I’ve always had a problem with the word Islamist. We don’t speak of Christianists, or Judaists. People who believe in Islam are called Muslims. But it's rude to make sweepingly hostile remarks about Muslims, so we invented the word Islamist (which really just means Muslim) as a veil for anti-Muslim insults. After all, when’s the last time you heard the word Islamist deployed in a favourable context?
Here are sentences you'll never hear:
1. The President paid a visit to leaders of the local Islamist community. 2. Moderate Islamists called for restraint. 3. In a special address, His Holiness the Pope called for improved relations between Christians and Islamists. 4. Controversy followed proposals to open an Islamist preschool near Ground Zero. 5. In a day of fierce clashes, innocent Islamist civilians were set upon by Zionist settlers.
Wikipedia quotes a 2003 article in Middle East Quarterly:
In summation, the term Islamism enjoyed its first run, lasting from Voltaire to the First World War, as a synonym for Islam. Enlightened scholars and writers generally preferred it to Mohammedanism. Eventually both terms yielded to Islam, the Arabic name of the faith, and a word free of either pejorative or comparative associations. There was no need for any other term, until the rise of an ideological and political interpretation of Islam challenged scholars and commentators to come up with an alternative, to distinguish Islam as modern ideology from Islam as a faith
Sweet as it is, that rationale just begs the question as to why ideologues like George Bush and P.W Botha should not be called Christianists. Check Jy!?
In the post-Christmas euphoria of that nice lady and the judge getting shot in Arizona, POTUS polled in the low 50's, and the pundits were over-the-moon (or rueful, depending) on his apparent unassailability. On the heels of His lame duck victories a regular (hence well-informed) reader of this blog was prompted to ask
Tax deal (yuck, but a success I guess), repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Zadroga bill for 9/11 workers, and the NewStart treaty all within a few weeks of POTUS being written off as useless ... will it go on?
As usual, the Truecents wet blanket was close at hand. In our SOTU note we remarked that
Last year saw the Republican's winning the battle of ideas, and consolidating their cooption of the Hope/Change strategy. The current political momentum is theirs to lose. I'm calling Barry at 47% on RCP (and a similar level on the rolling Gallup) by the end of March.
Today is March 31. The RCP average has Obama's approval rating at 47.2%. I say this as a prelude:
1. The downward drift confirms the oft-cited anomaly that people like Obama - except in his capacity as administrator. He did well at the New Year precisely because he wasn't doing anything, having handed over his legaslative agenda (DODT, Tax-Cut extentions) to Republicans. The bounce you saw then (as I may have pointed out at the time) was a reward for him faking not being himself. As soon as he'd get to act (which we'd predicted would have happened by the end of the first quarter) the kudos would be withdrawn. 2. I'm gonna stop calling the approval rating until closer to the election (i.e. not before 2012). 3. The Libyan misadventure has not been the fillip one would have expected. Remember, this poll was taken days AFTER Monday's over-hyped and belated casus belli. 4. The political momentum (remarkably!) stays with the GOP. In a weird sort of way (which I'll expound upon later, if I've not already done so) this is good for progressives. I mean real ones.
In both SA and the USA I tend to ignore the SOTN/U address, as I've learnt that there usually is a chasm between its rhetoric and the ensuing action. The test is what the shape of WH policy will be. Surprisingly, the following two reviews - form opposite sides of the US political spectrum, are similarly guarded in their enthusiasm:
My own take (on a speech that I haven't, and won't view/read) is that Krauthamer's early definition of the "Obama three-step" is being played out, except with faster-paced music. Krauthamer's version is that Obama: 1. Begins with a fiery denunciation of Bush (read Republicanism) 2. Trumpets minor deviations from the Bush/Republican script. 3. Quietly proceeds with acquiescence to the core rightist script.
So, e.g, last night's soaring defense of progressive spending policy comes only weeks after the expansion of the Bush tax cuts. The continued rhetoric about Health Care reform (included in last night's speech) masks the reality that there hasn't been any (ignoring, of course, the lobbyist-friendly expansion of health insurance). And so forth.
