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.

'Hammering' Jane Hamsher Takes It to the White House-K-Street Neoliberal Lobbying Complex!

"Hammmering" Jane Hamsher takes it to the "neoliberal" D.C.-Democratic establishment with her over-the-top post, "Van Jones: A Moment of Truth For Liberal Institutions in the Veal Pen:

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.

Now he's been thrown under the bus by the White House for signing his name to a petition expressing something that 35% of all Democrats believed as of 2007 -- that George Bush knew in advance about the attacks of 9/11. Well, that and calling Republicans "assholes." I'm pretty sure that if you search through the histories of every single liberal leader at the CAF dinner that night, they have publicly said that and worse.

So where are all the statements defending Van Jones by those who were willing to exploit him when it served their purpose? Why aren't they standing up and defending one of their own, who has done nothing that probably the majority of people in the Democratic party haven't done at one time or another? Is he no longer "one of their own?"

Someone asked me over the weekend to be more explicit about what the term "veal pen" means:

The veal crate is a wooden restraining device that is the veal calf's permanent home. It is so small (22" x 54") that the calves cannot turn around or even lie down and stretch and is the ultimate in high-profit, confinement animal agriculture.(1) Designed to prevent movement (exercise), the crate does its job of atrophying the calves' muscles, thus producing tender "gourmet" veal.

[]

About 14 weeks after their birth, the calves are slaughtered. The quality of this "food," laden with chemicals, lacking in fiber and other nutrients, diseased and processed, is another matter. The real issue is the calves' experience. During their brief lives, they never see the sun or touch the Earth. They never see or taste the grass. Their anemic bodies crave proper sustenance. Their muscles ache for freedom and exercise. They long for maternal care. They are kept in darkness except to be fed two to three times a day for 20 minutes.

The rest is a long screed basically whining about how the progressive left is getting f**ked by the Beltway Democratic power set. But check out the vile discourse she spouts at the post:

The truth is -- they've all been sucked into insulating the White House from liberal critique, and protecting the administration's ability to carry out a neoliberal agenda that does not serve the interests of their members. They spend their time calculating how to do the absolute minimum to retain their progressive street cred and still walk the line of never criticizing the White House.

Liberals are told that the public option is an acceptable sacrifice such that we don't repeat the 54 seat swing to the GOP after health care failed in 1994. The President told Progressive members of Congress that they should think about the poor Blue Dogs (who by happy coincidence are sucking up all the health care lobbying dollars) who might face tough elections in 2010.

Well, now that you bring it up, let's talk about 1994. The election came on the heels of NAFTA, which demoralized the liberal base and depressed turnout. Even as the GOP works hard to rile up their teabaggers base and push turnout numbers up for the 2010 midterm, Democrats are watching the public option die and seeing Van Jones thrown into the meat grinder so Blue Cross and the Blue Dogs can get a room. Telling progressives to go Cheney themselves to save the Blue Dogs could have horrendous consequences on downticket races across the country.

Dan Riehl is getting a kick out of this, noting, "Gee, that doesn't sound like the hope and change you voted for to me."

I just want to remind folks that "Hammering" Jane is fully representative of the hardest of today's hardline netroots base. These are the "progressives" who are pissed at Obama on issues from Afghanistan to the public option. Just one look at Hamsher's rage, combined with her solidarity for "Bay Area Marxist/Truther/Mumia-supporting race hustler-turned-environmental justice guru Van Jones," gives you a pretty good idea of exactly what's at stake in the contemporary politics of polarization in America today.

Keith Olbermann's Anti-Glenn Beck Jihad!

A lot of folks are picking up on this story. From Dan Riehl, "No Ratings Pantywaist Perv Targets Glenn Beck." And AOSHQ, "Olby to the Kos Kids: Send Me Every Rumor or Slander You Have on Glenn Beck":

"We'll show those McCarthyites what real McCarthyism is."

A big overview at Newsbusters, "Olbermann to Daily Kos Audience: 'Send Me Everything You Can Find About Glenn Beck'":

Guess who's not pleased about Van Jones middle-of-the-night-on-a-holiday-weekend resignation? Perhaps you never would have seen this one coming, but no other MSNBC "Countdown" host and provocateur Keith Olbermann himself.

Bitter and seeing red? Perhaps. In a post on the Daily Kos dated Sept. 6, Olbermann urged the half-crazed liberal Kos readers to go digging for dirt on Fox News host Glenn Beck, Beck's radio producer Stu Burguiere and Fox News president Roger Ailes. (h/t Morgen of Verum Serum) ...

