With Biden and Palin Veeps, GOP Effort to Get Jewish Vote Collapses
I think it is safe to say that when the Presidential candidates were picking their #2's,Barack Obama considered, among many factors, the impact that his choice would have among Jewish voters. John McCain didn't.
Before they picked their veeps, it was considered possible that McCain would make inroads among those Jewish voters who make their decision based on support for Israel. That is a minority of Jewish voters but probably enough to swing a state like Florida or even Nevada.
The Obama campaign wants those voters. It does not necessarily need the 78% of the Jewish vote that went to John Kerry, but it certainly wants more than 70%. That requires some outreach to Jewish voters -- mostly seniors -- who were not comfortable with Obama.
Then Obama picked Biden who is about as close to the pro-Israel community as any member of either house. Biden is rated 100% by AIPAC (while at the same time being a strong supporter of the two-state solution). He is also the most knowledgeable Member of Congress on Arab-Israeli issues. When he goes to the synagogues in Florida, he goes not as a visitor but as "mishpocha." The Jews simply love the guy.
Bottom line: The Biden choice pretty much eliminated Obama's "Jewish problem."
And then the icing on the cake. McCain picked Palin who has no foreign policy experience and was a strong Pat Buchanan supporter. Right or wrong, Jews consider Buchanan both an isolationist and an anti-Semite. (Remember the brouhaha when it turned out that, thanks to the weird ballot design, Jews in Palm Beach County thought they voted for Gore but were counted for Buchanan?)
Palin is also anti-choice, a creationist and one of those Republicans with little regard for separation of church and state. As for McCain, he has no record on Israel at all; he talks the talk but, unlike Obama, seems never to have given Arab-Israeli issues much thought.
The upshot is that the Jewish vote will stay overwhelmingly Democratic. McCain had a chance but he threw it away (Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge, or Lieberman would have kept the Jews in play).
If it was just Obama vs. McCain, Obama might have had to struggle to get much above 70%. But now it's Obama-Biden vs. McCain-Palin. The Democrats should shoot for 90%, like LBJ got against Goldwater.
Those of you who don't follow this issue might wonder at these numbers. Are there other white folks who vote Democratic at such a rate that under 70% for Democrats is considered a disaster. The answer is NO. American Jews are, for the most part, well-off. But they vote as if they still were poor ghetto dwellers, somehow understanding that their fate is connected to the fate of those who have little or nothing.
I am not sure where they got that idea. Oh yeah, I know. The Torah.
@ Rosenberg
Joseph Biden has shown a softness toward Iran
Here's Yossi Melman's take on Biden, recently expressed in Ha'aretz, the Left-Wing Israeli version of the New York Times.
And who is Yossi Melman?
Yossi Melman
So I have to ask TPM why they continue to publish Rosenberg. He is a man totally without honor, intergrity, or courage. Is he really the best you can find?
August 30, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou said;
Your continual obsession with MJ and your continual use of vicious attacks suggests a pathology.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
August 30, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1014458.html
"The head of a major Jewish Democratic organization praised Barack Obama on Saturday for an "outstanding selection" in tapping Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware to be his vice presidential running mate.
"Biden is a strong leader and great friend of the American Jewish community with extensive foreign policy experience and a solid pro-Israel record," Ira Forman, the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council said Saturday.
"Biden embodies the Jewish ideal of practicing tikkun olam - repairing the world and has a strong commitment to issues important to the Jewish community including, civil liberties, civil liberties, reproductive rights for women, education, health care, the environment, opposition to radical right wing judicial appointees, combating violence against women, and maintaining a strong wall between church and state," Forman said.
August 30, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
As is the custom, the cleric's words were greeted by his audience with cries of "Death to America
And we all know words are cheap especially if they are obviously bluster.
OTY:
Excuse me OTY but it seems that you and MJ obsess about who or what is best for Israel inordinately. I understand that you have strong feelings towards the well-being of Israel and I don't think anybody begrudges you that.
However in the end, what Ultimately concerns us non-Jewish Americans is what is best for the United States.
That does not mean that there cannot be any congruence of interests. Indeed there is a congruence of interests.
However as a non Jew I have seen our Middle East policy go from bad to worse to the point that we find ourselves in a terrible situation geopolitically and that at least in part because of unwise policies vis-à-vis the Middle East.
I agree with you that MJ seems to be rather knee jerk in his posts. One day this the next that. You say that because he hangs out with all these wise neocons he can't be considered naive, but I beg to differ.
A good friend of mine who happens to be Jewish told me: Either Obama or McCain; neither will be all that good for Israel. Perhaps that is realism.
August 30, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ strat
Don't think that my responses to Rosenberg, and to far too many others on the Left who think like him, are my entire response as an American.
