The Plum Line

UPDATE, 8:21 p.m.: As expected, Obama is endorsing Cordoba House at tonight's Iftar Dinner. From the prepared remarks:

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.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack -- from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam -- it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -- these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -- and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

The foes of the Islamic center have been trying to drag Obama into this debate, and some have urged Obama to avoid wading into it. But now he has, and he isn't hedgin: He's saying that opposing the group's right to build the Islamic center is, in essence, un-American. I look forward to the response from the project's opponents.

* Wow: Fox News polled on Cordoba House and found that while a big majority opposes the plan, an equally sizeable majority also says the group has the right to proceed with it.

The poll found that 64 percent think it's "wrong" to put the mosque near Ground Zero. But when asked whether "the Muslim group has the right to build a mosque there," 61 percent said yes. Even a majority of Republicans, 57 percent, supported this right. And keep in mind that the pollsters called it a "mosque."

* Obama will address the Cordoba House controversy tonight, and judging by Robert Gibbs's hint, he'll come down on the right side:

"Religious freedom is something that the president believes in, and I think you'll hear him talk about it tonight."

* Joe Klein labels Charles Krauthammer's prescription for the Islamic center "intolerance zoning."

* Steve Benen agrees with Krauthammer that we shouldn't build a mosque at Ground Zero, and notes with relief that this isn't the plan. Read Benen's whole takedown.

* Adam Serwer notes that there's already a Federal law, passed with bipartisan support, that dramatically limits using zoning against houses of worship.

* And of course, Imam Feisal Adbul Rauf's allegedly anti-American claims about 9/11 aren't really controversial at all.

* Obama officials come out hard against Republicans looking to change the 14th amendment.

* Gibbs, still cleaning up his attack on the "professional left," acknowledges to Sam Stein that the president himself has said he wants the left to criticize him:

"The President has urged those who want change to push for it and hold him accountable, and that's how he feels."

Of course, Obama's past statements on this are littered throughout the public record, so Gibbs could hardly ignore them.

* Katrina Vanden Heuvel reminds us that the left's much-maligned ideological purity on war enabled him to win the 2008 Dem primary (and is hence partly responsible for making him president).

* The gang at First Read rounds up the 64 House seats most likely to change hands. Cliff notes version: Fifty five of them are held by Dems; only nine by Republicans.

* Not even Tea Partyers prefer Sarah Palin for president! A new CNN poll finds they give Mitt Romney the edge, though not by much.

* Clarification of the day: John McCain says he doesn't mind hearings into the 14th amendment, but does not support repealing it. The key thing here is that Senators support hearings in order to avoid taking positions.

* Sharron Angle says they privatized Social Security in Chile. What's next, a "right wing South American dictators for Angle" event?

* And here's an image to start your weekend: Jon Chait notes the trend of Republican presidents looking better in retrospect as the current GOP move to the right, and predicts that one day we'll all be saying....

"You know, I never really appreciated President Palin at the time, but her policy of having intellectuals publicly flogged seems pretty humane compared with President Angle."

What else is happening?

Right wing blogs think they've unearthed a lethal hit on Harry Reid: He apparently introduced a bill to end birthright citizenship back in 1993.

Conservatives are pointing to this as proof of Reid's hypocrisy in the wake of his claim the other day that he doesn't understand how any Latinos could ever vote Republican. Ed Morrissey argued that by his own standard, Reid "should lose his entire Hispanic vote over this."

Guess what: It happens to be true that Reid did introduce such a bill. And it was indefensible. But here's the thing: I've learned that Reid already apologized profusely for this in a speech in 2006, admitted he was wrong, and described this as the "low point" of his career. In other words, Reid himself agrees that it was indefensible.

The Washington Times is the outlet that got the goods on Reid's 1993 bill, which "clarified" the basis of citizenship. Reid's bill said that any child born here to a mother who is not an American citizen "shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction" of the mother's country and will not be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

The bill added that such a child "shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth."

