Tag Archives: Barack Obama

New MRC Report Exposes The Real Radio Hatemongers

The so-called “news” media have spent much of the past two decades demonizing the rhetoric of conservative radio talk show hosts as mean-spirited, divisive or a menace to civil discourse. But these same journalists — who gleefully castigate Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and other conservatives — are silent about the vile and vicious rhetoric that spews from the Left’s leading radio talk show hosts. Since late 2007, the Media Research Center has collected numerous examples of the outrageousness of left-wing radio hosts. And, unlike the Left — which attempted to smear Rush Limbaugh with phony quotes — readers can find an audio or video of every one of these quotes (46 in all) posted at our Web site: www.MRC.org . MRC’s new report includes examples of over-the-top rhetoric from left-wing hosts Mike Malloy, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, Jr., Ed Schultz and Montel Williams, all of whom currently or at one time broadcast to a national audience on either the Air America network or via XM and/or Sirius satellite radio. A few of the choicer examples: ■ Conservatives Want to Kill Barack Obama: “I really think there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.” – Ed Schultz, August 11, 2009. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Conservatives Are Terrorists: “Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumbass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia?” – Mike Malloy, January 19, 2010. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Conservatives Want You to Die: “If, in fact, the GOP doesn’t like any form of health care reform, what do we do with those 40 to 60 million uninsured?…When they show up in the emergency room, just shoot ‘em! Kill them!…Do we have enough body bags? I don’t know.” – Montel Williams, July 21, 2009. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Conservative Congresswoman Would Have Liked the Holocaust: “[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps….This is an evil bitch from Hell.” – Mike Malloy, October 17, 2008. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Dick Cheney Eats Babies: “Cheney, by the way, looks very ruddy. I couldn’t get over that. Like, he must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby. He must have sent his people out to get one and bring it back so he could drink its blood.” – Mike Malloy, October 22, 2009. (Listen to the MP3 audio .) ■ Dick Cheney Should Die: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country….Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” – Ed Schultz, May 11, 2009 (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Rush Limbaugh Should Die: “I’m waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that he’s choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something, whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick.” – Mike Malloy, January 14, 2010. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Michele Bachmann Should Die: “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” – Montel Williams, September 2, 2009. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). Even more disturbing quotes can be found in the full report posted at MRC.org , some with very strong language. Keep these examples in mind the next time you hear a liberal huff and puff about how conservative radio hosts are supposedly ruining the quality of American public discourse. They need to clean up their own house, first.

Read this article:
New MRC Report Exposes The Real Radio Hatemongers

Matthews Attacks! McConnell and Limbaugh Trying to ‘De-Americanize Obama’

When Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, on Sunday’s Meet the Press, in response to a David Gregory question about whether Barack Obama was a Christian, told the NBC host that “I take him at his word” Chris Matthews thought that was McConnell using some sort of code language to play to the Birther crowd, as the MSNBC host, on Monday’s Hardball, claimed McConnell’s phrasing was a “Pitch perfect, dog whistle to the haters.” Matthews devoted much of his show to  “The right wing’s attempt to de-Americanize the President” as he invited on Newsweek’s Howard Fineman and the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein to dissect what they thought was some sort of nefarious strategy on the parts of McConnell, Reverend Franklin Graham, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to ride a “message of fear”  to victory in November. Matthews started the opening segment attacking McConnell for failing to denounce any sort of conspiracy theories as he claimed: “The Republican leader of the Senate played Birther politics with abandon.” He even brought on Fineman — who proudly claimed that since he used to work in McConnell’s home state of Kentucky and therefore “understands it” –to explain to viewers that the Republican senator was trying to get Rand Paul elected by playing to a “nativist appeal” that “really works big time” in that state. However McConnell wasn’t the only target of Matthews’ ire as the conversation soon turned towards Rush Limbaugh: MATTHEWS: Okay let’s go, we gotta get to, we gotta get to Rush Limbaugh, just to complete the hat trick here. Here’s, here’s Mitch McConnell, Reverend Franklin Graham and now Rush Limbaugh today on this topic. Is Barack Obama of the relig-, everybody watching right now, by the way, gets credit for being of the religion you say you are. You go to the church, you go to the synagogue, the mosque, whatever? That’s the one you’re a member of. That’s the one you are. We accept that in America. It’s called freedom of religion and respect for religion. Apparently the new rule is “Oh I take him at his word.” Which means “I really don’t, really have any reason to believe he’s telling the truth.” SAM STEIN, HUFFINGTON POST: There’s a debate, yes. MATTHEWS: Here he is. Here’s Rush Limbaugh on this topic. (Begin clip) RUSH LIMBAUGH: What is the only proof we have that Obama is a Christian? Well, okay. His, his word. His word. But Jeremiah Wright is the only proof that we have that he’s a Christian. Obama described Wright as his spiritual mentor. Well we, sorry, media. We’ve heard Jeremiah Wright. We know what Jeremiah Wright said. We know what he thinks of America. (End clip) MATTHEWS: Does everybody watching know what was going on right there? Smearing this guy? I mean, does everybody know what’s happening here? He didn’t answer the question. Rush Limbaugh has an IQ as high as anybody’s around. He’s a smart guy. He knows exactly what he’s doing here. He switched the topic from what a man says his religion is to “How much do we hate Jeremiah Wright?” FINEMAN: Yeah well, everybody who watches this show knows exactly what’s going on because we’re explaining it to them. And this has a deep history of fearing the other, of fearing the outsider. Look Barack Obama came in as a president representing something new, big change- MATTHEWS: Right. FINEMAN: He kind of came out of nowhere. This scares the heck out of these people. And they’ll use any element of fear they can. The following is the a full transcript of the entire first segment as it was aired on the August 23 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Good evening, I’m Chris Matthews back in Washington. Leading off, tonight “Who is Mitch McConnell and why is he saying those terrible things about me?” Yesterday the Republican leader of the Senate played Birther politics with abandon. What did he say when asked whether President Obama is of the religion he says he is, quote, “I take him at his word.” And there you have it. Why do 34 percent of Republicans say Obama is a Muslim? Why do only 27 percent of Republicans say he’s a Christian? Only 23 percent say he was born in America. One reason might be that people like Republican leader Mitch McConnell go on Meet the Press, as he did yesterday, and say things like, “I take him at his word,” when asked if the President is, as he says, a Christian. Pitch perfect, dog whistle to the haters. “Yeah sure, whatever he says, right.” This is not about belief. It’s an accusation that President Obama is not one of us. The right wing’s attempt to de-Americanize the President is our top story tonight. … MATTHEWS: We’ll start with the attempt to de-Americanize President Obama. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman is an MSNBC political analyst and Sam Stein is a political reporter for the Huffington Post. I want you gentlemen to watch what happened on Meet the Press yesterday. Here’s Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell on Meet the Press. Let’s listen to the give and take between he and moderator, David Gregory. (Begin clip) MITCH MCCONNELL: The President’s faith in the government to stimulate the economy is what people are questioning. DAVID GREGORY: That, that, that certainly is a sidestep to this particular question. Again- MCCONNELL: Well no I…. GREGORY: As a leader of the country sir, as one of the most powerful Republicans in the country, do think you have an obligation to say to 34 percent of Republicans, in the country rather, 31 percent who believe the President of the United States is a Muslim. That’s misinformation! MCCONNELL: The President says, the President says he’s a Christian. I take him at his word. I don’t think that’s in dispute. GREGORY: And do you think, how do you think it comes to be that this kind of misinformation gets spread around and prevails? MCCONNELL: I have no idea. But I take the President at his word. (End clip) MATTHEWS: Well, there you have it, Howard. In politics I think we call that “trimming.” When it’s apparent, apparent to the person listening to you, you’re not really believing the person, but you’re just voicing something that undermines him. HOWARD FINEMAN, NEWSWEEK: Yeah, and that’s what Mitch McConnell was doing there. I’ve covered him ever since he was county judge in Louisville, Kentucky, over the years. He knows how to play the cultural fault lines and divides here. And he does it in a very low key, kind of syrupy, Kentucky way. But that’s, that’s what he’s doing, that’s clearly what he’s doing. MATTHEWS: Parsing his words in a way that says he is not lying but- FINEMAN: Okay now I e-mailed Karl Rove. I said, Karl Rove, what do you think? Do you think, do you have any doubt that, that Barack Obama is a Christian? Karl Rove e-mailed back, “None whatsoever.” On the other hand, I contacted the RNC’s office, the Republican National Committee’s office here in Washington. I said what is Michael Steele, the chairman, saying about this? Nothing. Here’s what Michael Steele, here’s what the answer was. “That’s not an issue the committee has discussed.” MATTHEWS: Ha! FINEMAN: “We’re focused on how the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda is blah, blah.” That’s the same approach here. MATTHEWS: By the way, you’re always great. This is one thing I like about you. The reporting is up to the minute. FINEMAN: I’m just trying to keep up with Sam. MATTHEWS: No but I mean, I mean, I want to get to Sam, but the fact of the matter is the Republican National Committee knows this is a hot issue, today. FINEMAN: Yes. MATTHEWS: They’re prepared to answer it, and their answer is “We’re not talking.” FINEMAN: The answer is “We’re not talking.” Which allows Mitch McConnell to be the spokesperson. MATTHEWS: Okay, look Sam, there’s no accident out there. The American people are all listening to this conversation. This conversation here is like it is at a bar room somewhere, in a car pool somewhere. And somehow this delves down to the following. That 27 percent of the American people who knows this guy says he’s a Christian, believe he is. SAM STEIN, HUFFINGTON POST: Yeah. MATTHEWS: I’m not talking about what the right religion is. Nobody actually knows what the right religions is. Everybody says what theirs is, obviously. But 27 percent of the people believe him. STEIN: Yeah. MATTHEWS: On the fact of what his religion is, only 23 percent believe, hard fact, he was born here – of the Republican party. This is a highly prejudicial issue. Republicans have a very different issue, position on this than most Americans do. STEIN: Sure. MATTHEWS: Why? STEIN: Well- MATTHEWS: Is Mitch McConnell to blame because of this pussyfooting or whatever the right word is, yesterday? STEIN: Well first off I want to up my reporting chops here. I reached out… MATTHEWS: What’s the latest? STEIN: I reached out to McConnell’s office after this happened. And they were insisting that he wasn’t trying to do anything of the sort. That he was being straight forward in saying he believes the President. Now to borrow their phrase, I guess I’ll take him at his word, the spokesman for Mitch McConnell. What I think’s going on here is you have a dichotomy. You have the Republican establishment that is perfectly willing and fine to let the commentariat, predominately, spread this stuff. MATTHEWS: Mitch McConnell says he’s a Republican. I take him at his word. STEIN: I take him at his word as well. But listen, you have Glenn Beck, you have the Rush Limbaughs. MATTHEWS: And what are they all saying? STEIN: You have Franklin Graham, who actually was out there, saying very, you know, authoritatively that… MATTHEWS: Let’s take a look at Franklin Graham. Let’s talk about Franklin Graham who is a man who has played this politics. Not the son of Billy Graham, he is the son of Billy Graham. He’s speaking here as Franklin Graham. A guy who’s engaged in this kind of anti-Muslim comments before. Here