlement was made by the Neanderthals before they were replaced by our ancestors. Later came the Celtiberians. The city as we know it was founded by the invading Carthaginians and named after a fallen Numidian officer (Qart Iuba = city of Iuba). After the Roman time and a few Germanic passing invasions (including the Vandals) it became Christian for some time. Then the Moorish Muslims (possibly even descendants of the original Carthaginian founders) conquered Spain. After the genocidal reconquista their famous mosque got partially demolished to install a cathedral. Catholic Spain has been for the most part a hellhole of religious fanaticism that even some popes found rather disgusting.
I guess we should have left it to either the Neanderthals or the Carthaginians (who at that time had dropped human sacrifice, while the Romans kept it as an emergency measure). Neithere group has been known for rabid religious intolerance.
If that hospital chapel seated 1,000 people, I'd go with "cathedral."