President Obama’s poll numbers are at record lows. The health care law that serves as the cornerstone of his domestic policy legacy is even more unpopular. And there are few chances to change the conversation among a skeptical public that isn’t happy with Washington.But...
Sound familiar? It should: The national political climate today is starting to resemble 2010, when Republicans won control of the House of Representatives by riding a wave of voter anger. Wave elections are rare. Only a handful of times in the previous century has one party racked up big wins. Democrats won big handfuls of House seats in 1930, 1932, 1948, 1958, 1974, 2006 and 2008. Republicans won back more than 40 seats in 1938, 1942, 1946, 1966, 1994 and 2010. And with nearly a year to go before Election Day, voters’ moods can change dramatically.
But the rocky rollout of the Affordable Care Act and President Obama’s crumbling support suggests another wave might be building. While voters usually punish a president’s party in at least one midterm election, they may be winding up to deliver another smack to President Obama’s allies on Capitol Hill.
Voter dislike of ObamaCare cost Democrats the House in 2010. It could cost them the Senate in 2014. The poll numbers hint at the toll the Affordable Care Act has taken on the Democratic Party. A CNN/ORC International poll conducted November 18-20 shows 49 percent of registered voters favored a generic Republican candidate for Congress, compared with 47 percent who favored a Democratic candidate. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted November 6-11 shows the generic ballot tied, at 39 percent each.
Historically, Democrats have held an advantage of at least a few points on the generic ballot, even when election results are a wash: Democrats held a six-point edge just before Election Day 2000 and picked up a grand total of one seat. Democrats led Republicans by one point on the generic ballot just before the 2010 elections, when Republicans rode to a sweeping victory.
And there’s no sign that Obama will become more popular. Presidents who see their approval ratings dip so dramatically in the second term rarely see their numbers improve. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon’s approval ratings never recovered after the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal (Nixon, of course, didn’t stick around to see just how far his ratings could fall). George W. Bush’s approval rating sank in the spring of 2005, and continued falling through the end of his term. Obama’s numbers are starting to resemble Bush’s trend lines.
For much of Obama’s tenure, even voters who say they disapproved of his job performance still retained a favorable impression of the president. That’s increasingly not the case: In the latest Washington Post/ABC News survey, conducted earlier this month, Obama’s unfavorable rating, 52 percent, tops his favorable rating, 46 percent. It’s only the second time [pdf] the number of unfavorable impressions outweighed the favorable ones. Reaction to the bungled rollout of the health care law is overwhelmingly to blame. Already, the fallout has been evident: Public surveys in Virginia showed Gov.-elect Terry McAuliffe (D) leading Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) by wide margins in the wake of the government shutdown. But Cuccinelli made the final weeks of the race into a referendum on ObamaCare, and McAuliffe’s support began to erode. On Election Day, McAuliffe won by just 2.5 points, a narrower margin than even his internal polls showed. Another week, and Cuccinelli might be governor-elect.
Democrats will say the Republican Party is in even worse shape than they are, and they have a point: In the October Washington Post/ABC News poll, just 32 percent of voters said they had a favorable impression of the GOP, compared with 46 percent who had a favorable impression of the Democratic Party. And Republicans still have not articulated a clear governing vision for the country, even a year after failure to do so emerged as a central criticism of Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign.
There were some great commenters over the years, some of whom were driven away by vicious commenters. I emphasized free speech until I was forced to retrench and make good faith the test. But that was a deletion policy. I (and Meade) can't spend all our time monitoring comments and deleting. Some truly ugly people stooped to active harassment. This is my place, after all, and I can't host an endless party where there are guests who continually abuse my hospitality. I had to close the door.She'll reopen the comments. Althouse isn't a blog that can survive without them. But she's been getting too many trolls and it's been taking too much time to deal with them. There's some background that I haven't completely mastered yet, but the sense is that a lot of Instapundit readers are coming over to Althouse and f-king sh*t up.
"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." --- Winston Churchill, comments to his personal secretary John Colville the evening before Operation Barbarossa.I'm struck by Melanie Phillips' last line in her response to Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer's reply to her original screed on the Home Secretary's ban:
You’d never think from this, would you, that I wrote the book Londonistan, and have been viciously and repeatedly attacked for ‘Islamophobia’ on account of my warnings against Britain’s systemic failure to acknowledge the religious nature of the Islamic jihad against the west. You’d never realise from this, would you, that in my piece about the banning order I specifically condemned the UK government for allowing into the country inflammatory Islamic extremists while banning Ms Geller and Mr Spencer. No, all this is simply brushed aside -- because I do not think common cause should be made with thugs and neo-Nazis....The implication is that by snobbishly dismissing the EDL as a bunch of hooligans and Nazis she's able to seize the high ground over Pamela and Robert. It's an amazing piece of sophistry, especially coming from one of such purportedly high British pedigree. No doubt Ms. Phillips is aware of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's comments on June 21, 1941, the night before Nazi Germany embarked on its fateful strategic gambit to invade Soviet Russian in Hitler's final bid for Lebensraum.
