US Politics #2

[dalThor]

Apparently some people on Facebook are having fun reporting Sarah Palin's latest post as 'hate speech'.

[Shryke]

Most polls I see have about 25% of the US population still believing that W was a great President. Doesn't sound good, but the fact is that's over 50% of the Republican Party. Thats a huge base, and more importantly the active base. And lets face it; the far right wing types which embrace Palin scare Republican businessmen as much as they scare Democrats. And those are the people who supply the money, and money is everything in the primary.

That's the Crazification Factor at work. It's about 25% or so.

[Week]

Apparently some people on Facebook are having fun reporting Sarah Palin's latest post as 'hate speech'.

She believes in religious tolerance. Except when it is extended to Muslims. I don't see a contradiction there.

[lokisnow]

Most polls I see have about 25% of the US population still believing that W was a great President. Doesn't sound good, but the fact is that's over 50% of the Republican Party. Thats a huge base, and more importantly the active base. And lets face it; the far right wing types which embrace Palin scare Republican businessmen as much as they scare Democrats. And those are the people who supply the money, and money is everything in the primary.

Palin will raise more money for her primary than Obama raised for his primary, using largely the same methods. She's tapping people who tithe, they'll give, gladly and generously. Even if she doesn't get the business bundling donations before the primary (and I'll say she gets at least 25% of them, and possibly as high as 60% of republican candidate corporate donations in her primary), she'll get them all after she wins the primary. She is a formidable threat and it will be no easy thing to defeat her candidacy.

[Maithanet]

While echoing the respectful disagreement with Tormund (I just don't fancy guns so much), not even the dimmest conservatives are claiming Obama is really a Clinton or Bush family member.

I assumed that he meant to count 81-89, where HW Bush was VP, and 08-12, where Clinton is Secretary of State. However, looking at Tormund's profile, it looks like he isn't the necessary 31 years old in order to make that a true statement. So I don't know what he meant exactly.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Since we agree they can twist it either way, I think this is splitting hairs.

That's the equivalent of saying that facts don't matter at all, and they do. Or that Abu Ghraib didn't matter in terms of propaganda, because the bad guys would have just made stuff up if that hadn't happened anyway.

In this context, what difference does it even make moving it another block or two?

I assume that argument cuts both ways, doesn't?

They’ll say what they want, which is why we shouldn’t be arranging our civic planning around them.

That particular location was actually hit by part of a plane on 9/11. I'm not intimately familiar with the sight lines there, but clearly, if the proponents selected that site because of 9/11, then it's close enough that people are making that connection.

I’m not sure who has the moral right to dictate this sort of thing. At the risk of a tangent—at the end of the book Columbine, it talks about the memorial that was erected 8 years later or whatnot. And the parents of the 13 murdered kids were asked to write up something positive about their child, how they wanted their child to be remembered. They all did this, except one father who instead put whom he blamed. Now, there was controversy over this, many felt it was an inappropriate venue and didn’t want that sort of thing to be part of the memorial. But no one was willing to gainsay the grieving father and so his child’s memorial bears that message.

At what point does a community defer (or not) to grieving families? In this case, families who are disturbed by the inclusion of a mosque in a community center in a richly multicultural city because a loved one was killed by Islamic extremists?

I think events of the magnitude of 9/11 don't have so frequently that the "at what point" argument carries all that much weight. As I said, I think that in addition to the propaganda issue for an ongoing war, there is a legitimate issue of sensitivity that should be applied to all sites that have some emotional/sentimental connection to a tragic event. How about a gift shop selling tomahawks on the site of Wounded Knee? Not a tragedy, but since someone raised Westboro Baptist Church, how about them opening up shop right next to the Stonewall Inn? I imagine the gay community wouldn't be so happy about that, and I couldn't blame them. Or a Japanese cultural center going up right next to the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor, while fighting is still going on.