Olbermann said he plans to put forth his formal plans to go after Beck on his Sept. 8 show.

"Tuesday we will expand this to the television audience and have a dedicated email address to accept leads, tips, contacts, on Beck, his radio producer Burguiere, and the chief of his tv enablers, Ailes (even though Ailes' power was desperately undercut when he failed to pull off his phony ‘truce' push)," Olbermann wrote.

Here's a preview of things to come, "

But check out Ace:

The irony here is that Van Jones was drummed from his office because it is unacceptable in American politics to be a Truther. It is considered too embarrassing and too nutty and ruins one's political credibility.

And where does Olby go to seek his vengeance?

To the Daily Kos, which put up an announcement that no Truther statements or comments or petitions were permitted on the site, and would be deleted immediately, because Trutherism was too embarrassing and too nutty for the site's political credibility.

So, you know, Van Jones got pushed out of office by the same "McCarthyite tactics" that Kos employs to keep his site free of Trutherism.

What is creeping fascism when applied to a high government official is not, apparently, fascism, creeping or otherwise, when used against a common citizen of no public importance posting on a stupid blog.

Olbermann's piece is here, "Send Me Everything You Can Find About Glenn Beck." More at Memeorandum.

Unbelievable! Thomas Friedman on Meet the Press: 'The Internet is An Open Sore'

I think this is why Americans hate politics:

Or at least this is why we hate the freaking elite Oba-media establishment and teh stupid.

As Jim Hoft notes:

The New York Times will publish their first print report on the Van Jones scandal tomorrow morning ... more than 36 hours after the communist left the White House.

And from my inbox, Kathy Shaidle: "Gateway should get a Pulitzer."

Unreal: Howard Dean Praises Van Jones, Says Resignation a 'Loss For The Country'

From Fox News, "Dean: Jones' Resignation a 'Loss for the Country'":

Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday that the resignation of White House green jobs adviser Van Jones is a "loss for the country."

The outspoken Democrat and former presidential candidate vigorously defended Jones, who resigned in the wake of criticism over his past statements and associations -- including his past support for a group that believes the Bush administration may have been involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think he was brought down," Dean told "FOX News Sunday," saying he just spoke to Jones. "I think it's a loss for the country."

Dean pointed to Jones' credentials as a Yale Law School graduate and best-selling author.

Though Jones signed a 2004 statement calling for an investigation into possible Bush administration involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks, Dean said Jones didn't realize what he was signing at the time.

"I don't think he really thinks the government had anything to do with causing 9/11," he said.

But 911Truth.org spokesman Mike Berger, whose group sponsored the statement, earlier told FOX News that Jones knew what he was signing.

Republicans swiftly called for Jones' resignation following the discovery that he signed the petition.

It's seriously beyond words that Howard Dean would praise this crackpot Van Jones. But that's the kind of pushback we're now seeing on the left. See my post on this, "Van Jones Down: Saving America One Communist at a Time."

Related: Hot Air, "An End to Fringe Mainstreaming?" More at Memeorandum.

'FOX News Sunday': Gateway Pundit Beats MSM on Van Jones Scandal

As I noted last night, "it's mostly been Glenn Beck on Fox News, and a number of top bloggers, especially Gateway Pundit," who did the heavy lifting in bringing down White House Marxist Van Jones.

It turns out the Bill Kristol made the point on this morning's Fox News Sunday:

Congratulations to Jim Hoft.

The Gateway Pundit story is here, "FOX News All Star Bill Kristol on Van Jones: Jim Hoft in St. Louis Who Runs Gateway Pundit Blog Did More Reporting On This Than Entire MSM (Video)."

Van Jones Down: Saving America One Communist at a Time

Leftists are shocked at the resignation of Van Jones, and they're lashing out at the "smear" campaign against "a genuine environmentalist."

Here's Alan Colmes' post, "Van Jones Resigns; Who Will They Go After Next?" (via Memeorandum). And at Huffington Post, "Glenn Beck Gets First Scalp: Van Jones Resigns." And from Gawker's piece, "The Resignation Of Van Jones: An Obama Political Achilles Heel, Exposed":

Apparently, all that needs to happen to provoke a White House Administration official's resignation is: a bunch of blowhards and crazies find something someone once said that was once extreme.

But Michelle Malkin nails it at her post:

The story is not just about Jones.

