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 speaks of the Iraq-Pakistan border or whose first inclination to the conflict in Georgia was to send in the 82nd Airborne or the one who supported the ill advised war in Iraq and now claims he has wisdom because he supported the questionably effective 'Surge'?
And Sarah Palin whose foreign policy credentials so far have been touted as being her state is geographically near Russia?
The only thing they are qualified to be elected as are dog catchers...4 more years of the last 8.
August 30, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
libertine said:
Sending the 82nd in would be a disaster. McCain has an over simplified view of a ground war.
August 30, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah he does. He is another in a long list of Republican politicians where military action, and putting American military personnel's lives at risk, is a first option. It is no wonder they are trying to push the Israelis into war...they want them to be just like us.
I couldn't agree with you more John, it would have been a disaster. But that is what we can look forward to if there ever is a President McCain.
August 30, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You mean John McCain who can't get who are the Sunnis and who are the Shi'a straight or speaks of the Iraq-Pakistan border or whose first inclination to the conflict in Georgia was to send in the 82nd Airborne or the one who supported the ill advised war in Iraq and now claims he has wisdom because he supported the questionably effective 'Surge'?"
This is the best succinct summing up of McCain's foreign policy record that I have ever read. Kudos.
August 31, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
By picking Biden it shows that Obama is in tune with the issues which concern Israel...
And just because McCain sings his favorite 'Bomb Iran' song he does so with Israel's best interests as an afterthought. I am fully convinced that many neocons, conservatives and Christian fundamentalists are using the 'we must protect Israel' meme only to further the US's imperialistic agenda in the Middle East...and deep down inside they don't give a rat's ass about Israel. If they did they would be trying to work for a peaceful solution instead of trying to foment unrest and war which will end up with more dead Arabs and Israelis.
August 30, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
Deep down no nation cares about any other. Self-interest always trumps everything else - except, sometimes, blood ties.
August 30, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if I fully agree OTY.
Sure there is always the bottom line when push comes to shove. US troops liberated those abominable camps at the end of WWII. I think there are MANY people in this country who were horrified by the atrocities and take very seriously the vow of 'never again'. Right now I feel the US has 3 so-called 'special allies', countries who we'd view an attack on like we were also attacked, the UK, Canada and Israel and all rightly so. But I get the feeling that Israel and her best interests are being used and manipulated by people who don't take them to heart. If the Republicans did take them to heart they would try to work towards peace rather then always trying to push Israel into war. Of course Israel must be able to defend herself against any security threat that might present itself. But war in and of itself will not make Israel, or any country including the US, a more secure country. War is never the solution in and of itself...
August 30, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
Currently, there's no doubt about our ties to both Canada and Britain...and to Western Europe and Latin America. Israel is more problematic.
Of course, there are manipulators. It's just difficult to know who they are. They always seem to be "the other guy". And war. What is there to say? So destructive...but impossible to eliminate.
August 30, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course war will never be eliminated. That would require mankind to be able to change human nature...and we can't accurately predict tomorrow's weather yet never mind that endeavor.
But war is ugly. War ends up killing many innocent people. War should always be the option of last resort and not a foreign policy tool of first choice. And until the conservatives in the US make serious efforts to try to find a lasting peace for Israel I remain unconvinced of their true commitment to a safe and secure Israel. Striving for peace is the best way to achieve those goals. But rest assured I am all for Israel to be able to defend herself if need be. I am not naive...I know the threats are real. But the situation has not reached the 'last resort' milepost.
August 30, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine,
maybe we should have a Dept of Peace at the Cabinet level.
August 30, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a perfect world John... ;-)
Unfortunately Cabinet level governmental departments only get created when there is money to be made off of something...so M-I wouldn't sign off something like that. If only we took keeping the peace as seriously as we are about waging war. We're very creative when it comes to new and improved ways to kill people in large numbers.