I can understand how they got there, but I also don’t want to encourage or condone blanket mistrust and/or hatred and that’s what I think this business about stopping it, or moving it (another) block or two away does. It reminds me of my co-worker who is deeply uncomfortable around “foreigners” (particularly middle easterners). I don’t pat her hand and nod, I encourage her to work on getting over it because that’s not a good thing for her, the foreigners or anyone else, except maybe politicians looking to pander on the issue.

I don't see blanket mistrust and hatred in moving it a few blocks. Blanket mistrust and hatred is crashing a plane into buildings, or blowing up Buddhas. But I will agree that the rhetoric of some of the people opposing this is overheated, and I think it does lend more weight to the points you're making than if they would have opposed on a less freaked-out basis. National landmarks -- I think this qualifies -- shouldn't have to deal with this kind of potential controversy, which is why I think the people who decided to build it there are being very insensitive. But if you move it now, it does start to look like the freaks are running things.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

I would have no problem with a Japanese cultural center next to the Arizona Memorial because I don't hold all Japanese responsible for the acts of their government. Whereas, with the Westboro Baptist Church you have an organization who's stated goals are to vilify people who are homosexual. People who join that Church have to know that. Do you not see the distinction?

[alguien]

Also, I think 2012 is going to be a bit of a clusterf*ck for Republicans.

Well, there's Mitch Daniels, the Indiana governor who FLoW is enamored of. (and to be honest, seems like a decent candidate)

Also, what about this Thune senator from South Dakota? I don't know much about him, but I've heard he's been testing the waters. He does have a sort of "presidential" look. Might he be the GOP dark horse candidate if they're looking for a charismatic "outsider" to go against Obama?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Except for right now, that is.

Hillary Clinton is on the Cabinet.

I assumed that he meant to count 81-89, where HW Bush was VP, and 08-12, where Clinton is Secretary of State. However, looking at Tormund's profile, it looks like he isn't the necessary 31 years old in order to make that a true statement. So I don't know what he meant exactly.

I did indeed mean this. But for some reason I thought Bush the Elder started in 84. My bad. So actually there has been a Bush or Clinton my entire life.

[DanteGabriel]

The mosque near Ground Zero is only the most high profile of a generalized trend of ignorant Americans getting all hot and bothered about the free exercise of religion in their neighborhoods. It's not just about the 9/11 site itself, it's about bigotry, plain and simple. Talking Points Memo has been looking into it.

"Our research shows that about 7 out of 10 mosques are using materials and teaching things, and calling for jihad, calling for the overthrow of our constitutional republic," Guy Rodgers of Act For America -- a national conserative group currently involved in the protest of the Islamic cultural center in New York -- told a crowd at the First Reformed Church in Sheboygan County, according to WITI.

Some locals seemed receptive. "There's some people that are afraid and they're afraid for a good reason, because Islamic philosophy and ideology starts in a mosque and throughout the world Islamic terrorism comes from its roots and worship in the mosque," one pastor told the television station.

...

"Wouldn't you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?" asked one woman who stood up Wednesday night during a civic association meeting.

"We just want to leave our neighborhood the way it is - Christian, Catholic," one local told WCBS-TV last month.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/mosque_trial_team_more_tales_from_the_anti-muslim.php?ref=fpblg

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

"Our research shows that about 7 out of 10 mosques are using materials and teaching things...

Save us from people with curriculum and scholarship.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

I would have no problem with a Japanese cultural center next to the Arizona Memorial because I don't hold all Japanese responsible for the acts of their government.

I don't either - in 2010. However, if it was 1944 and the war was still ongoing, that's a bit different.

Whereas, with the Westboro Baptist Church you have an organization who's stated goals are to vilify people who are homosexual. People who join that Church have to know that. Do you not see the distinction?

Sure. But just to be clear, are you saying that you'd oppose the Westboro Church, so that limiting freedom of religion in that manner is okay in certain circumstances?

[Alcibiades]

If only a Bush would marry a Clinton then we wouldn't have to choose.

Chelsea Clinton-Bush for President, 2020! Lack of change we can believe in!