he is on CNN this past Thursday. Let’s listen. (Begin clip) FRANKLIN GRAHAM: The President’s problem is that he was born a Muslim. His father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father. Like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born in a Muslim. His father gave him an Islamic name. Now it’s obvious that the President has renounced the prophet Muhammad and he has renounced Islam. And he has accepted Jesus Christ. That’s what he say he has done. I cannot say that he hasn’t. So I just have to believe the President is what he has said. (End clip) MATTHEWS: What is this precious bodily fluids crap we’re getting from this guy? The seed of Islam. If he’s a Christian, of course, Billy Graham’s son is a Christian. I take him at his word. STEIN: Yeah, yeah. MATTHEWS: But the fact is he’s out there saying that Islam believes the seed the seed comes from the father. What is this talk about? STEIN: Well this is my point here. And that is… FINEMAN: There’s a person in Iowa that… MATTHEWS: What is he talking about? STEIN: Yeah well this is my point, is that you have a commentary, you have a section of the Republican Party that’s talking like this. And now we’re seeing it start to filter into the actual Republican officials. We, we reported today that an RNC member in Iowa, a woman out there, actually firmly believes that Republican, that sorry, that Barack Obama is a Muslim. And she’s out there publicly saying… MATTHEWS: And who is she? FINEMAN: This is some RNC committee woman. MATTHEWS: So she’s official. FINEMAN: She’s a member, she’s a member of the Republican National Committee, in Iowa, in Iowa- STEIN: Yeah. FINEMAN: -the state that has the first caucuses. MATTHEWS: Okay let’s go, we gotta get to, we gotta get to Rush Limbaugh, just to complete the hat trick here. Here’s, here’s’ Mitch McConnell, Reverend Franklin Graham and now Rush Limbaugh today on this topic. Is Barack Obama of the relig-, everybody watching right now, by the way, gets credit for being of the religion you say you are. You go to the church, you go to the synagogue, the mosque, whatever? That’s the one you’re a member of. That’s the one you are. We accept that in America. It’s called freedom of religion and respect for religion. Apparently the new rule is “Oh I take him at his word.” Which means “I really don’t, really have any reason to believe he’s telling the truth.” STEIN: There’s a debate, yes. MATTHEWS: Here he is. Here’s Rush Limbaugh on this topic. (Begin clip) RUSH LIMBAUGH: What is the only proof we have that Obama is a Christian? Well, okay. His, his word. His word. But Jeremiah Wright is the only proof that we have that he’s a Christian. Obama described Wright as his spiritual mentor. Well we, sorry, media. We’ve heard Jeremiah Wright. We know what Jeremiah Wright said. We know what he thinks of America. (End clip) MATTHEWS: Does everybody watching know what was going on right there? Smearing this guy? I mean, does everybody know what’s happening here? He didn’t answer the question. Rush Limbaugh has an IQ as high as anybody’s around. He’s a smart guy. He knows exactly what he’s doing here. He switched the topic from what a man says his religion is to “How much do we hate Jeremiah Wright?” FINEMAN: Yeah well, everybody who watches this show knows exactly what’s going on because we’re explaining it to them. And this has a deep history of fearing the other, of fearing the outsider. Look Barack Obama came in as a president representing something new, big change- MATTHEWS: Right. FINEMAN: He kind of came out of nowhere. This scares the heck out of these people. And they’ll use any element of fear they can. Sometimes I think Rush Limbaugh is amusing. Sometimes I think he’s useful in the conversation. This is wrong, because ministers such as Joel Hunter, who’s a conservative Republican of Florida, is one of the people- MATTHEWS: Right. Approved putting- FINEMAN: -is one of the people that, whom Obama consults with- MATTHEWS: Making your point- FINEMAN: -who he talks to all the time. There, there are- MATTHEWS: We got the new Pew poll out says 34 percent say he’s a Christian. One in three, even though he says he is. You’d think most people would get credit for what they say. That’s down from 48 percent in March of 2009. Eighteen percent say he’s Muslim, 43 percent say they don’t know. This “don’t know” thing is getting out of hand. That’s the game that Mitch McConnell is playing – “I don’t know.” STEIN: Yeah see… MATTHEWS: “I don’t know” is a character assault. If somebody says, “I’m Jewish” and [somebody] says “No way, you’re not.” That’s a character assault. You are, who you say you are in this country. And if somebody says you’re not who you say you are, they’re calling you a liar. STEIN: Yeah. MATTHEWS: It’s basically what you’re saying. It’s worst than any religion, to call a guy a liar. STEIN: Well the whole, the whole idea is to seed doubt. I mean there’s so many conflicting, contradiction labels that they’re putting on this man. It went from a black liberation theologist, to a communis, to a Marxist to a Muslim sympathizer, to a Muslim himself. MATTHEWS: Okay here’s a question. Pure politics. They got the economy in bad shape, most people are hurt. Middle aged people are getting hurt. People are losing jobs. Companies are dropping people they’ve had for years. Right? It’s not the usual unemployed. All kinds of people are facing unemployment right now. They got high debt that doesn’t sell. They got taxes maybe about to be back raised again, back to Clinton levels, at least. They have all of the things going for them. Why are the Republicans playing the dirt ball game when they don’t need it? This is like Nixon when he could have won an election easily, he still reverted to this. I don’t know why people do this. Why are they using this? STEIN: We were talking about, we were talking about this and trying to put it in historical context, in looking back at the Great Depression when there were smears against Franklin Roosevelt for being a supposed Jew. And I think a lot of it has to- MATTHEWS: Well that was Coughlin. Pretty far out. STEIN: Yeah I mean driven by… MATTHEWS: Did actual, did actual Republicans say that stuff? FINEMAN: But millions and millions of people listened to Father Coughlin back in the day. MATTHEWS: Yeah. FINEMAN: But the answer to your question is right now there are two tracks. There’s the economic track and there’s this track involving immigration, race and religion. MATTHEWS: Right. FINEMAN: What I foresee happening is the two of them coming together at some point. MATTHEWS: November election then? FINEMAN: Sam was making the point earlier, when people are worried about the economic status that they have, they’re more open to- MATTHEWS: To a scapegoat. FINEMAN: -these kinds of appeals of fear. MATTHEWS: Hey we’ve seen this! FINEMAN: And we’ve seen it with immigration and you may see it with the Islam issue as well. MATTHEWS: Okay here’s the question. Sam, hard question and then back to Howard. STEIN: Sure. MATTHEWS: Could it be that Mitch McConnell as a politician? Just guessing? STEIN: Shocking, yes. MATTHEWS: I take him at his word. He’s a politician. Okay, he knows he’s got a very good chance of picking up four or five Senate seats, but still being at the short end of that thing. Still having to face whoever the Democrats have. Whether it’s Harry Reid or it’s Chuck [Schumer] or it’s Dick Durbin or somebody running the party. But he may well be on the short end, probably. I looked at the numbers. We all, it’s very hard for him to run 11 to 1 which he would have to do among the top 12 races to get the 10 point, 10 seat pick up. Could it be that he figures this is gonna be the winning cap? “We’ll win on the economy, win five or six seats on the economy and then we’ll take it away on culture and ethnicity and, and, and Americanism. That we can really knock the Democrats out of the batting box on this and grab the Senate.” STEIN: If that is- MATTHEWS: With this, with this stuff. STEIN: If that is his philosophy, the he is actually going against some people in the Republican Party who insist that’s the wrong way to go about it. They look back at the impeachment trial- MATTHEWS: How do they get hurt? STEIN: They go back to the impeachment trial of Clinton and say that, that, that detracted from the idea that it should have been all about the economy. MATTHEWS: Yeah but Clinton was popular. STEIN: True. FINEMAN: I think, I think and, most of the time, Karl Rove thinks that the economy is the way to do it. Okay? So he sort of agrees… MATTHEWS: That’s how Reagan got elected. FINEMAN: Okay and Karl goes back to George W. etcetera and don’t forget George W. was rather benign on some of these issues related to culture and so forth. MATTHEWS: Back in 2000 he was! FINEMAN: Okay, he was. But Mitch McConnell is looking at it through the lens of Kentucky. And since I used to work there, I understand it. MATTHEWS: He wants Rand to win. FINEMAN: And that’s a native, that’s a state where the nativist appeal outside of Louisville really works big time. He’s trying to defend this guy, Rand Paul. And they’re gonna use whatever fear message they can. MATTHEWS: So the nativism is aimed at the center of the country? FINEMAN: Well it’s aimed at Kentucky, for sure. MATTHEWS: Yeah okay, well that’s what we’re looking at. And I like doing this, on this show. Understand why people do what they do. These guys like Mitch McConnell know exactly what they’re doing. When he says “I take him at his word,” those words are crafted. Thank you. As always, you won on the reporting, by the way. FINEMAN: No I didn’t. MATTHEWS: Howard Fineman, Sam Stein. This guy working his reporter’s notebook to the last minute. He’s the best this the business. Later on this show I’m going to tell you what I really think about some of this sleazy and dangerous stuff, I’ve begun to. It’s smart, if you’re evil.

