The Plum Line

Ron Johnson, the Tea Party-backed candidate challenging Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, took some flak and generated cable chatter when word surfaced earlier this week that he'd blamed climate change on "sunspot activity."

Johnson originally made the claim to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board, and now the paper has posted video on line.

His fuller quote is even more interesting, particularly his evocation of what he called geological time's "sweet spot":

Johnson:

If you take a look at geologic time, we've had huge climate swings. We're sitting here in Wisconsin. Had it not been for climate swings, we'd be sitting on a two or three hundred foot thick glacier. Man wasn't around back then. So no, I absolutely do not believe that the science of man-caused climate change is proven. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I think it's far more likely that it's just sunspot activity, or something just in the geologic eons of time where we have changes in the climate.

The Middle Ages was an extremely warm period of time, too. It wasn't like there were tons of cars on the road. So it always strikes me as a little absurd for anybody to think, Okay, this is the sweet spot in geologic time for climate. And it's such a good place, that we have spent trillions of dollars, and do great harm to our economy, on a fool's errand. I don't think we can do anything about controling what the climate is.

I wonder if the countless scientists studying this issue ever asked themselves whether their scientific models allowed for the possibility that they were erroneously designating this moment geological time's climate change "sweet spot."

Johnson has already made a series of comments that have earned national notice, such as his suggestion that he would only sell BP stock after the market picks up. This latest one is another mark of a phenomenon many have noted: The sudden ability of Tea Party-backed candidates to prevail in GOP primaries has left the national party saddled with candidates whose extreme conservatism and lack of polish threaten the GOP's ability to fully capitalize on the bad environment for Dems.

The GOP's response to that argument has been to ask: Well, why are our candidates so competitive, then? And in this case, it's true that Feingold is locked in an extremely tough contest.

A number of people suggested yesterday that the rise in people who think Obama is a Muslim reflects the fact that people may simply be describing him this way to express general disapproval or anger over his performance.

Today, Post polling director Jon Cohen does a deep dive into the numbers and comes up with more evidence supporting this case.

Cohen points out that two polls released yesterday both found very different answers to the "Muslim" question. The Time poll found that 24 percent falsely think he's Muslim, while the Pew poll found that "only" 18 percent believe this? Why? It's all in the question's wording:

Time pollsters asked, "Do you personally believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim or a Christian," dangling red meat in front of the president's opponents.

The Pew question presented respondents with a more extensive list: "Now, thinking about Barack Obama's religious beliefs ... Do you happen to know what Barack Obama's religion is? Is he Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, or something else?"

When given a stark choice between Muslim and Christian (the Time poll), more said Obama is a Muslim. When given a broader menu of religious options (the Pew poll), respondents presmuably were forced to focus harder on the question of what religion Obama really is. This may be why fewer were willing to slap the false relgious label on him.

Also supporting this view: A larger percentage (44 percent) of those who disapprove of Obama overall called him a Muslim in the Time poll, where they were given a stark choice, than in the Pew poll (30 percent), where they were forced to concentrate harder on the question.

So there you have it: The more people dislike Obama, the more apt they are to label him as a Muslim. One broader point: It's also possible that calling Obama a Muslim is a general stand in for claiming that he's not legitimately our president, that he has falsely represented himself to the American people in some way.

As dispproval with Obama's policies rises -- and as Obama sets about trying to transform America's relationship with the rest of the world -- it's apparently becoming too painful for a growing number of people to admit that Americans legitimately chose an African American with a Muslim name as leader of the free world. The notion that the president got elected by misleading the American people about his identity in a very fundamental way might be an increasingly easier thing for many people to accept.

UPDATE, 12:06 p.m.: Edited slightly from original.

It must be tough being Charles Krauthammer these days. Here's his difficulty, in a nutshell: How do you insinuate that all of Islam should be viewed through the lens of 9/11 while disguising the fact that you're insinuating that all of Islam should be viewed through the lens of 9/11?

After arguing against the project last week by invoking government zoning against liquor stores and strip clubs, Krauthammer is back again. He protests mightily that he is not arguing that radical Islam counts for a majority of Islam, but that the project must not be built because the attacks were carried out in Islam's name:

Radical Islam is not, by any means, a majority of Islam. But with its financiers, clerics, propagandists, trainers, leaders, operatives and sympathizers -- according to a conservative estimate, it commands the allegiance of 7 percent of Muslims, i.e., more than 80 million souls -- it is a very powerful strain within Islam. It has changed the course of nations and affected the lives of millions. It is the reason every airport in the West is an armed camp and every land is on constant alert.

