Moderates are not bowing to the liberal view of “how the world should be,” said Landrieu, adding that Democrats like her “want common sense to prevail.”

[...] The liberal blog Firedoglake.com said it was calling thousands of Nevada Democrats, urging them to support an opponent in the Democratic primary if Reid does not force a Senate vote on strong government-run coverage.

“I’m not aware of them,” Reid said when asked in a brief interview about pressure tactics aimed at him. “I don’t read blogs, I don’t listen to talk radio, I don’t watch cable TV.”

Yeah, that’s gonna work really well. My liberal, Democrat-voting mother did not vote for Corzine yesterday. Way to keep her on your side.

The spin is in, it’s not a win: The White House is pretending that losing the governorship in blue, blue NJ and back-to-red VA is no big deal. But they should.

Another worry: independent voters split overwhelmingly for the Republicans, though White House officials say their polling shows that President Obama enjoys essentially the same level of support among independents now as he did a year ago.

I’m an independent voter. I’ve been waiting for the Dems to woo me back. If Deeds is an example of their best, well—they’re not even trying to buy me dinner first. And oh yeah—the overwhelming majority of voters yesterday said that the economy is their biggest worry. Go ahead. Keep trying to pass Obamacare. Keep trying to spend money we don’t have. We’ll be seeing a Republican House and Senate before long.

Even the AP pointed out that Obama can’t pretend the race was no statement on him at all:

It’s also difficult to separate Obama from the outcomes after he devoted a significant chunk of time working to persuade voters to elect Deeds in Virginia and re-elect Corzine in New Jersey.

Yeah, you can’t go to NJ three times in two weeks, send your staff to take over Corzine’s election, and then say the race wasn’t a statement on Obama. Okay, well, you can if you’re lying, but y’know, we kinda caught you at it.

Virginia: An issues state, not a red state? The Times-Dispatch says Virginia voters are issue-driven, not party-driven. And the issue that concerned most VA voters yesterday? The economy.

An exit poll for The Associated Press showed that eight in 10 voters were concerned about the economy, and a majority of them backed McDonnell.

Further, economic jitters drove the votes of independents who make up one-third of the electorate. They broke to McDonnell nearly 2-to-1, according to the AP.

Be very worried, Democrats. It isn’t nationalized healthcare that the voters want. It’s jobs and security.

But Corzine may be in deep trouble, if my mother is the tip of the iceberg.

(Note: I forgot to publish this earlier, but hey, it’s still relevant. I should call her and ask who she voted for.)

Only nine years ago, I voted for Al Gore and the straight Democratic ticket in New Jersey—line A all the way, as the slogan went. (Funny how even though the position of Line A was a coin flip, the Dems had Line A almost every single year I voted in NJ.)

The question is, who changed: Me, or them?

Well, I’ve changed. I have become more centrist, and less willing to part with my hard-earned dollars because a politician says he can spend my money better than I. I’m definitely tired of state-run charity programs for the perpetually unemployed. Or the state wanting to run my healthcare. (Or, for that matter, auto companies and banks.)

But there were two major turning points in my march towards the center. The first came on September 11, 2001. The second came in the bloody Israeli spring of 2002. That was when I realized that the left-leaning crowd that I ran with didn’t think that Israel had the right to use military means against the Palestinians to stop the terrorists. That was when I realized that the left-leaning crowd that I ran with were justifying Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis by using the excuse that the Palestinians were oppressed. That was when I realized that the left-leaning crowd I ran with was full of anti-Semites who call themselves anti-Zionists.

They didn’t really change, though. Their thoughts on Israel were always there, just never in evidence, as it wasn’t an issue until Yasser Arafat waged his terror war after turning down the Clinton peace proposals. That was Israel’s fault too, of course. Just like many people thought that we brought 9/11 down on ourselves. I couldn’t stand that line of thought.

So I started frequenting the right-leaning blogs, because at least there, I found people who were willing to call a terrorist a terrorist, and who don’t think that Israel is to blame for all the world’s ills.

