Leftist Fantasy Influence and the Glenn Beck Boycott

Below are the Nielsen cable news ratings, for September 8, 2009, following the long Labor Day weekend. Glenn Beck's program performed roughly three times better in total viewers for the 5pm timeslot, in both demographic categories:

5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)

Glenn Beck– 2,610,000 viewers (704,000) (1,140,000)
Situation Room—761,000 viewers (143,000) (255,000)
Hardball w/ C. Matthews —548,000 viewers (142,000) (267,000)
Fast Money—151,000 viewers (a scratch w/32,000) (70,000)
Prime News–237,000 viewers (75,000) (100,000)

The numbers are striking. Bill O'Reilly often boasts on air about Fox's ratings dominance, but the data flash on screen so quickly that one might miss the significance of Fox's pummeling of the competition.

I note this now as I've just finished reading a fantasy essay at Firedoglake, "A Line in the Sand Against Beck":

Watching the Glenn Beck show this past month, one might have assumed that Van Jones had assaulted Beck, insulted his wife, and stolen his kids' lunch money. Beck devoted time on a whopping 16 shows to crafting a distorted, despicable portrait of Van that few who know him would recognize. As political smears go, it was as serious as it gets.

But make no mistake: this attack was not about Van Jones. Beck, in league with big business groups, is seeking to derail the President's progressive agenda, and taking out Van became the vehicle for undermining clean energy and green jobs.

Whoa! That's crack analysis! You think Beck really wants to derail Obama's progressive agenda? I'm shocked!

But check this out:

There is no doubt that Glenn Beck has a big platform. But what supports his platform is advertising dollars, and that support is crumbling. To date, 62 companies have pulled their ads from Beck's show, including six new companies announced yesterday -- Aegon, Ashley Furniture, Humana, Luxottica Retail (parent of LensCrafters and Pearle Vision), United States Postal Service and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare. These aren't liberal activists wringing their hands over Beck's distortions. These are the bastions of American capitalism saying they don't want their brands associated with Glenn Beck's extremism. The only companies left are direct marketers (think Egg Genie and gold coins) and a handful of private companies headed by right-wingers.

The exodus of major advertisers makes a powerful statement about how far Beck lies from the mainstream. Which is why it's so important to keep the heat on. Advertisers walking away for a week or two is one thing. But as weeks turn to months, and Beck becomes increasingly isolated, it renders his rants permanently fringe. Why would anyone (the White House or otherwise) respond to someone whose views are too toxic for any respectable corporation?

These numbers are being touted on the left as some kind of powerhouse indicator of progressive influence to shape the structure of cable news advertising. But the fact remains, not even the most socially progressive business concern will long forego a lucative advertising market. Glenn Beck's program is sheer dominance. And contrary to Firedoglake's fantasy that Beck's heading over to the "permanent fringe," the reality is that Van Jones' resignation was a major defeat for the administration; and with Congress back in session, political conflict is swinging back to full battle-stations mode. I'm betting Beck's numbers get even better as things move forward. Just today Obama-flunky Yosi Sergent was removed as communications director at the National Endowment of the Arts, and this is being chalked up as another win for Glenn Beck.

I hardly see how these developments indicate that Beck's "trying to change the subject." On Tuesday's show, Beck expressed humility: "'Don't Congratulate Me for Van Jones' Resignation'." Big wins combined with big modesty. Classy.

Plus, don't miss the piece from earlier this week, "Glenn Beck, The New Edward R. Murrow Of Fox News: Who’s The Next Target?"

The folks at Firedoglake and elsewhere are high if they think they're going to bring Glenn Beck down. The realities of the cable news market favor those programs putting up the big numbers. It's simple economics. On top of that, Beck's journalism is having an unrivaled impact on real-time politics and partisan power. Regular fans of Fox News clearly can't get enough.

Little Green Footballs Pummeled From All Sides!

I just got word from YidWithLid that Charles Johnson is taking it on the chin yet again this week. See, "Little Green Footballs' Johnson Sinks Further Into the Abyss:"

For the last two years Johnson has been like the crazy old man who tries to alienate his family, but in his case he has been throwing bloggers out of his site. For some of them like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer he not only cast them asunder, but he has continued to attack them.

The sad part of it is that he used to be a blogging giant, and when it comes to traffic, I am sure he still is. But with the growing list of people that he has banned from his site for the simple reason of disagreeing with his opinions or maintaining friendships with people he didn't like, Charles is losing the respect of much of the community.

Check the whole thing, here. It turns out that Robert Spencer has a new post up just hammering Johnson in what's the latest, but certainly decisive, offensive in the ongoing anti-jihad blogger wars. See Spencer's post here: "Libelblogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs Digs Deeper, Adding New Lies to His Original Ones."

One must step back and wonder: what is this man's game? Why would he make up lies, see them refuted by people who were present at the events he claims to know about, and then instead of backing down or at least falling silent, pile more lies upon his original ones? Inevitable questions arise about why he has embarked on this desperate smear campaign, intent on demonstrating that I and others are "fascists" or "fascist sympathizers," without a shred of actual evidence that I sympathize with or agree with any positions that are fascist, racist, etc., associate with any people who really are those things, or hold any positions other than the ones I have publicly avowed

Spencer provides personal testimony from folks who ultimately destroy Johnson's credibility, so be sure to check the post. But I love this concluding flourish:

He's a conscience-free smear merchant, a thuggish paranoid and a liar, but at least Charles Johnson is good for a few laughs.

I've actually been meaning to write something about recent flame war between Ace of Spades HQ and Johnson's Little Green Footballs. See AOSHQ, "And There You Go: Charles Johnson Spins for Van Jones," and "White House Politely Declines to Express Support in Van "Astronaut" Jones ... Bonus: Charles Johnson's Dan Rather Moment."

Also Ace notes that "This isn't personal. CJ has never done anything wrong by me." (See, "Information on Truthers Zinn, Lerner, and Jones Comes from 'Hate Sites'?")

