From the amusingly pseudonymed Allahpundit:
Via Breitbart. Normally I wouldn’t bore you with three mosque posts in a row but this is such a thunderbolt coming from a true-blue lefty that it won’t wait. I can’t imagine that Dean-o really believes what he’s saying here; the mosque is too much of a cause celebre on the left at this point for him to deviate for reasons of conscience. Presumably he’s simply so terrified by the polling on this issue that he’s willing to do whatever damage control he can to mitigate losses in November. (He’s a former head of the DNC, remember, so he’s used to thinking in electoral terms.) If so, that’s a good idea: A new poll out from Gallup within the last hour or so shows 37 percent disapprove of Obama’s comments on the mosque last week versus just 20 percent who approve. Those numbers aren’t disastrous for Dems given that most of the opposition comes from Republicans, but the split among indies is 21/32 overall and 15/27 on the question of whether one strongly approves/disapproves. As Geraghty noted earlier today, they’re already getting killed among independents in various tight Senate races so they can’t afford to do any more bleeding. I think this is Dean’s attempt to fashion a tourniquet by signaling to lefties that it’s okay to take a more moderate position on this issue in the interest of making it go away. Think they’ll listen? Me neither.
Exit question: Will the same Democratic thoughtcrime investigator charged with examining Harry Reid’s opposition to the mosque also be responsible for investigating Dean-o’s?
Hat tip to Patterico.
The notion that Dr Dean would have taken this position — one which pretty much reflects what President Obama said, over the course of two days — as a reflection of political realities is a reasonable one, but I’m not a mind-reader, so I sure wouldn’t make a definitive statement to that effect.
But it’s a bit interesting when I contrast this with a thread on a completely different subject, from Pam Spaulding of Pandagon and Pam’s House Blend. Miss Spaulding is upset that the Obama Administration has given lip service to “LGBT”¹ issues:
I’m kind of nonplussed; does that include your blogmistress, or do lesbian bloggers not rate in the same category of frustration for Brian Bond? I’m the only “gay blogger” he’s had a sit-down interview with, so I’d love it if he gave a shout-out by name. I was quite generous to him in my interview.
I think perhaps they only mean John Aravosis, no? But Brian used the plural, so the White House must have a LIST. I’ll have to ask John (and maybe even Joe Sudbay) what it feels like to be on a White House hit list.
Anyway, I know the WH, at least Shin Inouye (director of specialty media), reads the Blend and pings me from time to time, but who are these other peeps in power who are hand-wringing over the people on THE LIST of angry, frustration-inducing, Cheetos-stained P.J.-wearing bloggers…
John said this in response to Bond’s comments:
It’s great that you’re “supportive.” But it’s the same argument gay Republicans used to describe George Bush. He was secretively supportive of us, they’d say, even if he didn’t help us a whole lot legislatively. I’m not saying you’re George Bush, but the empathy thing is wearing thin. We don’t want your support in words, we want you to keep your promises. And you’re not.
I don’t think you have to be a rocket scientist to see the point of view many of us hold – that promises were made, quite publicly to the community to both garner votes and generate cashflow, and now the bill has come due and we are seeing all sorts of shenanigans by those in charge. The delays and slow-go on DADT repeal that ends in a poor compromise and a freepable, embrarrassing “study”; inaction on ENDA, tossing the hot potato between the WH and Congress as to whose responsibility it is to take the lead; Gibbs having amnesia and feeble follow up skills at the podium. Come on. If you’re 99% supportive, that is a helluva 1% left over.
The comments — 48 so far — make the article more interesting. It seems that the Pandagonistae are discovering that the Democrats in general, and the President in particular, are politicians far more than they are “progressives.” And I have to wonder: Is it possible, just possible, that the reason the Democrats are not as far to the left as most of the Pandagonistae think they should be is that the majority of the people, of the voters, in the country aren’t “progressive,” as they would define progressive?
¹ – “LGBT” stands for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered.”