As some on the right have noted today, this is in line with Lindsey Graham's thinking on the issue. But Reid's office sends over a transcript of a long and unusual apology Reid offered for this on the Senate floor in 2006.

"That is a low point of my legislative career, the low point of my governmental career," Reid said. He went on to tell the assembled Senators that his wife had chastized him for the move. "She, in effect, said: I can't believe that you have done it," Reid recounted. "But I had done it."

Reid's delivered his apology in "a near whisper as many Senators looked on in amazement," according to one news account at the time.

Yes, Reid did do this. And it's a legit story for conservatives to bring to light, in the wake of the debate over the 14th amendment. But it should be part of the discussion that Reid apologized profusely for what he did and described it as the worst moment of his career -- even as some Republicans continue to push for a reexamination of the 14th amendment 17 years later.

UPDATE, 7:30 p.m.: Looks like Reid apologized for this back in 1999. From the Las Vegas Review Journal at the time:

Gallup brings us still more evidence, as if we needed it, that the public ranks the economy and jobs as far more pressing than the deficit:

The economy and jobs rank as the top two concerns at 30 and 28 percent. The deficit is way down at seven percent, barely higher than the number who think "dishonesty" is the country's most pressing problem.

There's an interesting thing to be noted about polling on the deficit, by the way. When people are asked about the deficit in isolation, they signal real concern. But when they are asked about the deficit in the context of other priorities, attitudes shift. Like the above Gallup poll, other polls have shown that the economy and jobs are far more pressing concerns.

What I've never seen pollsters ask is whether people would prefer to spend now to create jobs if it's understood that we can deal with the deficit later -- after the economy improves. What if pollsters asked this:

Some say the deficit is so urgent that it must be dealt with right now, by cutting government spending, even if it means cutting government programs and money spent in order to create jobs. Others say we should spend to create jobs now, and deal with the deficit later, after the economy improves and brings in more revenues. Which comes closer to your view?

I wonder how the public would respond if the question were framed that way.

An interesting tidbit out of Texas: A GOP House candidate in a high-profile race that's emerging as a must-win for Republicans conspicuously sidestepped questions about whether he would support John Boehner as the next Speaker of the House.

"Next question," the GOP candidate answered when asked by a constituent how he feels about Boehner.

The candidate in question is self-funding businessman Bill Flores, who's challenging Dem Rep. Chet Edwards in a very competitive contest for one of the most conservative districts controlled by Dems. Observers say that the GOP will need to win races like this one in order to have a chance at seizing control of the House.

A Democratic source sends over audio of the exchange...

MAN: How do you feel about Boehner? The minority leader in the House?

FLORES: I ... next question.

CROWD: [Laughter]

FLORES: I really don't want to talk about anybody today. I've got a race to run and then, what I want to have in Congress is, I want to have the right leadership.

MAN: Would you support him?

FLORES: I would rather not answer that question...if you don't mind.

Flores's campaign manager, Matt Mackowiak, downplayed the episode, accusing Dems of surreptiously recording the exchange. "All this audio shows is that: Bill Flores is focused on winning the Congressional race in front of him and that Edwards' campaign is so afraid and desperate that they are smuggling in recording devices to Flores' town hall meetings," he emailed.

In recent days Republicans have aggressively highlighted cases where Dem candidates have fled from Obama and Nancy Pelosi, arguing that the Dem agenda has become poisonous in marginal districts.

Dems, however, will likely pounce on this to argue that the current GOP leadership, and the GOP's overall brand, have also become toxic -- so much so that top-tier GOP candidates are working to achieve separation from them in order to remain competitive in the toughest races.

For some time now, many of the "responsible" opponents of the Islamic center near Ground Zero have employed a clever little dodge.

They've criticized the project as a moral wrong, arguing that the developers aren't showing sufficient respect for 9/11 or that building a center devoted to Islam is needlessly provocative and undermines the center's goal of reconciliation. But they've carefully avoided addressing whether government should or shouldn't use its power to somehow block the project.

