In an attempt to score political points, James Taranto asks "Is Harry Reid Un-American" because Reid issued a statement in which he stated that the yet to be built Cordoba Center ("Ground Zero Mosque" to Republicans) should be moved to another site. Taranto mocks Greg Sargent's coverage of the spectacle (I've criticized Greg myself, but because of his fixation on pols' reactions to the Cordoba Center "issue.")

Underpinning this discussion is the notion that the United States has always been a tolerant country, welcoming to all. This myth is exemplified by the Statue of Liberty, with Emma Lazarus' famous words - "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The reality of the American attitude to "The Other" has of course been quite different. From the Original Sin of slavery to the periodic bouts of nativism, xenophobia, bigotry and overt hatred ("No Irish Allowed," Jim Crow, AZ SB 1070),the American attitude towards the Other has been largely intolerant. But the United States is in no way unique in this (see, e.g., European history and present, Islamist extremism, and basically, the history of man.) [ More...]

Beltway catnip:

Speculation in the nation's capital on who will replace Robert Gates at the Pentagon has centered on an intriguing possibility: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Gates told Foreign Policy magazine that he wants to step down as secretary of Defense sometime in 2011. The appointment of Clinton to replace Gates would be historic. The former first lady and presidential candidate would be the first woman to serve as Defense secretary and only the second person – after George C. Marshall – to have served as both secretary of State and Defense. “That might appeal to her,” [Les] Gelb said.

That would not appeal to me. We need Hillary to run for President in 2016. She can't do the SecDef job through, say 2014, and then run for President. Not enough time. Wes Clark for SecDef!

Speaking for me only

Earlier I wrote about President Obama's boasting about his progressive accomplishments. What he can't boast about yet is any accomplishments regarding making our tax system more progressive. And it's not like this is an unpopular part of the the progressive agenda. Citing a poll (one of many) showing strong support for increasing taxes on the rich and corporations, Matt Yglesias writes:

[H]igher Social Security taxes for the rich, higher income taxes for the rich, higher corporate income tax[. . . .] That’s pretty much an aggressively leveling agenda. Broad tax increases are deemed unacceptable, as are broad reductions in retirement program spending (even when formulated as changes to the retirement age), as are cuts to defense and cuts to federal education spending. That’s what the public wants. [. . .] I don’t see why a practical politician would do anything other than talk about these measures.

(Emphasis supplied.) That is precisely what a good progressive politician would be talking about right now. That and jobs. Hello? Anyone? Bueller?

Speaking for me only

In an editorial today, the NYTimes demands President Obama say more about the Cordoba Center (or as the GOP haters call it, the "Ground Zero Mosque.") Conversely, I demand that politicians stay the hell out of it, other than to say what we all know - the owners of the site get to decide what they will do with it.

Similarly, Greg Sargent is obsessed with getting pols to talk about the "Ground Zero Mosque," just as the Wingnuts:

Right on cue, the NRSC just blasted out a release attacking Chuck Schumer thusly: "As Hamas Weighs In On Ground Zero Mosque, New York's Senior Senator Remains Silent."

Schumer's office has actually said he is "not opposed" to the center, but he hasn't said anything beyond that. What we're seeing here is that it does Dems no good to try to duck this issue. Republicans will attack them anyway.

(Emphasis supplied.) That's precisely the point Greg - the GOP will attack them anyway so don't let the GOP dictate what you say and do. Is there any rational reason why I should care if Chuck Schumer "supports" or "opposes" the Cordoba Center? Would Greg Sargent even think of asking Schumer's (or Obama's or Reid's) opinion about this except that Pam Geller decided it mattered? Is Newt Gingrich now Greg Sargent's assignment editor or Chuck Schumer's political consultant? Has everyone gone insane? More . . .

Writing about Harry Reid's stupid statement about the Cordoba Center (I ask again, who gives a sh*t where Harry Reid thinks it should be built?), Glenn Greenwald writes:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- the top-ranking Democrat in the Congress -- joined Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and friends today in opining that Park 51 "should be built some place else." Make sure you donate to Reid's campaign, as it's absolutely vital that this Good Democrat wins!

Arguments can be made in favor or in opposition to Harry Reid's candidacy, but I would hope they would focus on things Harry Reid actually has some authority over. Personally, I think Harry Reid's pander was execrable and stupid, but it has nothing at all to to do with being a Senator. Jed Lewison bizarrely wrote that "Harry Reid is using his influence as the majority leader of one of the two chambers of our nation's legislative branch to intervene in a matter of faith." Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember Harry Reid proposing or pushing any legislation on this "issue." What the hell is Jed Lewison talking about?

