Sarah Palin in the News Again.

[wolf_chatter]

I guess freedom of religion only counts if you believe in witch doctors? Last I checked there were probably a few muslims killed in the buildings (other than the POS terrorists) and building a Mosque is no different than building a Synagog, temple or church.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100719/pl_politico/39899

[Stuck in Seattle]

I guess freedom of religion only counts if you believe in witch doctors? Last I checked there were probably a few muslims killed in the buildings (other than the POS terrorists) and building a Mosque is no different than building a Synagog, temple or church.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100719/pl_politico/39899
Do you even know what freedom of religion is? She's not advocating restricting anyone's right to worship Allah.

[wolf_chatter]

Do you even know what freedom of religion is? She's not advocating restricting anyone's right to worship Allah.

If you block the muslims from building a Mosque then haven't you done just that?

If they own the property and have the money, why try and stop them?

How many jobs will it bring to NYC?

What did the Muslim Religion do to the people of NYC?

If a Christian man murders a family should we stop Christian churches from being built anywhere near the murders out of respect for the murdered?

How many churches are built near or on Indian reservations? Many of the people that murdered millions of Native American's professed to be religious did they not?

You cant be serious here Hosier you know damn well it's hate for the specific religion and nothing else.

[mr_pack]

I dont think any religious building should be built there. the land is too valuable and being a religious building makes them tax exempt, get a business in there and they will contribute more.

[Stuck in Seattle]

If you block the muslims from building a Mosque then haven't you done just that?

If they own the property and have the money, why try and stop them?

How many jobs will it bring to NYC?

What did the Muslim Religion do to the people of NYC?

If a Christian man murders a family should we stop Christian churches from being built anywhere near the murders out of respect for the murdered?

How many churches are built near or on Indian reservations? Many of the people that murdered millions of Native American's professed to be religious did they not?

You cant be serious here Hosier you know damn well it's hate for the specific religion and nothing else.
Man I wish I farmed the straw you buy to formulate your arguments.

[BustNChops]

Man I wish I farmed the straw you buy to formulate your arguments.

I was going to stay out of this thread... but I had to laugh at that. +1 to SiS. A solid body shot.

[wolf_chatter]

Man I wish I farmed the straw you buy to formulate your arguments.

There's no difference in SP's stance than anything I just said. If they had planned a YMCA there do you think she would have opened her stupid yap? No. So therefore the only thing I can conclude from her post is she believes MUSLIM's don't deserve to have the same rights as other religious people, based upon the fact that it was Muslim men that did the damage on 9/11.

You can spin it anyway you want to in orderto protect your precious little Palin but the truth is she is a vile, stupid, ignorant, hateful, loon that only looks out for her pocket book. In other words the perfect right-wing republican.

[wolf_chatter]

Man I wish I farmed the straw you buy to formulate your arguments.

mechanisms. Answer the freaking questions for once. You know the only reason she has an opinion on the subject is because it is a MUSLIM MOSQUE. Plain and simple. If it were a christian church she wouldn't have said a thing.

She just confirmed that she is a religious bigot. At least she has the balls to put her stupid thoughts out there though. I will give her that.

[wolf_chatter]

I was going to stay out of this thread... but I had to laugh at that. +1 to SiS. A solid body shot.

He avoids dealing with my questions because he knows I'm right. Sure it was ridiculous to bring up natives and christianity but sometimes absurdity, the belief that she isn't against it only because they are MUSLIM, has to be met with absurdity.

[backsthepack]

I dont think any religious building should be built there. the land is too valuable and being a religious building makes them tax exempt, get a business in there and they will contribute more.

Growing up in the same town as the Rev. Jerry Falwell and his shenanigans trying to build 25+ acre churches, I tend to agree.

[BustNChops]

Chatter - Palin is not infringing on anybody's rights. She is voicing an opinion that she believes. She does not work in the NYC's building/permit office and is withholding a permit. You may not agree with her, but she has the right to say what she is saying just as much as group does to build the Mosque. Just because it is a right does not mean that you need to exercise it. You do not have the right to not be offended. The city is a business and ultimately money will speak.

In my opinion, calling her a racist / bigot is the easy out. Attack her with a label and ignore the real issue. I understand the the hijackers do not represent all Muslims. Yet, they were Muslims extremists that took down 2 landmarks killing thousands. The wounds of the City and residents may never be healed enough to allow for something like this to be built. No need to be politically correct on the issue. Just because 2 sides don't see eye to eye does not make her a racist/bigot.

[Stuck in Seattle]

He avoids dealing with my questions because he knows I'm right. Sure it was ridiculous to bring up natives and christianity but sometimes absurdity, the belief that she isn't against it only because they are MUSLIM, has to be met with absurdity.
I answer your questions nearly all of the time when they are on topic. You claimed she was opposed to their freedom of religion. That is patently false. And a stated as much. Then you went on a rant that really has nothing to do with freedom of religion. Then you go attack her as vile and hateful yet your evidence for that really comes down to you not agreeing with her.

This comes down to a matter of opinion and tact. Many, and yes many in New York, find it tasteless and even insulting that a mosque would be placed next to a place where 3,000 people were murdered for the sake of that religion. That doesn't make them vile or hateful. It's not infringing on freedom of religion. They find it confrontational and insulting to the families and victims. And just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make that vile, racist or anything else.

In deciding to put that Mosque in that location, it seems likely they were seeking out conflict and intentionally antagonizing people. There's no need for it. They could build the mosque a block or two over, but that wouldn't have been confrontational enough for some of them I suppose.

This has been in the news for weeks, but you didn't find it interesting until Palin came out against it. You're obsessed with the woman.

[Stuck in Seattle]

I was going to stay out of this thread... but I had to laugh at that. +1 to SiS. A solid body shot.
Actually, looking back. His arguments are more non sequitur than straw man. But that makes them the exception to the rule.

[wolf_chatter]

I answer your questions nearly all of the time when they are on topic. You claimed she was opposed to their freedom of religion. That is patently false. And a stated as much. Then you went on a rant that really has nothing to do with freedom of religion. Then you go attack her as vile and hateful yet your evidence for that really comes down to you not agreeing with her.

This comes down to a matter of opinion and tact. Many, and yes many in New York, find it tasteless and even insulting that a mosque would be placed next to a place where 3,000 people were murdered for the sake of that religion. That doesn't make them vile or hateful. It's not infringing on freedom of religion. They find it confrontational and insulting to the families and victims. And just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make that vile, racist or anything else.

In deciding to put that Mosque in that location, it seems likely they were seeking out conflict and intentionally antagonizing people. There's no need for it. They could build the mosque a block or two over, but that wouldn't have been confrontational enough for some of them I suppose.

This has been in the news for weeks, but you didn't find it interesting until Palin came out against it. You're obsessed with the woman.