Link:
Matthews Attacks! McConnell and Limbaugh Trying to ‘De-Americanize Obama’

Frank Rich Blames Ground Zero Mosque Opinion On Rupert Murdoch’s ‘Islamophobia Command Center’

New York Times columnist Frank Rich on Sunday blamed America’s opinion of the Ground Zero mosque on the “Islamophobia command center” of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. As readers are likely aware, its properties include Fox News, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal, all witting accomplices to a devious plot to stoke anti-Muslim sentiment according to Rich. Never mind that public opinion polls around the country and in New York state show vast majorities in opposition to the building of this Islamic center at the site of the 9/11 attacks. In Rich’s paranoid view , it’s all Murdoch’s fault: In the five months after The Times’s initial account there were no newspaper articles on the project at all. It was only in May of this year that the Rupert Murdoch axis of demagoguery revved up, jettisoning Ingraham’s benign take for a New York Post jihad . The paper’s inspiration was a rabidly anti-Islam blogger best known for claiming that Obama was Malcolm X’s illegitimate son . Soon the rest of the Murdoch empire and its political allies piled on, promoting the incendiary libel that the “radical Islamists” behind the “ground zero mosque” were tantamount either to neo-Nazis in Skokie ( according to a Wall Street Journal columnist ) or actual Nazis ( per Newt Gingrich ). The Fox patron saint Sarah Palin calls Park51 a “stab in the heart” of Americans who “still have that lingering pain from 9/11.” But her only previous engagement with the 9/11 site was when she used it as a political backdrop for taking her first questions from reporters nearly a month after being named to the G.O.P. ticket. (She was so eager to grab her ground zero photo op that she defied John McCain’s just-announced “suspension” of their campaign.) At the Islamophobia command center, Murdoch’s News Corporation, the hypocrisy is, if anything, thicker. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial darkly cited unspecified “reports” that Park51 has “money coming from Saudi charities or Gulf princes that also fund Wahabi madrassas.” As Jon Stewart observed , this brand of innuendo could also be applied to News Corp., whose second largest shareholder after the Murdoch family is a member of the Saudi royal family. Perhaps last week’s revelation that News Corp. has poured $1 million into G.O.P. campaign coffers was a fiendishly clever smokescreen to deflect anyone from following the far greater sum of Saudi money (a $3 billion stake) that has flowed into Murdoch enterprises, or the News Corp. money (at least $70 million) recently invested in a Saudi media company . Were McCain in the White House, Fox and friends would have kept ignoring Park51. But it’s an irresistible target in our current election year because it revives the most insidious anti-Obama narrative of the many Fox promoted in the previous election year: Obama the closet Muslim and secret madrassa alumnus. Rich then cited a number of polls including the recent Pew Research Center survey regarding Obama’s religious beliefs as well as the increasing opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet nowhere did he inform readers about the vast majorities against building this mosque in its current proposed location. According to CNN/Opinion Research Corporation: [N]early 70 percent of all Americans oppose the controversial plan to build the mosque just blocks away from the solemn site in lower Manhattan while just 29 percent favor the construction. Broken down by party affiliation, 54 percent of Democrats oppose the plans while 82 percent of Republicans disapprove. Meanwhile, 70 percent of independents said they are against the proposal. A Siena Research Institute poll found 61 percent of New Yorkers also opposed to this mosque’s location. Are all of these folks getting their news from Fox, the Journal, and the Post? Consider that Fox News on Thursday averaged a little over 1 million viewers throughout the day, with prime time at 2.4 million.  For its part, the Journal’s circulation is 2.1 million. The Post is a little above 500,000. Add it all up, and even in prime time, these three outlets touch roughly five people a day. But according to Rich, we have them to blame for the overwhelming majority opposed to the Ground Zero mosque. As Hillary Clinton might say, it requires a willing suspension of disbelief to reach such an absurd conclusion. Nice job, Frank!  

Read more:
Frank Rich Blames Ground Zero Mosque Opinion On Rupert Murdoch’s ‘Islamophobia Command Center’

Todd: ‘Anthropological’ Obama Didn’t Mean To Demean With Bitter-Clinger Line

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”  — candidate Barack Obama, remarks at fundraiser, April, 2008 Discussing with Andrea Mitchell today the kerfuffle over Pres. Obama’s Christianity, Chuck Todd hearkened back to PBO’s infamous bitter-clinger line. Obama offered his pronouncement at a private, hoity-toity fundraiser in San Francisco—and Todd claimed Obama didn’t mean to demean by it.   According to Todd [quoting Paul Begala], Obama is his mother’s son, and like the anthropologist she was, he was simply offering an anthropological analysis of the plight of those poor rural Pennsylvanians. CHUCK TODD: I would say the real danger for the president on issues like this, is less about this, and more about–Paul Begala one time said this to me–he said, you know, the guy really is his mother’s son sometimes when it comes to studying society.  He’s anthropoligcal about it.  Remember that time when he was studying people in Pennsylvania, and he said to that fundraiser in Pennsylvania, you know they cling to their guns.  He wasn’t meaning it as demeaning in his mind, but it came across that way. ANDREA MITCHELL: It’s intellectualized. TODD: He’s the son of an anthropologist, and I think sometimes he goes about religion that way, almost in this, as I said because he’s very well studied on, not just Christianity but on a lot of religions, but in that, frankly, anthropological way, and that can come across as distant. Todd speaks of the bitter-clinger line as the fruit of Obama’s “studying” people in Pennsylvania.  Is there evidence Obama undertook a study of rural Pennsylvania, or was this simply what it sounded like: cocktail chatter for the oh-so-smart set?  Question for Chuck: how do you know that “in his mind” Obama wasn’t meaning it as demeaning? I can’t top HotAir’s analysis of just how demeaning Obama’s statement was, so let me simply quote it: What’s most offensive? The condescension displayed here by the intelligentsia’s candidate of choice? The sheer breadth of the stereotype, which would send Team Obama screaming from the rooftops if a white politician drew a similarly sweeping caricature of blacks? The crude quasi-Marxist reductionism of his analysis, which he first introduced in his speech on race vis-a-vis the root causes of whites’ “resentment” — namely, exploitation by the bourgeoisie in the form of corporations and D.C. lobbyists? Or is it the shocking inclusion of religion, of all things, in the litany of sins he recites? What on earth is that doing there, given His Holiness’s repeated invocations of the virtues of faith on the trail? Note the choice of verb, too. Why not just go the whole nine yards and call it the opiate of the masses?

Read the rest here:
Todd: ‘Anthropological’ Obama Didn’t Mean To Demean With Bitter-Clinger Line

WaPo’s Eugene Robinson: Obama Is On A ‘Winning Streak’

What kind of shameless shill do you have to be to claim the President is on a winning streak as his poll numbers plummet, the economy teeters on a double-dip recession, and his Party is facing historic losses in both chambers of Congress? A Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and former managing editor of the Washington Post, that’s who. Consider that just days after numerous polls were released showing America’s confidence in Barack Obama at an all-time low, and stallwart supporters such as CNN and the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd claimed that even George W. Bush was better at delivering a coherent message to the American people, Eugene Robinson wrote the following Friday: This is a radical break from journalistic convention, I realize, but today I’d like to give credit where it’s due — specifically, to President Obama. Quiet as it’s kept, he’s on a genuine winning streak. Robinson then listed the following items by way of recent headlines: “Last U.S. combat troops leave Iraq” “General Motors to launch stock offering” “Gulf oil spill contained” But here was the best one. In fact, it’s so good it requires a serious warning to remove all fluids, combustibles, and sharp objects from proximity to your computer: And finally, “President wades into mosque controversy”: Yes, I’m serious. Supporting the mosque in Lower Manhattan didn’t score any political points. But Obama saw his duty to uphold the values of our Constitution and make clear that our fight is against the terrorists, not against Islam itself. Instead of doing what was popular, he did what was right. He still hasn’t walked on water, though. What’s wrong with the man? Yep. Robinson is so captivated by this President that he even believes Obama has handled the Ground Zero mosque situation well. Now THAT’S some impressive shilling, wouldn’t you agree? This is sooooo good it requires what Hillary Clinton would call a willing suspension of disbelief. For instance, here are some recent headlines one would have to ignore to come to the conclusion Obama is on a winning streak: Jobless claims hit 500K, a nine-month high New jobs numbers: Bad for economy, worse for Democrats US unemployment figures increase fears of double-dip recession Critics say Obama’s message becoming ‘ incoherent ‘ If polls are any indication, GOP can expect big gains in the fall Even the Poor Are Abandoning Obama , According to Gallup Poll Data ‎ Obama Sees New Lows in Job Approval Obama Receives Low Marks in Economic Poll ‎ Poll: Majority now disapprove of Obama’s job performance 1 in 5 Americans Thinks Obama Is Muslim If this is what Robinson thinks is a winning streak, I can’t imagine what losing looks like to him.

