Author: Andrew Sullivan

ABC reports that Obama is passing on India's Golden Temple:

President Obama will skip visiting one of the country’s most sacred shrines out of fear that wearing the requisite headgear might make him appear Muslim …

Joyner strikes the right tone in response:

Let’s hope this report is wrong because it would be truly embarrassing for the leader of the free world to risk insulting an important ally — the second most populous country on the planet — because it might fuel an idiotic conspiracy theory at home.  Especially considering that the Sikhs aren’t even Muslim.

Sigh. The only way to fight FNC/RNC propaganda is to stare it down defiantly. Never let them see you afraid. Never concede the point to liars, bigots, and charlatans.

A reader writes:

Your liberal readers and bloggers decry the unfairness that gives advantages to the rich, and there is no doubt that life is unfair.  I agree with you that the rich should pay higher taxes than the poor – although I also find the flat tax very appealing. But the liberal ideal of equalizing things is also unfair, let’s be honest. 

The government can’t “repair” the unfairness that exists in the world, and too much effort to do so will do nothing but shift the unfairness.  Perhaps liberals are fine with that, as so many seem to hate the rich, but it seems to me that the best goal is simply try not to be unfair – to anyone.  Yes, this means there will be rich and poor, and some governmental actions are certainly justified, but liberal ideas of punishing the successful are themselves selfish, mean, and doomed to failure, as I’m afraid we’ll see soon if we go too far down this road.

By the way: I’m currently unemployed and have been looking for a job for some time.  I’m in my fifties and figure that, since I’ve used up my savings, I will never be able to retire.  But I don’t want to punish the rich.  Liberals would take money from the rich and bail me out, but they would also take freedom from all of us.  Thanks, but no thanks.  I’d rather work until I die.

Walter Russell Mead has a must-read, via Goldblog:

It can’t be repeated too often:  the American Jewish community is not responsible for the popularity of hard line views among American non-Jews on Middle East issues.  Individual Jews and predominantly Jewish organizations like AIPAC derive their influence over American foreign policy not from their Jewishness, but from the affinity of their policy agenda with the views and priorities of America’s non-Jews.  When American Jews say things about the Middle East that resonate with the views of American non-Jews, they are influential. When, as in the case of the persistent agitation to free convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, Jewish conservative supporters of Israel deviate from the gentile consensus, that influence suddenly disappears.  When, like the many liberal Jewish journalists and pundits who think hard line policies in the Middle East are bad for both Israel and the United States, they say things that American non-Jews don’t like — their views and their insights are largely cast aside.  In none of these cases is the Jewish identity of the writers the key to the reception accorded their ideas.

In general, I think this is right. Mead doesn't mention one important factor in this – the evangelical end-times view of Israel. It's the politics of the Book of Revelation that impels Sarah Palin to take the view of the right-wing Jewish settlers and terrorists in the West Bank (Yes, I take setting fire to mosques, poisoning fig trees, destroying Palestinian agriculture as terrorism). The pro-Israel lobby is successful not just because it pursues legitimate lobbying of Congress to defend almost anything Israel does, but because it also has a sturdy outreach program to non-Jewish Americans who, by and large, identify far more with Western-seeming Israelis than with Arabs and Muslims, an identification understandably intensified after 9/11.

But there comes a point – and this is what many pro-Israel critics of Israeli policy like yours truly have been saying – when this generalized support can blind us to real issues that hurt us and hurt Israel. The Gaza campaign did not command massive American public support – the public was deeply divided but the Congress was unanimously on Israel's side (that's AIPAC's influence in a nutshell).

Supporting the continuing construction of settlements in East Jerusalem and the neo-colonization of the West Bank are also issues that are not synonymous with support of Israel, as Mead and Goldblog have stated.

My snapping point was the Israeli refusal to help Obama reach out to the Muslim world, the horrible human casualties of the Gaza campaign (and Israeli indifference to Arab life they revealed), the fast-growing influence of far right religious parties in Israel (and America), and the dogged refusal to make any meaningful gesture on settlements to get the peace process re-booted with the most promising West Bank leadership ever. And on those issues, AIPAC has been clearly on Netanyahu's side, not Obama's. And that should not stand. J-Street has made a huge error in fibbing, to put it mildly, about Soros' contribution and in being less than transparent. But on this issue they are right, and America and Israel need them.

Austin, Texas, 10 am

Mark Oppenheimer gave a speech about the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, and was struck by an exchange afterward with an audience member:

…there was one questioner who made a rather passionate short speech about how I had to understand what it was like in the rest of the country, outside the bubble of New York and Cambridge and New Haven: foreclosures everywhere, dislocation in the economy, uncertainty. And how, he said, in times like this it is understandable that people look for enemies, as they did during the Great Depression and during the Populist moment forty years before that. And I thought he made a lot of good points–but, I said, people should remember that it was New York City that was the victim of the 9/11 attacks, not Texas or Florida or Nevada. So it did not really make sense to say that "it might be all well and good to sympathize with Muslims in New York, but out in the rest of the country times are tough and people were angry."

I pointed out that my brother lived near Ground Zero when it happened, and that my in-laws live in downtown Manhattan, where my wife grew up…. I was not close to the tragedy, but I was far closer than most Americans.

And people listened politely to the exchange, and I had some fruitful and interesting discussions with people afterward, when the speech was over. But it left me wondering: why is there anti-Muslim rage in places with very few Muslims and no history of Muslim terrorism whatsoever? There are good answers to this question, I am sure, but it is late, and for now I will just marvel at how odd it is that somebody thinks it is easy to be a Muslim sympathizer in New York, but not out in the rest of the country…

This is reminiscent of what Jason Jones found when he went to Wasilla for The Daily Show.

Man these memes travel fast:

(Hat tip: TDW)

His lead is now the narrowest ever, according to Rasmussen, which tends to over-state GOP support. They have now moved him to the "leans Republican" column. I hope it isn't because of the nasty, and unfair religious attacks on him by Conway.

Joe Miller's Alaskan security team is owned by a way-out-there Alaskan militia-man, and a local commander thereof, according to Palingates; and his security company's license had expired when its goons handcuffed a journalist daring to ask a question at a public forum.