August 30, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's so funny is all of this really doesn't matter. The little "bounce" from the "never to be forgotten" speech has disappeared. The mistreatment of Hillary will be remembered at election time when Sarah becomes the vice-president. Remember when everyone thought Bush should have been impeached? What ever happened to that? Or when Cheney was secretly running the government for Big Oil? What happened to that? The point is that you have been fighting windmills. The bad guys are really just figments of your over active imaginations and the Unites States is really a pretty good place. Obama is wrong when he says the economy is a shambles. GDP last quarter was over 3%. Unemployment is still under 6% and has been for the last 8 years. I made more more in dividends last year than I did in my job so the market is still working and not just for me. Foreclosures are still under 1% of all home loans. The only people burned in the foreclosure debacle were people who were speculating on real estate or just quit making payments. Immigrants still flock to our shores both legally and illegally because this is the greatest country to live in. Stop your fighting and tearing down of each other and remember that Biden, Bush, Palin even Obama really do want the best for this nation and it's not ALL about power. Go out and volunteer at an old folks home. Read them stories or just listen to them. Do something. Let's elect a woman President or even Vice-President. It will be cool.
August 30, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what does that have to do with what me and OTY are discussing OldSarg?
Just for the record none of that stuff is forgotten. And McCain/Palin will be 4 more years of the last 8. More tax breaks for the rich while the middle class gets eradicated...more wars...more dependence on foreign oil. And in the context of Israel, which we are discussing here...4 more years of the US trying to push them into a war while barely paying lip service to any serious peace efforts.
August 30, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude! or Pat? Tax breaks affect everyone just as tax increases do. The only fair tax is a flat tax but even that over taxes the lower income. The only way to break dependence on Foreign Oil TODAY is to open the drilling here and work for viable alternatives over time. When it comes to Israel and war, when it happens, (not if) it won't be because of our pushing it and besides you'll then learn to appreciate the sheepdogs that have protected you sheep for the last 8 years. The peaceful world you live in is not like that outside of this country.
PS: get a new picture or decide what sex you are. You give me a headache.
August 30, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude? Dude?
Buehler...once you use your pic then you will have standing in my book to critique mine. Until then STFU bitch!!! You're a big tough member of the 101st fighting keyboardists I see...I tremble in fear, or then again maybe not.
A safe world we live in? Well lets see...Russia has invaded Georgia...we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq...nuclear armed Pakistan and India are threatening each other over Kashmir...China is messing with Tibet, Nepal and a whole host of other neighbors...North and South Korea...Ecuador and Columbia...Syria and Iran threatening Israel...Syria trying to start a civil war in Lebanon and having their allies in that country inciting Israel...etc. And that is just for starters. Chavez is exerting his influence in South and Central America. Africa is a mess with unstable regimes and civil wars. And this all is happening right now and we are powerless to stop it, or even slow it down, because George W. Bush has squandered all of our 'soft power'. And McCain represents 4 more years of the last 8 where our moral standing to lead gets pissed away.
A safe world? C'mon...are you gonna share the drugs you are on with the rest of us? It appears it is some pretty good shit.
August 30, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And this all is happening right now and we are powerless to stop it, or even slow it down" So I take it you don't get out much? Are you familiar with where our services are serving? Are you so simple minded as to think we are only serving in the middle east? Do you know anything about the missions our services support? Do you know any of our hero's, and if so, were you able to walk away from the meeting?
As far as your little contrite "STFU Bitch" comment, if you cannot discuss thinks in a civil manner you should seek counseling. You could be endangering your health by saying such things. I mean, your heart could give out or your beanbag could fold up on you and you could smother. Accidents happen.
Just concerned, because when you leave comments on-line most anyone can figure out who exactly you are and where you live. You should be careful.....and not so stupid.
August 30, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmmmm...Sarge...hun.
I know our troops are serving all over the world. And I also stand by all the examples that I cited that the world, and the US, is far from safe or peaceful. In fact the world is more unsafe now than it was during the Cold War. So what's your point? And much of this has transpired on El Presidente and the Junta's watch. I am not dissing our troops just our current leaders who have degraded their effectiveness and our might.
And don't whine to me that I smacked you around a bit hun...you decided to start a pointless insult fest and it is something I happen to be pretty good at when need be.
