–Rep. Jerry Nadler, who represents the district that would be home to the Manhattan mosque, spells out an argument many people seem to be missing:
As much as I respect the sensitivities of people, there is a fundamental mistake behind it, and that is how can you — and I can quote any number of some of the people who have commented on it, and what they are saying essentially is how can you put a mosque there when, after all, Muslims attacked us on 9/11, and this is ripping open a wound? Well, the fallacy is that al-Qaeda attacked us. Islam did not attack us. Islam, like Christianity, like Judaism, like other religions, has many different people, some of whom regard other adherents of the religion as heretics of one sort or another. It is only insensitive if you regard Islam as the culprit, as opposed to al-Qaeda as the culprit. We were not attacked by all Muslims. And there were Muslims who were killed there, there were Muslims who were killed there. There were Muslims who ran in as first responders to help. And we cannot take any position like that.
This isn’t really a debate about religious freedoms; few question Muslim Americans’ right to worship. It’s a debate over whether mainstream Islam, manifest in the Park51/Cordoba House community center, is inherently antithetical to respectful remembrance of 9/11 victims.
–Mark Halperin appeals to the GOP not to run against the mosque.
–Obama’s midterm efforts kick off in earnest today with a stop in Milwaukee for Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett. His Republican opponent, Scott Walker, is welcoming the president with an ad mocking his mannerisms and railing against, um, rail:
–Meg Whitman, the $100 million woman. (And it’s only August.)
–Congressional scholars Alan Abramowitz and Norm Orstein debunk five midterm myths.
–Gen. Petraeus, running the new-on-the-job interview gantlet in Afghanistan, fielded a lot of questions about July 2011. The proposed date to begin drawing down troop levels seems likely to dominate — and define — discussion of the war.
–He was referentially Shermanesque about a future in politics.
–Economics of Contempt writes Basel III is holding firm on liquidity requirements.
–And Elizabeth Warren advocacy, reductio ad absurdum (note the TIME cameo at 1:38):
(Via Felix Salmon, who comments: “Somehow I can’t imagine anybody doing this for Michael Barr.”)
What did I miss?