She is really the only interesting Republican out there, so I pick on her and I do truly believe she is an idiot. But thats not really why I focus on her so much. She pretty much is the only person on your side of the fence doing anything at all interesting. That doesn't bode well for the next round of elections. Sure you have Bachmann from Minnesota talking out her ass all the time but she is like Palin light. And yeah you have Beck. Limbaugh, O'reilly, Coulter and Hannity but there all talking pieces... out for their own gain and popularity and they have seemed to have gone sorta bland lately.

You have Humpty Hump running the RNC into the ground and he's good for a gaff every now and then but for pure honest, down home, Blue Collar Radio entertainment only one broad stands out in the crowd right now and that's Palin.

Bring me someone else half as ignorant but twice as entertaining and I will quit posting so much about how ridiculous Palin is.

[wolf_chatter]

I answer your questions nearly all of the time when they are on topic. You claimed she was opposed to their freedom of religion. That is patently false. If she could she wouldn't allow them to build so therefore not false If all the hijackers were women and she was opposed to them building a YWCA there I would say the same thing.


And a stated as much. Then you went on a rant that really has nothing to do with freedom of religion. Then you go attack her as vile and hateful yet your evidence for that really comes down to you not agreeing with her. Ok, you're right, to me she is vile and hateful because other than the people being MUSLIM she wouldn't care what the f they built there But your ok with it so you don't see it that. Some people can stomach hatred based upon whos being hated, others of us can't. Good for you.

This comes down to a matter of opinion and tact. Many, and yes many in New York, find it tasteless and even insulting that a mosque would be placed next to a place where 3,000 people were murdered for the sake of that religion. So as long as someone murders someon in the name of a religion its ok to single out ONLY THAT RELIGION and tell them where and when they can build a palce of worshipThat doesn't make them vile or hateful. Yes it does.It's not infringing on freedom of religion.When you tell one religion they have to move their place of worship or not build their place of worship on their own land becaise people will be offended you just have infringed on their rights. If you stopped all religions from building in the area then you have not They find it confrontational and insulting to the families and victims. And just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make that vile, racist or anything else.

In deciding to put that Mosque in that location, it seems likely they were seeking out conflict and intentionally antagonizing people. There's no need for it. They could build the mosque a block or two over, but that wouldn't have been confrontational enough for some of them I suppose. Ever think they could be trying a little PR move to upgrade their image a little in the city? Or are all Muslims confrontational?

This has been in the news for weeks, but you didn't find it interesting until Palin came out against it. You're obsessed with the woman.

Bring me someone more interesting i beg you.

[Stuck in Seattle]

She is really the only interesting Republican out there, so I pick on her and I do truly believe she is an idiot. But thats not really why I focus on her so much. She pretty much is the only person on your side of the fence doing anything at all interesting. That doesn't bode well for the next round of elections. Sure you have Bachmann from Minnesota talking out her ass all the time but she is like Palin light. And yeah you have Beck. Limbaugh, O'reilly, Coulter and Hannity but there all talking pieces... out for their own gain and popularity and they have seemed to have gone sorta bland lately.

You have Humpty Hump running the RNC into the ground and he's good for a gaff every now and then but for pure honest, down home, Blue Collar Radio entertainment only one broad stands out in the crowd right now and that's Palin.

Bring me someone else half as ignorant but twice as entertaining and I will quit posting so much about how ridiculous Palin is.
Are you paying any attention to the polls, media and politicians? Even the Dems are now saying they could lose both the House (likely) and possibly even the Senate and predictions are being made that it will be a GOP landslide in Governorships.

Your idea of the Republican party is some crazy mismash of "People" magazine meets liberal blogs meets Keith Olbermann's talking points.

Have you looked at Chris Christie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OVAXxP0B0Y&feature=player_embedded) the Governor in New Jersey, Paul Ryan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854083982575457.html) the rep in Wisconsin, Governor Mitch Daniels (http://volokh.com/2010/07/06/mitch-daniels-for-president/)of Indiana or Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty? These are the people making noise in the GOP. Palin is a great fund raiser and makes the news. But she's not the one getting the most interest on the right.

All you've got is what is beginning to look like misogynist hate for GOP women and the traditional liberal talking points ("Limbaugh, Hannity blah, blah blah"). You don't know enough about what's going on out there to make debating you worthwhile. I'm not trying to be insulting, but if you don't know anything about the guys I listed above and if you believe the Republicans are the ones that (at least currently) appear to be in trouble come the next election...I can't get very interested in this discussion. Dem strategists are already hitting the panic button over the upcoming election.

[wolf_chatter]

Are you paying any attention to the polls, media and politicians? Even the Dems are now saying they could lose both the House (likely) and possibly even the Senate and predictions are being made that it will be a GOP landslide in Governorships.

Your idea of the Republican party is some crazy mismash of "People" magazine meets liberal blogs meets Keith Olbermann's talking points.

Have you looked at Chris Christie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OVAXxP0B0Y&feature=player_embedded) the Governor in New Jersey, Paul Ryan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854083982575457.html) the rep in Wisconsin, Governor Mitch Daniels (http://volokh.com/2010/07/06/mitch-daniels-for-president/)of Indiana or Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty? These are the people making noise in the GOP. Palin is a great fund raiser and makes the news. But she's not the one getting the most interest on the right.

All you've got is what is beginning to look like misogynist hate for GOP women and the traditional liberal talking points ("Limbaugh, Hannity blah, blah blah"). You don't know enough about what's going on out there to make debating you worthwhile. I'm not trying to be insulting, but if you don't know anything about the guys I listed above and if you believe the Republicans are the ones that (at least currently) appear to be in trouble come the next election...I can't get very interested in this discussion. Dem strategists are already hitting the panic button over the upcoming election.

I couldn't care less about them or which state and people they represent. I'm talking about them for pure entertainment value. I am voting for Sandoval and proudly so. I voted for Guinn and I would have voted for Tarkanian over Reid. so I vote Republican when they run one I like. I am not talking about the good Republicans (I like TP from Minnesota very much and think he is a very good candidate for 2016 or beyond) I am talking about the fringe dipshits that get all the press. The truth is the Republicans are having a hard time finding the guy to stick as the GUY right now for the big spot in 12. Your best bet will be Romney but his Mormonism will kill him. And I don't think Pawlenty has the chops quite yet to take on Obama. BJ out of LA? Bust. Who else over the past few month. The cheating Gov. from South Kakalaki? I think he was seen as a front runner.

Polls don't mean anything elections are months away and I think plenty of Dems will hold their positions as the Tea Party will continue to help un-elect their leaders. No point in talking about the elections until Nov 3rd.

And by the way NEVER mistake my not wanting to actually talk about the issues as not knowing what I am talking about. I read more and pay attention to more than 99% of the people I know. I just find it more fun to get you riled up by being an asshole.

