Isn't that the essence of state's rights?
It doesn't get much more high-concept than what Obama is doing, and Republicans are right not to "leave it alone".
But it's not going to work in the 2010 elections because it won't be hard for local candidates to punt the issue and give a bland "I fully support 1st Amendment rights for all people, but the considerations of the local people should have been considered, blah, blah, blah" kind of answer. When ranked against the economy, unemployment, the deficit, and what have you this issue is way down in the list of people's priorities. And harping on this takes time away from things people really care about.
What more evidence do you want that they are right, than being told to back off by a TIME polemicist? TIME being the rag, by the way, that coined the term "Clinton hater".
Maybe it's reverse psychology?
You assume people don't care about the American Experiment, or that Obama is committed to flushing it, and the country.
They care a lot about that, I think, but your commitment to "economic conservatism" and economic determinism is interesting. Very "Rockefeller Republican". It helps explain some other positions you've taken over the years.
it doesn’t require any “harping on it” for a candidate to find an occasion to state a view (succinctly) on this matter and invite the opposing candidate(s) to “clarify” their view on the matter
I’m not saying it will be a lead issue in most races around the country, but it’s not irrelevant and it’s not correct (morally or politically) to regard the fate of Ground Zero as a purely local issue.