And you know, I'd bet most folks would say the same thing with respect to Charles Johnson. I've never had an issue with him, but I have noticed how he's lost his marbles in his endless campaign against conservatives and those whose politics are informed by faith. Johnson's got issues, that's for sure. We all do, of course, but there's that uncomprising my-way-or-the-highway mentality at LGF that puts Charles in a class all by himself.

Karl Rove: Obama's Speech 'Gratuitously Bitter and Partisan'

Check out Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove's discussion of President Obama's healthcare address:

Also, The Swamp reports that GOP Rep. John Shimkus walked out on the speech. The dude bailed with just a couple of minutes left. It's disrespectful, sure. But given the general consensus on how brutally partisan was Obama's speech, I don't blame the guy. Decorum's not what it's all cracked up to be when you're supposed to be showing deference to a habitual liar.

Plus, from The Hill, "Obama Speech to Congress Unlikely to Be Game Changer." And more on that at Riehl World View, "Second Guessing Obama Speech."

The Town Halls of August: A Chronicle of the Goons

From Mary Katherine Ham, "The Town Halls of August: They're Here, They're Conservative, Get Used To It":

What we learned in the last month is that people who have been energetically organizing, filling town halls and high-school gymnasiums, and staging protests for most of their lives are more than a little dismayed to find out that the other side can do it, too. There will always be a risk of unrest at any political protest, left or right, and that risk increases with the emotion and energy surrounding the debate. And it will always be important to call for civility in heated debates, and to treat public forums and our right to speak in them with the respect they deserve.

Read the whole thing, here.

Outstanding chronicle of leftist thuggery, which puts the lie to the Democrats' claim that conseratives are "political terrorists."

Image Credit: The People's Cube, "OBAMACARE: Yes It Can Bite Your Finger Off!"

Democrats Interrupt 2006 Bush Speech, Cheer Obstructionism on Entitlement Reform

Congressional Democrats interrupted President Bush's speech on entitlement reform in 2006. Bush's opponent cheer wildly as they rise in response to Bush's assertion that Congress did not act on his reform agenda in 2005. Via Gateway Pundit. Then-Senator Barack Obama was one of the Democratic obstructionists in attendance.

Joe Wilson: America's Congressman

From the Beaufort Observer, "ObamaCare Will Cover Illegal Immigrants":

Mark Tapscott discovers a nugget in the analysis provided by the Congressional Research Office on HR3200, the House version of ObamaCare coming to the floor. While Barack Obama insists that the idea that ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants is a "myth," the CRS points out that the bill does nothing to prevent it. Since HR3200 doesn't require people to establish citizenship or legal residency before applying to exchanges for health insurance, including the public option, taxpayer money will certainly flow to illegal immigrants:

Congressional Research Service (CRS) says this about H.R. 3200, the Obamacare bill approved just before the recess by the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA:

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."

Plus, check William Jacobson's report, "The House Bill Does Cover Illegals."

See also, Pat in Shreveport's got the story, "What Happened to Those 17 Million Uninsured?" And Andrea Tantaros, "Obama Just Doesn't Get It."

Image Credit: The Palmetto Scoop, " Get Your Free 'I'm With Joe Wilson' T-Shirt." (Via Memeorandum.)

VIDEO! ACORN Tells 'Pimp Prostitute' How to Lie to IRS

From Fox News, "ACORN Officials Videotaped Telling 'Pimp,' 'Prostitute' How to Lie to IRS:"

Also at Political Indoctrination & Dismantling Liberalism, "Obamas ACORN Pimps Black girls."

Two of Three Americans Bought Obama's Snake Oil

From CNN, "CNN Poll: Double-Digit Post-Speech Jump for Obama Plan":

Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.

More at the link and Memeorandum.

Plus, Neo-Neocon, "Obama’s Speech On Health Care":

Actually, the whole speech is clever. He’s trying to re-brand himself as the great compromiser, and everyone else as partisan. And, as I predicted earlier, he’s emphasizing the good things about the plan and not answering any the criticisms in any detail or substance. If you believe he’s an honest broker and telling the truth, it sounds great—who wouldn’t be for affordable and better health care for all? He’s banking on the fact that many people still want to like him and are disposed to believe him, as well as the economic ignorance of most Americans.

Also, from Dan Collins, "Obama’s Health Care Speech, Condensed":

People who say bad things about my health care plan are liars and dreadful human beings. There needs to be more civility in this discussion. Bush caused 9-11. People who say bad things about my health care plan are trying to scare people, and everybody’s going to die if we don’t get this thing passed now.

Added: Gateway Pundit, "Congressman Yells "Liar" as Obama Spews Talking Points to Congress (Video)."

Jason Sudeikis Should Do Charles Boustany on Saturday Night!

I was rolling on the floor a couple of weeks ago during a rerun of Saturday Night's 2008 vice presidential debate. Scroll forward at the video to see Jason Sudeikis' Joe Biden explain that he's not a Washington insider because he comes from Scranton, PA, "the absolute worst place on earth ..."

So just now, when the cameras went live for the GOP response to President Obama's ObamaCare address, I seriously thought it was a skit. But just for a minute! Honesly, no offense, but I'd never even heard of Rep. Charles Boustany before - but the dude should be on Saturday Night! Or at least, let's get a great comedic send-up of his response tonight. Seriously, watching Jason Sudeikis - my pick for Rep. Boustany - will be at least as funny as Kathleen Sebelius' response to President Bush's State of the Union Address in 2008! As the New York Times points out:

Representative Charles Boustany of Louisiana, a surgeon, has delivered a brief Republican response. He has the same problem typical of those who deliver such responses (and not, in his case, just relative anonymity) — he is standing by himself somewhere, without the animation that comes from interacting with a live audience ...

Leftists Love One-Party Authoritarianism

There's a lot of commentary today on Thomas Friedman's essay, "Our One-Party Democracy." Check all the buzz here. A ticklishly good response to Friedman is Jonah Goldberg's, "Thomas Friedman is a Liberal Fascist":

I cannot begin to tell you how this is exactly the argument that was made by American fans of Mussolini in the 1920s. It is exactly the argument that was made in defense of Stalin and Lenin before him (it's the argument that idiotic, dictator-envying leftists make in defense of Castro and Chavez today). It was the argument made by George Bernard Shaw who yearned for a strong progressive autocracy under a Mussolini, a Hitler or a Stalin (he wasn't picky in this regard). This is the argument for an "economic dictatorship" pushed by Stuart Chase and the New Dealers. It's the dream of Herbert Croly and a great many of the Progressives.