August 30, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, buddy (or whatever), I don't whine unless I'm neck deep in shit without a shovel. While I'm still in the states you're simply a plaything with deficient vision.
August 30, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's all you have in conclusion? Deficient vision? Sad...
I see you conceded my points that when our military forces get used unwisely, in operations without good planning or clear objectives, it degrades our national strength by diminishing the effectiveness of our military.
August 30, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarg says:
OldSarge, please pass that advice along to offensivetoyou
August 30, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
It seems you haven't noticed that libertine and I have a civil relationship. She has her reasons, I'm sure. I find her to be intelligent, decent, and honest and therefore worth the effort.
I can't say that any of those things are true about you. You're just a pathetic dog who follows me around yapping. Once in awhile, you get my attention.
August 30, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
Sorry that should be addressed to JohnWJackass, as I'm sure is already evident to you.
August 30, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTY...
I have no problem with you personally and generally no problem with anyone here personally. I can get nasty with the best of them, and I was only clearing my throat before with OldSarg. I try not to make my attacks personal but when in Rome...
For the record I like John a lot. We share the same first name to start with and share the same views on politics. And he does have a point about the disgraceful way you attack MJ. You want to talk about uncivil well in that regard you are a text book example. I realize you are passionate about issues relating to Israel and argue in good faith for what you feel is in Israel's best interests, even if we usually disagree on what that is, but imo you diminish yourself and your point of view with your viciously personal attacks on MJ, who is also arguing in good faith about what he feels is best for Israel...
Well there is my 2 cents, fwiw.
August 30, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
I wasn't asking you to share my views nor expecting you to approve of my manners. I was pointing out to John that they depend very much on my assessment of the person I'm addressing.
August 30, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I was reading what you were saying, even if you dragged me into it by mistake, and thought to myself 'she could use some constructive criticism' along the lines of 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.
Have fun and a word to the wise...remember not to run with scissors.
August 30, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
It's better to take your best shot than let fear rule.
August 31, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine,
offensivetoyou is a female?
August 31, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine,
I address offensivetoyou when he viciously attacks not only MJ, but others who post here. His constant insults to those he disagrees with are uncivil and completely uncalled for.
I rarely address his political views, which, for the most part, I have no interest in.
August 31, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarg,
A tear came to my eye as I read that post, and I thought I heard the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the backgound.
About 4 or 5 years ago I was at breakfast with a friend, he's a Republican. We were talking politics and I suggested that Bush and his gang and the Republican Congress were destroying the Republican Party for at least a generation.
Since then, the Democrats took back both Houses of Congress, a number of long term Republican incumbents voluntarily retired (did they hear Minority status for 30 years?) Some Republicans were forced to retire and some went to jail. Every rational person is predicting that the Democrats will add more House and Senate seats in this election.
Today, you have a young BLACK guy with little experience, someone unknown until about 8 months ago, and guess what, he's beating your EXPERIENCED war hero in most of the polls.
Today's Gallup tracking poll shows Barack Obama continuing to enjoy a convention bounce, and it may still be growing.
The numbers: Obama 49%, McCain 41%, well outside the ±2% margin of error. Yesterday, Obama was up by a 48%-42% margin, after having fallen behind McCain by two points in Gallup just as the convention was beginning. This morning's Rasmussen poll had Obama moving into a 49%-45% lead. And these numbers were taken BEFORE Obama's speech.
By the way, if things were as good as you claim in your post, why is McCain shunning Bush?
August 30, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
note to above;
This was taken from TPM, Friday, August 29.
August 30, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Atrios asks poignantly now that the Republicans have chosen a fervent Buchanan supporter for VP, will the crack mainstream pundits even discuss whether McCain has a Jewish problem (or are such discussions reverved only for the Democrats)?
August 30, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
excuse me, but where did we all get the idea that Palin was a "fervent" Buchanan supporter? the account I read that said she had been wearing a Buchanan button when he came to town to make a speech, but that she was supporting another Republican candidate that year (I think it was one of those tax people like Richard Headlee).
you lefties complain when people still wonder if Obama is a Muslim, but you don't mind flinging similar half-truths around at the GOP nominees. I thought we were better than that.