I cannot find fault with the argument Marshall made in opposition to Truman's decision to recognize Israel, or with Truman's actions. Either represented a legitimate interpretation of America's interests.
The argument can be continued today; it is legitimate for Americans to think that we are paying too high a price to support Israel's continued existence (Naturally I don't like such a position because I have dual loyalties).
What I can't support are hypocrisy and stupidity. Claims which, in essence, say that the Arabs are people of good faith who do not seek the destruction of Israel (and so on).
As for Rosenberg. He's a venal cur.
August 31, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. You're not offensive to me, at least not the way you think you are. You'd have to make some sense once in a while to do that. All you have is a peculiar personal vendetta going, and it's just odd.
2. I find it interesting that you would try to censor or suppress a particular viewpoint. That says more about you than anything else you've ever said. If anything, it makes me more interested in what "Rosenberg" has to say. Thanks.
3. He signs his name to his opinions. We're all anonymous here, which is usually OK. But you smear and lob constant personal attacks and your anonymity just feels like the bluster of a coward. Your choice of names and an avatar that looks suspiciously like Vlad the Impaler is evidence to me of one thing: emotionally stunted coward. Come out of the shadows and act like a man, fake blood drinker. Start posting under your real name and identity, or STFU.
4. Keep it up, MJ.
August 30, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ goshen
First of all. Lots of viewpoints are censored under the catch all of "hate speech", and by public shunning.
Second, liars, plagiarizers, and other similar types SHOULDN'T be published. Not publishing them is most definitely NOT censorship.
Third. Many, many Israelis are very worried about Iran and therefore about Biden's attitudes towards Iran. Since most American Jews care a great deal about Israel they will care about Biden's attitudes. And since many of them regularly read Ha'aretz they will know about Melman's article. There's a good chance they will add that to concern about Obama's domestic policies - based on his long association with Farrakhan friend Jeremiah Wright - and not vote Democratic.
Fourth. You don't know anything about sense which is why you can't understand even the simplest of my arguments.
Fifth. Anonymity provides protection for the average person. Same as the secret ballot. That should be obvious to even a complete moron such as yourself. However, when asked, I've provided all details on my personal situation - everything relevant except my name and address - which is a lot more than that dishonest scum Rosenberg ever did.
August 30, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou said:
Fifth. Anonymity provides protection for the average person. Same as the secret ballot. That should be obvious to even a complete moron such as yourself.
More uncalled for vicious insults, tsk, tsk, tsk.
August 30, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ goshen
Suspiciously? When I list myself as Vlad Tepec, aged 577? What does it take to make you certain of something?
Also, you might try learning something of history, instead of taking it from movies and comic books. Vlad florished during very cruel times, in a very cruel place, when Christians and Muslims were duking it out in the Balkans. Vlad is still honored among his own people as a great and courageous patriot whose actions were justified by his situation and by the actions of his enemies.
Our times reminded me of his, and his direct thought and actions seem not inappropriate.
August 30, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meh.
More ranting.
August 30, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to your logic is someone is NOT given the privilege of writing articles for this blog then they are being denied free speech. That's absurd. OTY is merely saying that what MJ contributes to the Grand Debate is of marginal value, and I agree.
August 30, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The perception that Biden, somehow, brings the Jewish vote is a mistake. What isn't mistaken and not forgotten is Hussen Obama's membership in a radical anti-jewish church and his associations with known terrorist bombers (Ayers). Florida is much more than simply the Jewish vote. It also has more women voters than most any other state. No matter your personal feelings and the angst this has caused you, McCain made a pick that is sure to go down in history as one of the greatest political moves ever. In one morning, on one day, on a small stage in Ohio, Obama was knocked from his perceived mantel of victory and into the trash heap of history. Good for him the he ran for president but a team much more qualified has stepped into the fray.
August 30, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, do you think that Sarah Palin is going to bring the Jewish vote? The idea of that woman in charge when McCain's dementia gets even worse or if he has a stroke, being in charge is frightening to anyone with a brain.
Do you think the Jewish people are going to be thrilled to elect an evangelical anti-choice person who was chosen for her gender and far-right religious beliefs only? (What other possible reason could there be since he met her only once and spoke to her on the phone only once before making this huge decision?
August 30, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful if Sarah Palin is a Buchanan acolyte and it is true that Buchanan is no great friend of Israel, then McCain has been engaged in all sorts of subtle signaling.
August 30, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the Iranians like Biden.
Biden also threatened to impeach Bush if he tried to attack Iran without Congressional consent.
The problem I am having is how Melman, or any Israeli, thinks any Administration is going to approve of an Israeli attack on Iran.
The Israelis appear to be living in a dream world.
Don't they realize our economy will collapse after an attack on Iran?
August 30, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ diachronic
Of course they realize such an action entails great risk...and no, they don't share your assessment of the situation.