I was embraced by the right, even though I’ve never hidden the fact that I’m still pretty much a social liberal, and even though I am an avowed feminist. But I have more in common with Michelle Malkin these days than I do with Al Gore, and I do not agree with everything Michelle says. I don’t think she has a problem with my disagreement. The crew at Michelle’s and Hot Air have been linking my posts for years, and have given me access to The Green Room. My liberal blogger friends are mostly gone, still horrified that I’m a Zionist and that I voted for George W. Bush in 2004. And especially that I haven’t come back to the fold, and returned to voting Line A all the way.

Yeah, not gonna happen. I don’t want my taxes raised. I don’t want socialized healthcare. I don’t want more regulations. And I don’t want this nation turning into a nanny state. The status of the U.K., with its 24-hour surveillance cameras and lack of individual rights, horrifies me. You are not even allowed to defend yourself against an intruder in your home in Great Britain. A year and a half ago, watching the neighborhood I lived in go to seed, I bought a handgun for protection. I couldn’t do that I’d have to get a permit for it in New Jersey, but Virginia is a much more sensible state. No permit required.

I’ve gone against my New Jersey upbringing on about gun control, too. And I’ve moved toward the center on so many issues that I no longer consider myself a liberal. So let’s just say it’s Line B for me, unless the Dems have a revolution and move towards the center and give me reason to vote for them again.

I won’t be holding my breath.

Cross-posted on Hot Air.

President Obama is applying the same tools to international diplomacy that he once used as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side, constructing appeals to shared interests and attempting to bring the government’s conduct in line with its ideals.

Obama’s approach to the world as a community of nations, more alike than different in outlook and interest, has elevated America’s standing abroad and won him the Nobel Peace Prize. But on the farthest-reaching U.S. foreign policy challenges, he is struggling to translate his own popularity into American influence, even with allies that have celebrated his break from the Bush administration’s emphasis on military strength, unilateral action and personal chemistry.

Of course as a community organizer he could claim that all sides shared the same goals, but if he was organzing against a business, the business likely had self interest involved. Its goals would not have been shared with those Obama was representing, but the business likely would have preferred to cede some of its own interests rather than getting labeled as insensitive or uncaring.

We actually get some wisdom from Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch:

“There’s an appropriate reaction to the crusading moralism of the Bush administration, but it sometimes goes too far in the direction of hoping that reasoned and quiet persuasion will convince cynical and self-interested authoritarian governments to change their ways,” Malinowski said.

Thought I don’t agree the first part, he has the second part exactly right..

In September, taking a tangible step to improve relations with Russia, Obama abandoned Bush-era plans to station a ballistic-missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland designed to protect the United States from Iran’s arsenal. The Russian government had for years complained that the system posed a security threat to the country, already squeezed by NATO’s expansion, in a region it has long considered part of its sphere of influence.

Obama announced a scaled-back system that he said would better protect Eastern Europe from attack. The Czech and Polish governments accepted the new plans last month, but conservatives argue that the shift only rewarded an aggressive Russian government to win its help with Iran.

“This was a clear signal that Washington is more interested in currying favor with its strategic competitors than in building or even maintaining its alliances with its traditional allies,” said Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “There is no evidence the Obama doctrine is reaping benefits. On the contrary, the United States is increasingly viewed as weak and unreliable by some of its traditional allies.”

U.S. and Iranian officials held the highest-level talks in three decades in early October, and later that month they agreed to a plan that appeared to mark a victory for Obama’s approach.

Under the draft agreement, Iran would ship most of its low-grade nuclear fuel to Russia for further enrichment so it could be sent back to Iran later for use as medical isotopes. The deal, conceived by the Obama administration, would leave too little uranium inside Iran to produce a nuclear weapon in the short term.

But last week Iran’s government reversed course in a sign that its own domestic calculations are still exerting more influence than Obama’s brand of international diplomacy.

In other words it didn’t work.

Towards the end of an article Wilson writes:

Obama also has spoken candidly to Israel’s government, calling its West Bank settlements “illegitimate” while asking Arab nations to make a series of diplomatic and economic gestures toward the Jewish state. His call for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to freeze settlement construction — a Palestinian condition for opening peace talks — has so far been ignored.