[Stuck in Seattle]

I couldn't care less about them or which state and people they represent. I'm talking about them for pure entertainment value. I am voting for Sandoval and proudly so. I voted for Guinn and I would have voted for Tarkanian over Reid. so I vote Republican when they run one I like. I am not talking about the good Republicans (I like TP from Minnesota very much and think he is a very good candidate for 2016 or beyond) I am talking about the fringe dipshits that get all the press. The truth is the Republicans are having a hard time finding the guy to stick as the GUY right now for the big spot in 12. Your best bet will be Romney but his Mormonism will kill him. And I don't think Pawlenty has the chops quite yet to take on Obama. BJ out of LA? Bust. Who else over the past few month. The cheating Gov. from South Kakalaki? I think he was seen as a front runner.

Polls don't mean anything elections are months away and I think plenty of Dems will hold their positions as the Tea Party will continue to help un-elect their leaders. No point in talking about the elections until Nov 3rd.

And by the way NEVER mistake my not wanting to actually talk about the issues as not knowing what I am talking about. I read more and pay attention to more than 99% of the people I know. I just find it more fun to get you riled up by being an asshole.
I'm not riled. I'm disappointed. You're smarter than this.

[Slapdad]

Chatter's debate skills:

shuffle, heel, tap....throw out ridiculous statement.....heel, tap......accuse others of not answering the question.....shuffle, tap, tap, tap.

http://greatdance.com/podcast/images/TonyWaagDanceShotsm.jpg

[Nosebleed]

I don't see how this has anything to do with "freedom of religion". The liberal blog sites are very quick to label anything SP has to say.

The irony of allowing a mosque where Muslims worship to be built near the area where the most destructive terrorist strike to date on American soil, conducted by Muslim hijackers is too great for me also.

Rick

[student4ever]

While Chatter has an inherent problem expressing his point, I think this question gets to the heart of the matter.

Would you want to allow a christian church to be built next to the federal building in Oklahoma City?

If you say yes to that, but say no to a mosque near 9/11, then you are a hypocrite. That's it, plain and simple. I don't think they should build the mosque there, but I also don't think you can tell them not to either. I think it is an idiotic move by those seeking to put it there as they are just inciting more hatred toward their religion.

As far as Palin herself, she has made it patently clear that if you aren't "a real american" she doesn't want you in her country. I'm 100% certain she doesn't want me in her country, and as far as I'm concerned, she can go eff herself. She's an ass who does nothing but incite further division of the country (and she's far from the only politician doing so on both sides) which is what I perceive to be this country's biggest problem.

[Stuck in Seattle]

While Chatter has an inherent problem expressing his point, I think this question gets to the heart of the matter.

Would you want to allow a christian church to be built next to the federal building in Oklahoma City?

If you say yes to that, but say no to a mosque near 9/11, then you are a hypocrite. That's it, plain and simple. I don't think they should build the mosque there, but I also don't think you can tell them not to either. I think it is an idiotic move by those seeking to put it there as they are just inciting more hatred toward their religion.

As far as Palin herself, she has made it patently clear that if you aren't "a real american" she doesn't want you in her country. I'm 100% certain she doesn't want me in her country, and as far as I'm concerned, she can go eff herself. She's an ass who does nothing but incite further division of the country (and she's far from the only politician doing so on both sides) which is what I perceive to be this country's biggest problem.
Everyone's a hypocrite. But that's a bad analogy.

The OKC bombing wasn't done to push Christianity by a group funded, trained and organized to do so for religious purposes. Christians over most of the world did not celebrate in the streets after the OKC bombing and don't hold it up as a shining victory for their religion. Christians aren't funding more bombers to try to perpetrate more similar such mass murders in the same city either.

Would I support the Oklahoma Crazy Militia being allowed to build a shopping mall and recruitment center next to the site of that bombing? Absolutely not.

[Nevadan]

Personally, I think the only way we're going to see a lessening (I don't believe it can be 100% eradicated) to Islamic extremism is through the committment and involvement of the larger Muslim community, here and worldwide. The reason these nutjobs have had any impact is because they have not been policed within and by their own mostly moderate majority. I also believe that what nonsensical barriers we place and hypocritical actions we take that can be construed by moderate Islam as impinging on their rights to worship, reinforce the case of the radicals, alienates a large group of our populace we'd be better off embracing and further undermines steps toward assimilation into our culture. Of course, if moderate Muslims really did step-up in policing their own lunatic fringe and had some tangible successes, then who would our own nutjob right-wing have as their requisite enemy? Maybe they could take after China or Russia again....recycled enemies work almost as well as the current target du jour.

[Stuck in Seattle]

Personally, I think the only way we're going to see a lessening (I don't believe it can be 100% eradicated) to Islamic extremism is through the committment and involvement of the larger Muslim community, here and worldwide. The reason these nutjobs have had any impact is because they have not been policed within and by their own mostly moderate majority. I also believe that what nonsensical barriers we place and hypocritical actions we take that can be construed by moderate Islam as impinging on their rights to worship, reinforce the case of the radicals, alienates a large group of our populace we'd be better off embracing and further undermines steps toward assimilation into our culture. Of course, if moderate Muslims really did step-up in policing their own lunatic fringe and had some tangible successes, then who would our own nutjob right-wing have as their requisite enemy? Maybe they could take after China or Russia again....recycled enemies work almost as well as the current target du jour.
I like the first 3/4 of the post...but the right didn't create an enemy out of Islamists and the right didn't go around creating enemies in the past. Our enemies generally choose themselves with their ideology. And the left and right of this country aren't that far apart in that area.

As for an Islamic reformation...it's desperately needed. I have some faith that the Shia are likely to go that way, but the Sunni are a more difficult situation. But if it happens it will likely happen here in the US.

On the other hand, there is a serious disconnect in the Muslim community. as you mentioned they need to police themselves better as the tolerance for radical and violent behavior is not just tolerated, but readily accepted or condoned by a significant portion of the devout. Yet I've not seen a right wing nut job racist attack on Muslims in this country. The "backlash" that the media often threatened was going to happen never has, yet we discover terrorist ops on a regular basis. And it's not because we find a mosque at ground zero to be offensive.

[Blueblood]

Everyone's a hypocrite. But that's a bad analogy.

The OKC bombing wasn't done to push Christianity by a group funded, trained and organized to do so for religious purposes. Christians over most of the world did not celebrate in the streets after the OKC bombing and don't hold it up as a shining victory for their religion. Christians aren't funding more bombers to try to perpetrate more similar such mass murders in the same city either.

Would I support the Oklahoma Crazy Militia being allowed to build a shopping mall and recruitment center next to the site of that bombing? Absolutely not.