Today, however, Charles Krauthammer boldly strides into new territory, suggesting (without quite saying) that government does have the authority to block it. And his argument is a curious one. After claiming that Ground Zero is "sacred" and questioning the motives behind the project, he then invokes government's right to zone against liquor stores and strip malls:

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

This argument seems a bit confused. For one thing, the United States Constitution does not expressly forbid government zoning against liquor stores or strip malls. However, it does expressly forbid government interference with "the free exercise" of religion.

Nor does the comparison to building a tower "over" Gettysburg or a convent "at" Auschwitz make any sense. The Islamic center would not be built "over" or "at" Ground Zero. Rather, it would be built more than two blocks away in a crowded urban neighborhood.

The comparison is also problematic in another way. While zoning codes do prohibit liquor stores and strip malls in some cases, the location for the Islamic center isn't zoned against such projects; and it has already been green-lighted by the city Landmarks Commission. So by what mechanism should government block this project? Krauthammer doesn't say. He doesn't even quite say that government should block the project, let alone how this should happen. Because doing so explicitly would require him to clarify where the authority to do this comes from.

Indeed, it's not quite clear what Krauthammer is arguing here. He's saying the center shouldn't happen because government validly sets limits on our freedom in other cases. Which raises a straightfoward question for Krauthammer: Should government have the power to limit the freedom of the developers to proceed with the project? Yes, or No? If so, from where is that authority derived? If not, who granted you the authority to set those limits, other than the other-worldy being or force that decreed Ground Zero sacred?

UPDATE, 11:31 a.m. Let me try to frame the question another way: If government doesn't have the authority to limit the freedom to build an Islamic center near Ground Zero, where does the authority to limit this freedom come from, other than whoever or whatever decreed Ground Zero sacred and decreed that a nearly Islamic center would amount to sacrilege?

* The Elizabeth Warren "dilemma" heats up: Elizabeth Warren was seen leaving the White House yesterday, and speculation is mounting that Obama may soon decide whether to appoint her as top Wall Street consumer cop. Here's his choice:

If Obama doesn't choose her, he risks infuriating his already-agitated liberal supporters who see Warren as the only logical candidate. If he gives her the nod, Obama risks deepening the financial community's distrust of his administration and sparking a confirmation fight.

Is this really a tough dilemma? After all, sacrificing Warren isn't going to induce Wall Streeters and Republicans to suddenly stop tarring him as anti-business. And: Who's more important to Dem hopes in the midterms, Dem base voters or Wall Street titans and GOP leaders?

* And: The White House's view is that she's a strong choice and would be confirmable on the Hill, yet a decision is still not imminent, because there are other strong contenders.

* Social Security turns 75 years old today: Expect a lot of Dems to go on the offensive against various Republican plans to phase out or alter the program, particularly against GOP Senate candidates.

* The GOP response: Republicans will point to all the leading Dems who have called for a hike in the retirement age in order to play the "Dems in disarray" card.

* Ya think? Sharron Angle allows she may have suffered a few "self inflicted wounds." At least, that what I think she said.

* But she could still win: A new Las Vegas Review Journal poll finds the race couldn't be tighter, with Harry Reid leading 46-44 and only 5 percent undecided.

* And Reid's argument may not be resonating: The poll also finds that "51 percent said Reid's clout as the Senate majority leader is not too valuable to give up, while 45 percent said Nevada can't afford to lose his influence."

* You're no Newt Gingrich, sir! Senator Richard Lugar says John Boehner and Mitch McConnell might not be able to fill the shoes of the great Newt if Repubs take back the majority. I'm pretty sure Lugar meant that as a negative.

In all seriousness, Lugar's criticism gets at an important question: If Republicans do take back the House (or, far less likely, the Senate), who if anyone will act as the tone-setting leadership figure?

* Rightward, ho: Former Bushie Michael Gerson skewers the repeal-birthright-citizenship crowd with this nifty line:

The radical, humane vision of the 14th Amendment can be put another way: No child born in America can be judged unworthy by John Boehner, because each is his equal.