This inaccurate. Barry Rubin writes:

In fact, at the time it signed the original peace process agreement–often called the Oslo accord–in 1993, that’s 16 years ago–Israel put forward its interpretation of the agreement. It said that there would be no new Jewish settlements and no geographical expansion of existing settlements. But Israel made it clear that it would continue to build apartments on existing settlements. That position was not challenged by the Palestinians at the time and it has never held up talks before now.

It only became a condition because President Obama made it one. Barry Rubin again:

Indeed, another Washington Post article of November 1, this one by Howard Schneider, pointed out–though only indirectly–why things got even worse:

“However, Obama’s election raised expectations among Palestinians and throughout the Arab states that the peace process would yield quicker results from an administration willing to openly criticize Israel and, it seemed, elevate Palestinian interests.”

More than that, it was the Obama Administration which called for a total freeze, distances itself from Israel, and took other steps leading the PA and Arab states to believe that by being intransigent they could get Washington to deliver Israel on their own terms. In other words, while everyone is being too polite to say so, the Obama Administration was responsible for the situation deteriorating.

Similarly, Meryl wrote:

But if you look at those words, and the words of Obama’s Cairo speech, there is a cognitive dissonance that explains why the Palestinians continue to use the lack of a freeze as a reason to halt negotiations. Because the Obama administration opened the door for it use. And the Palestinians have never, ever not used an excuse to refuse to negotiate with Israel.

Later on Barry Rubin observes in regard to events in the Middle East:

And so we have come to the point where it is becoming clear even to those who have been ruled by wishful thinking that there is not going to be any peace and that the Palestinian-Arab side is responsible for this situation.

It is quite probable–and this is extremely important to understand–that there is nothing the Obama Administration can say or do in order to make them change their mind. After all, this is the ideal position from the standpoint of the PA, Egypt, Jordan, and others. Refuse to support talks, reap benefits by showing their militancy, and be able to blame it on Israel.

After all his efforts and alleged popularity, Obama has absolutely zero credit and no leverage in the Arabic-speaking world.

How is this going to affect Obama Administration policy and thinking?

If the conclusion of Wilson’s article is any indication, not at all.

“Our interests are the same with our allies and our adversaries,” Rhodes said. “We’re saying the same thing to everybody. Our interests are the same no matter what country we’re talking to.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

I want to be careful, but there is an increasing feeling that the main thread of the foreign policy is favoring extreme caution and even direct “disengagement” steps all over the world where there is a chance of political collision with other major players.

Recently I read an interesting article by a Russian journalist Vladimir Abarinov*, touching on several aspects of Obama’s foreign travails. With the author’s kind permission and with some assistance from Google, I’ve translated the article and am posting it here in its entirety:

It’s unfashionable to recall Barack Obama’s Berlin and Prague speeches today in Washington. Then he needed the sympathy of Europeans and to show Americans aTV picture of the crowd cheering the coming of the messiah. Today it doesn’t matter anymore. In response to the mention of Berlin and Prague’s speeches displeased Obama’s administration officials cringe and blush, as if caught in an unseemly act.

In Berlin Obama, then still a presidential candidate, expressively recited the text about the Berlin blockade, recalling how 60 years ago the U.S. established an air bridge to supply the city:

On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade. … The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold. But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning.

How archaic these words they sound today! Voices from the past: Ich bin ein Berliner, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall …

In Prague, the U.S. president reiterated the intergovernmental agreement on the deployment of the missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland, concluded by his predecessor, shall remain in force. Here is a quote… :

Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe at this time will be removed.

The Iranian threat has not disappeared but it does not matter.

I do not even want to delve into the arguments of the White House and the Pentagon. Experts say that Moscow has actually won nothing, that the new mobile missile defense network is a technological breakthrough, impossible to achieve for Russia. But it does not matter. I’m not interested in the compensation that the Czechs and Poles will receive. This is not a technical question. For Moscow it was a matter of principle. Moscow scored a political victory, and Washington knows it. Even the media loyal to Obama says that this is a capitulation.

President made not only a politically irresponsible but an immoral decision. Its forerunner was the lack of participation in the events in Gdansk to mark the 70 anniversary of the Second World War. Three months Warsaw couldn’t get a reply to their invitation. Finally Warsaw was told that there was no one available to go, everyone is on a Labor Day vacation. Hearing this, a Polish diplomat apologized for the fact that Hitler started the war on September 1, without waiting for an American holiday to be over. In the end the U.S. delegation in Gdansk was led by an Obama’s national security adviser, General James Jones. It is as if Russia sent its Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev.