But we're also not talking about a radical Islamic group trying to build a recruitment center on Ground Zero. This would be a Community Center (not even a Mosque) available to every religion, 2 blocks away from Ground Zero that just so happens to be funded by a Muslim organization. Yes, I get the significance a Muslim-funded building near Ground Zero would mean and the negative feelings this would conjure up in people from 9/11 but this seems much more like a reach out to an improved Western-Islamic relationship than a "stab in the heart", however, I also realize peoples' perception varies. Palin's comments, although she's entitled to her opinion, does nothing to improve these relations which is concerning considering she was tabbed as our VP and could very well be our next President. However, for me, the shocking part isn't about what Sarah Palin said, it's the anti-Muslim sentiment that many Americans have in general in today's society.

I can understand where Sarah and others are coming from if this were an isolated case; however, there have been numerous cases around the country, nowhere near any of the terrorist attack sites where mosques have been vehemently opposed by the NIMBYs only because of its religious ties (Hell, here's one in my own back yard (http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-temecula-mosque,0,553004.story)). If these aren't cases of religious discrimination, then I don't know what is. Like S4E and Chatter inferred, if this were a community center funded by just about any other religious group, it would be a non-issue and, if Christian, would most likely be celebrated. The Muslim religion, as a whole, has to be one of the most hated and disrespected religious groups that I know of due to an over-generalization caused by a few whacked-out groups and individuals who claim to be Muslims. As far as I can tell this religious group doesn't condone the actions of these Islamic extremists, however, many Americans can't seem or are unwilling to separate the two, as in this case, and that's what is depressing to me.

[Stuck in Seattle]

But we're also not talking about a radical Islamic group trying to build a recruitment center on Ground Zero. This would be a Community Center (not even a Mosque) available to every religion, 2 blocks away from Ground Zero that just so happens to be funded by a Muslim organization. Yes, I get the significance a Muslim-funded building near Ground Zero would mean and the negative feelings this would conjure up in people from 9/11 but this seems much more like a reach out to an improved Western-Islamic relationship than a "stab in the heart", however, I also realize peoples' perception varies. Palin's comments, although she's entitled to her opinion, does nothing to improve these relations which is concerning considering she was tabbed as our VP and could very well be our next President. However, for me, the shocking part isn't about what Sarah Palin said, it's the anti-Muslim sentiment that many Americans have in general in today's society.

I can understand where Sarah and others are coming from if this were an isolated case; however, there have been numerous cases around the country, nowhere near any of the terrorist attack sites where mosques have been vehemently opposed by the NIMBYs only because of its religious ties (Hell, here's one in my own back yard (http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-temecula-mosque,0,553004.story)). If these aren't cases of religious discrimination, then I don't know what is. Like S4E and Chatter inferred, if this were a community center funded by just about any other religious group, it would be a non-issue and, if Christian, would most likely be celebrated. The Muslim religion, as a whole, has to be one of the most hated and disrespected religious groups that I know of due to an over-generalization caused by a few whacked-out groups and individuals who claim to be Muslims. As far as I can tell this religious group doesn't condone the actions of these Islamic extremists, however, many Americans can't seem or are unwilling to separate the two, as in this case, and that's what is depressing to me.
Good post...I understand there are two sides to this argument. It's also easy to understand how some segment of society is going to be opposed to Islam in general after all the attacks throughout the 90s followed by 9-11. And people are entirely entitled to protest such things. Personally I wouldn't in general oppose a mosque in any normal area. But respect and tolerance are also a two way street. When more Muslims start standing up in opposition to terrorism (and stop funding it) there will be more understanding between both sides.

As for it being a "reaching out", if that's the case then they should understand the opposition to the location and "reach out" by putting someplace less contentious. This was open antagonism as I really doubt there was no thought that this would be the way it was received.

As for separating the good Muslim from the bad Muslim, it would be a simple thing if the good Muslim would also separate themselves from the bad Muslim. But asking others to do what you aren't willing to do yourself doesn't push the process very well.

[BustNChops]

It is a mosque...

In addition to the mosque, the project calls for a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores and restaurants. (http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/Christian_News/Christian_News_US/ZERO_TOLERANCE_FOR_GROUND_ZERO_MOSQUE_SAYS_SON_OF_ HAMAS/31663)

"Please understand that I have no problem with buildings. But I have a very big problem with the politics and symbolism behind this building," he continued.

"The proposed 'Ground Zero' mosque, despite its humanitarian cocoon and politically correct marketing, would shout five times every day the contempt the American Muslim community has for thousands of innocent victims and their families. While Westerners who consider themselves chic and enlightened go to any lengths to avoid offending Islam, the Muslim community appears to think nothing of pouring acid in America's open wounds.

"Why was this particular site selected? Because the need for a $100 million mosque is so great? Because 45-47 Park Place is the only place left in Manhattan to put a mosque? No. Because it will make a powerful political and religious statement."

[renowiggum]

As far as I can tell this religious group doesn't condone the actions of these Islamic extremists, however, many Americans can't seem or are unwilling to separate the two, as in this case, and that's what is depressing to me.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

[Blueblood]

It is a mosque...

In addition to the mosque, the project calls for a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores and restaurants. (http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/Christian_News/Christian_News_US/ZERO_TOLERANCE_FOR_GROUND_ZERO_MOSQUE_SAYS_SON_OF_ HAMAS/31663)

"Please understand that I have no problem with buildings. But I have a very big problem with the politics and symbolism behind this building," he continued.

"The proposed 'Ground Zero' mosque, despite its humanitarian cocoon and politically correct marketing, would shout five times every day the contempt the American Muslim community has for thousands of innocent victims and their families. While Westerners who consider themselves chic and enlightened go to any lengths to avoid offending Islam, the Muslim community appears to think nothing of pouring acid in America's open wounds.

"Why was this particular site selected? Because the need for a $100 million mosque is so great? Because 45-47 Park Place is the only place left in Manhattan to put a mosque? No. Because it will make a powerful political and religious statement."

A mosque would be a building used solely as a place of worship for followers of Islam.

From the Cordoba Initiative,

"This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide."

I'm sure it will also have a mosque, but to call the Cordoba House a mosque would be like calling the YMCA a church. They are both community centers guided by religious beliefs but neither are places that are used solely as a place of worship for their own respective religion.

[wolf_chatter]

It is a mosque...

In addition to the mosque, the project calls for a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores and restaurants. (http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/Christian_News/Christian_News_US/ZERO_TOLERANCE_FOR_GROUND_ZERO_MOSQUE_SAYS_SON_OF_ HAMAS/31663)

"Please understand that I have no problem with buildings. But I have a very big problem with the politics and symbolism behind this building," he continued.