It would be comic, were it not a tragic illustration of the west’s inability correctly to identify just who are its enemies and who are its true defenders.
Spencer and Geller are correct; Phillips is trying to distance herself based on Leftist character assassination, as if the Left does anything else. Phillips should have thought this through and realized she's just isolated herself by trying to distance herself.There may be some high principles at stake in this debate. There may be some reasonable claims about the need to keep distance from EDL. But for all of her erudition and past advocacy --- recall that Ms. Phillips has long been one of my favorite writers on the left's destruction of liberty, decency, and national security --- it's clear that she's made a serious lapse of judgment with her internecine war on Pamela and Robert, the premiere counter-jihadists in the U.S.
She forgets; there's no distance. We all live in Dar al-Harb.
Apparently Melanie Phillips can dish it out but she can't take it. She was shocked that both Robert and I would respond to her gratuitous attack on our work. She is calling her cop-out column "A hysterical and ignorant response."PREVIOUSLY: "Pamela Geller: 'With Friends Like These...'"
What did she expect? That we wouldn't defend ourselves? She has attacked me before. She praised a blogger who wrote that I was "a lunatic blogger." Please go here and read it all. I did not respond, because lord knows that intercine warfare is the last thing we need. But the last shot she took was a step too far. Not now, when the stakes are so high and time is too short.
Hysterical and ignorant? Pathetic. More elitism. She says she doesn't want to engage in ad hominen attacks, so she lets others do the dirty work and then praises them.
Forgive me if I don't drop to my knees in thanks because she called us "anti-jihad" and not "anti-Muslim," "anti-Islam," or "islamophobic" like the enemy does. That's how low her bar is -- we are supposed to be grateful that she doesn't defame us.
She pats herself on the back for opposing our banning order, but so did some of our most vicious enemies. Are we to be grateful that she didn't support the ban? Really? Please, Mel, don't help me. With friends like you, we don't need Harry's Place.
As for the evidence she presents against the EDL, it is weak and unconvincing. The EDL was formed because the BNP was racist and anti-semitic. They purge BNP from their ranks. The EDL has a Jewish division (and an LBGT division, a Sikh division, etc.). Tommy has been arrested? So what? I never said these were Nancy boys. They aren't. And they don't play in the sandboxes of Oxford, Cambridge or The Spectator. He has paid his debt to society; how long will his troubled youth be held against him? He is, in his way, a more eloquent and impassioned voice against the islamization of his country than is Phillips.
The EDL has nothing racist or xenophobic about its platform. Phillips knows full well that the rare nazi salute at an EDL rally is most often the work of an infiltrator, a deliberate schemer attempting to smear the group. They are removed from the demo immediately. She ought to be more critical of those who seek to manipulate her good opinion.
Phillips says that the EDL targets mosques, but it doesn't. Actually Islamic supremacists fake attacks on mosques and try to pin them on the EDL, but Tommy Robinson has said: "Anyone who knows anything about our group knows there is no way we do anything like that. It’s just so blatant it’s not us."
Her reference to Vlaams Belang is really a low blow. First, because we attended a conference in 2007 that Filip DeWinter happened to be at (here). That is the extent of my relationship. I knew nothing of him or his group (I still don't) when I went to Brussels along with Bat Ye'or, David Littman, Dr. Aryeh Eldad (Israel), Robert Spencer, Dr. Andrew Bostom, Friends of Oriana Fallaci and the world's leading counter jihadists. Hundreds were there. So was DeWinter. So what? Melanie Phillips is now attaching herself to the libels of the execrable Charles Johnson. That tells you everything.
Needless to say, the MSM and left-blogosphere have concluded the shooter was a white supremacist/neo-Nazi based on tattoos and being a former member of what they describe as a “skinhead” band — which they then obscenely generalize to be “right-wing,” a way of trying to link him to the political right. This is the age-old tactic. If Page was a white supremacist/neo-Nazi/skinhead, then he stood against everything the political right stands for.That's not a problem, per se, to locate Page on the "far-right." Conservatives routinely use the term "far-left" in referring to hardcore progressive radicals and neo-communists. The left-right ideological spectrum has been used that way for over 200 years, since the French National Assembly --- after the toppling of the Ancien Régime --- arrayed political factions from the radicals (on the left) to the reactionaries (on the right). While folks can question that seating arrangement as arbitrary and historically isolated (time-bound), nevertheless since then talk of modern political ideology has employed that left-right axis.