View post:
WaPo’s Eugene Robinson: Obama Is On A ‘Winning Streak’

CBS’s Erica Hill to Ann Coulter: Will Mosque Issue ‘Go Away’ Before November Elections?

Speaking to conservative commentator Ann Coulter on Thursday’s CBS Early Show, fill-in co-host Erica Hill seemed to hope the Ground Zero mosque controversy had run its course: “Does it go away or does this continue through November?” Hill’s question to Coulter followed fellow guest, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker, ranting: “…the notion that in the United States of America we would deny people the right to have a religious edifice is simply – like, that’s just not – it’s unconscionable….I think that smart Republicans, fair Republicans, fair people of all political persuasions need to look – are looking at this really as a constitutional issue and really as a freedom issue. It should not be this political question that it’s become.” Picking up on Acker’s argument, Hill turned to Coulter: “So, it shouldn’t be a political issue. Though is it going to continue to be one as we head to November?” In her response, Coulter fired back at Acker: “I will say Tanya’s absolutely giving the Democratic position. America, you want a mosque at Ground Zero, you vote for the Democrats.” Acker angrily replied: “No. No, I’m giving – I’m giving the American position, Ann. I’m giving the American position because my constitution says that-” Hill then interrupted, notifying both guests that they were out of time. At the top of the segment, Hill asked both Coulter and Acker for their reactions to the pullout of major U.S. combat forces from Iraq. Beginning with Coulter, Hill wondered: “…this is happening two weeks ahead of President Obama’s schedule, Ann. Is this, perhaps, a step forward for the administration, some more positive news coming out?” Coulter replied: “Well, Iraq isn’t really his war. That is George Bush’s and it’s gone very well.” Hill interjected: “This was his deadline, though.” Here is a full transcript of the August 19 segment: 7:00AM TEASE HARRY SMITH: No regrets. President Obama insists Muslims have the right to build a community center and mosque near Ground Zero. Though a growing number of Democrats say it’s the wrong place, and a majority of Americans agree. 7:07AM SEGMENT: ERICA HILL: Joining us now with their take on the political impact of all this are conservative commentator Ann Coulter and Democratic Party strategist Tanya Acker. Good to have both of you with us this morning. So the last large U.S. combat brigade leaving Iraq. Obviously there are still troops there, as we heard from the General [Steven Lanza], talking about that as well. But this is happening two weeks ahead of President Obama’s schedule, Ann. Is this, perhaps, a step forward for the administration, some more positive news coming out? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Heading Towards The Midterms; Political Impact of Iraq Pullout] ANN COULTER: Well, Iraq isn’t really his war. That is George Bush’s and it’s gone very well. HILL: This was his deadline, though. COULTER: Afghanistan is his war and that’s not going so well. HILL: So you’re not seeing any positive- COULTER: No. I think he’s been a disaster on foreign policy. I mean, there was a reason to concentrate on Iraq. Iraq is good for regime change. The people are fairly educated. That is exactly the opposite in Afghanistan. You’re dealing with peasants who are stoning a couple who elope. Turning that country into a democracy, I think, is a pipe dream, which is why with Bush he went in, he knocked out the Taliban, left a few troops behind. But then turned the major war on terrorism into Iraq, a country that’s good military, that is sitting on a lot of oil, that’s in the middle of a crucial region of the world. What do we want to be in Afghanistan for? And instead, this president, purely out of political correctness, because he wanted to respond to MoveOn.org crowd about ‘oh, Iraq, it’s a war of convenience, whereas Afghanistan it’s a war of necessity.’ No, no, no, no, no. Bush cared about national security. This guy about – Obama cares about political correctness. And it’s a big mistake. HILL: Tanya, I hear you – I can hear you in the background there. I know you want to jump in, go ahead. TANYA ACKER: Well, it’s so funny because Ann’s perspective is so completely ahistorical, and also, it seems – she seems to not have a very good grasp of American political science. Barack Obama’s the President of the United States right now, which means that Iraq is his war. It also means Afghanistan, too, is his war, as it was George Bush’s war when he first directed that operation. I’d also remind Ann that Afghanistan is –  borders this country called Pakistan. And that’s – there’s a reason that we need to keep that country and that region of the world stable. But all that aside, and you know, putting some of that nonsense, bracketing that for a moment, I think the General [Steven Lanza] made a really good point. It is time now that we let the Iraqi people govern themselves. They need to rule themselves. And that – that military really needs to take responsibility for its own country’s security. We’re not gone. We’re going to provide a very important, valuable training mechanism. But I definitely think this is a step in the right direction. HILL: There’s been so much talk. It seems every day something new comes out about plans for a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero. Tanya, I’ll let you kick this one off. We’re hearing again from the President on this, saying he doesn’t regret those comments. Is this the kind of thing that’s going to go away or is this starting to shape, in fact, the road to November elections? ACKER: Well, you know, look, I think there are a lot of partisans who are going to try to turn this into an even nastier issue than it’s become. But I think that we would all be wise to follow Ted Olsen’s lead, George Bush’s former solicitor general who lost his wife on 9/11, who said that the notion that in the United States of America we would deny people the right to have a religious edifice is simply – like, that’s just not – it’s unconscionable. And I think the President’s doing the right thing. I think that smart Republicans, fair Republicans, fair people of all political persuasions need to look – are looking at this really as a constitutional issue and really as a freedom issue. It should not be this political question that it’s become. HILL: So, it shouldn’t be a political issue. Though is it going to continue to be one as we head to November? COULTER: Well, one person made it not only a political issue but a national political issue and that is President Obama. Who wanted a standing ovation from a Muslim audience at a Ramadan dinner at the White House. So he comes out in favor of the mosque. And then as soon as he’s not in front of a crowd that’s going to give him a standing ovation for that, he’s taken it back. I don’t know what his position is now that he claims he’s standing by. HILL: Does it go – does it go away though? Does it go away or does this continue through November, before I let you go? COULTER: Not until we know what’s going to happen to that mosque at Ground Zero. And I will say Tanya’s absolutely giving the Democratic position. America, you want a mosque at Ground Zero, you vote for the Democrats. ACKER: No. No, I’m giving – I’m giving the American position, Ann. I’m giving the American position because my constitution says that- HILL: Ladies, we have to leave it there. But there is much more to talk about in the months ahead. Don’t worry. Tanya Acker, Ann Coulter, good to have both of you with us this morning. ACKER: Thank you.

See original here:
CBS’s Erica Hill to Ann Coulter: Will Mosque Issue ‘Go Away’ Before November Elections?

