Today’s Jolt looks at some meaty topics: the media dynamics forcing and fueling Representative Peter King’s tantrum over objections to pork in the hurricane relief bill, and the strangely quiet-to-nonexistent challenge to John Boehner within the GOP caucus . . . but nothing beats our third, lighter item:

Two Great Tastes You Never Liked, Finally Together as One

“Your Current TV got in my al-Jazeera! Your al-Jazeera got into my Current TV!”

You know why they called it “Current”? Because it had no future.

Al Jazeera on Wednesday completed a deal to take over Current TV, the low-rated cable channel that was founded by Al Gore and his business partners seven years ago.

Current will provide the pan-Arab news giant with something it has sought for years: a pathway into American living rooms. Current is available in about 60 million of the 100 million homes in the United States with cable or satellite service.

Rather than simply use Current to distribute its English-language channel, called Al Jazeera English and based in Doha, Qatar, Al Jazeera will create a new channel, called Al Jazeera America, based in New York. Roughly 60 percent of the programming will be produced in the United States, while the remaining 40 percent will come from Al Jazeera English.

Al Jazeera may absorb some Current TV staff members, according to people with knowledge of the deal who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. But Current’s schedule of shows will most likely be dissolved in the spring.

“Poor Eliot Spitzer!” said absolutely no one.

Can this get any sweeter? Yes, it can: “Mr. Gore and his partners were eager to complete the deal by Dec. 31, lest it be subject to higher tax rates that took effect on Jan. 1, according to several people who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.”

But wait, there’s more! Guess who Current’s old owners refused a deal with?

Glenn Beck’s The Blaze approached Current about buying the channel last year, but was told that “the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view,” according to a person familiar with the negotiations.

Based on Hyatt’s quote, the owners of Current TV didn’t want Glenn to purchase Current TV and put TheBlaze in millions of home across the country because they didn’t agree with his point of view. They must not feel the same way about Al Jazeera, a news organization that ran an op-ed comparing Glenn to a terrorist.

Glenn has taken issue with Al Jazeera in the past, noting their connections to Islamic extremism and their anti-American leanings in their reporting.

Had TheBlaze successfully purchased Current TV, the current lineup of TheBlaze TV would have replaced the existing progressive programming in 59 million homes in the United States.

As one righty fellow said on an e-mail list I’m on, “This is just about the greatest worldview validation news item for conservatives  ever.”

Michael Goldfarb: “Al Gore, lining his pockets with fossil fuel money.”

Phil Klein: “Now Israel will be blamed for global warming, too!”

But crown Allahpundit for the best response: “I really don’t like the idea of an extremist propaganda outlet that seeks the destruction of America airing on U.S. cable. Fortunately, sounds like Al Jazeera’s about to get rid of it.”

Frank J.: “I haven’t been able to come up with a joke about Al Jazeera buying Al Gore’s Current TV; you can’t really improve on the premise.”

Ken Vogel of Politico reported, “Time Warner Cable did not consent to sale to Al Jazeera. Consequently, Current will no longer be carried on Time Warner Cable.” Good, we’re keeping this product safely contained.

The death of Qaddafi, and some pop-culture silliness about television shows fearing to echo or managing to predict actual events, feature in the final Morning Jolt of the week. And then there’s this intriguing polling result:

Illinois? Really?

The headline is a predictable “Poll: Obama tops GOP Rivals in Illinois,” but look beyond that and the implications are pretty stunning:

Obama did best against Perry, with 50.8 percent of respondents reelecting the president and 32.8 percent choosing the Texas governor.

Obama did the worst again Romney, with 46.1 percent to 38.5. Against Cain, the former chief executive officer of Godfather’s Pizza, the percentage was 46.3 percent for Obama against 34 percent for Cain.

Finally against Ron Paul, Obama had a showing of 49.3 percent against 30.3 percent.

The poll is the fourth annual state survey taken by the institute. It surveyed by phone 1,000 registered Illinois voters from Oct. 11 through Oct. 16 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

“You could look at this as being uncomfortably close for the president in his home state,” institute director David Yepsen said. “On the other hand you could say Obama is holding up fairly well in Illinois, given the difficult year he has had politically and the continued poor performance of the economy.”

Get beyond the “meh” numbers for the Republicans. Note that other than his quasi-home state of Hawaii and perhaps some intensely Democratic state, like Vermont or Maryland, this should be one of Obama’s strongest states. He won it with 61.8 percent in 2008.