The "Leninist compromise" created a federal system that granted political-administrative recognition and the symbols of nationhood to a number of national groups (whose historical homelands now became nominally sovereign republics within the U.S.S.R.) and committed itself to the development of their national languages and cultures. At the same time, it was built around a highly centralized and increasingly authoritarian party organization imbued with a radically internationalist ideology.Notice the stress at the last paragraph on the priority of Russian dominance as the key to Soviet nationalities policy. But that's more a political development more than an ideological one. The Soviets, for example, sought to assimilate Jews not as a religious group but as a national one. The Soviets even tried, unsuccessfully, to establish a Jewish national homeland within the Soviet Union, called the Jewish Autonomous Province (Oblast). In Russia today the entity is known as the Jewish Autonomous Region.
A fundamental tension was thus built into the Soviet system from its very origins: the federal structure offered an organizational framework and political legitimacy for the protection and advancement of the interests of national groups, but at the same time Soviet ideology anticipated the ultimate dissolution of national attachments and loyalties and sought the creation of an integrated political and economic community based on universal Soviet citizenship. What balance to strike between these two orientations has remained an enduring dilemma in Soviet politics.
The Stalin era was marked by a dramatic shift toward greater centralization, cultural Russification and the repression of non-Russian national elites. The rights of republics and autonomous regions were whittled away, their boundaries arbitrarily redrawn, and the populations of some liquidated or forcibly resettled during World War II, as in the cases of Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechen-Ingush, Volga Germans and Meskhetian Georgians. National histories were rewritten to emphasize the progressive character of Russian imperialism, and criticism of Great Russian chauvinism came to an end. Central economic ministries treated the entire territory of the U.S.S.R. as a single complex, establishing new industries and relocating workers without concern for republic boundaries. The cultivation of national languages and cultures was replaced by a process of Sovietization that was sometimes indistinguishable from Russification. The imperial features of the Soviet system were further strengthened during World War II with the forcible annexation of the Baltic states, the western Ukraine and Byelorussia, and part of Moldavia.
Fascism ... was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. The role programs and doctrine play in it is, on closer inspection, fundamentally unlike the role they play in conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophicalsystem, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. It has not beengiven intellectual underpinnings by any system builder, like Marx, or by any major critical intelligence, like Mill, Burke, or Tocqueville.The emphasis on collective salvation is key to fascism, as it's an ideology that fetishizes the state. And in that sense, in contemporary American politics, it's the hard-left that venerates the state over the individual. The left romanticizes state power, and the natural tendency of that ideology is to suppress deviations from the approved collective program. We see it time and again, in the neo-statist programs of the Obama administration and in the social policy fascism of the left's homosexual rights agenda. You can't step out of line. Further, that strain on the left departs radically from the constitutional liberalism (libertarianism) of the tea party.
In a way utterly unlike the classical “isms," the rightness of fascism does not depend on the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name.Fascism is “true" insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other peoples in a Darwinian struggle, and notin the light of some abstract and universal reason. The first fascists were entirely frank about this.
We [Fascists] don’t think ideology is a problem that is resolved in such a way that truth is seated on a throne. But, in that case, does fighting for an ideology mean fighting for mere appearances? No doubt, unless one considers it according to its unique and efficacious psychological-historical value. The truth of an ideology lies in its capacity to set in motion our capacity for ideals and action. Its truth is absolute insofar as,living within us, it suffices to exhaust those capacities [A. Bertele].The truth was whatever permitted the new fascist man (and woman) to dominate others, and whatever made the chosen people triumph.Fascism rested not upon the truth of its doctrine but upon the leader’s mystical union with the historic destiny of his people, a notion related toromanticist ideas of national historic flowering and of individual artistic or spiritual genius, though fascism otherwise denied romanticism’sexaltation of unfettered personal creativity.
The fascist leader wanted to bring his people into a higher realm of politics that they would experiencesensually: the warmth of belonging to a race now fully aware of its identity, historic destiny, and power; the excitement of participating in a vast collective enterprise; the gratification of submerging oneself in a wave of shared feelings, and of sacrificing one’s petty concerns for the group’s good; and the thrill of domination. Fascism’s deliberate replacement of reasoned debate with immediate sensual experience transformed politics as the exiled German cultural critic Walter Benjamin was the first to point out, into aesthetics. And the ultimate fascist aesthetic experience,Benjamin warned in 1936, was war.