Obama appears to be riding high on Tucson, but this isn't as good as it looks because: 1. This is an Oklahomaesque tragedy, which has propelled his ratings only back to the 50% mark. A 4% jump. Clinton's post-McVie jump was 5% (I quote Gallup, unless) - off the same base as Obama's - which he gave up two months later. 2. Tucson happened during a politically quiet period, when there wasn't negative news (barring the old-hat low joblessness figures) to counterveil. 3. Tucson happened right after Obama gained kudos amongst independents, by extending the Bush tax cuts (no-child-left-behind and NewSTART were relative grace notes). 4. As the normal post-holiday political season gets underway, the goodwill drag will resume.
Last year saw the Republican's winning the battle of ideas, and consolidating their cooption of the Hope/Change strategy. The current political momentum is theirs to lose. I'm calling Barry at 47% on RCP (and a similar level on the rolling Gallup) by the end of March.
Barring things that won't be barred, I'll be up live blogging the mid-terms. Since this is truly boring I've availed myself of the following shortcuts:
No luv, guv: I can't even spell g-u-b-e-r-n-a-t-o-r-i-a-l and am definitely not interested.
No House Call: Since the House of Representatives is falling by a clear margin, there's little interest in anticipating that. I know no better than to go with the RCP consensus of 224 seats.
Upper tossers toss-ups only: All seven of the RCP Senate toss-ups have Democratic incumbents. I'll call them as follows:
a. CA Boxer/Fiorini: D b. CO Bennet/Buck: R c. IL Gianoulias/Kirk: R d. NV Angle/Reid: R e. PA Sestak/Toomey: R f. WA Murray/Rossi: R g. WV Manchkin/Raese: D
Which, if you assume (as I do) that both parties win the seats that are at least leaning in their columns splits the caucuses 50/50. Connecticut and Nebraska will (initially at least) stay on board, making Joe Biden descend to keep the gavels blue. I have the toss-ups breaking as I do because I think that the GOP will have a turnout advantage today, which'll push their candidates outside their respective margins of error.
This is the perfect result for the Republicans, who are rewarded for being the better (more consistent, more disciplined, sharper communicators, more populist, better adapted) party over the last two years. They score the following:
The power to command show trials in Congress.
In the Senate Democrats, a partner to blame for obstruction (which will be handy in 2012 when little has happened.)
A cornhusker option - to be used when they get momentum in pushing their agenda through the lower house. They trigger the option by enticing a Democratic with offers of shared goodwill if s/he cooperates in the Senate. This will require eight months (at least) to realise.
Some races to watch:
Angle/Reid is the most sensational (and heartbreaking, on my count) race...
... followed by Boxer/Fiorini (but without the tears.)
It'll still be interesting to see with what margin O'Donnell is roasted at the stake.
Rasmussen/Shrum. After the latter's shrill recent remarks, I'd be keen to see whether Democracy Corpse is more or less (I'm betting less) accurate in calling the result than Rasmussen.
For those who care, this is my first misadventure as an RSS user. Time is EDT.
[16h42] I see that Karl Rove differs with me by one seat (Washington, which he has in the blue column.) To my credit I never liked (or knew) him. A day-old post by Dick Morris paints it red.
By the way, Sage is a handy RSS aggregator, loaded as a Mozilla plugin (for Netscape and Firefox.)
[18h34] ABC publishes a stunning exit poll showing high levels of voter dissatisfaction. 73% dissatisfied with the way that the federal government is working; two in three believe the stimulus hasn't helped; 62% believe the country is headed in the wrong track, etc. So now we no that the angry people have come to play. The next thing to find is turnout data, when we can see if they're large numbers of angryfolk. That's what my 50/50 hinges on.
[22h18] I wake from a peaceful sleep. It's hard to read results when you're yawning. None of the tossups have declared, but with partial results it looks as if I'm coming unstuck in Illionois.
[22h19] Seven minutes ago, Dick Morris left a podcast. "PA and Il continue to trend in our direction, though we trail in each." Then he talks about the the shrinking Republican minority in each, and concludes "who knows what's gonna happen there, but we're looking alright." MSNBC exit polling describes an older more conservative electorate.
NBC is calling the House 237 to 198.
[22h22] Morris is on the verge of conceding Pennsylvania. This is weird as RCP has it 50/50 with 80% of the votes in. That sounds like a Republican advantage, as they dominate the late-reporting countryside.