Does America reduce its military-political presence in Europe? Difficult to believe, but you have to believe it. A bigger strategic error is difficult to imagine. Historical destinies of Europe and America are inextricably linked.

In XVII-XVIII centuries, the North American colonies participated in several European wars, spread to the New World – for the Palatinate, the Spanish and Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War. France and Spain were allies of the young American republic in the War of Independence. Bidding farewell to the nation, George Washington commanded her to refrain from strong alliances with European powers. “Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?“, He asked rhetorically, “Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? ” But in 1801 the United States sent its Mediterranean squadron to war with the Muslim pirates and freed Europeans from this scourge.

The Monroe Doctrine is the manifesto of U.S. isolationism. But its proclamation in 1823 was a preemptive response to the plans for the intervention of the Holy Union in order to restore the status quo of the former Spanish colonies. In his statement, President James Monroe declared the colonization of America completed.

Europeans haven’t heeded the message. Until the end of the century, Washington had to protect the Western Hemisphere from European interference. And then came the World War II.

For U.S. isolationism remained an attractive but unrealized idea. To go back to it now means to try to turn history back, to forget the lessons of the XX century, it means to forgo – for free or for the sake of petty self-interest – the gains of the Cold War and the peaceful democratic revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe.

For Israel, the moment of truth has arrived. When a presidential candidate Obama during last year’s Middle East tour, said: “Let me state it clearly: Israel is the strong friend of Israel“, it was a slip of the tongue, but a Freudian slip. His then rival, Hillary Clinton, has promised to wipe Iran off the face of the earth if it dares to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Obama answered humbly: “The last few years we have heard many promises to wipe out. Good results were something to be seen. So I am not inclined to cavalry assaults.“

The unity of Europe may prove to be illusory, lacking the deterrent factor of American involvement. Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel, prior to her trip to Gdansk, talked about the unfairness of the mass deportation of Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II, implying that the German Union of Displaced Persons remains a real factor in the German domestic politics.

This is only the first swallow. Coals of mutual grudges and pretensions in Europe continue to smolder and, in favorable circumstances, they will flare up.

This will be the beginning of the end of Obama’s era. But it will be insignificant then.

I hope you have enjoyed the article. Well, I don’t want to be the first who said it, but I am afraid that the American promoters of isolationism like the wondrous Ron Paul or the paleo-conservative dinosaur Pat Buchanan are cheering Obama and applaud, even if one-handed, from the gallery.

(*) Vladimir Abarinov – bio factoid:

By education – historian and screenwriter. Abarinov’s serious professional career began in “Literaturnaya Gazeta” as a journalist in the department of foreign culture. He was one of the “founding fathers” of “Nezavisimaya Gazeta”, then, with the same team worked in the newspaper “Today” and, finally, in “Russian Telegraph”. In all three he has been an editor of foreign relations desk. In this capacity he covered major international events, was included in the Kremlin pool of journalists. In 1998 he came to the U.S. as correspondent of “Izvestia, but the newspaper soon abandoned his services. Since then Mr Abarinov works with the Russian service of Radio Liberty, the newspaper “Top Secret” and the internet portal Grani.ru. After the Young Communist League, which he quit at his own will, he is not involved in any political parties, professional guilds and public organizations. Author of the book “Katyn maze” (”The Murderers of Katyn“), published also in the United States and Poland. Father of two adult sons and 11-year-old daughter. Lives in the United States. Personal blog – http://vlad-ab.livejournal.com/.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com

The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself, one of the administration officials said.

[...] The move against a sitting Democratic governor represents an extraordinary intervention into a state political race by the president, and is a delicate one, given that Mr. Paterson is one of only two African-American governors in the nation.

But Mr. Obama’s political team and other party leaders have grown increasingly worried that the governor’s unpopularity could drag down Democratic members of Congress in New York, as well as the Democratic-controlled Legislature, in next fall’s election.