The whole thing is at the link.

Actually, I found another angle on this over at Ordinary Gentlemen. It appears that the Ordinary Gents have turned over a lot of the front-page blogging to a new Ordinary Gentle-Lady, "Jamelle." I have no idea who she is, but reading her stuff confirms that Ordinary Gentleman has completed the transition to a hardline leftist blog after flirting with the idiotic "liberaltarian" scam for most of the year. At least with Jamelle, who joins the explicity neo-Stalinist Freddie, these Sullivan-myrmidons can quit their stupid game of ideological musical chairs. (And E.D. Kain is the worst. Dishonest, deceitful, the guy simply masks a deep-seated hatred of right and good in the most opaque amalgam of liberaltarian bull.)

Anyway, what gets me going about these creeps is Jamelle's fundamental affirmation of one-party authoritarianism, with a little twist in favor of regime change USA:

The only thing I’d add to Friedman’s analysis is ... that it is a little inaccurate to describe the Democratic Party as singular or unified in any ideological sense. In reality, or at least as far as congressional Democrats are concerned, the Democratic Party is more of a loose coalition between a broadly center-left party (based in the Northeast and the West Coast) and a broadly center-right party (based in the Rust Belt, and rural areas throughout the West, Midwest, and the South). For liberals, this isn’t particularly good. Under a functional legislative system, where majority rule was given deference, this wouldn’t pose too much of a problem; the center-left party could rely on the center-right party to help craft and pass broadly acceptable legislation (while the right-wing party languished in irrelevance). The way it stands however, the right-wing party has pretty significant veto power over nearly every piece of legislation, which effectively means that any given piece of progressive legislation has to go through two conservative filters.

To take it back to Friedman’s point though, the fact of our tri-party legislature acts as yet another obstacle to one-party governing, since there simply isn’t enough ideological cohesion and group loyalty within the Democratic Party to pass anything approaching ambitious legislation. The real solution, of course, is a complete restructuring of our legislature into something approaching a Westminster-style parliamentary system, with multiple member districts and executive branch drawn largely from the legislature. However, since that is also incredibly unlikely, we’ll probably have to look for other ways to make Congress more responsive to the majority party (like eliminating the filibuster, or revamping the committee system!).

For those in the know, the Westminster model is often referred as an "elective dictatorship." The prime minister is drawn from the majority in the Commons, and the party in power can fall on a vote of no confidence. There's really no incentive for MPs to pull down the government, however, since that means that they'll have to go before the voters in a new election. Sure, it's a long way from Westminster to an authoritarian one-party regime. But what's interesting in Jamelle's case is the outright hostility to American constitutionalism. A solid reading of James Madison or the Federalist Papers indicates that the structure of American political insitutions works to prevent tyranny. To do away with the presidential model is revolutionary AND authoritarian. No serious analyst makes such proposals. And this mention of abolishing the filibuster is more hostility to the protection of minority rights. Leftists just don't care about democratic safeguards - they're all about power, the more demonic the better. Jamelle's piece is a good indicator of just how whacked are the folks at Ordinary Gentleman. The rank attacks on conservatives we see over there, including Sarah Palin, reveal not only a total alienation from genuine heartland values, but a mean-spiritedness that's inherent to leftists politics.

These folks are awful people. Jamelle's commentary just confirms that Ordinary Gentlemen have become the same kind of liberal fascists that Jonah Goldberg sees in Tom Friedman.

Ann Coulter Joins September 11 Tea Party Rally!

Ann Coulter will speak at a Tea Party Express event in Connecticut this Friday, September 11. I wish I was going to be there!

Classic: 'Newshoggers' Applauds Death of Marines in Afghanistan - Evidence of 'New Quagmire'

This is just what you'd expect from one of most despicable antiwar blogs on the web. McClatchy reports that "4 U.S. Marines Die in Afghan Ambush." And then here comes the nihilist Newshoggers to applaud the event as evidence that the U.S. is bogged down in another "quagmire":

The lesson the war supporters have learned from all of this is that the Rules Of Engagement suck ....

For the few who still remember Vietnam this should sound very familiar. Once you got out of the major cities in Vietnam the war wasn't about communism VS western capitalism it was about occupation by foreign troops. They supported the Viet Cong because they saw them as freedom fighters.

The lesson should be that we are in another quagmire - fighting another war that can't be won without killing most of the population.

Readers may recall that Newshoggers backed "the resistance" in Iraq, and literally cheered al Qaeda's use of mentally-impaired female suicide bombers as a "brilliant" strategic adaptation against American forces.

See also, The Western Experience, "Heads Should Roll Over Four Marines’ Death."

Che Guevara and Van Jones on American Imperialism

Here's Che Guevara, the postumous pop-star of today's radical left, attacking U.S. imperialism in Latin American at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis:

Then, compare that rant to now-departed "green jobs czar" Van Jones' comments on American imperialism, "Obama 'Czar' on 9/11: Blame 'U.S. Imperialism'! White House 'Rowdy Communist' Held Vigil for Muslims."

And remember, Van Jones is just the tip of the Marxist-Leninist iceberg at the White House. See, "Van Jones—Just one of Many Obama-Marxists." And, "Obama as Leninoid."

Los Angeles Sinkhole Nearly Swallows Firetruck!

It's a front-page story at today's Los Angeles Times, "Second Ruptured Water Line in San Fernando Valley Raises Concerns." But aging infrastructure's not quite as dramatic as the near swallowing of a big firetruck. KABC-TV Los Angeles has the video:

The city's already spending $4 billion on infrastructure repairs to the area's underground pipe system, but soon enough we'll see some leftists use the incident in making the case for another Obama stimulus. Will Matthew Yglesias answer the call?

Glenn Beck: 'Don't Congratulate Me for Van Jones' Resignation'

From Glenn Beck's show yesterday, "Don't Congratulate Me for Van Jones' Resignation."