* And: Mark McKinnon, who also worked for Bush, also blasts the birthright push, warning Republicans not to let "the sirens of extremism" lure them "toward the rocks of demagoguery."

That former Bush officials are speaking out in such eloquent terms is yet another mark of the degree to which today's GOP officials are capitulating to hard-right forces inside and outside the party.

* Andrew Sullivan says that capitulation to the right is visible on immigration and national security alike:

A sign of how radical and extremist the GOP now is: on the question of the war on terror (and immigration), some of us are beginning to see the relative moderation and sophistication of George W. Bush.

* Snark o' the day: Katha Pollitt says right-wingers opposed to the Islamic center are treating the Constitution "as if Sarah Palin had tweeted it herself."

The problem, of course, is that the Constitution was inked long before Palin (and Twitter) were born. Maybe she could resolve this whole mess by tweeting a quick amendment to it?

And what else is happening?

* Jim Geraghty, who is deeply sourced within the Sharron Angle campaign, explains that there's real method behind the apparent madness. Seriously, it's worth a read.

* And: Angle, who has plainly discussed phasing out Social Security in the past, goes on the offensive in a new ad attacking Harry Reid for wanting to raid the Social Security trust fund for his "pet projects."

* Gettin' the message yet? Chuck Schumer concedes voters are "sour" and vows that Dems will attempt another series of jobs-related measures heading into the midterms. Please do!

* In another big (albeit possibly temporary) victory for gay rights, the judge who overturned Prop 8 says gays can start getting married in California next Wednesday, though the 9th Circuit court could still overrule that decision.

* David Kurtz feeds the anti-mosque crowd to the lions, going back 2000 years to explain why the anti-mosque campaign is decidedly un-Christian.

* Lede of the day, on the GOP plan to extend the Bush tax cuts:

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.

Could that be any clearer?

* Michael Tomasky says we should prepare ourselves for "another stroll down the supply-side hall of mirrors," and it's true that this discussion is going to dominate come September. Wonder if Dems will blink.

* PolitiFact (mostly) skewers Lindsey Graham's claim about the illegal immigrant strategy known as "drop and leave," finding it "misleading."

* Taegan Goddard notes that the new NBC/WSJ poll shows a massive lead for Republicans only in the south, and asks: "Are Republicans becoming a regional party?"

* Former administration official Neera Tanden appears to (delicately) criticize the White House for urinating on the left, suggesting the White House should be trying to fire up liberals.

* Not everybody worships at the Anthony Weiner altar: A prominent DNC official, Robert Zimmerman, tells Weiner to stop grandstanding about the 9/11 health bill and bring it back up for a vote.

* And the mosque fight keeps on giving! Turns out Liz Cheney was actually an official at the Bush State Department when it sent the Imam behind the "Ground Zero mosque" abroad to Muslim countries. Wonder if she protested the decision at the time.

What else is happening?

Bill Kristol's hawkish, pro-Israel group, which has been running ads blasting Dems as anti-Israel, is now making it explicit: It is targeting Dems with paid media for the express purpose of making it politically toxic for them to criticize Israel.

That's what Kristol and a spokesman for his group, the Emergency Committee for Israel, suggested to me today, in statements accompanying a new ad it's set to release attacking Dem Rep Jim Himes of Connecticut.

"You can't just say you're pro-Israel, you have to be pro-Israel," Kristol said. The ad blasts Himes for signing a recent letter that allegedly accused Israel of "collective punishment" for enforcing the Gaza blockade:

Kristol's group has already aired other versions of this ad attacking Joe Sestak, Mary Joe Kilroy, and Glenn Nye.

The group insists it's putting real money into these buys, and the above ad attacking Rep. Himes will run during NBC Nightly News, a spokesman for the group, Michael Goldfarb, says.

The spot blasts Himes for signing a recent letter sponsored by the left-leaning pro-Israel group J-Street that has emerged as the nemesis of neoconservative pro-Israel groups like Kristol's outfit.

