The Plum Line

* Former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has now joined those urging GOPers to drop their 14th amendment crazy talk.

* Relatedly, former Bushies are pleading with today's Republicans and conservatives to stop demagoguing on the "mosque." At this rate, the Bush administration is going to be looked back on more fondly by liberal Dems than by Republicans!

* It's kind of amazing that the White House had to release a long statement today reaffirming that Obama is a Christian. Your tax dollars at work!

* Bill Clinton may have been Obama's fiercest rival when Hillary was running for president, but now he really is going all out in defending Obama's record and stumping for Dems all over the country.

* Obama keeps hammering Republicans to pass the jobs bill, and accuses the GOP of not acting "in good faith."

* Not that facts matter, but Obama has has taken less vacation time than Bush had by the same period in his first term.

* Sarah Palin has now taken to her Facebook page to defend Dr. Laura, which is her version of taking this on in a serious way.

* And: Eric Boehlert wants to know whether Palin's declaration has "nationalized" the Dr. Laura story and whether other Republicans will be pressed on whether they agree with Palin on this.

* Mea culpa of the day: Matt Yglesias says he backed the Iraq War partly because "I was 21 years old and kind of a jerk."

* Kudos to Russ Feingold for having the courage to speak out in support of Cordoba House, even though he's locked in a tough race for reelection.

* Glenn Greenwald thoroughly works over Howard Dean over his vacillating opposition to the project.

* And this extraordinary chyron from CNN, flagged by Dave Weigel, may help explain why a large majority of those who think Obama is a Muslim say they "learned" it from the media:

What else is happening?

What if all the attacks on Cordoba House can actually stop the project from being built?

It's widely accepted that the question of whether the Islamic center gets built is completely separate from the national political war that's erupted over it. The center has been greenlighted by local government, this argument goes, making the battle over it largely an abstract one about American identity, freedom of religion, the real meaning of 9/11, and so forth.

But what if the attacks on it have successfully made it such a lightning rod that rich donors will be reluctant to pony up the cash to build it?

Maggie Haberman and Ben Smith report today for Politico that the project is far behind schedule in fundraising terms:

The Cordoba Initiative hasn't yet begun fundraising for its $100 million goal. The group's latest fundraising report with the state attorney general's office, from 2008, shows exactly $18,255 -- not enough even for a down payment on the half of the site the group has yet to purchase.

A spokesperson for the project told Politico that it would eventually be able to raise the money for the project, given the time. But the key takeaway here is that the national controversy over the project is going to make this far more difficult than it otherwise might have been.

The goal is to fund this project largely with money raised in America, according to the group's spokesman, though he wouldn't rule out the use of foreign money. If you don't think rich liberal and moderate Dem donors and wealthy American Muslims will now pause before chipping in money to build this thing you're kidding yourselves. They will -- especially with conservatives demanding transparency about who's funding it.

The $100 million goal is already a tall order; this will make it far more difficult. If there's one thing that can persuade Cordoba House's builders to move the site, it's pressure from donors, who may not want the headache associated with the controversy and may privately signal that they can't back it unless it moves.

In other words, those attacking the project very well may stop it from being built near Ground Zero. And if it is moved, that could send a terrible signal abroad. This is not just an abstract debate about enormously important principles. It could have actual real world consequences.

UPDATE, 4:28 p.m.: A number of people have pointed out that the project (if it ever happens) could end up relying on foreign money. That may be, but it seems to me it needs some kind of fundraising base here. Since the controvery is almost certainly going to chill fundraising here, that means the attacks are succeeding in making the project that much more unlikely to happen.

Everyone is obsessing over that new Pew poll finding that the number who think Obama is a Muslim has risen to nearly one-fifth of Americans.

But here's an amazing nugget buried in the poll's internals: A solid majority of those who believe that say they "learned" it from the media. The poll asked this question of those who maintain he's a Muslim:

And how did you learn about Barack Obama's religion?

60 Media

11 Obama's behaviors or his own words

7 Things heard or read (non-specific)

7 Internet

6 Things heard or read during presidential campaign

4 Views of family or friends

4 Obama's ancestry -- family background, name, appearance

1 My own opinion

1 Obama's policies towards Muslim countries or religion in the U.S.

Until now the common explanation for this phenomenon has been to blame it on viral Internet campaigns and word of mouth. But as you can see from the above, only seven percent of those who believe Obama is a Muslim say they learned it from the Internet, and a substantial majority cites the media as their primary source.

I'm not sure what to make of that. Maybe some voices on the right have succeeded in creating an alternate reality that really is impenetrable. Maybe traditional news orgs haven't been forceful enough in knocking the lies down. Or, alternatively, maybe there's a segment of folks who are so distrustful of the "MSM" that they believe the opposite of what it tells them.

Maybe, as Dave Weigel suggests, it's all a function of rising dissatisfaction with the economy. Or maybe it's partly a result of the voices in the media who would never say outright that Obama is a Muslim, merely claiming his policies reveal him to be more on their side than on ours. Perhaps that makes people more willing to flirt with the idea that the president just isn't who he says he is.