Lauer to Giuliani: Some Say Mosque Protestors Were Ones That Added ‘Vitriol’ to the Debate

NBC’s Matt Lauer invited on Rudy Giuliani to discuss the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque with the former New York City mayor diplomatically addressing most of the religious freedom concerns while still recommending that the site be moved, but Lauer furthered the notion that the imam fronting the project was not at fault for the “vitriol” in the debate, as he questioned the former mayor: “Some would say he didn’t create the vicious, angry battle. That it’s the people who decided to weigh in on it who add, added the vitriol to the battle.” To which Giuliani responded that “they’re wrong…if you are a healer, you do not go forward with this project.” The following is the full interview with Giuliani as it was aired on the August 19 Today show: MATT LAUER: Now the debate raging over those plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero. The current mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, has been one of the most vocal proponents of that mosque. But former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has a different opinion. Mr. Mayor, good morning. It’s nice to see you. RUDY GIULIANI: Good morning. LAUER: What’s your problem with it? I mean most people say, look, it’s, it’s legal, it’s within the Constitution. We protect religious freedom in this country. Why don’t you think it should be built there? GIULIANI: I agree with all that. And beyond that it’s an as of right project, as far as I can tell under New York law. They never even had to go through all those reviews they went through. The question here is a question of sensitivity, people’s feelings. And, are you really what you pretend to be? As I understand this, this Cordoba House, the idea of it is to healing. To show that Muslims care about the same things as Christians and Jews do. That we’re one people. That we should be one. Well, if you’re going to, if you’re going to so horribly offend the people that were most directly offended by this, most directly affected by this, the families of the September 11 victims — who I happen to know and have gotten to know, you know, really well — then how are you healing? I mean all this is doing is creating more division, more anger, more hatred, and I mean, there are, there are- LAUER: Are you worried about the imam behind this project? In terms of his politics, his religious beliefs, do you find him to be anything but the moderate that he’s described as by the current administration, and by the way, the Bush administration before that? GIULIANI: I’m confused by the imam. I see all the things that you’re saying. But I also see a man who said that America was an accessory to September 11. That, those are the very words that required me to give $10 million back to an Arab chic or prince. He gave us $10 million for the 9/11 fund. LAUER: Let me just clarify so people understand what you’re saying. Shortly after 9/11 on 60 minutes he said, quote, “I wouldn’t say the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened on 9/11, because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world.” GIULIANI: Well, that, that’s exactly what the, what the Arab prince said when he gave me $10 million. That America was an accessory to September 11 because of its foreign policy. America was not an accessory to September 11. All you gotta do is read about jihad. And the second thing, the second thing he said was, he refused to condemn Hamas, with whom he is alleged to have had some ties, as a terrorist group. It’s recognized by everyone as a terrorist group. And he said America should apologize. So, okay, that’s one part of him. The other part of him is he has had a history of appearing to be a healer, appearing to be someone that wants to talk about a moderate Islam. Appearing- LAUER: Yeah he’s made appearances with Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes. GIULIANI: -appearing, appearing to recognize there are two ways you can interpret the Koran. The, the better way, which is the peaceful way, or the warrior way, which is the way in which you get into trouble with jihad. But those quotes trouble me. But here’s what troubled me more. If he’s truly about healing, he will not go forward with this project, because this project is not healing. LAUER: Let, let me- GIULIANI: This project is divisive. This project is creating tremendous pain to people who have already paid the ultimate sacrifice. LAUER: There are a lot of, a lot of issues are divisive, and yet they have to be, tough choices have to be made. GIULIANI: But Matt- LAUER: Let me just play you- GIULIANI: But, but, but Matt, Matt. But Matt, there, there, that’s true. A lot of issues are divisive but if you want to claim to be the healer, then you’re not on the side of the person who is pushing those divisive issues. LAUER: Let me just play you something you said on, on our program, Meet the Press back on December 22nd of 2002. So about 14 months after 9/11. GIULIANI: Right. LAUER: Take a look. (Begin clip) GIULIANI: If you think about the, the attacks on September 11, I think everyone would acknowledge that part of the core of that attack was the fact that we have freedom of religion in America. That, that it’s part of why America was founded. It’s part of what we’re all about. It’s one of the most prominent things about us. That you can be a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Muslim, or no religion at all, and no one’s going to interfere with you. (End clip) LAUER: “And no one’s going to interfere with you.” By, by, by saying that these people shouldn’t build their mosque where they plan to build it, isn’t that interfering with them? GIULIANI: Well, of course not. First of all, they have freedom of religion. They can build it. They have every right to build it. The question is, should they build it? In, are they displaying the sensitivity they claim by building it? For example, the Pope asked the nuns to take a convent back from right in front of, I forgot if it was Auschwitz or one of the- LAUER: Auschwitz, it was Auschwitz. GIULIANI: -one of the concentration camps. They had a perfect right to be there. They had their freedom of religion there. The nuns were sensitive enough to the concerns of Jews that they pulled it back. Now here’s a man who is selling sensitivity. He’s got $180,000 in the bank, he wants to raise $100 million. Ask me how he’s going to do it, I don’t know. You don’t do it by creating this kind of vicious, sort of angry battle that’s going on. The people who are speaking about it- LAUER: Well some, some would say he didn’t create the vicious, angry battle. That it’s the people who decided to weigh in on it who add, added the vitriol to the battle. GIULIANI: And they’re wrong, and they’re all wrong. I was the first person on September 11 to step forward in the heat of battle, that afternoon, my third press conference and say, no group blame. Do not blame Arabs. We have to, we have to understand this is a small group, and we have to focus on them. But, the reality is, that right now, if you are a healer, you do not go forward with this project. LAUER: A couple of real quick things before- GIULIANI: If you’re a warrior, you do, but not a healer. LAUER: Before I let you go, a couple of quick things. Do you think union workers in this city- GIULIANI: I don’t know. LAUER: -plumbers, electricians, carpenters, will build on that site? GIULIANI: I told you, I told you before I returned to New York last night on an airplane, and I was walking and there were a couple of construction workers there and they told me, in their typical New York accent. “We ain’t working on that project. Let ’em see if they can go find somebody to work on that project.” My answer is, I know New York well enough, you’re going to probably find somebody to work on it. I question whether they can raise the money. Every indication from the attorney general’s reports of their charities are they have about $180,000. $100 million project. And then where is the money coming from? LAUER: In your gut do you think if we sit down a year from right now this project will be under construction at this site- GIULIANI: No. LAUER: -or a different site? GIULIANI: No. I think Governor Paterson had the best approach here. Nice compromise, find another place, have a beautiful mosque there. Don’t have it there. Don’t offend easily 80, 90 percent of the families are seriously offended. I know some people that are crying over this who have lost, who have lost loved ones. You, you or I might not even agree. We, we might say, “Okay, put the mosque there. What’s the, you know?” But maybe we haven’t lost that, that son, that father, person who if you’re watching their child today and you still remember every day that person is gone. It was an attack in the name of Islam. It was a perverted type of Islam. But a kind of prevalent view that goes on in a lot of parts of the world. So we gotta be sensitive to everybody here. LAUER: Rudy Giuliani, good to have you here. GIULIANI: Thank you, good to see you Matt. LAUER: Good to see you.