The letter doesn't accuse Israel directly of "collective punishment," as the ad says. Rather, the letter asks Obama to pressure Israel to relieve the blockade. It recognizes that the Gaza restrictions are born of "legitimate" fear on the part of Israel, but warns against allowing the blockade to result in "the de facto collective punishment" of Palestinians.

Asked what the purpose of the ads was, Goldfarb said:

Members of Congress should know that voters will hold them accountable for signing anti-Israel letters or doing anything else to undermine the US-Israel relationship. It is our job to make sure the voters have all the information.

That couldn't be clearer. Kristol's group is broadening efforts to go after Dems in ads, and there's been some debate about its real strategic goals. Clearly, the game plan is to put more Dems on notice that if they criticize Israel, they can expect to be targeted, too.

I'm not sure you could ask for a clearer illustration of the absurdity of the anti-mosque camp's antics than this.

A group leading the charge against the Islamic center near Ground Zero has been granted the right to run ads on New York buses opposing the center -- and is claiming this as a free speech victory for the Constitution.

That would be the same Constitution that guarantees religious freedom, of course.

Right wing blogger Pamela Geller, who heads the anti-mosque American Freedom Defense Initiative, has been trying to run an ad on buses that is a truly nasty piece of work. You can look at it right here. It shows the World Trade Center, with flames bursting from one tower and a plane moments away from striking the other.

Directly across from that picture is a rendering of what the ad calls the "September 11, 2011 WTC Mega Mosque." The ad asks: "Why there?"

The New York Transit Authority initially tried to nix the ad, but the group argued that its free speech rights had been infringed, and the authority allowed the ad to run.

Here's what the group's lawyer had to say about this victory:

A lawyer representing Ms. Geller's group, Robert J. Muise, said the New York case was a victory for the Constitution. "It's a problem when the government picks and chooses which messages they think are suitable," Mr. Muise said.

Speaks for itself. By the way, the "WTC Mega Mosque" is not "there" at Ground Zero, as the ad proclaims. Its location is depicted by the red star, more than two full city blocks away from Ground Zero, which is the empty space at the bottom left:

As you've probably heard, Republicans are currently attacking the Obama administration for sending Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the "Ground Zero mosque," to the Mideast to discuss life for Muslims in America. The problem with this attack line, as many have noted, is that this Imam was chosen for this program by none other than the Bush administration.

That's absurd enough on its own. But I wanted to highlight another interesting aspect of this: The attack has now been joined by diehard "Ground Zero mosque" opponent Liz Cheney -- whose father, of course, was a fairly high level member of the administration that originally sent the Imam to the Middle East for the same reason the Obama administration is now doing.

The program in question is run by the State Department, which is sending the Imam on a speaking tour designed to explain to Muslims abroad what life is like as a Muslim in the United States. Republican officials such as Pete King have blasted the program. But the State Department has defended the move by reiterating that the Imam is well known for his "work on tolerance" and his "moderate perspective" -- and that the Bush administration sponsored a similar speaking tour.

Now Liz Cheney's group, Keep America Safe, has responded, blaring on its Website that the State Department "ignores facts" if it thinks the Imam is a "moderate." It has also posted links to criticism of the move and approvingly posted video of a Fox News anchor hectoring a State Department official over the move:

Amusingly enough, members of the administration presided over by Liz's father, such as Karen Hughes, included this Imam in administration programs designed to improve relations with Muslim countries.

The Cheney wing of the Bush administration, of course, was always further to the right than other administration insiders on national security matters involving relations with Muslim countries. So in a sense it's not surprising that Liz would break with Bushies over this.

But what's key here is that the Cheneyite position is now the mainstream Republican one. The Cheneyite world view has supplanted that of the more moderate Repubican national security establishment -- not to mention that of many Bushies, who maintained that good relations with Islam is a desirable goal. The Cheneyites set the tone for the stances of many Republicans in high-profile national security political fights.