The story is about Adolfo Carrion, Carol Browner, Vivek Kundra, Nancy DeParle, John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, Obama’s education comrades, and the culture of circumvention and corruption that plagues this White House.

The story is the czar explosion, purposeful undermining of congressional oversight, Valerie Jarrett’s promotion of a two-bit Jeremiah Wright in eco-guru’s clothing, and the public vetting of unaccountable Obama appointees that Washington won’t do.

They don’t get it. They’re in the tank. Behind the curve. And slouching towards irrelevance.

The pressure is closing in. Here's this from Astute Bloggers:

I think we've just begun to fight.

I think we can win.

I think we can save America and the free world from Obama and his abominable left-wing agenda.

Image Credit: ReliaPundit.

**********

UPDATE: Carolyn Tackett links! See, "Jones May Be Out But What About The Rest?"

Obama's 'Change' Agenda At a Crossroads

I put "change" in quotation marks above (if you're reading Michelle Malkin's book, you'll know why).

From the Washington Post, "The Change Agenda At a Crossroads: From Health Care to Wars to Public Anxiety, Obama's Strength as a Leader Is Tested":

As President Obama's senior advisers gathered at Blair House at the end of July for a two-day review of their first six months in office, what was meant to be a breath-catching moment of reflection was colored by a sense of unease.

To a sleep-deprived White House staff, the achievements since taking office that chilly morning of Jan. 20 seemed self-evident. The agenda of necessity they had carried out to stabilize the economy was rapidly making room for Obama's agenda of choice: changing the way Americans receive health care, generate and consume energy, and learn in public school classrooms.

But opinion polls showed support for the president and his policies dipping sharply, and the disheartening numbers had shaken the confidence of some of Obama's staff. Vice President Biden addressed the anxiousness when the Cabinet and senior staff met in the State Dining Room in the White House residence the next morning.

"Did you really think this was going to be easy?" Biden said, according to one participant.

The slide has only quickened. Emerging from an angry August recess, Obama is weakened politically and faces growing concerns, particularly from within his own party, over his strength as a leader. Dozens of interviews this summer in six states -- from Maine to California -- have revealed a growing angst and disappointment over the administration's present course.

Democratic officials and foot soldiers, who have experienced the volatile public mood firsthand, are asking Obama to take a more assertive approach this fall. His senior advisers say he will, beginning with his Wednesday address to Congress on health care.

His challenge, however, is more fundamental. Obama built his successful candidacy and presidency around a leadership style that seeks consensus. But he is entering a period when consensus may not be possible on the issues most important to his administration and party. Whatever approach he takes is likely to upset some of his most ardent supporters, many of whom are unwilling to compromise at a time when Democrats control the White House and Congress.

"Until last week, he was still trying to play ball with the Republicans who said, 'We're going to bring you down,' " said Karen Davis, 42, a musician from Jersey City who raised funds for Obama last year. "Now I'm thinking, 'This isn't what I voted for.' "

More at the link.

Also, Peggy Noonan offers a pretty good explanation for Obama's rapid decline at WSJ, "The Obama administration is young and out of touch."

With the Jones resignation, it's going to be a feeding frenzy on the right. Who'll be next? And for the pissed off take on this on the left, see Gawker, "Who Is Van Jones?":

So here we have a radical youth turned respectable liberal. Respectable enough to be on Time magazine listicles and win World Economic Forum prizes and everything. Respectable enough for Tom Friedman to profile him. And The New Yorker. Respectable enough for Meg Whitman, as in former eBay CEO and wealthy Republican California gubernatorial candidate and John McCain advisor Meg Whitman, to proclaim herself "a huge fan of Van Jones."

And for both his activism and his charm he was rewarded with a White House job with the Council on Environmental Quality. He was tasked with making sure stimulus money for green jobs actually went to green jobs. 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. He is the sort of person we were all praying Obama would bring with him to DC, instead of Larry Summers.

And that is one of the reasons he is now being ritually and savagely demonized.
To understand why and how he's being demonized, we have to look at the way information and misinformation makes it way from crazy blogs to crazy pundits to crazy citizens to, suddenly, the non-crazy regular media.

The "why" is simple: he is a genuine left-wing liberal with a White House job. He is black. He used to be radical, and probably still has radical sympathies (you know, caring about poor black people and all that). He is, in other words, fucking terrifying, if you frame his story right.

Yeah. Just the kinda guy we all want in the White House. Right.