Also note, of course, this is registered voters, not likely voters, so if it holds to traditional patterns, it’s probably giving Democrats a slight edge they wouldn’t have among actual votes. (Insert joke about Illinois’s dead casting votes here.) Then we get to this: “The poll shows 51.8 percent of respondents think Obama is doing a good job, while 46.4 percent disapprove.”

In other words, even in the state most inclined to give Obama every benefit of the doubt, they’re souring on him.

“When an incumbent can’t get to 50% against challengers in the other party’s primary, that’s a big red flag in any state,” writes Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. “Undecideds usually break hard against the incumbent, and being below 50% means that the possibility of a loss becomes much greater, especially if turnout shifts in favor of the opponents. When that occurs in an incumbent President’s home state — especially one so solidly Democratic as Illinois — it’s practically a cue for a dirge. Pat Quinn’s 35% job approval rating as Governor isn’t exactly helpful either, as it will depress enthusiasm and grassroots efforts to turn out the vote. Obama may have to avoid Quinn in order to campaign effectively, and that won’t be easy to do. . . . Does this mean Republicans could end up winning Illinois in a general election? I wouldn’t bet money on that outcome, but that’s not the real issue here. What this means is that Obama will have to bet money on Illinois, and a lot of it, to keep the GOP from taking his home state in November 2012. That’s money that Obama won’t be spending elsewhere, like Virginia, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina, and other states that he needs to keep in order to win re-election.”

To be honest, I’m not even sure Obama will need to spend much money to keep Illinois, and judging by the fundraising so far, Obama isn’t likely to lose in 2012 because of a lack of funds. What I do find significant about this is that if Obama’s numbers look mediocre here, they’re much worse in much less friendly territory, and thus, barring some dramatic change in the next 13 months, he’s doomed. Fairly early in the evening in 2004, appearing on NRANews.com and calling in to ABC News.com, I was confidently projecting a George W. Bush win, based on how John Kerry was dramatically underperforming Gore in non-swing states like Connecticut and New Jersey. If Kerry was under-performing Gore in heavily Democratic states, it was hard to believe he would somehow outperform Gore’s threshold in tougher places like Florida.

But . . . still a lot of race to run.

As liberal blogs used to say, “I question the timing.”

Al Gore, on his personal site, June 14, 2010 : 1:08 PM:

“When the operators of Southern Seaplane in Belle Chasse, La., called the local Coast Guard-Federal Aviation Administration command center for permission to fly over restricted airspace in Gulf of Mexico, they made what they thought was a simple and routine request.”

“A pilot wanted to take a photographer from The Times-Picayune of New Orleans to snap photographs of the oil slicks blackening the water. The response from a BP contractor who answered the phone late last month at the command center was swift and absolute: Permission denied.”

This behavior is completely unacceptable. Access by reporters should be as unfettered as possible. This de facto form of censorship needs to stop.

The web site of the tabloid Star magazine, 25 hours and 27 minutes later:

Al Gore’s split from wife Tipper after 40 years of marriage was a shock to everyone who thought theirs was the ideal marriage. Now Star can exclusively reveal that the former Vice President was having an affair with Larry David’s ex-wife — for the past two years!

Remarkable coincidence, having this rumor turn up roughly one day after Gore accuses authorities of “de facto censorship.”

I find myself strangely bummed about the news of the impending separation of Al and Tipper Gore. Oh, I’ve chuckled at the man’s ability to embody the walking antidote to charisma and sworn at his unprecedented and divisive refusal to accept defeat during the 2000 recount, but nobody deserves the pain that comes with the ordeal of the end of a marriage, even under reasonably amicable circumstances. And it’s a bit surprising to watch a couple split after they’ve experienced everything the Gores have — raising children, a rise to prominence in the Senate, the national spotlight during the 1992 campaign, eight years a heartbeat away from the presidency, the bitter defeat of the 2000 campaign, the cavalcade of awards for a documentary — Oscar, Nobel — and then . . . with their lives actually rather quiet, then they find they can’t live with each other anymore? They could handle everything except circumstances that almost resembled normal life?

But then again, perhaps when you’re in the white-hot spotlight of national politics, the sense that it’s the two of you against the world can keep you together. A divorce during his vice-presidency would have complicated Gore’s 2000 bid; a divorce in the years after his defeat would have left folks whispering that the experience tore them apart. Throughout it all, they probably needed each other. Today, with some space, and with the national political press largely considering them an afterthought . . . the circumstances are different. Sad, nonetheless.