Time was, when a party governor was in trouble, the president and the national party did all they could to help get him back on top. When did it become the usual thing to abandon a party member who paid enough dues to rise to Lt. Governor and then Governor? Oh, sure, he pissed off Obama with his racism speech, but still—toxic is as toxic does. Obama’s administration is filled with people who blame racism for everything.

I’d like to know if this is all there is to it, or is it payback to Hillary for not splitting the Dems in two last year? Rumor has it that she’s thinking of dropping out as Secretary of State to run for governor. That would fit.

Of course, the real question is, will David Paterson drop out? He does seem like an ornery sort who follows his own mind.

In regard to Prince Turki’s recent up-ed in the NY Times, Rubin writes:

Note also–something else nobody is going to notice–that the op-ed insults the United States as it directly contradicts Obama’s current initiative to get something from the Arab states to match an Israeli construction freeze.

And in regard to the latest maneuvering between Tehran and Washington he writes:

This means: By sending a five-page insulting letter the Iranian government has derailed the sanctions’ project and will gain in prestige without any cost.

(emphases mine)

I thought that by showing greater respect to the Muslim world, President Obama was going to repair the damage done by the Bush administration to America’s reputation in the region. Rather the outreach appears to be the equivalent of hanging a “Kick me” sign on America’s posterior.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Ehud Olmert: It’s not just a river in Egypt. Ehud Olmert is defending the disengagement—still. Because it worked so well for Israel. Let’s see, four years later, Gaza has turned into Gazastan and is being run by Hamas, which is building up Gaza as a doppelganger of Israel’s border with Lebanon, complete with thousands of rockets. The Obama administration is completely negating any deals made with the Bush administration regarding settlement growth, which was part of the reason Ariel Sharon wanted to give up Gaza in the first place. The world now accuses Israel of keeping Gazans in a “giant prison,” ignoring the fact that Egypt closes its border with Gaza. So, yeah, the disengagement was an absolute success, if by success you mean “achieving the opposite of what you wanted to achieve.”

Awesome! I picked up the use of naming things “Fred” from a friend I knew ages ago. My wireless network is named Fred (”Connection to Fred: Excellent”). And now, NOAA has made me a very happy woman by naming a hurricane Fred. And Fred is being a bad boy, indeed. He’s up to a Category 2.

Gee, we couldn’t see that coming: Taxpayers are going to eat the auto bailout funds. It seems the brilliant minds in the government said that the auto companies would only have to pay back the funds if their stock prices reached—get this—a market value of over $10 billion more than it was when the bailout occurred. Because gee, the public is just so confident in the American automakers that they’re looking to add them to their portfolios. Yeah, we were had. Like anyone didn’t think otherwise?

If only American prosecutors were this fair-minded: Olmert’s been indicted. I’d sure like to see some crooked American politicians get the same treatment (yeah, I’m talking about you, Richardson). Meantime, geez, Israel, can you get your politicians to stop stealing and bribing and doing all those illegal things? I mean, geez. At least we don’t have all that many presidents getting caught.

World’s tiniest violin orchestra, please: Security prisoners in Israel are getting canned food for Ramadan, instead of home-cooked meals. All together now: Awwww. Here’s a thought: Perhaps if you hadn’t taken part in terrorist attacks, you wouldn’t be suffering in jail during the holiday.

Gee, ya think? A commentary on CNN has a keen grasp of the obvious: Obama is losing the centrists. Hm. Take a far-left agenda, try to slam it through in spite of polls stating that Americans do not want nationalized health care, government takeover of the auto industry, or even a massive bank bailout, and what do you think is going to happen? Obama pretended to be a centrist during the election, thus hoodwinking millions of people who refused to look at his voting record. Now the mask is off, the emperor has no clothes, yadda yadda, etc., etc., and the result is Obama’s poll numbers dropping almost as fast as the stock market.

What if Chappaquiddick happened today? Duh. Kennedy’s political career would have died with Mary Jo Kopechne.

Under UNRWA’s operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. The descendants of the original Palestine Refugees are also eligible for registration. When the agency became operational in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, 4.6 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.

Of course, for me, the real irony is that the guy who critiqued—and slammed—the Joker poster is the guy who created the poster of Bush as a vampire.