Something along the lines of what New York does within its borders is New York's business.
That translates to "butt out" -- but that surely won't work w/ respect to 9/11, in response to which the nation has already mounted several very substantial responses, including two wars within the overarching Bush Administration rubric of a "War on Terror" which Obama has very specifically repudiated for reasons which must remain suspect, which suspicion he fuels by throwing gasoline on it every time he issues another mark of conspicuous support for Islamists at the expense of Western Civilization and the American Experiment.
It doesn't get much more high-concept than what Obama is doing, and Republicans are right not to "leave it alone".
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".
Claims that the Victory Mosque controversy should stay with New Yorkers are no more valid than a claim that New Yorkers should be free to "redevelop" Bedloe's Island and Ellis Island. The World Trade Center, whatever it was on 9/10, is now a national massacre site. You might profitably have a look at Charlie Krauthammer's weekend op-ed on that point. (I don't have the link -- saw it in print.)
Link available to the Krauthammer column I mentioned in my referenced post, in this thread at post #50, courtesy of our fellow FReeper.
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?