"The proposed 'Ground Zero' mosque, despite its humanitarian cocoon and politically correct marketing, would shout five times every day the contempt the American Muslim community has for thousands of innocent victims and their families. While Westerners who consider themselves chic and enlightened go to any lengths to avoid offending Islam, the Muslim community appears to think nothing of pouring acid in America's open wounds.

"Why was this particular site selected? Because the need for a $100 million mosque is so great? Because 45-47 Park Place is the only place left in Manhattan to put a mosque? No. Because it will make a powerful political and religious statement."

How ferkin far did you have to dig for that drivel? Could they have a bigger agenda?

[Stuck in Seattle]

How ferkin far did you have to dig for that drivel? Could they have a bigger agenda?
Right, the only ones without an agenda are the ones that decided it would be a good idea to build a mosque near ground zero. It's all so clear.

[BustNChops]

How ferkin far did you have to dig for that drivel? Could they have a bigger agenda?

About #3 - 5 +/- on Yahoo search looking for a headline not focused on Palin.

Does that discount the reasoning in the article?

[renowiggum]

Right, the only ones without an agenda are the ones that decided it would be a good idea to build a mosque near ground zero. It's all so clear.

But, of course, generally everyone has an agenda of one sort or another. It's not the having of an agenda that matters, so much as what that agenda is. A great explanation (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/07/why-sarah-palin-endangers-american-national-security-and-israels-as-well/60088/) I read this morning that I agree with:

On the second point, the danger she poses to America -- and specifically, to American national security -- Palin has this week argued vociferously against the building of a mosque near the site of Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. She calls the idea of a mosque there a provocation. But it is her opposition to the building of a mosque that is provocative. The organization that hopes to build the mosque, the Cordoba Initiative, is a moderate Muslim group, striving for better relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. It is in the direct interest of American national security to strengthen those groups that argue against Islamism. Palin's opposition to the mosque -- and by extension, to the enfranchisement of moderate Muslims -- is a gift to Islamists, proof to their potential followers that America is as intolerant of Islam as Europe is, proof that it is America, not Islam, that wants to see our civilizations clash. We as a society should embrace those Muslims who want to live the American dream; their lives, as free, devout and proud Muslims in a diverse country, are a refutation of the radical notion that the West is forever aligned against the interests of Muslim believers. Opposing the building of mosques by anti-jihadist Muslim groups in this country is perhaps the best way to radicalize American Muslims not otherwise prone to radicalization.

[wolf_chatter]

But, of course, generally everyone has an agenda of one sort or another. It's not the having of an agenda that matters, so much as what that agenda is. A great explanation (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/07/why-sarah-palin-endangers-american-national-security-and-israels-as-well/60088/) I read this morning that I agree with:

On the second point, the danger she poses to America -- and specifically, to American national security -- Palin has this week argued vociferously against the building of a mosque near the site of Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. She calls the idea of a mosque there a provocation. But it is her opposition to the building of a mosque that is provocative. The organization that hopes to build the mosque, the Cordoba Initiative, is a moderate Muslim group, striving for better relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. It is in the direct interest of American national security to strengthen those groups that argue against Islamism. Palin's opposition to the mosque -- and by extension, to the enfranchisement of moderate Muslims -- is a gift to Islamists, proof to their potential followers that America is as intolerant of Islam as Europe is, proof that it is America, not Islam, that wants to see our civilizations clash. We as a society should embrace those Muslims who want to live the American dream; their lives, as free, devout and proud Muslims in a diverse country, are a refutation of the radical notion that the West is forever aligned against the interests of Muslim believers. Opposing the building of mosques by anti-jihadist Muslim groups in this country is perhaps the best way to radicalize American Muslims not otherwise prone to radicalization.

you only confuse those that are against it. What I find most appalling is that America is the land of second, third and even fourth chances. We love to forgive and let people try to make it up. Yet when it comes to Muslims it seems to be quite the opposite. Maybe just maybe they are trying to help heal some wounds? Give them a chance people. If we don't help Moderate Muslims gain control of their religion then we are dooming ourselves to this war on Terrorism forever. I think it shows balls that they would even think to build a Mosque in that area and no I don't think its to rub anyone's face in anything.

To stand in their way, is Un-American in my book.

[wolf_chatter]

Right, the only ones without an agenda are the ones that decided it would be a good idea to build a mosque near ground zero. It's all so clear.

To try and get back some faith from American's that they aren't all a bunch of crazy, killing, pieces of shi*.

The difference is you think their Agenda is Nefarious because you have indicted an entire religion based upon a small percentage of nut-jubs that have given them a bad name.

How funny is it that I am an Atheist, yet seem to be the most religiously tolerant?

I don't blame Islam, I blame the men behind the bombings, I don't hate all Muslims now. I can separate the good from the bad. Sure they hide behind their faith but thats not the good Muslims fault is it? Anymore than it's your fault that the Christian guy murdered that doctor, in church. Or that some White Supremesists corrupt the bible to "prove" white superiority.

I say let them build it and see what happens.

[Blueblood]

Good post...I understand there are two sides to this argument. It's also easy to understand how some segment of society is going to be opposed to Islam in general after all the attacks throughout the 90s followed by 9-11. And people are entirely entitled to protest such things. Personally I wouldn't in general oppose a mosque in any normal area. But respect and tolerance are also a two way street. When more Muslims start standing up in opposition to terrorism (and stop funding it) there will be more understanding between both sides.

As for it being a "reaching out", if that's the case then they should understand the opposition to the location and "reach out" by putting someplace less contentious. This was open antagonism as I really doubt there was no thought that this would be the way it was received.

As for separating the good Muslim from the bad Muslim, it would be a simple thing if the good Muslim would also separate themselves from the bad Muslim. But asking others to do what you aren't willing to do yourself doesn't push the process very well.

And I understand your side as well. You may view it as distasteful and disrespectful of the people who were affected by the terrorist attacks because of the religious affiliation so you ask,"Why that place?". Whereas, I view it as an opportunity for the Muslim faith to disassociate from the "bad Muslims" and educate people who visit the site about the true values of the Muslim religion so I ask, "What better place?". In my opinion, the site is irrelevant considering Mosques around the country are being opposed as strongly as this Muslim-based community center 2 blocks away from Ground Zero. In the grand scheme of things, it's not about the location, it's about Americans losing touch with one of the basic principles of which this country was founded on.

As far as the "good Muslim" separating themselves from the "bad Muslim", maybe you can give me an example? I just don't see that as being the case here. There have been numerous documented quotes from Muslims of all levels who have condemned terrorist attacks but, for whatever reason, the media doesn't publicize this. What more should Muslims do?