Or maybe it's some combination of all these. Very depressing.

This one is ugly.

GOP Senate candidate Roy Blunt's campaign has pulled down a Web video displaying the smoldering remains of the 9/11 attacks alongside audio of his Democratic opponent saying the location of the Islamic center should be up to New Yorkers to decide.

And now the Dem, Robin Carnahan, is going on the offensive over the issue, demanding that Blunt apologize to the families of 9/11 victims for exploiting the tragedy for political gain.

The Carnahan campaign claims it pulled the video off of Blunt's campaign Web site late yesterday, and a local blogger has now put the video on You Tube:

As you can see, the smoldering remains of the World Trade Center are the only visual in the video, and it dwells on that image for 20 seconds.

The Blunt campaign yanked the video, and Blunt says he wasn't aware it had been posted. But Carnahan is making it an issue in the Missouri Senate race, demanding an apology:

"Congressman Blunt should immediately own up to what he did, take responsibility for it, and apologize to the families of the 9-11 victims, whose tragedy he exploited for his own personal political benefit."

This illustrates that the searing national battle over the Islamic center also carries perils for Republicans. It tempts them to crassly politicize the tragedy in ways that -- with the 9/11 wound now reopened -- risk searing them, too. More when I know it.

UPDATE, 1:02 p.m.: Interestingly, even though the Blunt campaign has yanked the video showing the 9/11 wreckage, the audio of Carnahan talking about Cordoba House is still front and center on Blunt's Web site.

UPDATE, 2:05 p.m.: Blunt spokesman Rich Chrismer sends over a response blaming an unnamed staffer and acknowledging that it "did not reflect the right tone":

Regarding the audio clip of Robin Carnahan, someone got carried away. It was up overnight and quickly replaced. It did not reflect the right tone and was quickly replaced with an image of Robin Carnahan and Barack Obama. Roy Blunt opposes the Ground Zero mosque and Robin Carnahan has rubberstamped Barack Obama again by refusing to oppose it.

Putting aside the substantive merits of Obama's comments about Cordoba House, it's been widely accepted as an article of faith that his decision to weigh in at all, and the manner in which he did it, are certain to be politically catastrophic.

But I just talked with Gallup editor in chief Frank Newport about Gallup's new poll on Obama's comments, which found that 34 percent disapprove, versus only 20 percent who approve. What Newport said suggests it's not clear that this is such a disaster after all. Cliff notes version: The disapproval is overwhelmingly Republican; and a large percentage doesn't even have an opinion.

Yesterday Mark Halperin claimed that "the political and substantive damage will continue until Obama explains his position in detail," adding that "this is a classic case of a politician losing control of his public image." Many other pundits have said similar things.

Thankfully, we now have some actual empirical info on this topic. As Newport noted to me, the new Gallup poll finds that while more disapprove than approve, a huge chunk -- 41 percent -- didn't know enough to form an opinion. "This news event has not penetrated the consciousness," Newport said.

I also asked Newport for a breakdown of the 34 percent who disapprove of Obama's comments. He told me that a majority of them, 54 percent, are Republican, while only a third are independents. "It's hard core Republican conservatives who disapprove strongly of the president's remarks," Newport said.

Now, two important caveats.

*America agrees -- the "mosque" is sacrilege: A New Time magazine poll offers this striking finding:

"More than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center."

Also: The poll "revealed that many Americans harbor lingering animosity toward Muslims." And here, in a nutshell, is one key reason why standing up for the project is so important: It's a high-profile opportunity to make a rational case against continuing to harbor "animosity" towards all Muslims over 9/11.

* And some Republicans really want to believe Obama is one of "them": The new Pew poll finds that the number believing Obama is a Muslim is up to one in five. But it turns out that rise is driven largely by Republicans, more than a third of whom believe this:

The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points).

The number is also up eight points among independents. It's good to see that voters can be persuaded to change their minds on important questions when presented with new information contradicting their long-held prejudices.

* Question of the day: Steve Benen asks a good one: What will it do to our political rulebook if the GOP's counter-intuitive strategy of moving right (not to the center) after the devastating 2006 and 2008 losses actually works over the long term?

* Targeting Target: An interesting overview of a standoff I've been meaning to write about here: The Target boycott.

* New Senators getting serious about reform: Efforts to reform the filibuster may depend on the efforts of a new crop of young, reform-minded Senators who frankly acknowledge the system is broken.

* Cultural issues, again? Jonathan Capehart discerns a common thread running through the controversies of the moment, concluding that the GOP is back to using cultural wedge issues.

* A milestone? The last combat brigades have now left Iraq.

* Here's a thought: In response to Liz Cheney's new anti-mosque ad invoking memories of 9/11, Joan McCarter suggests Liz also run one urging the GOP to support the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

* Head-spinner of the day: Howard Dean has now told Sam Stein he stands by his opposition to the mosque, simultaneously blasting opponents of it for "race baiting" while claiming liberal critics who stood up to that race-baiting didn't show "flexibility."