Visit link:
Lauer to Giuliani: Some Say Mosque Protestors Were Ones That Added ‘Vitriol’ to the Debate

Time’s Sullivan Defends Obama’s Christianity, Attacks Conservatives for Perception by Some He’s Muslim

The number of Americans from all kinds of demographics who are unsure that President Obama is a Christian have grown since he’s been in office. For instance, “fewer than half of Democrats (46%) know Obama is a Christian, down from 55% in March 2009. Barely four-in-ten African-Americans say he’s a Christian, down from 56% last year,” an exasperated Amy Sullivan noted in an August 19 Swampland blog post at Time.com. So who’s fault is that? Conservatives, of course, the religion reporter insisted: It would also be foolish and naive to pretend that conservatives who call Obama a Muslim are doing it in a neutral way and that their intention is anything other than to raise questions about his “otherness.” Sullivan failed to name which prominent conservatives in particular she felt were responsible for moving public opinion on the president’s religious loyalties. But in her zeal to vigorously defend Obama as a follower of Christ, Sullivan concluded by asserting that the White House has to take care to “offset those perceptions [that Obama is secretly a Muslim] with a little more openness about the president’s real Christian faith.”   Perhaps Sullivan was being extremely charitable and wished to avoid rank cynicism, but not once did it occur to her that President Obama might be an agnostic who, like many Americans, nominally associates with the Christian faith because it’s a proper thing to do.   Prior to his presidency, might President Obama have attended — albeit infrequently — Trinity United Church of Christ out of a mix of a vague sense of social and familial obligation and political calculus? Sullivan leaves that possibility unexplored.   To her mind, Obama is unquestionably a Christian and that story must be put out there by the White House PR shop in order to bolster Obama’s connection with the electorate (emphasis mine): I suppose you could call the White House’s complete lack of concern about Obama’s religious image admirable. It wouldn’t be hard to imagine a crafty political adviser marching into the Oval Office and insisting: “Mr. President, I’m sorry, but we have to have you walking into a church every Sunday morning, preferably with a big Bible under your arm.” And i n a perfect world, nobody would give a hoot whether the president went to church or said grace before meals or ever uttered one word publicly about his religious beliefs. But these Pew results suggest that nearly two years after Americans elected Obama, they know less about him than they did when he was a presidential candidate still making his way onto their radar. Forget the question of what that means for 2012– it’s already a problem for a leader who wants to connect with the country. One last note on another finding I found fascinating: Of those Americans who think Obama is a Muslim, nearly one-quarter (24%) told Pew pollsters they think he talks about his faith too much. Which is impossible, of course, because Obama is not a Muslim, so he’s spent exactly zero minutes talking about being one. What the result really illustrates is how thoroughly those who oppose Obama are willing to read everything he says and does through a filter of distrust. Sixty percent of those who think Obama is a Muslim say they got that idea from the media. But interestingly, one-in-ten say they got it from Obama’s own behavior or words. They hear the Cairo speech or see the outreach to Muslim countries and assume, well of course, it’s because he’s Muslim. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t engage in the outreach–far from it. But it does make it even more important for the White House to offset those perceptions with a little more openness about the president’s real Christian faith.

View post:
Time’s Sullivan Defends Obama’s Christianity, Attacks Conservatives for Perception by Some He’s Muslim

Scarborough: ‘Certain Networks’ Would Maul ‘Boss Hogg’ Barbour In Run Against Obama

Gee, I wonder which network Joe had in mind . . . Joe Scarborough likes Haley Barbour.  But he doesn’t like the “optics” of the southern governor running for president against Barack Obama.  Scarborough’s worried that “certain networks” would “maul” the man Scarborough referred to as “Boss Hogg.” [H/t reader Ray R.] Interestingly, both the Politico’s Jim VandeHei and Tina Brown of the Daily Beast were able to see more of an upside for Haley.  VandeHei described him as best among Republicans at articulating conservative principles, while Brown saw the hands-on governor’s potential as the “un-Barack.” Also revealing was that in praising Barbour, Scarborough focused solely on Haley’s willingness to stand up against the “crackpots” in the Republican party.   Watch as Joe tiptoes his way through the minefield of MSNBC’s internal politics. My two cents: should Haley really be worried about being slimed by the likes of Matthews/Olbermann/Maddow?  I don’t think so.  First, they are simply not that influential.  Second, he would wear their scorn as a badge of honor in most of America.

Read more:
Scarborough: ‘Certain Networks’ Would Maul ‘Boss Hogg’ Barbour In Run Against Obama