Van Jones, Obama's Controversial Adviser, Resigns as Green Jobs Commissar

I learned of this story virtually simultaneously from The Rhetorican and Memorandum.

From the Wall Street Journal, "Obama Adviser Resigns Amid Controversy":

An adviser to President Barack Obama resigned amid controversy over past inflammatory statements, the White House said early Sunday.

Van Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly "green jobs," has been linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the Sept. 11 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

Mr. Jones issued an apology on Thursday. When asked the next day whether Mr. Obama still had confidence in him, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said only that Mr. Jones "continues to work in the administration."

But take a note of the title at NBC Washington, "Obama Aide Van Jones Resigns After GOP Attacks":

President Obama's environmental adviser Van Jones resigned from his post late Saturday evening after he came under fire for a series of inflammatory statements he made about Republicans, the White House said early Sunday morning.

Jones' "asshole" rebuke really is the least of it, in my opinion. It's been the constant flow of information about Jones' hardline radicalism and extremist associations that rightly did him in; and it's not primarily the "GOP" that forced the resignation. Actually, it's mostly been Glenn Beck on Fox News, and a number of top bloggers especially Gateway Pundit, but also a number of the big right-wing websites.

Indeed, Gateway Pundit, also commenting on the NBC title, says, "Let the biased headlines begin - NBC says its the GOP's fault!"

The New York Times is content to play it down the middle, "White House Adviser on ‘Green Jobs’ Resigns" (via Memeorandum):

In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration’s conservative critics, Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs “czar” on Saturday.

The key is "conservative critics." This really is an amazing victory for right-wing bloggers and media pundits. There's been a few prominent Republicans calling for hearings or for Jones' resignation, but it's the grassroots that deserves the lion's share of credit.

Reconciliation and Resolve in Afghanistan

A number of polls have shown declining support for the American military mission to Afghanistan. CBS News recently reported that "Four in 10 now say they want U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan decreased ..." And CNN survey last week reported that "Fifty-seven percent of Americans ... say they oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan, with 42 percent supporting the military mission."

As is always the case in ongoing military conflicts, the key item is the percentage who favor an immediate troop withrawal. And there's little support for that. As Rasmussen reported yesterday, just 20 percent support an immediate pullout, and "Fifty-two percent (52%) see no need for a withdrawal or a timetable right now." Still, there's indeed been a downward drift in public support, and the hard lefties are pushing the meme that the Obama administration's at odds with public opinion and it's time to end the deployment (see here, here, and here).

Derrick Crowe, at Firedoglake goes so far as to say, "We Know Failure When We See It." He's arguing specifically that "counterinsurgency" in Afghanistan has collapsed:

In other words, the U.S. counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan has been a total failure.

Reports indicate General McChrystal will soon ask for 20,000 more troops for this debacle. The President and Congress should say no and end our military involvement in Afghanistan as quickly as possible.

Check the link. Crowe's basic case is that the U.S. has failed to gain the support of the ethnic Pashtuns, and continued efforts to that effect are doomed to failure.

But Crowe is blinded by his classic leftist antiwar hatred, and his analysis can't be taken seriously. The fact is, of course, that counterinsurgency is a key element of the larger strategic context of U.S. policy in the region. According to Fotini Christia and Michael Semple, "Flipping the Taliban: How to Win in Afghanistan":

The core rationale for the current NATO mission in Afghanistan is to ensure that the Afghan authorities can prevent the Taliban's al Qaeda allies from exploiting Afghanistan as a base for terrorist operations. If they want to extricate themselves from the insurgency and become part of Afghanistan's new deal, Taliban commanders will have to demonstrate that they have broken with al Qaeda.

Also, Spencer Ackerman recently questioned the strategic rationale for sending additional troops, "Wait, We Need How Many More Troops For Afghanistan?" He argues there's no "consensus" on the need for additional forces.

Yet, according to Christia and Semple:

Of all the shortcomings of the Afghan government and its NATO allies, it is the failure to provide security for ordinary Afghans that has most prevented large-scale reconciliation in the country. The Taliban have worked diligently to make the costs of reconciliation prohibitively high. "It is amazing to see how sensitive and scared everyone in Kandahar is to talk about the Taliban and the government reconciling," an Afghan scholar researching the reconciliation conundrum told us in April. "There is no [government] strategy in place to defy antipeace and antireconciliation attempts." Indeed, so far, the weakness of the Karzai administration and the steady spread of insecurity across the country's Pashtun areas, in the east and the south, have boosted the position of those insurgents who favor continuing the conflict.

