Roy Edroso summarizes the right-wing "response" to Mr. Obama's supposed defense of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque on Friday night. Not that it'll surprise you: the right wing will say whatever it thinks will drive an ever-smaller (but ever-more vocal!) number of rage-filled voters to the polls in November. Of course, the "liberal" media have been calling Mr. Obama's Sunday remarks "a backtrack", which they're not, strictly speaking -- though, like Glenn Greenwald, I kinda wonder why he bothered splitting hairs there. At least the sum of his remarks suggests he's given the matter some thought. If Bill Clinton had weighed in on this issue, I'm sure his remarks would have suggested that he'd changed his mind to please right-wing nutjobs.
In other news: why on earth would Tea Party activists oppose network neutrality? Yikes it's like they're trying to be wrong about everything. Do none of them think a greater threat to "free people" comes from corporations than from a democratically-elected government? But this putative commitment to "the free market" may not be bulletproof -- one Fountain Hills Tea Party leader admitted he hadn't fully judged the issue on which his organization has already taken a stance, and has no answer to corporations' "ability to selectively throttle network traffic" besides saying "I just don't think it's the government's responsibility" to stop that nonsense. "I just don't think" -- not real solid, eh? I have two quibbles with the author, however: 1) the Tea Party "movement" has benefited from corporate financing at least as much as it has from net neutrality, and 2) pro-net neutrality forces are, again, not all on the left, as the end of paragraph five suggests they are.