Mainstream Media Begs Republicans Not to Pound Democrats on NYC Mosque Issue

How badly did Obama damage himself and his party with his full-throated endorsement of the Ground Zero Mosque (which he tried to walk back a bit the next day)?  Pretty badly.  Bad enough that David Halperin of Time Magazine is begging the GOP not to use this issue in the election and trying to use all kinds of high-minded reasoning.  Here's part of it:

Say what you will about the wisdom of Obama's policies overall, but his belated commentary on religious freedoms clearly was not done for political gain. Quite the contrary. the President knew that he and his party would almost certainly pay a political price for taking a stand, especially this close to the election, and with few prominent leaders, other than New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on the White House's side. The reaction since the President spoke has been vitriolic and unvarying from leading voices on the right, painting Obama as weak, naive, out of touch and obtuse (not to mention flip-flopping, after his confusing follow-up comments Saturday suggested to some that he might be hedging his position).

Yes, Republicans, you can take advantage of this heated circumstance, backed by the families of the 9/11 victims, in their most emotional return to the public stage since 2001.

But please don't do it. There are a handful of good reasons to oppose allowing the Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero, particularly the family opposition and the availability of other, less raw locations. But what is happening now — the misinformation about the center and its supporters; the open declarations of war on Islam on talk radio, the Internet and other forums; the painful divisions propelled by all the overheated rhetoric — is not worth whatever political gain your party might achieve.

It isn't clear how the battle over the proposed center should or will end. But two things are profoundly clear: Republicans have a strong chance to win the midterm elections without picking a fight over President Obama's measured words. And a national political fight conducted on the terms we have seen in the past few days will lead to a chain reaction at home and abroad that will have one winner — the very extreme and violent jihadists we all can claim as our true enemy.

When the so called "Jersey Girls", wives of 9/11 victims, came out in opposition to the re-election of President Bush in 2004 and the Democrats used them for fundraising and other purposes, did Halperin write a piece like this demanding the Democrats stop exploiting 9/11? I don't think so.

Halperin insists that Obama knew his statement would cause political problems, but I don't think he did.  He's completely tone deaf on issues like this and his walk back the next day pretty much proves he knew not what he said.  Media figures like Halperin are so hopelessly in the tank for Obama that when he does something really boneheaded they have no recourse other than slavishly begging for mercy from the GOP.  Pretty pitiful.

Obama could have affirmed America's commitment to religious freedom while at the same time criticizing the decision to build at this location, but he didn't do that.  A statement like that would have pretty much eliminated any criticism.  In reality, churches are denied building permits all the time based on opposition from the local community to the traffic, noise, or other issues that could result.  There is no First Amendment right for a church to build anywhere they want to.

This issue will do some serious damage to Democrats who are already on their way to a bad year.