August 30, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ gretz
Where did she get the idea that Palin was a strong, fervent, (or whatever) Buchanan supporter? Most likely, from Rosenberg. The man is a disease, an epidemic.
August 30, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ offensivetoyou
i read your posts because you are funny, in a cartoonish kind of way.
August 30, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ BluePearl
That you find me worth reading for whatever reason is good enough for me.
Still, I urge you to look carefully at the claim Palin was a fervent Buchananite. Even if it was true then, which I doubt, is it true now? What did it mean then, and has she changed any of her perceptions?
Keep in mind the context; Obama attended Wright's church for 20 years, was married by him, was a close friend, and didn't renounce his association until Wright - publicly - pretty much called him a fool.
If you are willing to accept Obama's explanation of what transpired then you should at least listen to Palin's before you pass judgement...
...and you should not listen to Rosenberg's explanation of anything.
August 30, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTY. You don't intend to vote for Obama.Nor is it likely that you share many of the other goals of most of those who comment here. That's fair enough. But it raises the question of what you're doing in this particular venue.
Personally I find disturbing your use of crude insults, ironically reminiscent of the disgusting language used by the Nazis.And no doubt by other brutal regimes. I use the Nazis not because of their treatment of the Jews (and others of course:gypsies, slavs , gays etc.) but because they are the ones with which I long ago actually had some personal involvement.
You are dealing with other human beings
with good and bad qualities. Just as you have.
Your language suggests that you don't think of them that way but instead have constructed in your own mind characters of almost unmixed evil.
Altho I have no doubt you are sincere in your views, it hardly seems likely you're attempting to influence opinion since you're intelligent enough to know that your language prevents , rather than furthers that. Even worse it requires a real effort on the part of your readers not to let your approach creates antagonism to Israel
with which you are so closely associated.
I won't speculate on what explanation there might be for your style.. But if by any chance you do want to convince anyone of your views
,for example that MJ should not blog here,
try writing like a civil person engaging in normal persuasion.
August 31, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ flavius
I don't know how I am going to vote yet...and it is extremely rude of you to assume otherwise. A perfect example of why I am rude in my responses.
Most partisans on this site - and most partisans on any site - are quite blind to the rudeness with which they treat their opponents. It pleases me to point it out to them.
I do not share your optimistic view of human nature. People are not easily influenced by reason if it conflicts with their desires, hates, or deeply held beliefs. So I state my positions, in a manner which best suits me, and let the chips fall where they may.
August 31, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take your word for it
It's seldom my intention to be rude and wasn't in this case. If you took my statement that way, I regret it. To be clear this does not imply agreement with your positions.
August 31, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ flavius
I have several times stated my voting position; first, that I couldn't vote for either candidate, most recently, that I much preferred Obama's domestic policies but was bothered by the attitudes of his base.
If you saw these posts then you were calling me a liar. If you didn't, your assumption was still pretty much in left field. I have nowhere said I supported McCain or Bush in their domestic policies. I have taken a strong, pro-war stand, arguing that our enemies are much worse than we are...but have been much more reserved in my assessment of our conduct of the war. From this you assume I will never vote for Obama? Anti-war partisans here thought Obama was anti-war and insisted that was a reason to prefer him to Hillary. But now he's back-peddled and selected Biden whose war position was very close to Hillary's and we'll have to wait and see how his public views evolve.
Sorry, but you were rude and blind to your rudeness. I've been very careful not to respond in kind because I do believe in your basic decency, a belief I do NOT extend to everyone.
August 31, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ flavius
Another of my objections to Obama - based on his long association with Wright - is that he might turn out to be another David Dinkins. So far he looks more like Bill Cosby. Again, we'll have to wait and see how things develop, how he responds to the coming challenges.
I find it much harder to believe that I could vote for McCain. His economic positions are terrible, he's too old, he show signs of approaching dementia, he has an unstable temperament, I don't share his environmental views, or the views of social conservatives. BUT...I liked Mike Huckabee because I thought he was tolerant and decent despite his evangelical views. So, here too, I prefer to approach his candidacy with an open mind.