August 30, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ diachronic
Put another way, they refuse to play prewar Czeckslovakia so that you and Rosenberg can continue to shop to your heart's content.
August 30, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou,
I consider the Israeli proposed bombing of sites in Iran as a strategic disaster even if it could achieve its stated aim (which it can't), of forestalling the Iranian nuke program. A war between Iran and Israel would become a proxy war in Lebanon, where Israel has never had success.There is simply no positive outcome to be gained from an Israeli (or, for that matter, American) attack.
The analogy between pre-WWII Czechoslovakia and israel has no merit. Pre-WWII Czechoslovakia did not have nuclear weapons, or any way of defending itself outside of agreements with the West. And Iran is not a military power anywhere on the par of Nazi Germany.
The Iranians did an excellent job baiting the U.S. in the run-up to the Iraq invasion (see Ahmad Chalabi, probable Iranian double agent and neoconservative darling). They are doing the same thing to the Israelis.
August 30, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ diachronic
Wrong. They had the Sudenland and one of the strongest armament industries in the world. And Chamberlain did not simply renounce his obligations, he actively sided with Hitler.
Aside from that we're talking about an analogy, not an exact repeat of history. Nor did I claim that the Israeli assessment was better than yours (although that is surely the case), only that you differed.
What is clear is that if Israel attacks Iran it is because they feel they must, and if their action destroys the U.S. economy, too bad. We don't have the power to stop them...and if we don't have the power to stop Iran either then destiny will take a hand.
August 30, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a pretty flat-out Anti_American stance you are taking OTY. You realize that don't you?
August 30, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ strat
No.
I was speaking as if I were an Israeli powerful enough to be making decisions. He would be saying "We attack Iran because our existence is on the line...and we will not play Czechoslovakia for you" (That's just what Benny Morris did say).
As an American how would you respond to that? What threats could you realistically make that would stop him? What actions could you realistically take?
Wasn't all this obvious? What were you thinking when you accused me of taking an anti-American stance?
August 31, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok so if it was a third person view that you were expressing, I apologize.
I see exactly how Israelis would think and it is not far from how you describe it but I really do think that our leadership--both political and military--need to intervene in this thing in a meaningful way and when I say "meaningful" I mean in a way that will take care of the best long-term interests of the United States which surely include the continued existence of Israel.
What do we do if Israel refuses to play ball? I think that we have sufficient leverage with them that we can forcwe them to comply.
When Bush got into office and proclaimed that the “adults” were now in charge it was one of the most deluded statements any leader ever made upon taking office. It turned out that his administration is largely responsible for the mess we (and Israel) are in today.
The whole idea that we could unilaterally assert our will anywhere and everywhere in the world without much thought or planning and the rest of the world will submissively fall in line because we have such superior firepower—and inherent moral authority-- has to be one of the most childish ideas in the annals of statecraft.
August 31, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't know about threats, but "You're on your own from here on out" might give them pause.
September 1, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ squeakyrat
What we have done is provide them with a missile defense system (3 guys in a trailer is the way Aluf Benn or Bradley Burston described it) and assurances that we are continuing to pressure Iran to stop any nuclear weapons work...and have insisted that they not attack.
Also there have been meetings between missile specialists of the two countries.
That's the best we can do. Saying "you're on your own" can cut both ways; it will only enhance their since of isolation and desperation and - since they are already existentially threatened - might induce them to act sooner rather than later, because they think their chances are better now than later (just as the Japanese reasoned when attacking Pearl Harbor, or Hitler when he attacked the Soviet Union before the British were defeated) or bring on a Gotterdammerung which takes everyone down with them.
September 1, 2008 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ squeakyrat
There's something else which bothers me about positions like yours.
You believe that an attack on Iran is beyond our present capability. We are already stretched to the breaking point. We therefore do not have the leverage to force them to give up weapons development (if they are engaged in such an activity).
You believe that Israel is - unquestionably - the strongest military and economic force is the region by far.
Yet you believe we have the leverage to force them to back down in a confrontation which they regard as an existential crisis. How?
We can't attack them militarily - they have nuclear weapons and massive support in our country. We can't even significantly reduce aid to them without a huge political change which no candidate is proposing.
But, none the less, you want to force them to your will by just such a method...and still want to claim you support the existence of the Jewish state. Or do you?
September 1, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Offensivetoyou,
The problem with attacking Iran, on a purely instrumental view, is that it works against American interests directly, by creating conflict between the pro-Iranian Shiite Government we have sunk many lives and billions into, and ourselves. And Israel's prime ally remains the U.S. So in this regard, there is a conflict between our own interests, which are indirectly (through alliance) Israel's, and Israel's own perceived interest.
It is why I cannot understand why Israel could have encouraged the U.S. to invade Iraq, if their intelligence services are still competent. Since the probable outcome of the Iraq invasion was precisely a strengthening of Iran, and consequent increased likelihood of their obtaining nukes, which Israel claims is a reason to bomb them.