In case your only source of news is ABC, CBS, NBC and/or The New York Times or, as the White House was hoping, you were out doing things with your family this long weekend and didn't check the news (which was released after midnight Sunday so it wouldn't be in any papers) the green jobs "czar," special adviser to the president, Van Jones has resigned.

But here's The One Thing: My phone, e-mail and Twitter were hammered all weekend with people offering congratulations. First, let me say I'm not the one to congratulate. I can go on and on about this stuff, but if you don't care and it doesn't connect with the American people, what I say doesn't matter.

So let me start with the good news: You still have power and clout in Washington. In many cases, your representatives in Washington knew nothing about Van Jones. You were educating them and it wasn't until late last week that a few brave political people began to speak out.

But here's the bad news: When this came out and people started to say congratulations, my first response was: You still don't get it. This was a victory of sorts, but only for those playing political games. I'm not doing that and I don't think you are either.

You are trying to protect and defend the Constitution. President Obama was hoping that this would go away. One of the headlines from the Politico this weekend was: "Beck Up, Left Down."

You are trying to protect and defend the Constitution. President Obama was hoping that this would go away. One of the headlines from the Politico this weekend was: "Beck Up, Left Down."

I read the article a couple of times. Van Jones said this was a vicious smear campaign. Van Jones was able to resign, not be fired. And, during his resignation, he placed the blame on others, not himself.

What Van Jones doesn't understand is that I didn't bring down Van Jones; you didn't bring down Van Jones; Van Jones brought down Van Jones.

Is it a smear campaign to quote Van Jones' own words?

The Job Market for Political Scientists

From Inside Higher Ed, "Job Market Realities":

The job market for political scientists, like the markets for most academic fields, is a lot tighter this year than in the recent past. The American Political Science Association, which held its annual meeting here over the weekend, didn't release data on the job market, but everyone here agreed that things have gotten tight.

At a session for graduate directors, one woman talked about how she is trying to help not only those finishing up their dissertations find jobs, but those from last year who are working as adjuncts, with little by way of a living wage or job security. She said she found herself wondering when she should tell her students or graduates, if they can't find tenure-track jobs, that "this just isn't going to work out" and they should look for work elsewhere.

It was a sense that the job market just isn't what it used to be (and not only the scarcity of jobs) that led the political science association, for the first time at its annual meeting, to bring graduate directors together to hear from a panel and to trade ideas about the job market. The meeting was a mix of trend analysis, philosophical debate and tips for how to better prepare graduate students to find jobs in the field. In discussing tips, many times the political scientists found themselves recommending actions that might help on the job market, but that they weren't sure were ideal for graduate education.

Read the whole thing, at the link.

A lot of the discussion is not that different from the kind of talk I used to hear 10 years ago at UCSB. Landing a tenure-track post at that time was hard. Now things just sound worse. As always, there's a premium on publications, even during the third year of grad school. I remember, back then, UCLA's political science department requiring students to write for publication. These are "qualifying papers," designed as pre-publication research. Students can't advance to candidacy without them. The assumption is that students would't be competitive job candidates without published research, and it's more true than ever.

Inside Higher Ed also notes that departments are seeking candidates skilled at generating external grant funding. It makes sense, if college budgets are tight, why not higher young scholars who'll bring in money? There's an interesting discussion of the online "job rumor mills," which weren't around when I was on the market. I guess the problem of anonymous posters and the "hate factor" aren't exclusive to the political blogosphere.

Anyway, I'm just glad I found a job teaching when I did. I'm in my 10th year at LBCC and I have few regrets, although I think most folks secretly wish they were at Harvard holding forth. But life in academics being what it is (competitive mostly), I can't complain.

In any case, folks should read the discussion on the future of political science graduate training at Duck of Minerva. Peter Howard's is here, "Your Life's Work." Patrick Thaddeus Jackson's is here, "Jobs and Vocations."

As a professor who trains students seeking university transfer, I'll never advise a student to forego the dream of becoming a political scientist (and that's the sort of the conclusion you get from Peter's post). The main thing is not necessarily for folks to actually become a Harvard professor. The ideal is to have lived a life of ideas and engagement, to have made a profession out of studying politics. And that'll be all the better if one finds a spot at an institution of higher education, even at community college.

Obama's National Endowment of Indoctrination

The image is from Pat Dollard, "Obama’s Race War: “Wake Up, Conservatives”, Wake Up Americans." I can't tell you how perfectly the title of that post sums up how I see this administration. I had generally nice things to say about the president's address to students today. I like the message of personal responsiblity. It's just not authentic coming from this White House snake-oil salesman.

Now we have another devastating essay from Patrick Courrielche at Big Hollywood, "WHO SET UP GOVERNMENT ‘PROPAGANDA’ CONFERENCE CALL? Newly Revealed White House, NEA Audio Contradict." This part is killer:

Even more disturbing than learning that the White House and NEA are using the arts to address specific issues, is to learn what was discussed on this new conference call. Rosenbaum mentions that there was much talk of “leveraging federal dollars” to get artists and cultural organizations involved in social-service projects.

Leveraging federal dollars? This is the problem with marrying issue specific topics, like health care and energy, with a group that is funded by tax dollars; it increases the potential of taxpayer-funded propaganda.

Hmm. Propaganda. It's starting to become a theme.

And here's this from Jay Cost, "Obama To Give Historic Speech ... Again":

Another historic, monumental speech from the 44th President of the United States. He's averaging about one of these every three weeks now, isn't he?

To say that this President is overexposed is an understatement. He was overexposed six months ago when he let his kids appear on the cover of Jann Wenner's trashy supermarket celeb mag. I'm not sure what prefix to use, but "over-" does not sufficiently describe a President who is now doing 30-second spots for George Lopez's new late night show on TBS. Seriously.

I'm just glad the tea parties are having such a phenomenal effect, and that the historical abomination of Obama 44 is inceasingly looking like a one term deal. January 2013 can't come fast enough for this country; although, in consolation, I'm confident that Obama's inexperience and overreaching are sealing his rep as the worst president ever.

