Today's narrative: "Obama 'walked back' from his comments Friday night."

[jenmito]

This is being repeated ad nauseum this morning. Peter King, prompted by Candy Crowly, agreed that Obama "backed off" his comments Friday night of supporting the building of a mosque 2 blocks from ground zero.

Cokie Roberts said, on This Week, "...Granted, he didn't say it's wise to build on private property, but it was very clearly an endorsement, and walking back from it is just so silly..."

This was based on Ed Henry's "intrepid" reporting by asking Obama about the wisdom of the mosque being near Ground Zero and he answered that he hasn't commented on, and WON'T comment on the wisdom of it, but they have every RIGHT to build it there. I don't see ANY "walking back" or "backing off" what he originally said.

Friday night, Obama said this:

"...That is not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities - particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure."

[blm]

1. and Gore said he 'invented the internet' and Kerry 'never countered Swifts'. Media lies and dumbed

down America repeats their lies. So do too many dumbed down Dems, even.

Same as it ever was.

[jenmito]

2. Right. And both Cokie Roberts and Matthew Dowd kept repeating the lie that Obama

walked away from his original comments. Cokie went so far as to say, paraphrased, "His original comments-saying they have the right to build the mosque there-are one thing. Taking it back the next day, saying, 'Well, maybe it's NOT such a good idea,' made it worse!" :eyes:

[blm]

3. Cokie has ALWAYS put words in the mouth of Dems based on her own stupidly biased interpretations.

She is certain that it makes her sound interesting and edgy...to the terminally round.

[denimgirly]

4. Yes he did walk it back a bit..but he still endorses it. The MSM is looking for anything.

Obama loves to split things down the middle and not stand firm on things and so his coming out to walk it back a bit is not really a surprise..the surprise was him coming out so forcefully on Friday...behind closed doors Obama is a progressive but in the public he seems to want to seem moderate to center-right.

I personally think his comments on Friday because since we are in campaign mode democrats get progressive in their speak...and then he realized he might anger the right and so decided to walk it back a bit.

[jenmito]

5. Show me what he said on Friday that he walked back on Saturday. n/t

[Diamonique]

6. No. He didn't walk it back at all. nt

[jenmito]

7. I think the lack of any proof from the poster proves us right. n/t

[Phx_Dem]

8. No he didn't.

The wisdom of choosing to build in the face public controversy, from a public relations standpoint is completely different than having the right to do it.

I have the right to build a restaurant next to a slaughterhouse, but that doesn't make it a wise choice from a business/public relations standpoint. Obama's statement would be supporting my right to build there, while saying he's not commenting on the "wisdom" of that choice.

I'm sick of hearing about New Yorker's "sensitivity." It's not sensitive to consider building a big retail business on top of the bones of their loved ones. Some people do want to keep the site as a memorial and not build upon it, but plenty of others want to build on the site, which is why nothing has been done. Yet I don't hear anything about the insensivity of that consideration.

[cilla4progress]

9. What I'd like to know is

whether he considered his statements on Friday night would be interpreted to mean he supported in some manner the building of the Mosque there (e.g., "thought it was a good idea"), and made them for any number of political reasons, or whether he was broadsided by the interpretation as such? I have a hard time discerning how naive he may be on many issues of political blowback (the impact on Dems running this November).

[jenmito]

10. What about this sounds naive?:

"...That is not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities - particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure."

The first paragraph should put any questions of naivete to rest.

[cilla4progress]

14. He just does not seem to GET

how cynical and intractable the right (and much of the electorate, apparently) is! Like "trusting" the Repubs on health care, etc., etc. These people will grant him NOTHING. The Constitution? It's all as THEY interpret it; no room for any other views.... Sheesh!

[jenmito]

16. You didn't tell me what in the quote I provided sounded naive. Repubs. are gonna

do what they're gonna do. He didn't say anything naive.

[cilla4progress]

21. The political blowback of

making those remarks. Actually - I wasn't stating it, so much as questioning whether he CONSIDERED the blowback. Did he think he was making a rallying cry that all Americans could come together around? How many times does he (and do progressives) have to be knocked flat before we say ENOUGH?

[jenmito]

22. So, you think he should've stayed silent on the issue because people criticize him

when he speaks up???