[22h56] The world awaits Jon Boehner's victory speech. Morris has retracted his concession, and now agrees with me about the outcome in PA and IL. All the polls have closed now. The inauguration of Jerry Brown (at last, and again) looms.
[23h06] Russ Feingold passes away quietly.
[23:29] This is officially bigger than '94.
[23h45] Heartache. Boehner the crybaby cracks up during his victory speech. At one point in the jerk-and-sniff his wife responds with laughter. Barbara Boxer wins in California. This means that the Democrats have won both the Senate toss-ups I said they would. All they need do now is to lose the remainder.
[23h46] In Pennsylvania Toomey comes through the hoop.
[0h05 - the next day] Pumpkin time, and the Senate Democrats get to 50. In a devastating blow to Republicans, Dick Morris goes to bed.
[0h20] As predicted Senator Obama's vacated seat goes to a Republican.
[0h37] Harry Reid defies fate (and me) retaining his position at the Senate's helm. The fat laddie has sung. In a few hours we return for final tally.
My opinions have been outsourced (but not to China). This from STRATFOR
By George Friedman | October 26, 2010
We are a week away from the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. The outcome is already locked in. Whether the Republicans take the House or the Senate is almost immaterial. It is almost certain that the dynamics of American domestic politics will change. The Democrats will lose their ability to impose cloture in the Senate and thereby shut off debate. Whether they lose the House or not, the Democrats will lose the ability to pass legislation at the will of the House Democratic leadership. The large majority held by the Democrats will be gone, and party discipline will not be strong enough (it never is) to prevent some defections.
Should the Republicans win an overwhelming victory in both houses next week, they will still not have the votes to override presidential vetoes. Therefore they will not be able to legislate unilaterally, and if any legislation is to be passed it will have to be the result of negotiations between the president and the Republican Congressional leadership. Thus, whether the Democrats do better than expected or the Republicans win a massive victory, the practical result will be the same.
Following the successful repeal of Proposition 8, the confirmation of the fourth woman on the SCOTUS, and other stuff I can't recall, we (i.e. me) here at truecents are considering cashing in on the bouyance of the US courts by suing history. You heard right. We're taking Time (not the magazine, but the fourth dimension itself) to court for violating our sacred truecents IP by unfolding as predicted. In our Inauguration Special we warned that:
Unraveling: Obama's juggernaut-of-rivals will give way to a more focussed, coherent, administration. The peripheral elements (like Paul Volker) will give way to the core, so that within two years the administration will look a lot more trim. If this is well managed (gently picking off the elements one-by-one), it will herald an unremarkable transition from a campaign of transformative insurgence to a conservative administration. If it's poorly managed it could spark divisive revenge from the outgunned rivals. Either way, the implementors of Clinton's triangulation will reintroduce centreism as the animating theme of the adminstration. This time, the chastening effect of the economic fallout will double the conservatising impulse.
Greg Craig was damply squiby, but with Christina Romer's resignation the portents are clearer. This bit of deepthroatery from Hotline
"She doesn't feel that she has a direct line to the president. She would be giving different advice than Larry Summers [director of the National Economic Council], who does have a direct line to the president."
Dear readers, you've been let down. Apologies to the thousands of surfers fruitlessly coming here for first sight of Gordon Brown's demise. I'd recommend the Guardian liveblog instead.
This morning the Ghosts of Gerhard Schroeder and Al Gore jet into the UK to buddy-up to the (outgoing?) prime minister.
Brown's strategy now is to convince the Liberal Democrats that their best shot ever is to work together on a tight package of reforms (electoral, immigration and Trident) over a two year period. As time marches on Brown's fortunes improve.
In contrast, a delay - even a two-year one - may cost Cameron his party leadership. This was his election to lose, and he may well have done this. So his strategy now is to appeal to public sentiment, by getting the papers to describe him as the victor, and ingrain the narrative that Brown's exit is inevitable.
The optimal Lib Dem strategy is to cave in to Labour. It's a game-changing trajectory for their party, without the costs of incumbency. Also, they won't be rewarded for the "noble" recognition of the Conservative victory.
