Media Continues to Misstate Obama's Position on Mosque (Updated)

The back-and-forth over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque continues. Yesterday, President Obama endorsed the constitutional rights of individuals who want to build a mosque near the former site of the World Trade Center. The media, in an apparent desire for controversial headlines, reported that Obama supported building a mosque at ground zero.

Today, President Obama clarified his comments, emphasizing that he endorsed the rights of the mosque proponents and that he remained neutral regarding the wisdom of the project. This is an important distinction. Upholding the US Constitution is a duty of the President. Deciding local construction policy is not.

Now that President Obama has clarified his position, some media commentators are arguing that he is shifting or backtracking. Ben Smith of Politico offers the most egregious example of this in his blog post: Obama narrows mosque defense. Smith argues that:

The signal Obama sent with his rhetoric last night wasn't that he had chosen to make a trivial, legal point about the First Amendment. He chose to make headlines in support of the mosque project, and he won't be able to walk them back now with this sprinkling of doubt. All he'll do is frustrate some of the people who so eagerly welcomed his words yesterday as a return to form.

Signal? Rather than using subliminal messaging to decode what Obama was saying, try looking at the transcript and judge for yourself.

Smith's description of the First Amendment as "trivial" is shocking. That same legal document allows him to blog on political issues -- even if incorrectly. The speech and religion clauses of the First Amendment are very important parts of US constitutional law. It is commendable that Obama embraced these concepts for a disparaged religious community.

Finally, the notion that one could embrace a person's right to do something -- without necessarily advising that person to do anything specific -- is not complicated. For example, many people are pro-choice, even though they say they would not have an abortion themselves. Some people are atheist, but they support religious freedom (including the freedom not to believe). One can believe in the First Amendment, but also believe that the news media is becoming a worthless part of American culture. Similarly, Obama can endorse the rights of the mosque proponents, while remaining aloof to the controversy about its location.

Anyone who reads Dissenting Justice knows that this blog is a fearless critic of Obama. This, however, is not a moment to criticize him.

UPDATE: The evolving commentary on this subject brings two issues to mind. First, many leftists are upset and believe that Obama is compromising or going back on his word. During the Democratic primaries, many progressives projected leftwing values onto Obama based on things he said that, if interpreted broadly, could mean he was a progressive. Apparently, many of them have not learned to construe his words narrowly (and even then, he sometimes falls short, like all politicians).

Second, this situation looks like the Shirley Sherrod matter. Although Obama's actual words are available for all to see, people are still misreporting them.

Also on Dissenting Justice:

Sarah Palin's Two-Faced Arguments Regarding "Ground Zero Mosque"

Media Misstates Obama's Position on Mosque; Obama Clarifies Stance

Statement By White House Official Shows Contempt for Electoral Process

Ben Smith of Politico says that Rahm Emanuel a senior White House official called him last night and condemned labor unions for pumping money into the Arkansas Democratic Senate primary. Incumbent Blanche Lincoln, who had the support of President Obama and former President Bill Clinton, defeated challenger Bill Halter in a run-off election. Labor unions strongly backed Halter.

Lincoln opposes several initiatives backed by labor groups, and she has sparked criticism among more liberal factions in the Democratic Party. Despite all of the melodramatic reporting of a surge of anger against incumbents, Lincoln won the election 52%-48%.

Now that Lincoln has actually won the election, at least one of her supporters in the White House has begun to gloat. According to Smith, the unnamed White House official made the following analysis of union support for Halter:

Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise. . .If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November.

This reasoning is horrific on many levels. Most importantly, it shows a great disrespect for the political process. Although I do not believe it is inherently unethical for presidents to favor political candidates, the idea that private groups waste money by supporting their preferred candidates (as opposed to White House-endorsed contenders) shows great deal of contempt for the political process.

Eddie Vale, a spokesperson for the AFL-CIO had sharp words for the White House official. Vale says that the labor union is not beholden to Democratic Party:

If that's their take on this, then they severely misread how the electorate feels and how we're running our political program. . .When they say we should have targeted our money among some key house races among Blue Dog Democrats — that ain't happening."

Labor isn't an arm of the Democratic Party. . .It exists to support working families. And that's what we said tonight, and that's what we're gong to keep saying.

