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

House Democrats Ready to Give Huge Gift to NRA

House Democrats are trying to pass a bill that would impose new disclosure requirements for corporate campaign expenditures. Sponsors hope that the measure will mitigate concerns arising from the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Citizens United.

In order to secure passage of the bill, House Democrats are ready to enact a provision that would exempt the National Rifle Association from the bill's requirements. According to Politico,

The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not
actively oppose the [bill], according to Democratic sources.

While the language would exempt the NRA, other advocacy groups, like unions, would have to comply with the bill's disclosure requirements. If Congress passes the measure, expect litigation.

Pelosi Convinced Obama to Reject Emanuel's "Kiddie Care" Proposal and to Pursue Comprehensive Reform

Politico writers Carrie Budoff Brown and Glenn Thrush report that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi convinced President Obama to renew the push for comprehensive healthcare reform after Scott Brown won the election to replace Senator Edward Kennedy. If the Brown and Thrush article is accurate, then it soundly refutes the notion that passing healthcare reform legislation would vindicate Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel, as several media sources have reported, preferred a piecemeal approach to healthcare reform.  According to Brown and Thrush, however, Pelosi rejected this strategy and dubbed it "Kiddie Care." The article also reports that Obama was torn between Pelosi's comprehensive approach and Emanuel's incrementalist proposal. Due to Pelosi's advocacy, Obama finally embraced the comprehensive plan and rejected Emanuel's advice.

Despite the upcoming passage of a comprehensive reform package, Politico writer Ben Smith recently argued that the reform legislation would vindicate Emauel.  Liberal bloggers immediately blasted the idea. Now, Smith's own colleagues have finished ripping his theory to shreds.

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.

Are Liberals Fed Up With President Obama?

A pair of news articles portray growing discontent with President Obama among liberals. First, Politico reports that the Congressional Black Caucus -- the most liberal coalition in Congress -- believes that the Obama Administration has snubbed the group. One incident reported in the article describes conflict between Obama and Representative John Conyers (a senior black member of Congress). Conyers has voiced deep criticism of Obama on healthcare and Afghanistan. According to Politico, President Obama called Conyers and told him that his critiques were "demeaning."

President Obama's response to Conyers has ruffled some feathers:

That report [regarding Conyers and Obama] didn’t sit well with many African-American lawmakers, aides and lobbyists, who revere Conyers as an elder statesman.

"Conyers has been in Congress longer than Barack Obama could spell," said a black strategist close to both the White House and Congress. "If he’s making a complaint, it’s a shot across the bow, and you might want to pay attention to that."

Some of the battles, however, sound like "turf warfare." For example, CBC members complain that Obama met with Ben Jealous (head of the NAACP) and Reverend Al Sharpton although they are still waiting to meet with the President.

Perhaps that meeting with Jealous and Sharpton has translated into political support. Recently, Jealous and Sharpton both passionately defended Obama against criticism by some black politicians who say that he is not doing enough to address the concerns of poor people and blacks.

Coincidentally, these are the exact same allegations that Sharpton has made repeatedly against other presidents and politicians -- including Democrats. Now, Sharpton argues that it is ridiculous to expect Obama to push a "black agenda." It is probably immature to expect any president to advance something narrowly described as a "black agenda." But promoting equal economic opportunity and equality are not "black agendas"; these are universal concerns that liberals expect Democrats to pursue.

A second article, in USA Today, suggests that Obama is losing his liberal base. Although liberals still support Obama in great numbers, there are growing signs of discontent. On issues ranging from national security to healthcare reform, Obama has faced conflict with progressives.

Donna Brazile, an Obama supporter, says that: "The energized base which transformed the nation and elected our first black president [is] now disengaged. . . If this was September, I would hit the panic button." Although liberals have criticized the President, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that the notion that Obama has taken liberals for granted is "silly." Note to Gibbs: The flip dismissal of liberal concerns will not do much to alleviate existing tensions.

Rahm Emanuel: Ghostwriter for Dana Milbank?

Recently, Dana Milbank wrote an article that passionately defends White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel against a torrent of criticism. Many commentators have argued that Emanuel has been an ineffective strategist for the White House and have openly called for President Obama to fire him.