[Posturedoc]

But, of course, generally everyone has an agenda of one sort or another. It's not the having of an agenda that matters, so much as what that agenda is. A great explanation (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/07/why-sarah-palin-endangers-american-national-security-and-israels-as-well/60088/) I read this morning that I agree with:

On the second point, the danger she poses to America -- and specifically, to American national security -- Palin has this week argued vociferously against the building of a mosque near the site of Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. She calls the idea of a mosque there a provocation. But it is her opposition to the building of a mosque that is provocative. The organization that hopes to build the mosque, the Cordoba Initiative, is a moderate Muslim group, striving for better relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. It is in the direct interest of American national security to strengthen those groups that argue against Islamism. Palin's opposition to the mosque -- and by extension, to the enfranchisement of moderate Muslims -- is a gift to Islamists, proof to their potential followers that America is as intolerant of Islam as Europe is, proof that it is America, not Islam, that wants to see our civilizations clash. We as a society should embrace those Muslims who want to live the American dream; their lives, as free, devout and proud Muslims in a diverse country, are a refutation of the radical notion that the West is forever aligned against the interests of Muslim believers. Opposing the building of mosques by anti-jihadist Muslim groups in this country is perhaps the best way to radicalize American Muslims not otherwise prone to radicalization.

Thanks for the link, wiggum. The author's last sentence is what resonates with me.

"This is a complicated war we're in, and Sarah Palin is, by the evidence at hand, dangerously simple-minded."

This is precisely how I feel about her. It also sums up my feelings for GWB. I've gone 'round and 'round with a few posters in this forum about this particular trait in the current crop of favorite Republican pols (that's not an entirely fair label, but it surely applies to the two named above) and I don't understand their appeal. Why is a folksy straight-shootin' politician more appealing to many conservatives than a highly educated, intellectual politician?

I'm not claiming that the intellectual will always be the best choice - conditions at the time of his/her service might favor a less nuanced approach, something an intellectual is far less likely to favor than your simple-minded idealist who is certain he/she already knows the answer to the problem. Still, there are very few situations where I want a shoot first, think (if possible) later leader and the current times, as complicated and full of challenges domestic and international as they are, definitely call for a leader capable of entertaining multiple complicated thoughts from multiple different viewpoints, weighing and measuring the best approaches before finally lining up on the target and pulling the trigger.

[BustNChops]

Thanks for the link, wiggum. The author's last sentence is what resonates with me.

"This is a complicated war we're in, and Sarah Palin is, by the evidence at hand, dangerously simple-minded."

This is precisely how I feel about her. It also sums up my feelings for GWB. I've gone 'round and 'round with a few posters in this forum about this particular trait in the current crop of favorite Republican pols (that's not an entirely fair label, but it surely applies to the two named above) and I don't understand their appeal. Why is a folksy straight-shootin' politician more appealing to many conservatives than a highly educated, intellectual politician?

I'm not claiming that the intellectual will always be the best choice - conditions at the time of his/her service might favor a less nuanced approach, something an intellectual is far less likely to favor than your simple-minded idealist who is certain he/she already knows the answer to the problem. Still, there are very few situations where I want a shoot first, think (if possible) later leader and the current times, as complicated and full of challenges domestic and international as they are, definitely call for a leader capable of entertaining multiple complicated thoughts from multiple different viewpoints, weighing and measuring the best approaches before finally lining up on the target and pulling the trigger.

Two things that I differ on:

1) Why is it that being rigid on an issue is considered simple minded? Is it because being tolerant and trying to understand requires so much more powerful thinking?

2) You said, "Why is a folksy straight-shootin' politician more appealing to many conservatives than a highly educated, intellectual politician?" Why can't they be the same person? Talk about being looking down your nose. I understand the individuals can lean in one direction, but I don't discount their intellectual capability just because they are a "straight shooter". I definitely appreciate the times we are in and then need for different approaches for different situations.

[renowiggum]

Why is a folksy straight-shootin' politician more appealing to many conservatives than a highly educated, intellectual politician?

Since I feel some of that appeal myself, here's a stab at an answer: There's a part of me that doesn't trust people who think they can solve everything. The term "technocrat" is often applied to a certain class of political and bureaucratic elite, and I think it carries with it the idea that if we just made the right law, passed the right bill, crafted the best bit of legislation we could then we could fix so many problems.

I think, though, that some problems are more intractable, like the question of what to do to bring the incentives for a ratings agency in line with the role they play in the economy. The Frank-Dodd bill has tried to do just that, and at first glance its made things worse, by driving the ratings agencies more forcefully away from the SEC and making public bonds much more fraught with peril than private deals.

I'm uncomfortable with people who have too much faith in their own ability to fix things. Though he was criticized at the time for saying it, I want someone who, Like Rumsfeld can acknowledge that there's unknown unknowns we face - the things which we don't know that we don't know.

I think another part of it is that the President has to deal with a lot of unusual situations, and a lot of people want a president they feel they can trust (a folksy straight-shooter) dealing with the unexpected, instead of someone who speaks with nuance and hidden meaning.

The president's emotional make-up is something very important today, and one needs look no further than the "why doesn't Obama get angry" commentariat to see it. The person I-the-generic-voter am most likely to trust to deal with X is the person who reacts the way I would react. Ergo, if I'm mad and yelling, he should be too.

Which leads me down the depressing path that maybe we really do get the politicians we deserve.

[wolf_chatter]

I think another part of it is that the President has to deal with a lot of unusual situations, and a lot of people want a president they feel they can trust (a folksy straight-shooter) dealing with the unexpected, instead of someone who speaks with nuance and hidden meaning.


Nor has Obama exaclty filled me with pride for having voted for him to this point. But you can have both, Clinton came across as a Good-old-Boy, hickish sort but you knew he had the brains behind it. Where as GWB just came across as "hickish" and Obama has the brains but comes accross as a cold, calculating, politician. Which can be just as bad as being seen as an idiot.

Reagan was like Clinton. Seemed like a guy you could grab a beer with but wasn't a "bubba" in the brains department. I don't trust politicians as a rule but I will say I would be ok with some of them making judgements in a Crisis.

[Posturedoc]

Two things that I differ on:

1) Why is it that being rigid on an issue is considered simple minded? Is it because being tolerant and trying to understand requires so much more powerful thinking?

2) You said, "Why is a folksy straight-shootin' politician more appealing to many conservatives than a highly educated, intellectual politician?" Why can't they be the same person? Talk about being looking down your nose. I understand the individuals can lean in one direction, but I don't discount their intellectual capability just because they are a "straight shooter". I definitely appreciate the times we are in and then need for different approaches for different situations.

You're inferring, chops. I stated neither of those things. To paraphrase, my question was why do today's conservative voters appear to be most attracted to simple-minded, folksy pols? The two most popular Republican politicians of the past decade are unarguably GW and Palin, each of whom embodies the incurious, simple-minded and folksy personality type and each of whom also have a fairly rigid philosophy on solving problems/issues.