See also, Hot Air and Memeorandum.

President Obama's National Address to Students

Of the ten minutes I caught, I'm not thrilled by President Obama's exhortation to succeed for "the country" and to do new things, like volunteering. But other than that, he made a good speech with a powerful message of personal responsibility. I agree with Newt Gingrich that students should be encouraged to read it. There's a powerful utility in sharing those stories of hard work and perseverance, and I imagine with Obama the drill will go down better coming from a "brother," especially in disadvantaged communities.

Reading the text yesterday, Joanne Jacobs called it an excellent speech; and she addressed the concerns I noted above:

Should he tell students they have a duty to their country — not just to themselves — to become the problem solvers and innovators of the future? It’s not what I would call a radical idea. These are old-fashioned American values.

Yes, they are old-fashioned. But we can't take those ideas away from the personal context in which they are presented. Parents don't like this president pitching personal responsiblity to them because they don't like his agenda of radical change. It doesn't help when Obama's allies in the entertainment/media industry push authoritarian "pledge drives" or when the White House itself launches "snitch" campaigns to track dissenters. Previous presidents did not have that baggage. So the Obama speech to students can never be as effective as was true for President Reagan or President H.W. Bush. Obama's HopeAndChange agenda has created an unprecedented regime of conformity, and the administration's "goals for students" learning packet indeed takes on a disturbing "Obama Youth" aura amid the ugly school-age intolerance the president has engendered.

See also, Michelle Malkin, "Obama’s Sept. 8 Speech to Schoolchildren":

Will Obama be able to resist issuing a call to youth arms to marshal help in passing his legislative agenda?

The thing is: He won’t need to make the call explicit.

Obama zealot teachers like this one across the country will do all the extra-curricular bullying and haranguing for him.

See also, The Western Experience, "President Obama’s Back to School Speech."

Communists in the Mist: Van Jones and the Radical Left

Andrew McCarthy's got a really interesting piece at National Review, "The Death of the Soviet Union Was Not the Death of Communism."

It turns out that Charles Krauthammer, speaking of Van Jones during Thursday's Fox News All-Stars, suggested that:

I'm not even disturbed that this guy is a communist. It is not the first time we had a communist in the U.S. government. And anyway, with the death of communism, it is a kind of a pathetic intellectual anachronism to remain a communist.

Well, it's not that pathetic, at least not to all the young people enthralled with communist paraphernalia (Che chic comes to mind, but Obama-mania is Soviet-like in its cult of personality). These are the same young people who routinely demonstrate under the neo-Stalinist banner. I write about it all the time. I think that, actually, the further we're removed historically from the brutality of Soviet rule during the Cold War, combined with the popularization of a pseudo-hip antiwar-postmodernism, there's no real recoil against the idea of Marxist-Leninist ideologies. Folks even laugh when they hear the word "communism," since that's, well, ancient history for many. Now it's "progressive" to praise Castro's healthcare regime, and that's not just by idealistic college kids, but by members of Congress!

Anyway, McCarthy kindly takes exception to Krauthammer:

It should be apparent by now that Communism never died. The Soviet Union died. Being a Communist, or a neocommunist, is not an intellectual anachronism at all — it is quite the fashion in the academy and our other institutions. Does Charles not realize, for example, that Obama's friend Bill Ayers — who proudly calls himself "a small 'c' communist" — was in 2008 elected vice president for curriculum of the American Education Research Association, the nation's largest organization of education professors and researchers? (See Sol Stern's profile of Ayers and education, here). I'm not sure "pathetic" is the right word, but what is a perilous intellectual anachronism is the belief that the communist threat ended 18 years ago.

The Jones incident, moreover, does not indicate that "we had a communist in the U.S. government." To the contrary, as I argued last night, we have a U.S. government in which Van Jones was quite consciously selected because his views are representative of the president who made him the "green jobs czar." Van Jones isn't Alger Hiss. There's nothing covert about him. He didn't snooker Obama into bringing him aboard. He is who he is, and that's why Obama wanted him. Having a Communist in that job was perfect since the "green jobs" initiative is an important part of the hard Left's agenda to use environmentalism as an additional justification for usurping command of the economy.

In fact, the death of the Soviet Union has actually been a boon for neocommunists. Now, Obama and his fellow travelers like Jones, Ayers, Wright, Klonsky, and ACORN, can spout all the same totalitarian, anti-American, central-planning ideas the hard Left has always pushed, but in the abstract — under such mushy labels as "social justice" and "green jobs." That is, they are liberated from having to defend the Soviet Empire, which, until 1991, was a living, breathing, concrete example of how horrific these ideas are when put in practice.

McCarthy then quotes from David Horowitz's, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, one of the best books on radical ideologies in the post-9/11 era.

What's interesting to me is how our netroots "progressives" see Van Jones as a perfectly decent guy - I mean a really, really good guy! (That's what Baratunde Thurston argued last night at his excreble post, "When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?")

But here's Digby singing the praises:

Jones is a truly inspirational, exciting thinker and speaker and it looks like they are going to get his scalp and marginalize him ...

Yeah, inspirational in the "chicken-coming-home-to-roost" style.

Then there's "Hammering" Jane Hamsher's take:

I first met Van Jones when he was honored last year by the Campaign for America's Future at their gala dinner. He was being swarmed by all of the liberal institutional elite, who just could not be more full of praise for the impressive environmental leader and prison reform organizer. Everybody wanted Van Jones on their board. Everyone wanted him at their fundraisers. Everyone wanted a piece of his formidable limelight.

Yeah, formidable. "Hammering" Jane also had kind words to say of the Baratunde screed, "It's an incredible piece." She also likes Carl Pope's allegations of a high-tech lynching of Van Jones.

And recall the fawning over at Gawker, "here we have a radical youth turned respectable liberal ... And he's a great person to have in this administration—he is a genuine environmentalist and the only special interest he's beholden to is poor people ..."

See, he's just a "great guy." Except that, frankly, Jones isn't a "great guy." He's a mean, nasty guy, with a long history of anti-Americanism and hard-left-wing agitation. He is, thought, the real thing - a communist, and that fact has leftists slobbering all over him. That's what I mean when I say there are "no enemies on the left." By calling themselves "progressives," today's neo-communists seek respectability.

