The week started with the Drudge Report headline “Mosque Mess Monday”. It was to get more messy as the week progressed, especially for the fragmenting Democrats.
The previous Friday, Barack Obama had openly declared, at the White House iftar, that it was a constitutional right to be able to build a mosque. Naturally, this greatly pleased the mostly Muslim dinner guests. When challenged on his statement the following day, during a family visit to Florida, Obama explained that he had not been commenting on the wisdom of the decision to place a mosque there. Wisdom was far from the minds of the perpetrators of this odious scheme. It’s a shame that Obama did not use some of the vitriol that he has in abundance for those that seek to serve and support the American people and way of life.
Make no mistake, the choice of the former Burlington building is no sheer coincidence. The name ‘Cordoba’ itself should ring alarm bells. Why would they purposely choose a site that will cost $100 million to develop, which, by all accounts, is money they do not yet have?
Harry Reid
On Monday, Harry Reid stated his belief that the mosque should be built elsewhere. I never thought I’d say it, but well said, Harry. It wouldn’t have anything to do with your slipping election prospects, by any chance?
On Tuesday, it was announced that New York State Governor David Paterson planned to meet with the project developers with the intention of offering them alternative state-owned land for the building. This was rapidly followed by a statement from lead developer Sharif El-Gamal, who insisted that the subject was not up for debate. More proof, as if any was needed, of their determination to build in this particular part of Manhattan.
Nancy Pelosi
The most ridiculous item of the week came on Wednesday, with Nancy Pelosi’s call for an investigation into who is funding the mosque opposition. Funding? It doesn’t take funding to voice your opinion on plans which are an affront to the memory of the victims, the grief of the surviving families and the sacrifices of the rescue services on, and after, 9-11. I get the distinct feeling that, as this affair rolls on, some unpleasant realities will come to light. Every Trojan horse eventually reveals its contents.
The end of the week saw some more bad news on the economy. New claims for unemployment benefits rose to 500,000, the highest since November 2009. The number of people on emergency benefits also increased by 260,105 to 4.75 million. Sounds like more change for the worse, and very little hope.
Finally, on the subject of statistics, a Time/CNN poll revealed that 24% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is Muslim. Surprisingly, given the political leanings of the pollsters, it was found that 75% of those surveyed hold a favorable impression of the Jewish faith, just above Catholicism and Protestantism. The Muslim cult came last at 44%. With Obama’s current Presidential approval index at minus eighteen points, could it be time for a change of faith?
I have fought every impulse in my being to weigh in on the Cordoba House debate, and to pontificate, lecture, and moralize from atop my libertarian mountain. Now that I'm actually writing about it I find myself stricken nearly dumb by the irony of what I'm about to suggest on a blog entitled THE NEXT RIGHT. But it has become clear that The Current Right has completely forgotten about The Last Right, and this could prove to be the foil for The Next Right -- at least that's my worry. I do not intend to debate the morality or legality of the construction of Cordoba House in either this post or in the comments - so if you're looking for an ideological fight, you've come to the wrong place. The Right has a new messaging problem, and if anyone intends to supplant the Democratic Party in any meaningful, long-term way, it will require pretty swift action.
The Republican Party is polling considerably well among registered voters (Gallup) on a number of factors: party identification, 2010 vote preferences among independents, and 2010 candidate preferences. The Republican Party also seems to be riding a wave of enthusiasm (RCP) that spreads quicksand all over the Democratic Party's uphill battle as November draws near. Finally, the Republican Party has retaken the lead on the generic ballot (PPP). Whatever successes the Republican Party currently enjoys it owes in large part to both the Tea Party movement and the fact that President Obama and the Democrats over-estimated their "mandate." This cannot be overstated, especially in light of the fact that only a handful of Republicans are engaging their Democratic counterparts substantively (The Weekly Standard).
Now, set all that aside for a moment. Step back 26 years to 1984.
Ronald Reagan wasn't polling well, hitting a 35% approval rating in 1983 (Gallup). The economy was in recession. Unemployment was high, though it dropped from 10.8% in '82 to 7.4% by Election Day '84 (Salon). We were at war -- each day every American faced an existential threat. Federal spending was at 22.9% of GDP (EconLib), in large part because Reagan's defense budget crested far above projections he made on the campaign trail in '79 and '80. But Reagan handily won re-election in 1984 because he kept the message simple -- this worked:
Why, then, is former Speaker Newt Gingrich -- a sort of de facto leader of today's Republican Party, an icon of the 1994 Republican Revolution, and potential 2012 presidential hopeful -- foisting a divisive cultural narrative (WaPo) onto an election cycle already dominated by anti-Big Government and anti-spending narratives that, heretofore, have been working (Pew Research via NPR)?
One political question about the Ground Zero Islamic complex/mosque/theater-space/swimming pool: Why are Republicans trumpeting this? And why, a week or two ago, did they start talking about the 14th amendment? Republicans are going to win a lot of seats this year. And they're going to do it on the backs of the economy. Getting into social issues -- particularly social issues that might anger minorities -- is a dangerous play. It loses them long-term votes that they just don't need to lose. It paints their party as intolerant and opportunistic. And it's unnecessary: It's not like they're hurting for things to talk about.
All this posturing is getting tiresome. The "mosque" controversy isn't about property rights or religious freedom. It's a bogus issue seized by the GOP establishment to distract the rank-and-file from the party's reluctance to shrink government.
This idiotic foofaraw could be a distraction only if the GOP rank-and-file actually cared more about the size of government than the cultural politics of American identity. But they don’t. It’s not even close. American conservatism is a movement consumed by protecting and asserting a certain fabricated conception of the traditional American way of life against imaginary enemies. Support for small government is no more than a bullet point on the Right’s “What We Believe” cheat sheet, mouthed at opportune moments. I approve of what Gene’s trying to do here rhetorically, but the fact is that complaining about Muslims and keeping holy the memory of 9/11 and Ground Zero — the legitimizing altar of aggressive American imperialism — is a direct manifestation of contemporary conservatism’s essence.
Personally, I don't really care who is to blame for the propagation of this narrative -- whether Gingrich is demagoguing, or the conservative, evangelical base needs some pandering. The bottom line is that playing with this narrative is like playing with fire, and could be as dangerous to the Right long-term as a Gingrich marriage proposal. In many ways the conservative base is like the fuel in a gas can, fuel that powers the political machine that winds up carrying water in elections -- but for God's sake, don't hand the Left a big, fat box of strike-anywhere matches. 2010 and 2012 can -- and should -- be a slam dunk for right-of-center candidates. Let's not botch it.
If you're not pro-Israel, then you are pro-pacifist and should begin planning your next trip to New York to coincide with the groundbreaking of the Ground Zero Mosque.
The imam behind a proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a prominent member of a group that helped sponsor the pro-Palestinian activists who clashed violently with Israeli commandos at sea this week.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, according to its Website.
Perdana is the single biggest donor ($366,000) so far to the Free Gaza Movement, a key organizer of the six-ship flotilla that tried to break Israel's blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip Monday.