In order for reconciliation to work, ordinary Afghans will have to feel secure. The situation on the ground will need to be stabilized, and the Taliban must be reminded that they have no prospect of winning their current military campaign. If the Afghan government offers reconciliation as its carrot, it must also present force as its stick -- hence, the importance of sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but also, in the long term, the importance of building up Afghanistan's own security forces. Reconciliation needs to be viewed as part of a larger military-political strategy to defeat the insurgency, like the one Washington has pursued recently in Iraq: win over the insurgents who are willing to reconcile, and kill or capture those who are not.

The reference to Iraq is significant. When the U.S. lost control of Iraq's security the radical left's nilihist contigents smelled victory for "the resistance." Fortunately, the administration made strategic adjustments, and under the Petraeus surge we turned things around. As military security improved, so did public support. According to a Wall Street Journal survey on the Iraq war earlier this year, "the public is mostly satisfied with the results, with 53% saying the war has been successful, up from 43% in July 2008."

Success matters. As the U.S. beefs up its contingents in Afghanistan, and as it continues its work in "flipping the Taliban," public opinion will hold steady. The worst outcome will be for the Obama administration to cave to the antiwar defeatists and order a downturn in U.S. engagement. Should that happen, international security will deteriorate, and President Obama will become known as the first U.S. president to lose a war in the post-9/11 era.

**********

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Audio: 911 Emergency Call - MoveOn Finger Biter Case

The MoveOn finger-biter remains at large this weekend. Meanwhile, the Ventura County Star has the audio tape of the 911 call to the Ventura County Sheriff on Wednesday night. Also, here's the report from KABC-TV Los Angeles, "Search Is On For Suspected Finger Biter":

Realities of War? An Update

As I noted at my post on Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, "Realities of War?":

This is obviously touchy. My own view is that the public gets inadequate coverage of our wars, and certainly press blackouts raise questions of government suppression of speech.

I also noted that Bernard's father requested that AP not publish the photograph of his son's last moments. Also, photographer Julie Jacobson violated the embed's contract she signed not to publish images of wartime casualties without consent of the parties.

The response has been tremendously emotional, with good reason. I cited at my post the comments from the soldier at Afghan Quest, who called "bullshit" on the whole thing.

But there's another side on the question of publishing battlefield images, and Jules Crittenden really captures the essential compromise position in his post, "Professional Issues." Jules notes how Jacobson, the photographer, was accepted into the harsh environment by the Marines on the ground. They gave her the benefit of the doubt for enduring the same hardships, and ultimately accepted her as one of their own. Jules is clear to note that Jacobson violated ethics to forward the photos of Bernard to AP's headquarters. But check this out:

It’s a tough issue. Remember those shots of people falling from the Twin Towers? I know a photog who was there and didn’t shoot the jumpers, thought it was in bad taste. Too bad. Wrong call. You always shoot. Whether you publish or not is another matter. But the images other photogs shot of people falling were some of the most evocative photos, gut-punch photos that drove home exactly what was done to those people. The utter loneliness and resignation and finality of the act of falling when the alternative is burning. The image is etched in my brain. I’ve never forgotten it, any more than the deaths I have witnessed firsthand, that etched live images. It reminds me what this is about.

My professional feeling is, violent death happens and people should know about it. I don’t mind sticking it in people’s faces, and agree with some of Jacobson’s points on compelling people to acknowledge what is happening in their name and on their behalf. The United States government has struggled with this issue for a long time, initially banning photos of the dead in World War II, and then, for purposes of shocking the homefront, allowing publication of non-identifiable photos of the dead. Some of those photos, of GIs half buried in the sand at the waterline in the Pacific, are instantly recognized images that convey as best can be conveyed remotely the horror of an amphibious assault, a similar sense of loss, and the loneliness and finality of death much as the 9/11 jumper shots did, and a jarring sense what a generation of young men faced for us. Ernie Pyle described the dead intimately and poignantly in Normandy and Italy. Matthew Brady and others photographed them in their most vulnerable state, horrific states of decomposition that are at the same time heartwrenching and evocative, at Gettysburg, Antietam and other scenes of unimagineable carnage.

All that said, I entirely understand the reaction of families and grunts who don’t want their dead photographed.

There's more at the link, but that pretty much captures the balance of compromise that's been missing from a lot of the debate.