August 31, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since I didn't call you a liar I won't comment on that
I rather liked David Dinkens. I wish he had paid his taxes more routinely but he seemed a decent guy who , unlike his predecessor or successor treated all the City's cohorts with respect.
A former marine too as I remember.
He pushed through a needed expansion of the police force from the inadequate level he inherited from Koch and those new levels were just being reached when Brattle came in.
He also hired a good Commissioner of Police whom Bloomberg has now rehired.
He was clearly not a great administrator ,
Guliani instantly improved some things, such as the ambulence services.
But he possessed judgement. Had he-or someone like him- been President he wouldn't have spent Aug 2001 on vacation after being given the briefings W received. While Richard Clarke vainly tried to arrange for a principals meeting to discuss the looming threat.
Nor would the decision on invading Iraq have been handled as if it were a personal right of the president and sold to the American public by lies,nor would he have initiated the routine use of torture i.e. not restricted to a ticking bomb situation.
August 31, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ flavius
I thought you were something more than a partisan hack spouting propaganda at every opportunity. I see I was wrong. I'm sorry to have wasted my time.
August 31, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I'm delighted to be identified as a party line democrat. I suppose that's what you mean by "hack" altho that's not the definition in common usage.
August 31, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly what judgment did David Dinkins show in allowing Jews to be attacked for two days in August, 1991 in Brooklyn without mobilizing all law enforcement respources at his command to stop the mayhem?
September 1, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
gretz,
where did you get your account of her connection to Buchanan?
August 30, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Gretz
I don't know which it is. First you talk about "you lefties" then you thought "WE? were better than that". Let me settle the quandary for you. You and your jackbooted friends are not part of any "WE", I belong to so keep it "you lefties" and keep it "you" not "we". And while we are at it keep your moral equation of your right wing jackbooted buddies sliming Obama and my Muslim friends and neighbors (my "We") and on the other side the fact that Buchanan himself says she was a former Buchanan brigader. We will have to wait for the videos with her giving the straight-arm salute. For me, the pedigree is clear.
August 30, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou asks:
Maybe "SHE" got it from the horse's mouth, Buchanan himself.
"Perhaps Rep. Robert Wexler's instincts were right here, and the Obama campaign will likely drive this one home with the Jewish community in Florida and Ohio: Palin (along with her husband), says former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, was a "brigader for me in 1996."
He was responding to a question on "Hardball" from Chris Matthews about whether she was a member of Buchanan's brigade "wielding the pitchforks," a reference to his conservative populist campaigns of the 1990s.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Buchanan_Palin_was_a_brigader_for_me_in_96.html
August 30, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of this really matters. Palin IS the VP pick for the GOP. That means that if you feel Hillary was screwed over by Osama this is your chance to make things right. The polls are all moving in her direction. She is seen as an outsider which is what Americans like. Take a breath and finish reading this before jumping off the bridge: Reagan = Governor,
George H.W. Bush = Ambassador/ VP,
Bill Clinton - Governor, twice!,
George W. Bush = Governor, twice!
Sarah Palin = Governor.
The odds are in her favor over a Senate member. She is the only one with Executive experience except for McCains time in the service.
She is still breaking a glass ceiling. Give her a chance.
August 30, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
oldsarg says:
(Palin's)Take a breath and finish reading this before jumping off the bridge;
"Surprise? First Two National Polls Find Palin Gains LESS Support from Women"
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003844485
"There is wide uncertainty about whether she's qualified to be president. In the poll, taken Friday, 39% say she is ready to serve as president if needed, 33% say she isn't and 29% have no opinion.
That's the lowest vote of confidence in a running mate since the elder George Bush chose then-Indiana senator Dan Quayle to join his ticket in 1988. In comparison, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was seen as qualified by 57%-18% after Democrat Barack Obama chose him as a running mate last week....."