Ground Zero is the site of the most lethal attack of that worldwide movement, which consists entirely of Muslims, acts in the name of Islam and is deeply embedded within the Islamic world. These are regrettable facts, but facts they are. And that is why putting up a monument to Islam in this place is not just insensitive but provocative.

Here's the thing: If you believe that it is "provocative" to put a center devoted to the study of all of Islam near the site of the attacks, then you are inescapably legitimizing the idea that all of Islam is somehow responsible for, or should be vaguely associated with, those attacks. If you don't believe that -- if you believe that the attacks were carried out by a group that perverted Islam and wasn't genuinely acting on its behalf -- then you wouldn't have any reason to see the building of a project nearby devoted to studying Islam as "provocative."

Claiming that the attacks were carried out "in the name" of Islam is a transparent way to dodge that simple truth. It's a way for Krauthammer to make an argument premised inescapably on the idea that all of Islam should be somehow conflated with the attacks while claiming he isn't doing that at all.

Opponents of the project point out that majorities believe building the project is insenstive to the families of 9/11 victims. No one is arguing that there aren't enormous sensitivities surrounding this. As the events of the past few weeks have shown, the scars of 9/11 are far from healed. No one is arguing that the feelings of the 9/11 families shouldn't be taken into account as we weigh what to do here.

But not all 9/11 families oppose the center. Some are in support of it, even though they suffered through the same tragedy that those opposing the project did. And the question here is not whether the wounds of 9/11 should be weighed as a factor. Rather, it's whether those senstitivities should ultimately dictate our position on whether the center should proceed.

* Blue Dog Dem uses "Nancy Pelosi" as a negative: How far will the most panicky Dems be willing to go in defending themselves against GOP efforts to link them to the Obama/Dem agenda? Rep. Joe Donnelly, last seen blasting Obama as part of "the Washington crowd," is up with a new ad attacking Nancy Pelosi's "energy tax":

This actually goes further than what we've seen from other Dems in tough districts, who tout their "independence" to achieve distance from Obama and Dem leaders. Donnelly not only legitimizing the bogus "energy tax" talking point; he's also using "Nancy Pelosi" as a catch-all negative in a manner similar to the way Republicans do.

* Is Obama actually on a "winning streak?" Eugene Robinson breaks dramatically with journalistic convention and gives credit to Obama for racking up a series of quiet accomplishments while everyone else has been talking about mosques.

* Ya think this might be a political winner for Dems? A new CNN poll finds that less than a third support extending all the Bush tax cuts, while 58 percent support ending them for the rich, and another 18 percent back ending all the tax cuts.

* But: Health reform still remains unpopular, with 56 percent opposing the law, though a sizable chunk (13 percent) oppose it because it's not liberal enough.

* And: The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says extending the Bush tax cuts will provide a short term economic boost but will also lead to a big jump in the Federal deficit, putting us in a dicey fiscal situation later. Aren't some folks saying they're worried about the long-term deficit?

* The Tea continues to scald: In multiple races, the GOP is struggling to heal the GOP-Tea Party rift left behind by hard fought primaries.

Concession of the day: GOP House candidate GOP candidate Tom Ganley of Ohio allows that Obama just might be a Christian after all (emphasis mine):

"I do not believe President Obama's religion has any impact on the need for jobs in Ohio's 13th district. According to the White House, our president is a Christian and I have no reason to believe otherwise."

* Can we stop calling antiwar sentiment "left wing" yet? Opposition to the war in Afghanistan goes mainstream.

* Placing blame squarely where it belongs: People think Obama is a Muslim because he's failed to publicly advertise his Christianity as ostentatiously as his predecessor did.

* Failure: Conservatives like to say that history will vindicate Bush on the Iraq war, but the public believes otherwise.

Obama versus Bush: The DNC goes up on national cable with this new ad that attempts to crystallize the emerging Dem message for the fall -- and includes a cameo by a certain unpopular former president:

* And isn't she supposed to be a rock star? Philip Elliott takes stock of Sarah Palin's recent endorsements and concludes that the Mama Grizzly in Chief's roar isn't so terrifying after all.

What else is happening?

* 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?