* And: Dean says the families of Muslim-Americans killed on 9/11 might view the "mosque" as an affront.

* And the Terrible Two will put the Tea on full boil: Yes, Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle are going to campaign together.

What else is happening?

All, I'm taking the afternoon off, because I've got some important stuff to do. So I hope you'll keep the conversation going in my absence, and let me know what I'm missing.

I'll try to check in later. Enjoy.

Nancy Pelosi kicked off a bit of controversy on the right this morning when the news broke that she had told a local San Francisco radio station that she agreed with those calling for a look at how the groups opposing the "Ground Zero mosque" are being funded.

It was a bit unclear what she was referring to, and now her office sends over a statement from her clarifying what she meant and sort of standing by what she said:

"The freedom of religion is a Constitutional right. Where a place of worship is located is a local decision.

"I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that 'We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.'

"For all of those expressing concern about the 9/11 families, we call upon them to join us in support of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act when Congress returns in September."

So Pelosi wants "transparency" about who is funding the center, too. As for a look at the opposition, "we should also ask who is funding the attacks" is a bit of a walkback, but not much of one. It's unclear, to me at least, exactly what this means. The attacks on the center are coming from various quarters. There are outside groups like Liz Cheney's Keep America Safe, who presumably do get their funding from somewhere, though it doesn't take much money to blast out Liz Cheney statements and to cut ominous sounding Web videos.

There are the GOP party committees, I suppose, but while they may be offering general guidance, it seems unlikely that they're directly choreographing these attacks in any meaningful sense.

Either way, Pelosi doesn't seem to be calling for some kind of government investigation into the mosque's critics, as thrilling as that would be to some on the right.

So how will the White House make the case to individual voters that Obama's economic policies are working for them? How tough a sell is it?

President Obama met with an Ohio family at their kitchen table today to talk to them about the economy, and their situation is worth noting, because it provides a close up look at the answer to that question.

The White House just sent out some info on the family: They are Rhonda and Joe Weithman, Ohio natives who live with their two children in Columbus, which is smack in the middle of the Rust Belt I-70 corridor that will be a critical battleground in the midterm elections. Joe owns a small architecture firm that lost business during the recession. Here's the White House argument as to how Obama policies helped this family:

COBRA Subsidies from the Recovery Act: The Recovery Act established a 65 percent tax credit subsidy for COBRA health insurance benefits for involuntary unemployed workers. Rhonda benefited from these subsidies after she was laid off from her job. This tied her over until she went to work for her husband and was covered under his plan.

Investments in Local Infrastructure: Joe runs an architecture firm with five employees. He was able to keep two of their employees that otherwise would have been laid off due to work on a police station renovation that received infrastructure funding. Joe is hopeful that he will hire an additional employee as the economy continues to improve and additional projects, some of which could be funded by the Recovery Act, are secured.

Pre-existing Conditions: With the passage of health care reform, if the Weithman's shop for new insurance, their son will be able to get health care coverage despite his pre-existing condition. The new law includes new rules to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to children under the age of 19 due to a pre-existing condition.

What you're seeing here is a ground-level example of the White House case: Without us, things would be much worse for you today, and amid all your hardship, our policies have helped you in isolated, but palpable, ways. The larger context for this, of course, is that new AP poll this morning finding that approval of Obama's handling of the economy is at 41 percent, a new low.

More about the meeting with the family when it's available.

Please watch this new Web video from New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio on the "Ground Zero mosque," and note the use of footage of 9/11 for political purposes:

The ad, not surprisingly, falsely says the "mosque" will be built "at" Ground Zero, and many of the interviews of men and women in the street are shot close enough to the site that you can see construction machinery in the background.

But what's really arresting here is the use of footage of the 9/11 attacks. As Maggie Haberman notes, it used to be considered politically unacceptable for this imagery to be used in political ads or literature. After all, as foes of the "mosque" like to say, this is hallowed ground.

There's an interesting paradox here worth noting. While the Lazio camp apparently thinks enough time has passed since the attacks to permit the political use of this imagery, memories of the attacks still remain fresh enough to make the "mosque" a potent political issue.

More broadly, the war over the Islamic center shows the battle over the legacy of 9/11 remains unsettled nine years after the attacks. Those who support the center had hoped that the passions around 9/11 had subsided to the point where the disaster's legacy would no longer impede upon, and might even assist, the case that gestures of religious tolerance and an embrace of pluralism are essential weapons in the war to prevent more attacks of this magnitude. Even if such a gesture took the form of supporting a center devoted to the study of Islam near the gash in the ground where the attack itself took place.

But public opposition to the project shows that the argument over the real meaning of 9/11 is far from resolved, and that public emotions about the disaster remain too raw for that case to break through. And who knows how long has to pass before that might happen.

UPDATE, 11:03 a.m.: A new Siena poll of New Yorkers finds opposition to the project still running strong. Also: The above post was edited slightly for clarity.