[cilla4progress]

24. This is what you understand me to be saying?

[jenmito]

27. "The political blowback of making those remarks..." Which remarks are those and what would

you have PREFERRED he said if not NONE?

[cilla4progress]

34. Arghhh!

I can't do this any more...losing patience because dialogue repeatedly veers off track...

My point is: I wondered if he made these statements strategically to, for example, draw out the right and provoke them to make bigoted statements to contrast themselves to him, while recognizing these statements might put Dems running in mixed districts in difficult positions OR if he simply spoke from his heart, what he believed, and, on some level, assumed there is at least consensus around freedom of religion in this country, whereas I do not believe there is (consensus on freedom of religion...) and therein perhaps would like his naivite, to the extent it exists.

I am not intimating or implying ANYthing, but you are free to assume that, if you wish.

[jenmito]

39. He's the President and he was speaking at a dinner honoring the beginning of Ramadan.

He didn't take a position (saying whether or not he thought it was wise, which COULD'VE been construed as "naive"), but he stated a fact that it is Constitutional and American to allow the mosque to be built.

[BklnDem75]

20. You assume incorrectly

Don't really expect you to backup your claim he walked back anything.

[AlinPA]

37. Walked it back? He was only saying they have a right.

[Aramchek]

47. and so are you, apparently

[SocialLib]

11. Your right, "Walk" is incorrect. More appropriately he "ran like hell!"

nt

[jefferson_dem]

12. What do you mean?

Please elaborate on the "run like hell!" thing.

Oh, welcome to DU! :hi:

[BklnDem75]

23. Not expecting a response from this one

More like a hit and 'run like hell!'

[SocialLib]

26. Why wouldn't I respond ?

The President made his initial statement. Then after the criticism he very quickly rephrased what he meant.

[jenmito]

29. Why don't you give examples like I asked for in my post #15 which you didn't respond to? n/t

[Sheepshank]

30. that's the sum total of your claim....he rephrased?

good gawd.....did he say anything different in that re-phrasing?

Can't say as I'm all that ready to welcome someone who has come here with an agenda that is more obvious than the ability to interpret statements.

[BklnDem75]

38. Did you respond?

Still waiting for you to elaborate.

[POAS]

48. Giving a demonstration of his statement

about running like hell!

[jenmito]

15. Why don't you give some quotes that differed from Friday's to back up your claim? n/t

[Sheepshank]

28. seriously?

maybe give examples of the portions of the "b4" and "after" statement to clarify your dribble....err assertion.

[mikehiggins]

13. walkback claims are bogus

Where is the walkback?

The President said the Muslims had the RIGHT to build on THEIR property, as long as the structure fell within local regulations. This is that Constitutionality thingee again.

Then he said he WOULD NOT COMMENT on the wisdom of choosing to do so. This is the right NOT TO SPEAK which is just as important as the right to speak. He may think this is the dumbest thing to ever hit the bricks but it is no one's right to demand express an opinion if he chooses not to.

Nope, not even the medias.

[jenmito]

18. Exactly...

and the posters here who say he DID "walk back" or even "ran like hell" from Friday's comments have nothing to say when we ask for proof.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. This is really the litmus test for seriousness on DU

Anyone who promotes this "walkback" nonsense is at best a ridiculous SUCKER for media stupidity, and loses credibility that way. At worst, the "walkback" promoters are obvious knee-jerk haters who have no critical faculty or judgment when it comes to Obama: they hate everything. Hell, I even got one of Obama's most (vociferous and reasonable) critics on this board to step back from jumping on the "walkback" bandwagon - it was a clear sign that he is a serious critic of the administration, rather than a silly and stupid hater.

I think this is really the issue where we will see people's true colors, or true intellectual capacities. Those trumpeting "walkback" are either remarkably stupid or remarkably incapable of forming sound judgments. Either way, it is not pretty, and they should be rigorously avoided on this board.

[jenmito]

19. I agree...

and you can see it right on this thread. When asked for evidence, they run away. Quick to criticize, unable to explain.

[Sheepshank]

25. seems to me like the media AND RW idiots

on first statement, jumped to all sorts of incorrect conclusions. As is their wont...re-vamp words, contort ideologies to suit their needs, insert intentions where none were made. I can't see how Obama setting them straight is any walking back...not one iota. Of course even on clarification, the RW media and the RW idiots are still wont to convolute and contort and insert idiot statments where none would normally exist.