One of the more hysterical responses was Cassandra's at Villainous Company. As noted, AP explicitly violated the family's requests for non-publication, etc. But where Cassandra goes off the handle is in extrapolating the Marine's photo with situations away from the battlefield:

So if we buy into the notion that we need to see the results of violent episodes to truly understand their consequences, does this mean the media will now begin showing graphic footage of rape victims who have been beaten or tortured or cut to shreds by their attackers?

Rape - and the tolerance of it - has a cost, both to the victim and to society. How can we fully understand the tragic cost of rape unless we are allowed to view their injuries and vicariously understand their pain? According to the press, we can't.

Child abuse has a cost. Therefore, if a child is sexually abused or beaten, we need to see graphic close-ups of their torn vaginas or rectums. We need to see graphic photos of that little boy whose father ate his eyes. Otherwise, it's just too easy to gloss over the horrific damages - both mental and physical - done to these innocent victims. We have a right to know.

Would this further humiliate and traumatize the victims and their families? Undoubtedly. But the public's "need to know" outweighs silly concerns about the victim or family members who may be equally traumatized.

Here we get over to Cassandra's well-know proclivity to injecting hard-left-wing feminist perspectives into the debate. What we also see are rank double-standards and more of her ignorant hypocrisy. Recall how Cassandra attacked me for my initial report on the Erin Andrews scandal, and specifically my argument that the story was newsworthy. Here's what Cassandra wrote in reply (and the block quote at the middle there is mine):

For days I went out of my way not to make this personal. I've had many conservations with Donald in the past. As he repeatedly points out, he's hardly the only one who seems unable to understand that daring to work as a sportscaster or being "newsworthy" does not constitute voluntary surrender of the right to privacy in situations where any of us ought to have a reasonable expectation of privacy:

I wouldn't photograph my neighbor in a bikini by the pool, getting out of the shower topless, or shaving her legs in the bathroom. I am linking to the post though, for the purposes of argument. The difference between the Erin Andrew link and those links right here is that the latter have absolutely zero news values.

Good thing his neighbor isn't a Gold Star mother whose son was just killed in Iraq or Afghanistan! That would be newsworthy, and according to the media public curiosity about sensationalistic stories trumps all over considerations. It would seem many folks agree.

Okay, so here we have a young Marine killed in Afghanistan and Cassandra's attacking AP's argument that publishing Bernard's picture was indeed newsworthy.

So, what's it going to be? The fact is, for Cassandra all the talk about rape victims and the privacy of your naked mother in a hotel room are EMOTIONAL appeals, not rational ones. And these all come back to Cassandra's radical feminist perspective that it's (1) wrong to violate privacy in furtherance of public news values, and (2), because specifically there's an essential system of exploitation of women at work that makes all wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters at risk.

Cassandra is a military wife, so we should give her the benefit of the doubt beyond feminist hysteria. Still, there may be a case for sharing images of battle dead with the public that goes beyond news: It's the extention of service postumously. As miltary wife Lily Burana has written:

Within my own circle of active-duty military and veterans' wives, the numbers are little different. In fact, they're in constant flux, as we hotly debate the issue at playgrounds, in cafes and on blogs ...

One acquaintance, favoring privacy, said that if the worst were to happen to her husband and someone wielding a camera dared to elbow in on her family's grief, she'd "open up a can of Army wife whoop-ass." The image of the modern military spouse is half-frontier wife, half-Care Bear -- by turns stoically able and cooingly comforting. But when it comes to acting on behalf of our kin and the larger military family, make no mistake: Wives are warriors too.

I get where the privacy-or-else camp is coming from. Though I could not have anticipated this when I married a soldier in 2002, I have come to care for troops and their families with a ferocity that words fail to elucidate. My instinct is to wave away onlookers, to protect, to defend. The civilian world, in particular the media, is justifiably suspect. Though I have an occupational link to that realm, I harbor my own mistrust of the media, along with some cynicism about a public that fetishizes the warrior class yet can't wholly understand it. Times are stressful enough for military families without adding fear of exploitation.

But as much as I relate to the protective stance of "No, you can't come in," I respect those who would welcome the media, saying, in essence, "Take him, he's yours too. He is our country's son." Let these photos be his final act of service. In the name of honor and authenticity, I want the American people to see how the military respects its own, in aching ceremonial flourish, down to the last detail -- caskets being carefully loaded on planes; the gun salute; the rap-tap-tap of the sticks on the snare drum rim, marking the cortege cadence in the graveyard.