Mike at Cold Fury has more:

For far too long, Americans have tolerated encroachments on their liberty; expansions in the reach, size, and power of government; and the incremental abrogation of Constitutional restrictions on same because it was going on clandestinely, behind closed doors (below the radar might be a better way of putting it). It’s also why I said a while back that Obama’s ascension just might’ve been the best thing that ever could have happened to this country ....

To clean out a rats’ nest, you first have to be able to see the damned rats. Jones will slink off to another sub-surface “community organizer” type job, perhaps even on the federal payroll, and another just like him will take his place ... quietly, without much in the way of fanfare. It’s up to the rest of us to keep our eyes open for it — to stay awake, so the Democrat Socialist rats won’t find it so easy to steal what little remains of our freedom, and remake what’s left of our Constitutional republic.

And see Ron Radosh as well, "The Lessons of the Van Jones Resignation." (And more at Memeorandum.)

Obama Youth for BFF Barack!

It's the next best thing since flag@whitehouse.gov.

Check out, the Obama Youth League:

Tomorrow your BFF Barack will be speaking to all the school children in the land! He has asked me to speak to you tonight about what he wants you to do to prepare it ...

And remember: if you hear anybody saying bad or nasty things about Barack, please send me an e-mail with their names and addresses at: reportbadpeoplenow@gmail.com

And kids, don't forget to visit the White House blog, "Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama."

It's going to be great!

Hat Tip: Camp of the Saints.

(More comments at Memeorandum.)

New Lenox and Beyond! Tea Party Express Builds Major Momentum!

Here's an update to my earlier report, "Massive Turnout for New Lenox/Joliet Tea Party."

It turns out that Chicago's local media provided very favorable coverage of the event. See, NBC Chicago, "Tea Party Rally Draws Huge Crowd," and especially, WLS-TV Chicago, "Protest Bus Stops in New Lenox":

Here's another local post, "Tea Party Today in New Lenox, IL HUGE TURNOUT!'

And, in the mail from Tea Party Express:

Joe The Plumber (Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher) has confirmed with organizers of the Tea Party Express that he will speak at Tuesday's Tea Party Express rally in Brighton, Michigan.

Also, from CNN, "Tea Party Express Takes Aim at Lawmakers":

Organizers of the Tea Party Express bus tour arriving in Washington later this week planned their route to go though Democratic congressional districts they consider vulnerable.

"What we did was take a map of the United States and then we went head and pin pointed the members of congress that merited our attention and then we looked at those that might be politically vulnerable," said Joe Wierzbicki, a strategist with the conservative PAC Our Country Deserves Better, who are organizing the cross country Tea Party Express tour.

Topping the group's target list in the Senate is current Democrat, and former moderate Republican, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. The Tea Party Express makes four stops in Pennsylvania later this week.

"Arlen Specter has always been a top priority for us, because as long as you had a prominent Republican who was providing the Democrats the means to push through this massive expansion of government, that certainly made him a top priority," says Wierzbicki.

Other Democratic senators on the groups list include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Connecticut's Chris Dodd. The tour made five stops in Nevada, and plans three stops in Connecticut.

On the House side, first-term Michigan Democrats Mark Schauer and Gary Peters are on the group's target list. The tour plans four Michigan stops.

"We decided to do this tour across the country, mobilize the people in these communities, so that subsequent to this tour we can then go back and start prioritizing these targets for the express purpose of running ads and grassroots campaigns to defeat these members of Congress," said Wierzbicki.

The Our Country Deserves Better PAC says the Tea Party Express is not a partisan group.

And, Donald Lambro, "Tea Party Express Roars to D.C."

When the "tea party" movement kicked off in April to protest record federal spending bills, trillion-dollar deficits and higher tax burdens, its members were fiercely independent and opposed any suggestion that they bond with a larger umbrella group, preferring to work within their local communities.

But that go-it-alone approach is changing as a result of the war over health care, and the Tea Party Express tour is leading the way.

The Tea Party Express - a caravan of buses, speakers and entertainers who have been holding protest rallies in cities and towns across the country - is heading to Washington, where on Saturday, up to 50,000 demonstrators are expected to march on the Capitol in a full-scale political offensive to persuade lawmakers to reject the health care overhaul bills that are pending in the House and Senate.

"What we are seeing across the country is not only increasingly larger crowds but a greater determination to hold members of Congress to their opposition to the health care plan. They are angry and feel they've been ignored, and they don't like what Congress has done," Joe Wierzbicki, national coordinator of the Tea Party Express, said in a telephone interview as his 45-foot bus cruised through Texas last week on a 17-day, 34-rally tour that will end in Washington on Saturday.

A large force of conservative and libertarian organizations is helping sponsor the event, including Tea Party Patriots, ResistNet, the National Taxpayers Union, Young Americans for Liberty, the Ayn Rand Center, Heartland Institute, Free Republic, Institute for Liberty, the Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks officials said. FreedomWorks, headquartered in Washington and chaired by former Rep. Dick Armey mobilizes volunteers for conservative causes.

"The politicians in Washington who think this movement is 'astroturf' had better think again. This is the grass roots coming alive," said Dennis E. Whitfield, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union. "This is beginning to take root across the country. This is for real."

Finally, don't miss Robert Stacy McCain's post, "Are You Ready to (Tea) Party?"

As noted, I'll be at "912West: A Tea Party For The West Coast."

Boy, this is going to be big!

*********

UPDATE! More from Atlas Shrugs, "The American Insurgency: Tens of Thousands Protest Obama Across America - Tea Parties." And The Rhetorican, "Obamacare: Plan B."

Massive Turnout for New Lenox/Joliet Tea Party

Video courtesy of Illinois Review, "New Lenox Outranks All Tea Party Express Rallies Thus Far":

Also from Illinois Review, "Over 10,000 Overwhelm Will County Tea Party." Updates with photos are forthcoming.