When I first read the article, I immediately suspected that much of its content probably came directly from Emanuel or from people close to him. The article barely pretends to approach the subject of Emanuel's performance objectively, and it is laced with anecdotes and perspectives that only Emanuel or someone very close to him could have provided.

For example, the article reports that Obama has rejected Emanuel's advice on various strategies and followed the advice of Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, and Robert Gibbs. Milbank portrays Obama as the victim of the latter's bad advice. Milbank, however, would not know the specific moments of conflict between Obama's senior advisers unless someone very close to the White House informed him.

An article in Politico makes a plausible case that Milbank merely transcribed Emanuel's views. Others have also speculated about Milbank's source. In particular, Cenk Uygur of the Huffington Post argues that "Dana Milbank transcribed an article written by Rahm Emanuel today in The Washington Post. Never has an article been more clearly written to support a political benefactor."

In response to the Politico story, Milbank has denied that he spoke to Emanuel for his article. But it is less clear, however, whether Milbank spoke to someone very close to Emanuel. Milbank simply says that Emanuel's "people were. . .disinclined to help me with this column, out of fear of just the reaction that would occur: people would suggest he spoon fed it to me." Even if Emanuel's people were "disinclined" to contribute, this does not mean that they ultimately refused to speak to Milbank. If Milbank did not speak to Emanuel or persons close to him, then his portrayal of conflict in the White House lacks credibility. If Milbank spoke to Emanuel or his people, then he should have disclosed this fact. Either way, the story has a cloud over it.

RELATED STORY: OK, We Get It: The Washington Post "Hearts" Rahm Emanuel!

Democrats Offer Scathing Criticism of Obama's Senior Staff

Career Democrats (not just "outsider" liberal critics) are beginning to criticize President Obama's senior staff. The Hill, for example, reports that liberal and moderate Democrats in Congress blame Rahm Emanuel for the Obama administration's poor performance on healthcare reform.

Although both sides point to Emanuel, they do so for different reasons. Moderates fault Emanuel for only seeking the support of a narrow band of politicians, like Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Liberals, on the other hand, argue that Emanuel gave Senator Max Bachus too much time to negotiate with Republicans, like Senator Charles Grassley (who shamelessly joined Sarah Palin to condemn the bill for promoting "death panels").

On some level the criticisms sound contradictory (too much outreach versus not enough outreach to Republicans). Nevertheless, they all single out Emanuel as a problem for Obama. They also attribute Emanuel's shortcomings to his lack of Senate experience (which raises the question: Where is Joe Biden?).

In addition to The Hill article, former Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder has written a scathing critique of Obama's senior staff in Politico. Wilder, who supported Obama over Hillary Clinton, argued that Obama needs to shake up his senior staff and remove Tim Kaine as Chair of the Democratic National Committee:

I am an admirer of Tim Kaine, whom I backed in his current position and as one of my successors as Virginia governor and even recommended for the vice presidency. But a spate of recent losses in races that Democrats should have won underscores what has been obvious to me for a long time: The chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is the wrong job for him.

The changes must go much deeper. Obama’s West Wing is filled with people who are in their jobs because of their Chicago connections or because they signed on with Obama early during his presidential campaign.

One problem is that they do not have sufficient experience at governing at the executive branch level. The deeper problem is that they are not listening to the people.

Hearing is one thing; listening is another.

Although these recent critiques focus on Obama's staff, they implicitly raise questions regarding the extent to which Obama himself is responsible for his shortcomings. Admittedly, while Obama filled many policy positions with experienced individuals, a lot of his senior advisers in the White House are Chicago pals or people who endorsed him at critical stages of his campaign. Accordingly, Wilder's critique seems legitimate.

Nevertheless, some of the qualities that Democrats now demand -- experience and toughness -- are things they explicitly rejected in Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries. Democrats said that they wanted a "fresh face," rather than "experience," and that they wanted a "unifier," rather than a "fighter."

Now, hearing Democrats demand that Obama become tougher or that he replace his staff with veteran Washington politicians reminds me of Clinton's famous campaign statement: "You campaign in poetry and govern in prose." At this point, no one can honestly debate these words.