You may disagree with my characterization of those two. If this is the case, I'd love to see some compelling proof of their flexibility and interest in opinions that do not reflect their own views. This would be a novel experience for me because I've read numerous articles on GW's disinterest in entertaining views other than his own, going so far as to fill his cabinet and inner circle with yes men due to his intolerance for dissenting opinions. Palin's cabinet and inner circle as Alaska's governor was made up of classmates from childhood and members of her church in Wasilla and she pursued vendettas against folks who crossed her. Her husband, with no actual job title or authority, helped decide policy. I'll give Palin credit for having a great deal of charisma and political instincts good enough to make her all but irresistible to certain segments of the voting public but she was demonstrably not interested in US and international policy during her VP run and continues to make dumb comments that appeal to her adoring fans but demonstrate a great deal of ignorance and, referencing the topic of this thread, intolerance for views other than her own.

To answer your questions specifically, yes, I do believe it requires a greater intellectual capacity to entertain and critically examine views other than your own and possibly even change your mind after such examination than it does to draw the proverbial line in the sand and exclaim that this is my view an you won't ever change it.

I never claimed a folksy personality and an intellectual approach are mutually exclusive. That combination would be devastating in a politician but I don't think any President has fit that description in my lifetime (thought Obama might, as his run for President showed me he was capable of both, but I haven't seen much of the folksy Obama since he was elected). Neither GW or Palin are intellectuals and while each surely has areas where they exceed average competence such as Palin's charisma and political instincts, neither displays an intellect I would remotely classify as large, especially GW. In fact, you have to go all the way back to Nixon to find a Republican President who's intellectual capacity is generally thought to exceed the average of US Presidents historically. Reagan had a lot going for him including folksy charm, that charisma thing and good political instincts but I doubt many would classify him as an intellectual of any stripe.

Chops, my intent here isn't to look down my nose at conservatives; I know and communicate with plenty who's intellects I greatly respect. What I don't understand is the general attraction of folksy politicians with uncomplicated messages and methods to voters on the right. I'm not claiming conservative pols are all that way or that conservative voters are generally dumb (though I admit to wondering about that one too at times, no offense intended), I'm just asking why relatively unintelligent pols like GW and Palin have captured the hearts and minds of conservatives in the last decade.

[renowiggum]

Her husband, with no actual job title or authority, helped decide policy.

Didn't Hillary Clinton do this as well as First Lady? I recall that being a criticism I heard a lot about her and Bill.

[Posturedoc]

Since I feel some of that appeal myself, here's a stab at an answer: There's a part of me that doesn't trust people who think they can solve everything. The term "technocrat" is often applied to a certain class of political and bureaucratic elite, and I think it carries with it the idea that if we just made the right law, passed the right bill, crafted the best bit of legislation we could then we could fix so many problems.

I think, though, that some problems are more intractable, like the question of what to do to bring the incentives for a ratings agency in line with the role they play in the economy. The Frank-Dodd bill has tried to do just that, and at first glance its made things worse, by driving the ratings agencies more forcefully away from the SEC and making public bonds much more fraught with peril than private deals.

I'm uncomfortable with people who have too much faith in their own ability to fix things. Though he was criticized at the time for saying it, I want someone who, Like Rumsfeld can acknowledge that there's unknown unknowns we face - the things which we don't know that we don't know.

I think another part of it is that the President has to deal with a lot of unusual situations, and a lot of people want a president they feel they can trust (a folksy straight-shooter) dealing with the unexpected, instead of someone who speaks with nuance and hidden meaning.

The president's emotional make-up is something very important today, and one needs look no further than the "why doesn't Obama get angry" commentariat to see it. The person I-the-generic-voter am most likely to trust to deal with X is the person who reacts the way I would react. Ergo, if I'm mad and yelling, he should be too.

Which leads me down the depressing path that maybe we really do get the politicians we deserve.

This is a great reply, wiggum. I will make it my first official nomination for Post Of The Week. I started my reply to chops above a long time ago, had to leave it for a long while, and never read your post before I finished my post off. I don't know that I would have changed much of what I wrote, but I do appreciate your perspective.

I'm pretty sure that I don't respond much to the folksy approach unless it's obvious to me that a big brain backs it up. I never had a problem with Rumsfeld's quote. I thought it was refreshing, though in context it seemed like he was just avoiding giving a straight answer. Admitting that there are gray areas reflects reality a lot better than statements of conviction that sound good but don't ring true after thinking about them for a bit. GW was folksy but he was also convinced he was right, so much so that he's stated more than once that the only entity he has consulted on some decisions has been God. That's not comforting to me at all and I don't know why anybody but the most unquestioningly religious wouldn't be scared as hell upon hearing it.

Anyway, back to my original intent in this post - thanks for some good insight on how a damned smart, mostly conservative person evaluates political personalities.

[Posturedoc]

Didn't Hillary Clinton do this as well as First Lady? I recall that being a criticism I heard a lot about her and Bill.

I thought about that as I wrote that section and wondered if anybody would call me on it. There is precedent for the First Lady to be involved in her husband's Presidency, I don't know if the same can be said for gubernatorial Firsts, wife or hubby, and I'm pretty certain that most would not be relied upon to play the heavy as Todd Palin apparently often played in Sarah's admin or that they would be counted upon in a capacity far greater than that of many or most cabinet members to help decide and direct policy. Surely Hillary talked privately with Bill about some decisions, but did she hunker down with him over budgets or like items and act as his primary source for information as it's been written that Todd did for Sarah? I'm certainly more comfortable with her or somebody of equivalent experience and talent acting as an adviser than I am of somebody of Todd Palin's background acting in the same manner.

[Stuck in Seattle]

You're inferring, chops. I stated neither of those things. To paraphrase, my question was why do today's conservative voters appear to be most attracted to simple-minded, folksy pols? The two most popular Republican politicians of the past decade are unarguably GW and Palin, each of whom embodies the incurious, simple-minded and folksy personality type and each of whom also have a fairly rigid philosophy on solving problems/issues.

You may disagree with my characterization of those two. If this is the case, I'd love to see some compelling proof of their flexibility and interest in opinions that do not reflect their own views. This would be a novel experience for me because I've read numerous articles on GW's disinterest in entertaining views other than his own, going so far as to fill his cabinet and inner circle with yes men due to his intolerance for dissenting opinions. Palin's cabinet and inner circle as Alaska's governor was made up of classmates from childhood and members of her church in Wasilla and she pursued vendettas against folks who crossed her. Her husband, with no actual job title or authority, helped decide policy. I'll give Palin credit for having a great deal of charisma and political instincts good enough to make her all but irresistible to certain segments of the voting public but she was demonstrably not interested in US and international policy during her VP run and continues to make dumb comments that appeal to her adoring fans but demonstrate a great deal of ignorance and, referencing the topic of this thread, intolerance for views other than her own.