Roland Martin to Dems: ‘Protect the Constitution’ By Supporting Mosque

On Tuesday’s Anderson Cooper 360, CNN contributor Roland Martin strongly pushed for the Democrats to ” stand up and protect the Constitution ” by defending the planned New York City mosque near Ground Zero: ” Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution .’… Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution .” Substitute anchor John Roberts brought on Martin, along with Republican strategist Ed Rollins and CNN senior political analyst David Gergen, to discuss the continuing controversy surrounding the mosque project. The anchor first turned to the black talk radio host and asked, “Roland, is this the sort of thing that Democrats want to be talking about right now, at a point where many people form their opinions of who they’re going to vote for in November?” Martin didn’t begin with his “constitutional” argument, but instead emphasized that Democratic candidates needed to focus on local issues: “Frankly, if I’m a Democrat and somebody comes to me with that question…I say, ‘Hey, go talk to…the folks representing New York. I’m here talking about my district.'” Both Gergen and Rollins disagreed with their fellow guest. When the strategist stated that “there’s going to be some seats lost over this issue,” Martin doubled down on his initial point: “You’ve got school districts laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers. And you’re actually going to say, ‘I’m going to vote for somebody based upon this issue’- to me, that’s nuts. You vote on what’s happening where you are.” The CNN contributor then went right in his proposed strategy about making it a constitutional issue and echoed the argument of The Washington Post’s David Ignatius : that the President shouldn’t have backed away a bit from his initial statement on the issue on Friday: “Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.’ The President was strong on that on Friday. I think he blew it on Saturday by walking it back. Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution, because every member of Congress, they are supposed to stand up and protect the Constitution.” Martin continued on this point throughout the remainder of the segment. Refreshingly, Gergen pushed back and disagreed: ” I increasingly believe it may come back to haunt him [President Obama] over time….there was a sense that this is another example of people thinking, ‘He doesn’t understand me. He’s not like me. He sees the world through different glasses than I do.'” Later, after Martin rephrased his point and stated that “it is amazing how he’s criticized for saying it is a constitutional right- to freedom of religion,” the senior political analyst retorted by basically endorsing the main argument of the mosque opponents: ” It is not simply a constitutional issue. It has to do with the sensitivities and sensibilities of a lot of families who lost loved ones there for whom this is hallowed ground . And a lot of Americans are saying, basically- look, if they’ve got real problems with it, I would rather they’d move it somewhere else.” Earlier in the segment, as he introduced the controversy, Roberts didn’t use the word “mosque” to describe it, labeling it instead as a ” planned Islamic community center and prayer space down on Park Place in lower Manhattan , two blocks northeast of the Ground Zero site, another two blocks south of a mosque that’s been in that area since 1970, before there even was a Twin Towers.” The full transcript of the panel discussion, which began 37 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday’s Anderson Cooper 360: ROBERTS: We’re talking tonight about the planned Islamic community center and prayer space down on Park Place in lower Manhattan, two blocks northeast of the Ground Zero site, another two blocks south of a mosque that’s been in that area since 1970, before there even was a Twin Towers. Sixty-eight percent of Americans surveyed by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation oppose it. In other polling, so does a smaller majority of New Yorkers. A narrow majority of Manhattanites say they support it. Believe it or not, when the local community board voted on it, the result was 29-1 in favor, with 10 people abstaining. It seems the farther you get from the location, the closer you get to election day, the hotter the opposition becomes. Well, that’s ‘Raw Politics’ for you, and here to talk about all of that: political analyst Roland Martin, political contributor/GOP strategist Ed Rollins, and our senior political analyst David Gergen. Good evening to you all, gentlemen. Roland, is this the sort of thing that Democrats want to be talking about right now, at a point where many people form their opinions of who they’re going to vote for in November? ROLAND MARTIN: Of course not, and you’re running for office- you don’t want to be talking about what’s happening in New York City in lower Manhattan. You want to talk about what’s happening on the ground, economic-wise, in Indiana, in Georgia, in Mississippi, Alabama, Idaho, California, or wherever you are. And so, frankly, if I’m a Democrat and somebody comes to me with that question, and I’m running for the U.S. Senate, I say, ‘Hey, go talk to Chuck Schumer, or go talk to- you know, the folks representing New York. I’m here talking about my district.’ ROBERTS: Well, if only Harry Reid had said that, instead of what he said. So Harry Reid is another Democrat, David Gergen, who’s distancing himself from the President. Do you believe, as time goes on, now that the White House has weighed in on what was a local issue, you’ll see more Democrats looking to put some space between them and the President? DAVID GERGEN: I think so, yes. There are a lot of Democrats that, of course, would like not to talk about this. Roland is right about that. But when it becomes a big national controversy, and you’re running for a Washington office- you know, it seems to me it’s totally legitimate for the press or their opponents to ask them, what do you think about this issue? I think that- you know, it’s like one of the issues you’re going to have to deal with when you’re in national life. ROBERTS [to Ed Rollins]: And you were one of the notable quotables from the Sunday shows when you said, ‘This is the dumbest thing that any president has said or candidate has said since Michael Dukakis said it was okay to burn the flag.’ ED ROLLINS: It’s a similar issue. It’s an emotional issue. You can give an intellectual answer- ROBERTS: Is it a defining moment for this president? ROLLINS: It may be. It may very well be. There’s going to be some seats lost over this issue, I think. It’s going to energize our base- ROBERTS: Really? ROLLINS: Yeah, I think there will. I think there’s- I think you’re down to where these seats are a couple hundred votes. I think people are distracted by they can’t talk about the things they want to be talking about, as Roland said, and I think this is an issue that’s not going to go away. It’s going to get bigger as time goes on, and- you know, it shouldn’t be, but I think it will. ROBERTS: Do you agree, Roland? It’s going to cost the Democrats some seats? MARTIN: No. No. I think if you’re sitting here voting- if you were in any other place in America and your district is broke, you’ve got people who are- increasing number of Food Stamps. You’ve got school districts laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers. And you’re actually going to say, ‘I’m going to vote for somebody based upon this issue’- to me, that’s nuts. You vote on what’s happening where you are. And I will also say this here. Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.’ The President was strong on that on Friday. I think he blew it on Saturday by walking it back. Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution, because every member of Congress, they are supposed to stand up and protect the Constitution. ROBERTS: David, you’ve been here- I’m not sure if you’re nodding your head or shaking your head or a little bit of both. GERGEN: Listen, I’ve been talking to people about- is this a one-week story or is this going to be a lingering story, especially for President Obama, and I increasingly believe it may come back to haunt him over time. I thought at first it would be short. But there was a quality about this that I think a lot of people concluded- wasn’t just about the merits of the issue, but there was a sense that this is another example of people thinking, ‘He doesn’t understand me. He’s not like me. He sees the world through different glasses than I do.’ ROBERTS: Communication problem? GERGEN: Well, it’s- I thought in Philadelphia. during the campaign, that was a masterful speech because he gave voice to alternative perspectives and was respectful of them. And in this situation, he stated one point of view, but for lots and lots of other people who oppose this, he showed no sympathy for what they’re going through and why the public is- MARTIN: David! David, the one point of view is the Constitution! ROBERTS: Yeah, well- GERGEN: That is not the only issue, Roland. I’m sorry MARTIN: Wow! That’s not the one point of view! GERGEN: That’s not the only issue. ROLLINS: I don’t think anybody is basically arguing about repealing the First Amendment. I think the critical thing here is, it’s a judgment call. It was a bad judgment in the heart of the politics, and where this president carries this party or sinks this party is on his approval ratings. You go back to 1947- ROBERTS: Which are not looking good. ROLLINS: And they’re 52 percent- 42 percent today in the Gallup, back to the Nixon and the Reagan levels now. If he drops another two or three points, which he clearly could- and this is a defining- could be a defining moment- he’s going to hurt his party. And I say people are going to lose seats. The whole thing is about 3 percent or 4 percent out there. And our base is energized already, and this is going to energize some conservatives, some Tea Party people. ROBERTS: But the point has been made, though- but the point has been made, Roland- let’s get you to speak to this- that the GOP could also lose something over this, because they’re trying, obviously, to get as many votes as they can. There’s a large section of the Muslim population that presidential candidates and, obviously, local candidates court in Dearborn, Michigan. How are Muslims in this country going to feel about what the GOP are saying these days? MARTIN: Well, obviously, frankly, people really haven’t cared what they thought since 9/11, whether you’re a moderate Muslim- and folks have just blown them away and dismissed them and said they’re absolutely irrelevant. And so, sure- bottom line is if you’re Republicans, you’re trying to lock up those freshman Democrats who won in conservative districts, and that’s really who you’re really targeting. But it is amazing to me, though, when you have folks on the right who have attacked this president by saying, he’s not one of us and doesn’t understand our values, and when he does actually reinforce the Constitution, then it’s a bad thing. I get the whole political thing, but maybe- but it is amazing how he’s criticized for saying it is a constitutional right- to freedom of religion. That’s pretty interesting. GERGEN: It is not only- it is not simply a constitutional issue. It has to do with the sensitivities and sensibilities of a lot of families who lost loved ones there for whom this is hallowed ground. And a lot of Americans are saying, basically- look, if they’ve got real problems with it, I would rather they’d move it somewhere else. ROBERTS: We’re not going to solve this tonight. It’s going to continue- MARTIN: Right. It’s hallowed ground? There’s a mosque four blocks away. This is two blocks away. Wow! (laughs) ROBERTS: Roland Martin, David Gergen, Ed Rollins, thanks for coming up- appreciate it.

More:
Roland Martin to Dems: ‘Protect the Constitution’ By Supporting Mosque