Is it Ethical to Lead Ones Political Party Over a Cliff?
Is the Mosque Controversy Going to "Blow Over" by Election Day?
Is the American attention span so short that Obama's position on the Mosque at Ground Zero will be virtually forgotten by the time folks go the polls on Election Day this Year?
If not, all Democrats may wind up getting punished for Obama's improvident position.
Obama may be leading his party over a cliff.
The House right now looks like it's the GOP's to lose. They would have to really mess up between now and Election Day to not win the House.
The Senate is till up for grabs. If Obama leads his party over a cliff bad enough, the GOP could take the Senate too.
I happen to think the GOP is completely and totally devoid of ideas -- they don't have any ideas.
Their only item on the agenda is lower taxes.
Their main push is to keep the capital gains tax at 15%.
Doing that would give $680 Billion to the top 1% of AGI taxpayers in USA.
Now they can be multi-millionaires many times over, instead of just millionaires.
So letting Obama lead his own party over a cliff would not be good.
Here's how to avoid it.
Obama's PDB (Presidential Daily Brief), which goes out in edited form to 20 people on Capitol Hill, says one day next week that the CIA has evaluated the Ground Zero Mosque from a National Security perspective and finds that it is very risky to US National Security because of its location and because the money sources that will be paying for it have not been identified, and may turn out to be overseas enemies of the USA.
The CINC of the Northern Command and the DCI are invited to the White House, with lots and lots of Photo Ops of them going in, and maybe even a picture of them meeting with Obama.
Gibbs comes out the next day and says The President has ordered the Mayor of NYC to find another location for the Imam Rauf Mosque or withdraw the permission of the City for it to be built.
At the next news conference Obama says his security advisors have told him that no building of any kind, religious or non-religious should be built at that site if the funding for it has not been identified and fully investigated, and verified to be from sources that are not enemies of the USA. The site is national security sensitive because it is close to 25 major Federal Agencies, two stock exchanges, and two major telecom hubs, one of which in an inter-regional check clearance switch.
Obama says that with this updated information he will be exercising his Commander in Chief duties, and invoking the Supremacy Clause and ordering the mosque project to find a new location. He goes on to talk about how the free exercise of religion can better be served if every single penny going into the mosque project does not need to be invesrtigated by the FBI and DHS and DOD and CIA. He would prefer a location that was less sensitive SO THAT no issue of free exercise of religion could arise concerning Imam Rauf's project. He could then spout out a few law cases, just to bamboozle the crowd a bit more.
See this way Obama doesn't lead his party over a cliff. The braindead GOP doesn't wind up owning the House and the Senate. They don't wind up giving every single penny in the Treasury to the top 1% of the income earners in USA, and Congressional Gold Medals to every executive in Big Oil, Big Coal, and the US Chamber of Commerce and CATO Institute and AEI.
The little friend of all mankind asks you to be respectful and thoughtful as you answer this question, please.
To: Ardi Pithecus:
Yeh, this would be the first time this guy from Chicago had ever lied about anything, is that it? I Dolphin314etc am corrupting him?
No, Ardi, I'm giving him a graceful way out of a stupid situation that he created for himself. There needs to be a figleaf.
So somebody other than Obama has to bring Obama information about why the Ground Zero Mosque is a National Security Hazard. Then Obama can say, "Oh, I didn't know that, well then never mind about what I said before, now I need to take new action based on new information.
My little scheme would only be unethical or illegal if I were suggesting something untruthful be placed in the PDB, which I'm not. I'm suggesting that Panetta wake up and tell his boss the facts of life. Napolitano is too busy popping open another yoghurt and ordering a wider chair for herself, and suing Joe Arpaio.
The Photo Ops with the DCI and CINC -- oh yeh that would be the first time there was a little theatre at the WH? (not!)
- 10 years agoFavorite Answer
This seems more like a question on politics than ethics.
No. "Ethically" it is not acceptable to leave others to "bear the burden" of your actions knowing the repercussions it will have. Even though Obama himself has faced considerable criticism from conservatives and the GOP it is certainly not "ethical" to put your politically party in jeopardy.
As it has been mentioned before we can't however simply the whole issue with ethics. We have to understand that this issue encompasses more than just what is politically or ethically correct and eventually comes down to Obama's, and by association his administration's, stance on religious tolerance in the face of public criticism.
Whether Obama took the right stance on the mosque issue is debatable. You also have to consider that the man did what he believed correct. You can't ask a man to lie on what he believes in order to try to appease everyone, its impossible, and besides part of what makes a leader is making the hard choices that people might not understand or support but which you honestly believe correct. Obama backing down on this issue would not only make him appear weak in front of the American people but also in the eyes of the GOP.
- 10 years ago
Obama didn't do it as a matter of party ethics. That makes your question invalid, although many of the points you make about Dems losing are valid.
But beginning with "Obama's PDB (Presidential Daily Brief)..." you are asking Obama to lie, or make something up---although I happen to dislike the location myself. How ethical is it to say Obama 'ought' to do what you say?
Besides, unless the Congress goes to the Republicans, which it will if most of recent history is any indication, he will have to swing to the center or he will be an ineffectual candidate for his office in 2012. But he is a transnationalist who is not particularly fond of American Christianity, and he isn't going to dictate to the mayor of NYC. The minute he begins to "dictate" then all those Americans who are not sure whether he is a socialist or not will really know what he is about. (Yeah, he uses the word "Progressive", but look at the history of the accomplishments of the 20th century Progressives.)
- NathanCoppedgeLv 610 years ago
The only polemical reason to build the mosque there is to prove that Moslems are not pro-disaster
Otherwise the Mosque is an incidental private-interest issue
As far as that goes, that's about all she wrote
It looks like it has stealth or its just a matter of making it look like it has a political right
At the bottom of the issue, it looks like it has meaning to somebody --- but who?
One has to argue that only Muslims are interested in a Mosque, which is easy,
Or that it is an incidental regular temple-building project,
When it may be designed to be political,
But that suggests subterfuge and paranoia
But what was 9 - 11 ? Paranoia!
So the mosque must be anti-paranoia, when that is not its purpose, necessarily, although it might express that it is anti-paranoia
Ultimately it just looks non-political or like a stupid mistake
By contrast to 9 - 11 which was economical or a token act of god or satan