I have to conclude, therefore, that the Israelis are basing their decisions on an intelligence corps that is incompetent.
They (the Israelis) may be, then, in a dire situation. I don't doubt that. But I don't think they have the slightest clue how to get out of it. Bombing Iran will dig their hole even deeper.
August 31, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ diachronic
The Israeli intelligence services are not incompetent when compared to you. That is a certainty. But that is far from a guarantee that they are always right.
Hatreds are multiple and alliances are constantly shifting in that region. Keeping them so was the basis of colonial strategy and it is the basis of ours and the Israelis as well.
Henry Kissenger famously said, when discussing the Iran-Iraq war, it would be a good thing if both sides could lose.
September 1, 2008 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that is the crux of our ME policy since Reagan. It is why (or part of the reason) we supplied both sides during their war. And it is why Bush I did not remove Saddam after Gulf War I.
In Kissinger's realpolitik terms, it made sense. Despite the anti-American, anti-Israel nature of both regimes, they counterbalanced one another, and created a situation that was very very far from ideal... but we are talking about realpolitik.
Bush II's invasion undid all that. In the process it made decades of our ME policy into a weapon that would be used against us. Our refusal to support the Shiites in their post-Gulf War I rebellion ensured that they would find other allies, namely the Iranians with whom they already shared much in common.
And the realpolitik policy of arming both sides predictably and justifiably intensified hatred of the US in both countries. As long as Saddam was in charge of Iraq, that didn't matter as much.
"Helping both sides lose" has its price, particularly when you decide to let one side win. The eventual "winners" might not be grateful.
In fact, the Badrist corps we have installed is the most pro-Iranian faction in Iraq. A competent intelligence agency would have predicted, from the demographics and proximity to Iran, that such a faction would have wound up on top, with a reasonably high probability.
In fact, that is just what the realpolitikers did conclude, based on their actions during and after Gulf War I. What we have had with Bush II is the opposite of Kissinger-type realpolitik. And so we, and our friends, are the losers.
September 1, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ diachronic
When faced with 911, Bush did not have a lot of good choices in his response. Possibly he made a mistake and possibly the Israelis did too. That's war. Intelligence services have a very difficult job to do and they often make mistakes, regardless of your arm-chair characterization of them.
Or possibly he and the Israelis didn't and the fortunes of war are what they are.
Either way we and the Israelis must deal with it...and things look harsh to the Israelis as they have during most of their history. I'm sure they're not overwhelmed by the challenge.
September 1, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Czechoslovakia. I know only a slovak could even pronounce it correctly
August 30, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarg,
I couldn't agree with you more;
My air is poisoned, my job went to China, my health care is non-existent, my son's body is spread all over Iraq, but all these problems will be taken care of if only we put restrictions on gays...
No wait! things will be all right if only we Drill! Yeah, that's it, Drill!, that'll do it! Oil is our problem? well, lets drill for more! ANWAR, Yosemite, Yellowstone, my back yard! Get those rigs up and running. And the whacko Environmentalists? Well, they better not get in the way of that refinery being built 3 blocks from my house.
And the Sierra Club better stay away from that Nuclear Power plant being built next to our local
McDonalds.
As to that new coal fired electric generating plant being built in the next town over that won't have to abide by the Clean Air Act, thanks to our great President Bush, well, don't you tree huggers know we're at WAR?
Thank God for John McCain who ALWAYS puts his country first, as he did with the extremely qualified Sarah Palin.....
.....right behind the great political move by George Bush to invade Iraq!
And one more thing, this Obama guy with the big ears, I cannot understand how any rational person could vote for a guy with ears like that.
Rush rules!
August 30, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear John,
Your whining about air pollution, movement of jobs, health care and myriad of other things that ail you, are all products of Congress. Congress passes the laws, ratifies the treaties and even allows drilling. If you have a problem with them quit barking up the wrong tree (Bush pun). Ha!
August 30, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Old Sarg,
do you mean the Gingrich, DeLay, Frist gang that took over Congress in 1995, and which stayed in Republican hands for the next 12 years, till 2006?
Oh yes, I forgot, the last 6 years of the Republican Congress was accompanied by a Republican President, Bush and his gang.
August 30, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still remember an expression from way back in the 70s, "the President can't do anything without approval from Congress". Quaint, really. And it wasn't even true then. The imperial presidency began much earlier.
August 30, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ UHD
The imperial Presidency began with John Adams, according to his enemies, and has continued to this day without a break.
I find that, generally speaking, political thought is to thought as military music is to music (to update a famous bon mot).
September 1, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarg...
A team more qualified? You mean John McCain who can't get who are the Sunnis and who are the Shi'a straight or sp