A Profile in Porridge
Just hours after what was understood as a backing of the Ground Zero mosque, Obama tried to “clarify” his standpoint by smudging it into an undefinable grey, the kind you get when you try to mix several watercolours into one. It was an attempt to vote present after having signalled a yea:
“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.”
Oh, such disciplined restraint! Imagine Obama saying about the Arizona immigration law that it’s clearly legal (as Rhode Island is demonstrating) and refusing to “comment on the wisdom” of it. This would have triggered some entertaining reactions from Liberals. But, of course, Obama wouldn’t make such a statement. Not unless he was in favour of the law but afraid of admitting it.
Obama has a track record that belies this sudden unwillingness to interfere against standing laws. Where was all that respect for norms when Chrysler was dissembled, I wonder? And why didn’t Obama just stick to saying that the police did what was their right in arresting his potty-mouthed friend, instead of judging that “police acted stupidly“?
What Obama is trying to do here is cowardly and dishonest. He wants to take a side without people being able to hold him responsible for it. He doesn’t endorse the project explicitly, but everyone gets the message as if he did so. When he is asked to justify his position, Obama wants to wash his hands over the matter.
The French Cowboy thinks that Obama would be better off taking one side of the issue and doing so emphatically. It would enrage those who hold the opposite opinion, no doubt, but it would give Obama some badly needed ammunition to help fight his molluscan image.