Mrs. Burana's discussion is focusing primarily on Secretary Gates' decision to open media access to Dover Air Force Base. But her mention of the "worst that could happen" is in fact what happened to Lance Cpl. Bernard.

Folks might also check out this essay at BAGnews, "Photo of a Dying Marine: The Larger View":

First, my condolences to the family of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard. Although I believe strongly in the release of this image, noting that a month had passed since his death (and the release of more heroic images), and that Joshua had since been buried and the family informed in advance that the photo would be published, I also recognize the family's opposition and the additional pain it has caused.

That said, I have a few takes on the controversy surrounding the release of this photo....

1. Given that the military's rules for visually documenting images of American casualties is so restrictive that it effectively constitutes ongoing censorship and corporate media is so skittish in the face of political push back, the fact this single photo of an American casualty even made the light of day is quite remarkable.

And that brings us back full circle, to my original post, and my reservations against the Pentagon's aggressive reporting restrictions, which "raise questions of government suppression of speech."

Given so much sensitivity on the issue, I can't say exactly how I would respond if faced with similar circumstances (being embedded and taking fatal battlefield images). That said, the discussion here has at least opened up the more hysterical arguments to inspection and placed the Bernard controversy in the larger historical frame of "heartwrenching and evocative" wartime imagery.

Adolf Hitler AIDS Awareness Advert: Latest in Global Left's Moral Equivalency

For some reason, most of the commenters on the "AIDS is a Mass Murderer" ad spot (produced by Germany's Regenbogen e.V.) are focusing on matters more of artistic style and taste than on the ad's essential demonology. John Hawkins comes closest to my thoughts on this in describing the spot as "a pro-Hitler commercial."

According to London's Telegraph:

The commercial has been released to coincide with 2009 World Aids Day, but established HIV/Aids charities have distanced themselves from its message, saying that it could make life more difficult for sufferers.

Yeah, just a bit, you think?

Actually, this ad's just one more specimen of the global left's culture of postmodern relativism. We just had the big uproar this last week over the World Wildlife Fund's despicable ad desecrating the memory of 9/11. As Darleen Click argued, this is how the collectivists kill morality. Social and political standards are reduced to a socio-economic leveling. Universal truth and goodness are abandoned. It's bad enough that the ad - basically a porn clip - is scheduled to run on German television. But the spot practically gives Nazi sex a certain cachet. It's got a fit and pumping Adolf, hammering away on a hottie, and it's not until the last moment in which we see the creepy grin and the message scrolled across the screen, "AIDS is a mass murder." There's a jarring incommensurability between what is a naturally-occuring pandemic disease on the one hand, and the ideology and regime that developed the world's most advanced system of industrial murder on the other.

Here we have Hitler as pop culture pitchman for safe sex. And as Ed Driscoll suggests, "there’s virtually no aspect of postmodern life that hasn’t become politicized." I would just change that last adjective to "demonized." It's all just so mind-boggling. It reminds me of the everyday blogging we see from the folks at Sadly No! and TBogg. Everyday evil, in easy-glide style. Repulsive.

Realities of War? Pentagon Protests AP Photo of Dying Marine in Afghanistan

The photograph of Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, 21, who was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, is here: "Associated Press Says Photo of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard Shows Realities of War."

Fox News has the report, "Gates Assails 'Appalling' Decision by AP to Release Photo of Dying Marine":

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is criticizing the decision by the Associated Press to distribute a image taken by one of the wire service's photographers of a soldier fatally wounded on a battlefield in Afghanistan.

Gates called the decision "appalling," even going as far as to ask the AP to reconsider distributing the photo of Marines Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard of Maine. Similar requests were made by Bernard's family.

But the Associated Press defended its decision, which, it said, came after "a period of reflection."

In an Aug. 14 attack by the Taliban in the Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, Bernard was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, the Associated Press reported. AP photographer Julie Jacobson was embedded with the unit and captured an image of fellow Marines trying to rescue Bernard as he suffered severe leg injuries.

The AP reports he was taken to a field hospital, where he died on the operating table.

"AP journalists document world events every day. Afghanistan is no exception," Santiago Lyon, the wire services' director of photography, said. "We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is."

This is obviously touchy. My own view is that the public gets inadequate coverage of our wars, and certainly press blackouts raise questions of government suppression of speech. However, there are limits, and preserving dignity in death is one. Plus, Bernard's father asked AP not to publish the image of his son dying on the battlefield. So, there's more to this than just AP's argument of a "public right to know." Of course, Associated Press is particularly suspect, with its clear antiwar agenda, demonstrated over and over again during the Bush administration.