To answer your questions specifically, yes, I do believe it requires a greater intellectual capacity to entertain and critically examine views other than your own and possibly even change your mind after such examination than it does to draw the proverbial line in the sand and exclaim that this is my view an you won't ever change it.

I never claimed a folksy personality and an intellectual approach are mutually exclusive. That combination would be devastating in a politician but I don't think any President has fit that description in my lifetime (thought Obama might, as his run for President showed me he was capable of both, but I haven't seen much of the folksy Obama since he was elected). Neither GW or Palin are intellectuals and while each surely has areas where they exceed average competence such as Palin's charisma and political instincts, neither displays an intellect I would remotely classify as large, especially GW. In fact, you have to go all the way back to Nixon to find a Republican President who's intellectual capacity is generally thought to exceed the average of US Presidents historically. Reagan had a lot going for him including folksy charm, that charisma thing and good political instincts but I doubt many would classify him as an intellectual of any stripe.

Chops, my intent here isn't to look down my nose at conservatives; I know and communicate with plenty who's intellects I greatly respect. What I don't understand is the general attraction of folksy politicians with uncomplicated messages and methods to voters on the right. I'm not claiming conservative pols are all that way or that conservative voters are generally dumb (though I admit to wondering about that one too at times, no offense intended), I'm just asking why relatively unintelligent pols like GW and Palin have captured the hearts and minds of conservatives in the last decade.
I'll stick with William F. Buckley: "I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University"

I find the intellectual class to be a group that cannot be trusted to govern wisely.

[Posturedoc]

I'll stick with William F. Buckley: "I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University"

I find the intellectual class to be a group that cannot be trusted to govern wisely.

And right about now you're going to claim that Bumpkin Bush was a wise man for steering the good ship USS USA right into the iceberg because, goll durn it, she's unsinkable! I'll take my chances with the intellectual, thank you very much.

[Stuck in Seattle]

And right about now you're going to claim that Bumpkin Bush was a wise man for steering the good ship USS USA right into the iceberg because, goll durn it, she's unsinkable! I'll take my chances with the intellectual, thank you very much.
I disagree with your premise so there's no claim to make. Do you really believe we're seeing wise governance from the Dems right now?

[renowiggum]

Anyway, back to my original intent in this post - thanks for some good insight on how a damned smart, mostly conservative person evaluates political personalities.

For what it's worth, this is something I've been reevaluating - based in part on my opinions of GWB's presidency. I was first able to vote in the Clinton years, so GWB was the first President I was able to vote for (which I did, twice). I was pretty optimistic about what I thought would happen with a Republican president and Republican Congress. To say the result was disappointing would be a colossal understatement.

But I think if I were more allured by the folksy angle, I'd also be more interested in Sharron Angle, who is to some degree cut from the same cloth. I still would value people that have a humbler estimation of what they can and can't accomplish, but I'm less certain how to identify it. I think that part of the problem is that the sort of person that has the nerve to run for high office today is self-selected to be the sort of person that probably has an even higher estimation of themselves and their capabilities.

All this to say... I was representing more why I think I found that political archtype appealing, but it's not as much a representation of where I stand today, which is mostly just cynical.

[renowiggum]

I thought about that as I wrote that section and wondered if anybody would call me on it. There is precedent for the First Lady to be involved in her husband's Presidency, I don't know if the same can be said for gubernatorial Firsts, wife or hubby, and I'm pretty certain that most would not be relied upon to play the heavy as Todd Palin apparently often played in Sarah's admin or that they would be counted upon in a capacity far greater than that of many or most cabinet members to help decide and direct policy. Surely Hillary talked privately with Bill about some decisions, but did she hunker down with him over budgets or like items and act as his primary source for information as it's been written that Todd did for Sarah? I'm certainly more comfortable with her or somebody of equivalent experience and talent acting as an adviser than I am of somebody of Todd Palin's background acting in the same manner.

My only memories from that time are almost exclusively influenced by talk radio (caveat emptor) but I do recall from the time some stories of FBI files on people being found in the First Lady's quarters, which I would regard as much more serious if true, given her lack of official position.

[Posturedoc]

I disagree with your premise so there's no claim to make. Do you really believe we're seeing wise governance from the Dems right now?

And I'll answer your question with a question. Do you really believe the do nothing Filibustering Few have any interest whatsoever in helping to push through effective legislation when their fondest hopes of regaining power rest on making Obama and the Dem majority look completely ineffective? I must admit that the Bluedog Dems help the Repubs greatly in this, but even so there are times when I just shake my head at the state of politics in Washington.

[Stuck in Seattle]

And I'll answer your question with a question. Do you really believe the do nothing Filibustering Few have any interest whatsoever in helping to push through effective legislation when their fondest hopes of regaining power rest on making Obama and the Dem majority look completely ineffective? I must admit that the Bluedog Dems help the Repubs greatly in this, but even so there are times when I just shake my head at the state of politics in Washington.
I didn't want the "nuclear option" used to get around the filibuster when the republicans were in control (and I backed McCain's compromise with the Dems...something we won't see repeated by the Dems under Reid and Pelosi) so I'm quite comfortable with it being used today. Especially since I'm still waiting for a bill to be proposed that is actually going to accomplish something other than grow government, hurt business, pay off cronies and unions and increase the opportunities to shake down corporations for campaign money.

With 60 Dem senators this administration struggled to move bills. That should tell you something about the bills. Republicans couldn't stop anything on their own. Reid, Pelosi and Obama don't need any help in running your party into the ground in only 2 years.

[Stuck in Seattle]

And I understand your side as well. You may view it as distasteful and disrespectful of the people who were affected by the terrorist attacks because of the religious affiliation so you ask,"Why that place?". Whereas, I view it as an opportunity for the Muslim faith to disassociate from the "bad Muslims" and educate people who visit the site about the true values of the Muslim religion so I ask, "What better place?". In my opinion, the site is irrelevant considering Mosques around the country are being opposed as strongly as this Muslim-based community center 2 blocks away from Ground Zero. In the grand scheme of things, it's not about the location, it's about Americans losing touch with one of the basic principles of which this country was founded on.

As far as the "good Muslim" separating themselves from the "bad Muslim", maybe you can give me an example? I just don't see that as being the case here. There have been numerous documented quotes from Muslims of all levels who have condemned terrorist attacks but, for whatever reason, the media doesn't publicize this. What more should Muslims do?
By the way, here's what my favorite blogger (Orrin Judd (http://brothersjuddblog.com/): brilliant guy IMHO, who has ideas that would generate loathing from both the right and left) says about it:

A mosque is the perfect humiliation of the Jihadis: Putting a place where Muslims can gather and worship freely right at the heart of the quintessentially American business center of the world is actually a perfect symbol of everything OBL hated.
Personally I don't think that is how the jihadis will see it, but I don't discount the possibility out of hand.