Speaking for me only

Haaretz:

After weeks of heated debate over plans for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero - the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York - it seems Muslim leaders will soon back down, agreeing to move to a new site. [. . . S]everal people familiar with the debate among New York's Islamic activists now claim that the leaders are convinced abandoning the site is preferable to unleashing a wave of bitterness towards Muslims.

[. . .] It is also possible that the decision was also influenced by comments made by U.S. President Barack Obama on Sunday, in which he appeared to reverse an earlier show of support. Obama said that when he went on record backing the center, he meant only that it was the right of every religious group to establish its own places of worship – but he did not intend to justify building the center specifically at Ground Zero.

(Emphasis supplied.) Is it possible that Obama's "support" has doomed the project? Ironic if true. UPDATE: A denial.

Speaking for me only

Over the past few days, the "ground Zero Mosque" - as the Wingnuts have christened it (irony intended), has been the Beltway BIG STORY. President Obama has spoken on it (not poorly imo, but unnecessarily.) He has clarified statements he made on Friday on the subject. Today, Harry Reid decided to wade in:

The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else," said a statement from Reid spokesman Jim Manley.

Why Reid gave this statement is beyond me. Who cares what Harry Reid (or Barack Obama for that matter) think about where the Cordoba Center should be built? This is a matter for the owners of the property, and, if necessary, the courts. It is true that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave a good speech in support of the Cordoba Center, but Bloomberg is the Mayor of New York and probably won't be in any more political campaigns anyway. More. . .

Yesterday, the NYTimes ran an article titled This Time, Voter Anger Is No Surprise to Democrats. In the article, Barney Frank is quoted as follows:

“Some people were taken aback by the anger [. . .] We’re professional people who are used to affection. It’s almost disorienting.”

Used to affection? Pols? Dem pols? Why? In any event, here's some advice - get over it. So far, Dems are still whining about it:

It is a point of frustration to Democrats that much of the public seems unimpressed by the litany of legislation signed into law in the first two years of President Obama’s term[.]

Leaving aside the merits of the whine, who in their right mind thinks whining from pols is a good political strategy? Especially whining about elements in your own Party? This is stupid politics. Here's a dose of reality for the whiners in the Dem Party from Chuck Schumer:

Personally, I think Specter would have had a better chance to win the Pennsylvania Senate race than Joe Sestak, and I am positive Sestak is going to disappoint in terms of policy (he'll be a lot less progressive than the creative class thinks), but I have to tip my hat to the political operation running the Sestak campaign. Earlier I wrote about how Sestak is trying to make the campaign sort of a Bill Clinton v. George Bush referendum. Another nice feature of the Sestak campaign is to constantly refer to Toomey as "Congressman" Toomey (though Toomey is no longer in the Congress.) Sestak spends a lot of time talking about his naval career, instead of his time in Congress. This is smart politics. Via digby, Sestak's latest ad (funded by the DSCC) hits on Toomey's Wall Street career:

In a tough political environment for Dems and incumbents, Sestak's team is running a shrewd race. I thought he would get wiped out. But, against all odds, he is in the hunt. Nice campaign.

Speaking for me only

Elise finds the Florida GOP advocating for internment camps for immigrants:

Is Florida GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio in favor of internment camps for immigrants?

Speaking for me only

A WSJ pundit posits that voting against the Obama Agenda will save some Democrats:

Troll through the voting rolls, and you'll find an exclusive club of three House Democrats running for re-election who voted against the more controversial pieces of the Obama agenda: the $862 billion stimulus, Mr. Obama's $3.5 trillion budget, cap and trade and, of course, ObamaCare. Troll through the polls today, and you'll find a near-exclusive club of three House Democrats who are beating every electoral expectation. Were history, incumbency and the economy the main factors this fall, Idaho's Walt Minnick, Alabama's Bobby Bright and Mississippi's Gene Taylor would be packing up. That they aren't is a resounding statement on a failed Obama vision.

First, you simply can not include Gene Taylor on this list where "history and incumbency" point to a GOP victory. Gene Taylor has held his district forever. He has voted against Dem Presidents (and even Dem speakers of the House) forever.But Minnick and Bright, from two decidedly GOP districts do present evidence that in heavily GOP districts, voting and talking like a Republican will be advantageous. But the list provided by the WSJ pundit is quite selective. There were many more Dems who voted Republican than those 3. Let's take, for example, the vote on the House health care bill (it passed 220-215.) The following Dems voted against it:

Marianne Gingrich, the second ex-wife of Newt Gingrich, has broken her 12 year silence on Newt, in a lengthy interview with Esquire. She characterizes him as a fraud, and not just for his "kick 'em when they're down" dealings with the women in his life, which we all knew about years ago.

My biggest gripe with Newt is still with is 1994 Contract on America.

I still think there's no way he would gamble on his history and run for President. He's probably angling for some other job he can get by appointment.