...just when you thought that Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs could not possibly sink any lower, we find that @Lizardoid is now giving credibility to the notion that 'someone' ('Israel is going to be the most likely suspect') poisoned Yasser Arafat. I would rate that as being the Middle East equivalent of claiming that George W. Bush hired 19 hijackers to fly two jets into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and one into the ground in Pennsylvania on 9/11/2001.Also at Diary of Daedalus, "According to al Jazeera":
Yes, Charles Johnson - the guy who gave so many of us our start in conservative blogging - has become an Arafat truther.
This is just a sign of Charles now embracing all he was once against. His past support of Israel was one of the major hindrances for the Left to embrace him. Clearly this post is a wink and nod to the Israeli haters on the Left. Will Charles soon be linking to Hizb’Allah’s al Manar next?
To be clear, there is a difference between civic participation and hate speech. And to be clear, people of all ages are welcome in our national conversation, but hate speech, even under the mistaken shroud of “religious liberty” is not only wrong — it is contributing to an environment that is killing teens — especially LGBTQ teens.Wrong.
I will not submit to the whitewashing and outright cover-up of honor killings in the West, despite the withering personal attacks on me.Continue reading.
That these monstrous crimes of murder do not unite rational men on the basis of sheer humanity is indicative of how debased and morally bankrupt the monsters on the left are. I hold them ultimately responsible. Devout Muslims who support or subscribe to religiously sanctioned gendercide are merely adhering to their faith. What's the left's excuse?
Imagine someone so twisted and dysfunctional that he would vilify those who are fighting against an ideology that oppresses, subjugates and slaughters women. Honor killings are a family affair, and there are as many accomplices as there are killers. Jessica Mokdad was subjected to years of strict religious punishment in that hellish house. Where was her mother? Who lured her back to that deadly house after she had run away?
The once fiercely counter-jihad now viciously pro-jihad Chuck Johnson is rabid with news of my human rights conference, mixing moral equivocation with good old-fashioned lies. Really nuts.
I/we asked the Hyatt for nothing. After they apologized profusely for canceling a Geller event in Sugar Land, Texas (the mistake of a weak, on-site tool), the Hyatt offered to give us space and pay for it at any of their hotels in America. I never bullied Hyatt. I never even contacted them.
I am always surprised when someone sends me a link from the green swamp. No one reads this boil on the ass of the blogsophere anymore, but look what's become of him. Once the pre-eminent blog on the right, the now notorious leftwing troll is mocking the fight for the right to live and live freely as a "ghoulish obsession": Pamela Geller's Ghoulish Obsession With 'Honor Killings' Takes an Ugly Turn. Fighting to save girls' lives is a "ghoulish obsession." I guess CJ would call Elie Wiesel's work on the Holocaust a "ghoulish obsession." Or any human rights group or anti-torture organization -- do they have "ghoulish obessions," too?
Evil.It is evil. It's not simply disagreement. It's a demonically obsessed campaign to destroy her.
And although no one takes this tool seriously anymore (he was us, now he's them, tomorrow he is Gregor Samsa), it is illustrative of the left's canny ability to paint good as evil. "Ghoulish obsession" -- think about that.
When asked about her most meaningful accomplishment, Margaret Thatcher, now embodied by Meryl Streep in the biopic Iron Lady, did not typically mention serving in the British government, defeating the Argentine invasion of the Falkans, taming runaway inflation, or toppling the Soviet Union. The woman who reshaped British politics and served as prime minister from 1979 to 1990 often said that her greatest accomplishment was helping save a young Austrian girl from the Nazis.Continue reading.
In 1938, Edith Muhlbauer, a 17-year-old Jewish girl, wrote to Muriel Roberts, Edith’s pen pal and the future prime minister’s older sister, asking if the Roberts family might help her escape Hitler’s Austria. The Nazis had begun rounding up the first of Vienna’s Jews after the Anschluss, and Edith and her family worried she might be next. Alfred Roberts, Margaret and Muriel’s father, was a small-town grocer; the family had neither the time nor the money to take Edith in. So Margaret, then 12, and Muriel, 17, set about raising funds and persuading the local Rotary club to help.
Edith stayed with more than a dozen Rotary families, including the Robertses, for the next two years, until she could move to join relatives in South America. Edith bunked in Margaret’s room, and she left an impression. “She was 17, tall, beautiful, evidently from a well-to-do family,” Thatcher later wrote in her memoir. But most important, “[s]he told us what it was like to live as a Jew under an anti-Semitic regime. One thing Edith reported particularly stuck in my mind: The Jews, she said, were being made to scrub the streets.” For Thatcher, who believed in meaningful work, this was as much a waste as it was an outrage. Had the Roberts family not intervened, Edith recalled years later, “I would have stayed in Vienna and they would have killed me.” Thatcher never forgot the lesson: “Never hesitate to do whatever you can, for you may save a life,” she told audiences in 1995 after Edith had been located, alive and well, in Brazil.
