RICH LOWRY (in the NY Post): "Obama managed to stake a brave stand on a principle no one seriously contests — the legal right to build the mosque — while voting "present" on the question that matters: Whether they should or not."
I'm not sure how many examples of disingenuousness anyone can fit into one sentence, but this may take the prize.
No one seriously contests the legal right to build the mosque?
In NYS, we've had one Republican gubernatorial candidate say that this facility should be stopped by the use of landmarking law, and another propose it be stopped by eminent domain. By contrast, the head of the influential Conservative Party favors using the laws governing regulation of public utilities, and one of the Republican gubernatorial candiates thereafter promised he'd appoint only members to the Public Service Commission commited in advance to perverting the administrative review process to facilitate that goal.
The New York Times, among others, has reported on the national GOP strategy to make this proposal an issue in nearly every race in the country. How many of these candidates will publicly acknowledge that there is nothing that can legally be done by government to stop this project? I will bet less than could fit into one of those little circus cars.
Though I've been harsh on Democrats who've made statements on this matter full of equivocation (Reshma Saujani suggesting the local Community Board should investigate the project financing; Anthony Weiner suggesting a process where opponents could raise questions, even though there was an administrative review process on the appropriate issues within governmental purview where opponents did raise questions, and it is over; Sheldon Silver implying that the free speech rights of opponents somehow should shield them from the free speech of others; and Bill DeBlasio trying to imply some sort of support for investigating the funding), I don't find Obama's purported equivocation an equivocation at all.
Take a look at his words:
"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about. And I think it's very important as difficult as some of these issues are that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about."
Despite Lowry to the contrary, the "question that matters" is the one of rights. How the President or Lowry or I personally feel about this facility is absolutely irrelevant from a public policy perspective. The government has no role in deciding whether an East River location would be more aesthetically pleasing, or whether the project should include a sauna. The New York Times to the contrary, the President had no need or obligation to stand up for this particular project because he did stand up for what was really important. The right of Americans of all faiths to be treated by exactly the same set of standards.
The President stood up unequivocally for our American values. As Rabbi Hillel once said, “all the rest is commentary.” In this case, the rest was really none of his business, and required no further comment. Unlike Saujani, Weiner, Silver and DeBlasio, the President only said what needed to be said and didn't add anything extraneous and questionable.
Funny thing is that in this instance, Lowry thinks the President is obligated to opine on "the question that matters," when in past incident like the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Lowry thought the President should shut up about local matter and mind his business.