And from the Tea Party Express home page:

Breaking news from New Lenox/Joliet… the sheriff’s office is reporting to us that the crowd estimate for the rally here is 10,000+ and they are shutting down a portion of Interstate 80 for traffic control do to the massive influx of people.

Somebody better get the message out to Bill Berkowitz (see his pathetic screed, "Pro Iraq War PAC's 'Tea Party Express' Sputters Along Attacking Health Care Reform").

**********

Also Blogging: Blue Crab Boulevard, "Real People, Real Problem":

This is in Obama’s home state.

It’s bigger than you realize, folks. It’s bigger than you feared.

Plus, Don Surber, "A Tea Party in Illinois Drew 10,000?" (via Memeorandum).

Obama Losing Support Among White Voters

From the Los Angeles Times, "Obama Is Fast Losing White Voters' Support":

After a summer of healthcare battles and sliding approval ratings for President Obama, the White House is facing a troubling new trend: The voters losing faith in the president are the ones he had worked hardest to attract.

New surveys show steep declines in Obama's approval ratings among whites -- including Democrats and independents -- who were crucial elements of the diverse coalition that helped elect the country's first black president.

Among white Democrats, Obama’s job approval rating has dropped 11 points since his 100-days mark in April, according to surveys by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It has dropped by 9 points among white independents and whites over 50, and by 12 points among white women -- all groups that will be targeted by both parties in next year's midterm elections.

"While Obama has a lock on African Americans, his support among white voters seems to be almost in a free fall," said veteran Republican pollster Neil Newhouse.

Strategists in both parties blame Obama's decline on growing discontent with his policy agenda, particularly after a month of often-rowdy debate over his proposed healthcare overhaul, in which some conservatives accused him of socialism. Obama's ratings seem likely to rise again if he wins passage of healthcare legislation this fall.

But the drop in support among whites also comes as some conservatives have stoked controversies that have the potential to further erode Obama's standing among centrists -- including some controversies that resulted from White House stumbles.

The rest of the article is here.

The piece reviews most of the latest flops at the White House, starting with the Van Jones debacle. The larger lesson is the realization among the main core of the voting electorate that this presidency is not only off the tracks, but that the destination was to Looneyville in the first place.

President Obama's speeches have by now become deadening displays of serious sameness. What was once uplifting exhortations of soaring rhetorical promise are now routine but crass appeals for the public to save the Democrats' hard left agenda. Fewer and fewer people remain enthralled by the promising rhetoric and are now making straighforward interest-based calculations on whether to give the president the benefit of the doubt.

The key is not so much what happens this week, when Obama gives his address to the nation. What's important is that the administration learn from its mistakes so far. Why Obama thinks he'll sway opinion on the public option is unclear. It's not like the conservatives are going to all of a sudden abandon the tea parties and the coordinated media and grassroots campaign of political opposition. Obama needs some kind of effective policy of triangulation. The hardline radicals at the base of the Democratic Party can whine all they want, but they've got nowhere else to go. Perhaps a few primary challenges will go their way, but the record of these so far is unspectacular. They'll be back in the Obama camp in due time. That leaves the broad middle of the electorate that the administration is now losing, and the hard right that's now driving the debate.

Conservative activists have already held a funeral for ObamaCare. And last month the administration began shifting the debate to "insurance reform" (and not "universal coverage"). Perhaps some additional talking points on liberating markets might go a long way in restoring receptivity for the message. Giving up altogether would be a disaster for the Democrats, although Obama's new talk of entitlement reform could be a signal that he's ready to move on from the healtcare albatross.

Either way, conservatives have scored huge victories. We'll see in 2010 not just a midterm repudiation of the Democrats, but perhaps an electoral earthquake on the scale of 1994.

Cross-posted from American Power.

Cartoon Credit: William Warren at Americans for Limited Government.

Glenn Beck's Statement on Van Jones' Resignation

From Glenn Beck:

The American people stood up and demanded answers. Instead of providing them, the Administration had Jones resign under cover of darkness. I continue to be amazed by the power of everyday Americans to initiate change in our government through honest questioning, and judging by the other radicals in the administration, I expect that questioning to continue for the foreseeable future.

I'm heartened by Beck's use of the term "everyday Americans." That's the same descriptor I used earlier in my post, "Leftist Disbelief at Revolt of the Everyman: 'White House Dealing With Political Terrorists'."

Beck's creds are skyrocketing, by the way. Politico's got a new piece out, "Glenn Beck Up, Left Down and Van Jones Defiant." The article's mostly a summary of the news that's been circling around today, but I love this passage:

"If Jones left under pressure from the Obama administration then we are in for a very long and painful four years,” said Melissa Harris Lacewell, a political science professor at Princeton University. “I would hate to think that Glenn Beck can simply shout down any member of the administration he chooses to target.”

Actuallly, Professor Lacewell shouldn't "hate to think" any such thing - that is, not if she's an advocate for a vigorous press as presidential watchdog. Glenn Beck has been doing for weeks what the mainstream press should have been doing all along: Shining a spotlight on the administration's staffers, their policies, and the history (and as we can see, Beck's not taking a breather just yet). Glenn Reynold's has more on the Politico's piece, here.

Another important resource has been World Net Daily, an outlet that's getting less kudos than it should for its role in bringing down Jones. Joseph Farah has a piece up right now that's worth a look, "WND Brings Down the 'Red Czar'." As Farah notes, "While talk radio and cable television picked up WND's reporting and increased the pressure on the administration to cut Jones loose, there was no significant coverage of the scandal by the major U.S. news media until last week!"

That's an extremely important fact, and it's a point that's only going to become more significant as the traditional "objective press" goes the way of the dinasaur.

Leftist Disbelief at Revolt of the Everyman: 'White House Dealing With Political Terrorists'

The forced resignation of White House Marxist Van Jones has triggered one of the most vicious left-wing reactions I've seen since Barack Obama took office. Everywhere we look, commentators are attacking concerned Americans and rightroots bloggers as "neoconservative ... crazies: Birthers, Death Panel Pushers, and their ilk" (or some close variation).