Michelle Malkin posts the Pentagon's consent forms for embeds' publication of battlefield images. And see Blackfive, "The Associated Press - An Organization Without Judgment or Decency." Also, a raw report at Afghan Quest:

I’m going to state right now and unequivocally that I do not want for any pictures of me published that show me in any condition other than upright and breathing normally. All else is punishable by whatever violence I can visit upon you in whatever condition I am in. I want to write the most vile curses I can at this moment in my anger for a man who justifies going against the wishes of the family.

Here's the Politico's video report, from Andy Barr:

See also, the New York Times, "Behind the Scenes: To Publish or Not?"

Plus, Editor & Publisher has posted the photograph here. And, Cassandra at Villainous Company takes issue with Secretary Gates and his decision to allow published photos from Dover Air Force Base. But see as well, "America Can Handle the Coffins."

Democrats Resurrect Tax Increases on 'Rich' to Finance ObamaCare

From the Wall Street Journal, "Democrats Target High Earners to Help Fund Health Plan":

Senate Democrats are revisiting proposals to raise taxes on high-income people to help pay for an overhaul of the health-care system.

The main proposal getting renewed attention is one by President Barack Obama that would limit the federal tax deductions for higher-income families for mortgage interest and other widely claimed purposes, said two senior Senate Democratic aides.

The development reflects a hardening of partisan lines in the effort to forge a health-care bill. Raising taxes on the wealthy was regarded as a virtual deal-breaker for Senate Republicans engaged in negotiations over the spring and summer. So Senate Democrats steered clear of such an approach.

"Bluntly...the idea of getting Republicans on board [a health-care overhaul] is becoming much more fantastical, so some ideas that were jettisoned for that reason are coming back," said one aide.

Targeting the rich also conflicted with Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus's hopes of taxing the most costly employer-based health plans as a way to reduce overall health-care spending. But many Democrats are losing hope that Mr. Baucus's bipartisan negotiations will produce a deal, so they are beginning to plan for a bill crafted by Democrats. A spokeswoman for Mr. Baucus (D., Mont.) said his committee is still pursuing a bipartisan bill.

Placing much of the burden of a health-care overhaul on higher-income earners is likely to face political hurdles of its own, particularly among moderate Democrats. And limiting the value of deductions for higher-income earners could run into opposition with some interest groups, such as the real-estate industry.

More at the link.

At the video President Obama announces his intentions to make "people like me" pay a little more - which is the opening for the Dems to push for tax hikes on those making $250,000 annually. Also at the video is the debate between Representatives Marsha Blackburn and Adam Schiff. Recall, Schiff is a hard-left Democratic who is backing ObamaCare (he deeply alienated his constituents during his August 11 town hall event).

Interestingly, we now have news that the White House is now drafting the health bill itself, so folks can bet that an increase is in the works.

Glenn Beck: Van Jones is Tip of the Iceberg

The Hill is reporting that "White House Stands by 'Truther' Van Jones." But boy is that a questionable call. Here's this from JammieWearingFool, "Stunner! Obama Hack Van Jones Also a Mumia Supporter":

Most of the media is ignoring the story, naturally, but there comes a time when critical mass will be reached, and probably much sooner than later.

The pathetic aspect of this is the obvious non-vetting of Jones or the likelihood Jones was vetted and Obama found nothing offensive about this man. Apparently the tech-savvy wizards at the White House are too incompetent to run a simple search, as many are now in the process of doing.

Now we find Jones also has a thing for the cop-killing darling of the left, Mumia Abu Jamal. This is from 10 years ago, obviously pre-dating Jones' later hook-up with other radicals in the Truther movement.

Check the links at the post (including a devastating 1999 San Francisco Chronicle story on Van Jones' support for Mumia). Also blogging is Gateway Pundit and Hot Air. But we're fortunate that Glenn Beck has been hammering away at Jones for months, and Beck's pressure this last week has been relentless. Beck's show yesterday was titled, "Glenn Beck: Personnel Is Policy." His introduction, at the first video, is typically melodramatic; but he's right to say Van Jones is "just the tip of the iceberg." Michelle Malkin is interviewed in the third video down, and she rips into Jones' support for the cop killer and the hard-left America-hating network working to free him. This is just gold:

See also, Michelle Malkin, "Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama & Dot-It-Yourself Vetting." More at Memeorandum.