[jenmito]

33. Exactly. And he was answering a question from the reporter, not "clarifying" or

"putting out a clarification" or anything like that.

[Milo_Bloom]

31. He did "walk it back" to say otherwise suggests Obama is an idiot.

Obama's comments on Friday were very clear with no equivocation. He couldn't have made those comments without KNOWING how they would be received and the meaining that would be assigned to them. If he sincerely wanted to make this distinction between the wisdom of building the community center and the right to do so, you make it in the initial comments offered on Friday.

Playing the word game the next day IS walking the comments back. It is a classic wanting to have it both ways.


Either that or you believe that Obama is such an idiot he had no clue how his comments would be interpreted.

[Enrique]

32. he did walk it back

his comments Friday were unqualified. He added a qualification on Saturday which puts him in agreement with what many of the critics are saying. Many critics are acknowledging that they have the right to build the mosque but that it's a bad idea. Obama on Saturday said he's not commenting on whether it's a good idea. On Friday he didn't give any hint of agreeing with them that it's a bad idea.

[CBR]

35. ...

[jenmito]

36. Show me the quotes from my OP which show it was an "unqualified" comment. The qualification

is right in the first paragraph I quoted from Friday night.

[Enrique]

40. that's true

re-reading the original now, it's not as strong as it seemed at first. He was not endorsing the mosque, after all. I had really thought he was.

[vaberella]

41. Uh, why would ne need to "endorse" the mosque?!

I don't understand your point and it's a bit ridiculous. He can't "endorse" ANY religious institution. He's Christian, but he can't go around saying Christians are better, or Jews are better, or Muslims are better. He's saying they have a right to practice their religion---that is substantial and definitely actually going a bit above and beyond the call of duty---since no one can really stop the Mosque from being built near ground zero anyway. They have the right and they have the money for the land. So there was no endorsing necessary and I'd find it weird.

[Enrique]

45. he doesn't need to endorse it

I thought he was endorsing it in his original statement and I understand now that he was not. I'm ok with that.

He could endorse it, like Mayor Bloomberg and Fareed Zakaria and others have done, saying not just that they have the right to build it, but that the project is a positive good. I mistakenly thought he was doing that and I was happy to hear it, but I don't think he needs to do that.

[vaberella]

56. Wait. You just stated that b/c he didn't endorse them his statement wasn't strong.

So I'm not getting your point. And what did Obama do that made his statement's lacking? You clearly implied if not down right said because Obama didn't say what Blooomberg or Zakaria said, and Bloomberg is the one who really matters in all this, wasn't sufficient as is. ~sigh~

[jenmito]

42. So you admit you're wrong. Good. "Endorsing" ANY religious institution isn't his place. n/t

[phleshdef]

43. Why would he? He isn't a Muslim and he isn't one of those Christians into evangelizing.

There is no reason for him to have strong feelings on where a Muslim church should or should not be built. He is coming at it from the position of standing up for constitutional rights, that there should be no argument because they are within their rights to build a mosque there, end of story. Thats exactly the position that a President SHOULD come at this from

[Sheepshank]

52. I must say

I rarely ever read anyone admitting to misunderstanding a statemenet. Sometimes it takes a lot of guts to change a POV here on DU. I'd dare say that here it almost appears it's a fight to the death to protect an original stance.....right ot wrong.

Thank you!

Now if a couple more weren't quite so pig headed and intentionally obtuse about it, I think we'd all be a lot happier :)

[Arkana]

44. The media: Making Mountains out of Molehills since 1789

[boppers]

50. Making mosques out of community centers?

:evilgrin:

[Aramchek]

46. what, you mean to say Repigs are bending the President's words? never.

:sarcasm:

[Pirate Smile]

49. and the media are giving the Republicans an assist, as usual, and enough Dems bite on the

flare up to provide more ammo to the Republicans.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

[babylonsister]

54. That's what's so aggravating to me. When will Dems get a clue? nt

[babylonsister]

53. The media? Ha! Check around here; it's pervasive. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

51. if there wasn't RW media you wouldn't hear any of this

balanced media would rise up above this - instead we have the gutter media

[OhioBlue]

55. I thought the same thing Jen!

I turned the TV off. It was total BS.