David Weigel's piece at the Washington Independent is sympathetic to these arguments. He argues that the right's defeat of Jones represents "a crucial and possibly educational victory for the wing of the conservative and libertarian movement that has tried, without much success, to paint environmental activists like Jones as anti-capitalist radicals less interested in the health of the planet than in a well-disguised radical agenda."

Weigel makes it sound as if defeating Jones was a monumental challenge; and it would have been without the work of Glenn Beck, Jim Hoft and a number of others who have hammered away at Obama's Marxist green-jobs czar. (The mainstream press just won't report on a Marxist-Truther adviser to the president who attacks Republicans as assholes. Nope, that's just not news. The real enemies are the conservatives.)

But few episodes in recent months are roiling the left as much as Jones' ouster. A really interesting piece is at Jack & Jill Politics, "When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?" The author, Baratunde Thurston, suggests that he's been away from politics for personal and professional reasons, and in returning to the polarizing debates he sees a country that's "clearly lost its damn mind":

I turned on one cable station to hear people demanding President Obama prove he’s an American citizen, an insane movement led by an Israeli citizen. I switched channels to see another group screeching in fear that Obama’s health care proposal would institute death panels to kill grandma. On yet another station, Glenn Beck accuses this president of having a deep-seated hatred for half of himself. Flip again to find parents removing their children from school because they don’t want their kids exposed to Obama’s socialist indoctrination. And yesterday, Green Jobs Czar Van Jones resigned after extreme pressure from right wing groups and extreme tepidness from the White House that hired him to do his very important work.

Thurston continues:

Too often, this White House has sent the signal that it seeks common ground and conciliation with parties interested in its total destruction. From my point of view, negotiating with ignorance, fear, hate and irrationality is insane. For example, when a major Republican figure in the health care negotiations spreads the death panel lie (Grassley), you see him for what he is, realize you’re dealing with a group of psychopaths, and reset the objectives. “Oh, so that’s how it’s gonna be? Cool. Good to know what we’re dealing with. Thanks for your time. We won’t be needing your services anymore. We’re taking our ball and playing somewhere else.” Negotiations require trust and trust assumes that all parties are not completely batshit crazy.

I realize I’m lumping a variety of “opposition” camps together: birthers, deathers, those who accuse the president of racism and those who accuse him of socialism. I’m grouping them because to me they all come from the same place. They’re engaging in a form of terrorism. They are using psychological violence (and occasionally the threat of real violence) to pursue a political objective, and in so doing, inflicting harm upon non-combatants.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the movies, it’s that “The United States of America does not negotiate with terrorists.” Yet this White House is willing to let these psychological terrorists set the terms of the debate and negotiate from their insane positions. One group of people is trying to talk about co-pays. The other thinks the president is a secret Kenyan. One group of people sees the creation of domestic, sustainable jobs as a cornerstone of the 21st century economy. The other thinks the president is going to murder your grandmother. This is not legitimate political discourse and to make decisions acknowledging terms so far apart in their reality is just plain stupid.

Right.

It's been said many times now, but leftists really don't like freewheeling democratic debate. When they lose control of the message, when their program of "hope and change" is revealed for the radical counterculturalism that it is, they attack and smear their opponents as political terrorists.

Just the thought of that meme is pretty disgusting. It hasn't even been ten years since 9/11 and the true meaning of Islamic jihad's bloodthirsty fanaticism has now been obscured and forgotten. Now it's regular people, taking to the streets to express anger at our tin-eared president, who're branded as "enemy combatants." (One more reason folks are getting pissed at the Democrats in power.)

Thurston goes on to argue that Van Jones was one of the good guys. "A really, really good guy." According to Thurston, Jones used his education and "passion" to combat police brutality and "wasteful incarceration." Jones fought to build communities of "hope" in response to "climate crisis." Jones had a vision for action, etc. He was a savior in the Hope-and-Change mold. Yet, the administration failed him:

This White House, this administration and this president failed Van, failed its supporters and failed to honor the efforts of millions that got them into office in the first place. What’s the point of having power if you don’t use it? When will this White House realize that nothing it does will ever be acceptable to the loud-mouthed, ignorant minority? When will it learn that you cannot negotiate with terrorists??

You know, we see this kind of talk time and time again from folks on the contemporary left. There is a strain of disbelief that turns to anger when Democratic-leftists are confronted by the fact that Middle America is rejecting their agenda. It's been building for some time. And it's ugly. When the tea parties started building steam folks like Janeane Garofalo attacked concerned citizens as racist "teabaggers." For months the left-wing blogs and their media enablers have been slurring the grassroots protests as "Astroturfed." And this meme continues to hold sway among the radicals despite overwhelming documentation that the truly staged demonstrations are those sponsored by Organizing for America and its SEIU thugs and AARP frontrow seatwarmers.

And as we've seen this week, the GOP's rank-and-file are being attacked as unhinged "crazies" mounting a political program known as "Operation Monkeyshit."

So, with Van Jones' downfall the left is alleging that conservatives are "political terrorists."

What is clearly missing among folks like Baratunde and the mainstream press is the uncomfortable truth that Van Jones is in fact not a nice guy. He was self-described revolutionary communist up until a few years ago; he signed on to the 9/11 Truth movement by his own volition; he's attacked American foreign policy as "imperialist" and the utlimate source of global human rights opppression; he's slurred Republicans as "assholes"; he's was arrested in 1992 as a violent agitator during the Los Angeles riots; he's alleged that "white polluters" have destroyed inner-city communities; and he produced a violent anti-Iraq-war CD compilation album narrated by Mumia Abu Jamal, the infamous Black Panther thug who was convicted in 1981 for murdering a Philadelphia police officer.

Babalú blog has posted the video of Jones arguing that "only 'suburban white kids' shoot up schools" (referring to the Columbine Massacre); and the post concludes with this:

But the Dems still love this guy and shame on us they say for criticizing this Man, who also happens to be on Times top 100 with the Jonas Brothers, ....

So do you think that the MSM has reported all of this? Try ... NOPE! Oh, and don't expect to hear anything about this guy on the leftist blogs either....

What sickens me is that these liberal pudwackers have the nerve to criticize Beck, yet this wanker gets a pass. Oy vay!

Yeah, I'll say.