Amen.

Final Take
The White House quote looks like a signature Rahm Emanuel hit. Agreed?

Apparently, Nate Silver No Longer Believes Liberals Are "Batshit Crazy"

Ben Smith's essay which asserts that passage of the healthcare bill will vindicate Rahm Emanuel's dismissal of liberals has triggered responses from numerous bloggers (see mine here).  Nate Silver's reaction interests me because he once described liberals as "batshit crazy" who challenged White House weakness on progressive aspects of the bill.

Now, Silver describes liberal protest as a rational reaction to President Obama's constituents who want him to fight passionately for their interests (I made the same point a long time ago).  Silver still agrees that the Senate bill is better than "nothing," but he has retreated from his heavy-handed comments regarding progressive protest:

Personally, I think the reason for the increase in support is mostly this: the Democratic leadership, and particularly President Obama, are now fighting for this bill tooth and nail. They didn't necessarily have to do this; they could have thrown in the towel, passed off some bipartisan crap that didn't do much to help the uninsured, and called it a day. That's what Rahm Emanuel wanted to do, as Chris Bowers points out. But that isn't what Obama did: instead, he's gone all-in on the thing, potentially staking his Presidency on the outcome. Liberals like the idea of being the scrappy underdog -- being the fighter -- and Obama, after a strangely aloof performance on the health care bill throughout 2009, has been fighting the good fight. . . .

The lesson for the White House, I think, is that liberals (like any other voters) react as much to tone as to substance. A bill might not meet every objective on the liberal checklist, but so long as you're Fighting Like Hell for it, liberals are usually going to be willing to fight for you too.

My Take
Liberals, whom Silver previously described as "batshit crazy," always wanted more "fight" from the White House -- although I believe that Sliver overstates the role of this fight in shifting liberal support. Liberals have also compromised now that all other options have expired. That is an integral part of politics and social movement activity.

Ben Smith Argues That Liberal Support For Health Bill Vindicates Rahm Emanuel

Apparently, Rahm Emanuel's media buddies could not resist the urge to write another love piece. Today, Ben Smith of Politico asserts that a new poll which shows that liberal voters support healthcare reform vindicates Emanuel. Emanuel has argued that the White House should not make concessions to liberals because they would come around eventually.

Smith's article, however, is too simplistic as an analysis of contemporary politics. First, the passage of reform legislation cannot vindicate Emanuel since, as numerous articles report, he favored a much slimmer bill and feared that a large one would not pass. If anything, the passage of this bill -- though smaller than what many liberals wanted -- proves Emanuel wrong.  Emanuel argued that comprehensive reform would not pass; he -- not the liberals -- was wrong.

Second, Smith misunderstands the debate among liberals regarding healthcare reform. Liberals have always favored reform, and many liberals always favored the Senate bill. Many liberals, however, were angry that the White House did not do enough to support more progressive and sensible measures like the public plan option. The public plan represented the most rational argument regarding cost containment (other than a single-payer system). Although President Obama advocated it during the campaign, he never forcefully backed it as president. This angered liberals, causing some people to argue that Congress should abandon the Senate bill and start the process again.

But after the "kill" option evaporated, liberals -- contrary to the White House line -- accepted compromise. The fact that liberals now support this good yet flawed bill actually proves Emanuel and the White House wrong.  White House staff circulated a narrative that portrayed liberals as unforgiving and unwavering ideologues (also known as "fucking retards"). Obama, on the other hand, was portrayed as the smart pragmatist.  The mainstream narrative about liberals was clearly inaccurate.

Finally, Smith makes the mistake of equating one battle with an entire war. The struggle over healthcare reform has emboldened many liberals.  Labor unions have threatened moderate Democrats with primary challenges.  MoveOn has promised the same. Even Obama has shown some needed spunk and told on-the-fence Democrats that he would not raise money for them if they voted against the bill. Liberals have always wanted a fight. The fact that they accept this mixed victory does not vindicate Rahm Emanuel in any way, shape or form. It simply shows that liberals can cut their losses and move forward when appropriate. It does not mean, however, that they have become a doormat for the White House or Rahm Emanuel. Perhaps, Smith's analysis is merely wishful thinking.