Hehe. This will be just like when Henry Tudor married Elizabeth of York!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

With the cavates about very high standards required to deny a building permit and similarly low deference to the board if such a permit is denied and appealed, yes. I think a good case can be made that allowing the Westboro Baptist church to build next to the Stonewall Inn is a bad idea.

Each attempt to deny a permit would need to be strongly suppported by the circumstances surrounding the request for a permit.

Denying a building permit to a group of moderate Muslims who do not espouse or support violence would not survive this strict scrutiny. The Westboro example... might.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Has anyone else seen Rangel v. Russert:

http://www.huffingtonpost/2010/07/23/luke-russert-vs-charlie-r_n_656869.html#postComment

[TrackerNeil]

Well, there's Mitch Daniels, the Indiana governor who FLoW is enamored of. (and to be honest, seems like a decent candidate)

Also, what about this Thune senator from South Dakota? I don't know much about him, but I've heard he's been testing the waters. He does have a sort of "presidential" look. Might he be the GOP dark horse candidate if they're looking for a charismatic "outsider" to go against Obama?

I don't much about John Thune, but I have heard much about Mitch Daniels lately. He might be a decent contender for the Oval Office, but in truth I just don't think 2012 will be his year. There are too many others in the field for him to really make headway, I think, and he may himself recognize that and hold his fire for another four years.

Lockesnow:

Palin would be a formidable candidate? No way. She's an intellectual lightweight with a thin resume, a stumbling rhetorical style, and very few allies amongst the conservative elites. Sure, she can draw a crowd, but I don't think she can bring together the various wings of the GOP, as successful presidential candidates must. Besides, she is just not up for the work involved. Book tours are easy; campaigning for president is by all accounts grueling. I don't think she has the chops.

RE: Crazification factor. It's true. For any crazy right-wing idea you will find around 27% of Americans in support. Alan Keyes got about 27% of the vote against Barack Obama, GWB's approval ratings bottomed out right around there...the list goes on.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

With the cavates about very high standards required to deny a building permit and similarly low deference to the board if such a permit is denied and appealed, yes. I think a good case can be made that allowing the Westboro Baptist church to build next to the Stonewall Inn is a bad idea.

Each attempt to deny a permit would need to be strongly suppported by the circumstances surrounding the request for a permit.

Denying a building permit to a group of moderate Muslims who do not espouse or support violence would not survive this strict scrutiny. The Westboro example... might.

Okay. I'd agree that Westboro is more directly odious than a mosque, but then, about 3000 more people died at the WTC site than during the Stonewall riots. So I suppose it just depends on how you balance things. Personally, I'd oppose either because I don't like the potential for politicization.

I have no doubt that a majority of moslems are moderate, reasonable people. But I do worry that this particular place could, despite the intentions of the founders, become a mecca (heh) for more obnoxious, radical moslems precisely because of its location and status as a "symbol". In essence, I worry that the purpose could be usurped. And its not like there is the dogma of specific sect-lines that, for example, distinguish between Westboro Baptists and Southern Baptists.

[DanteGabriel]

Okay. I'd agree that Westboro is more directly odious than a mosque, but then, about 3000 more people died at the WTC site than during the Stonewall riots. So I suppose it just depends on how you balance things. Personally, I'd oppose either because I don't like the potential for politicization.

I don't see much progress being made in this discussion as long as you hold all of Islam responsible for 9/11. I'm just glad that when I visit the Philippines my relatives don't hold me responsible for the US funding a dictator that held the country under martial law for 20 years.

[The Progressive]

It's kinda amusing that flow is pretending to be some sort of cultural and historical expert by trying to equal the monuments built invaders/conqueror/attackers at the scene of violence as some sort of historical crutch for his morally bankrupt argument.

I think somebody need to point out to him and the other wingnuts that this cultural center isn't being built/construct by Al-Qeuda.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

I agree with DG you cannot reasonably hold moderate Muslims responsible for 9/11 unless I, as a Christian, am responsible for Westboro.