I found this post from Little Green Footballs at my Sitemeter: "Is Erick Erickson Ashamed of His Fellow Creationists?" That's a Google link, but click through at the top result and scroll down to comment #19, and voilà!, there's cud-munching Killgore Trout blabbering on about my horrible --- HORRIBLE!! ---- insensitivity:
The always shocking heartlessness of conservatives. Instapundit links to this update on the man who died from a dental problem because he couldn't afford treatement: 24-Year-Old Cincinnati Man Dies of Toothache After Brilliantly Filling His Pain Medication Prescription Instead of Antibiotics.And with LGF being completely infested with progressive robots, Little Green Troll Gus 802 decided to look up my employer information on Google. Checking back at that top link, and scrolling down to comment #44, we see this:
Consider the source. American Power is a blog written by Donald Douglas who teaches history at Long Beach City College. He probably has a dental plan payed for by the California community college system. Another one living off the government system yet constantly railing against the machine.Gus 802's not too smart, of course. I teach political science, not history. Duh. And not only that, I'm not "living off the government" but employed by a public college --- big difference. But playing along with the stupidity, I wasn't "living off the government" until I was 39-years-old. In fact, back when I was 28, living in Fresno and unemployed, I started having pain along the gums at the back of my mouth. Turns out my molars were inflamed and the dentist recommended I have all four of my wisdom teeth pulled. That was going to include full anesthesia (going under for the procedure) as well. Total cost was to be $750. And you know what, I put it on credit and paid down the balance out of pocket. And I'm insured now --- not because someone is sponsoring me on the dole, but because I spent 13 YEARS IN COLLEGE earning three political science degrees and landing a job in my field as a professor --- and that's after I beat out over 150 candidates for my position when I applied. So, yeah, LGF dickwads, I'm hardly gonna start bawling about a guy who refused to dig down deep for $27 for some antibiotics. Besides, the comments on this have been pure gold, for example, this one, from Adjoran:
I thought Yglesias and the leftists were all about evolution and Darwin.That's gotta be the perfect response to an epic airhead LGF entry entitled: "Is Erick Erickson Ashamed of His Fellow Creationists?"
They should be hailing his decision to cleanse the gene pool of those too dumb to deal with an abscess even after consulting a doctor.
Charles denied he’s obsessed with Pam yet he is organizing a campaign to label Pam Geller’s book hate speech on Amazon. If he didn’t care about her, why does he track her every move? Why doesn’t Charles Johnson do a book? The answer is easy, there are enough children’s coloring books.He can't be a man. He's sick. Seriously. He needs psychiatric help.
Charles, be a man and get over her!
And that's just counting blog posts that include Pamela Geller's name in the title. There's a least a half-dozen more that feature Pamela as the main person of interest, for example, Mad King Charles' entry on the New York Times' hit piece on counter-jihad, "Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S."
And just today Mad Charles published, "Perfect Timing: Pamela Geller's New WND Book Echoes Oslo Terrorist's Book." That's a depraved comparison. The lowest of the sleazebag low. Think about it: One third of Anders Breivik's manifesto is a terrorist's handbook, with detailed outlines and planning from everything such as explosives to nuclear and radiological weapons. On the other hand, obviously, a look at the chapter outline of Pamela Geller's new book shows nothing even remotely similar. Pamela's book is a primer on creeping sharia, discussing growing Islamization, from government infiltration to the mass media to the mosqueing of schools and workplaces. The last chapter calls for greater institutional accountability and exhorts concerned citizens to increased voting participation to balance against aggressive Islam. Oh, the horrors!! Actually, not. There's no mixture ratios for ammonium nitrate fuel bombs. But Charles Johnson's stupid as well as depraved.
In any case, check Charles' "Lizardoid" Twitter feed for the links. The Pamela obsession is unhinged as it is, but put that on top of the Lizard Man's pathological lies and deranged distortions and scrubbing of his own background in counter-jihad, and you've really got a certified head case. See my earlier report, "Charles Johnson Browbeat Forbes' Abigail Esman After She Correctly Noted That Anders Breivik Voluminously Cited Little Green Footballs."
Given the nature of the blogosphere, perhaps it's to be expected. And folks have long known that Charles Johnson's got serious issues, but the Mad Lizaroid's now to the point of unhinged stalking. The dude needs help.
