
The reason I'm ambivalent about Barack Obama weighing in on Cordoba House is that, while it was absolutely the right thing to do, he's given the GOP the excuse it needed to really nationalize the issue. As I said before, Muslims have always been collateral damage here -- the goal was to force the Democrats into the position of defending the rights of an unpopular group. Because the Democrats waited so long to do so, and because the president was among the only prominent Democratic voices to do it, they've allowed Republicans to completely define the issue. And they've found a way to capitalize on the fears from the original "madrassa" smear that emerged during the presidential campaign without dealing with the absurd specifics. No, Obama isn't a secret Muslim. Just a dirty Muslim-lover.
I doubt this has the potency Republicans hope and Democrats fear -- the economy, not the Cordoba House, will be the decisive factor in the midterm elections. The Republican position -- that the government can tell people where to build houses of worship, that fundamental rights can be subject to a show of hands, that religions are collectively responsible for the actions of a few extremists -- are weak ones. Perhaps I'm naive in saying that, but certainly if the framers had bought into them, America as we know it would not exist. But even a weak position can win if it is argued forcefully, particularly if the other side is silent or trembles at the prospect of taking its own side.