Dan Quayle :-)
August 31, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Della,
whoa girl, remember your meds! my Jewish parents would have thought the jackboot reference was quite funny; also the Republican "smear" considering my family has been proudly Democratic since we came to this country in the 1900s.
but this is the sort of inflammatory idiocy that Hillary supporters, "Reagan" Democrats, pro-life Democrats, etc. have come to expect. anything but the straight left-liberal party line and you're accused of being a Nazi.
anyway:
when our granddaughters learn their history, they will learn that the Republicans were the first party in our history to nominate a woman to the highest ticket in the land. it's too bad.
August 31, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
@Gretz
I think you are wrong. I am surprised you forget Geraldine Ferraro on Walter Mondale's ticket. My Jewish parents did not find anything amusing about Pat Buchanan. You may not know that he grew up in Washington DC and was raised as an anti-Semite; he took his antisemitism seriously: he and his brother used to go out hunting Jews to beat the crap out of the Commie Jews. He has always personalized his criticisms of Israel (many of which are not unreasonable) as criticism of Jews; he does this to a much greater extent than say Ahmadejeddin of Iran.I think it is ridiculous and obnoxious to make an analogy or equation of the deliberate effort to SMEAR both Obama (and denigrate Muslims) by right wing bigots and Republican hacks and the raising of the very real issue of Palin's support of the premier anti-Semite of our times, Buchanan.
I apologize for the "jackbooted" comment. I do think you should think about whether it is "you" or "we" and use appropriate language.
I think our daughters and granddaughters already have thousands of finer examples of women of power and of intelligence and of influence than Sarah Palin.
August 31, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
gretz said:
Um, in 1984 Democratic Presidential candidate Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro.
August 31, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Old Sarge believes that the current administration's war on terror has weakened the terrorists, and that is why we have not had, since 911, a major terrorist act in this country. Sarge's comment was that we sheep should be greatful for the sheepdogs that have protected us these past 8 years. It seems evident to me that a committed group of 20 terrorists could cause havoc in this country, if they were determined to do so. There are numerous senarios they could choose which would require very little planning, very little expertise, and would be virtually impossible to stop. The terrorists have chosen, for whatever reasons, to not attack us on our soil. They could do so easily, and no one could stop them. The current administration's phone taps, etc., in my opinion, have had nothing to do with the fact we have not been attacked.
August 31, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
American Jews are, for the most part, well-off. But they vote as if they still were poor ghetto dwellers
Or, as my (Jewish) friend likes to say: Jews -- live like WASPs; vote like Puerto Ricans.
However, with the neocons hammering on the Iranian threat and invoking Holocaust guilt 24/7, it may not work out quite that way this time. Personally, I'd settle for that 70%.
August 31, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well look at it in its most simplistic terms--which often is closer to the truth than anything else. When Obama picked Biden it was perceived by most observers that he was picking someone who is very close to Israeli interest (and Obama did it probably in part to assuage those Jews who think of him as a closet anti-Semite because of his association with the Reverend Wright, his Muslim experience, and his generally perceived (wrongly in my view) left wing leanings) and so that took the wind out of the sails of McCain’s perceived pro Israel advantage. Given that, I suppose that McCain is willing to give up the Pro-Israel perception and pick a Buchananite instead and appeal to the anti-Israel sentiment that is out there.
Rosenberg himself says that by picking the Alaskan beauty he loses whatever advantage he had with the Jewish vote, so why not appeal to the anti-Jewish vote instead?
Just a thought
August 31, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another insightful piece by Mr. Rosenberg. One in a long string which one hopes will long continue. I find the final conclusion rather antiquated, however. 40 years ago, and 40 years closer to the restrictive backwaters shtetl of Czarist Russia, it would have made more sense. But since Ronald Reagan, there is a simpler explanation for Jews going Democratic. Starting with Reagan and accelerating greatly under Junior Bush, the Republican Party has systematically transformed itself from a party of business and principled conservatism to a party for the ignorant and intellectually-challenged. Like most better-educated-than-average Americans, Jewish voters in the US dislike having their intelligence insulted.
August 31, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Ptroub
The corollary being that worse-educated-than-average Americans just love to have their intelligence insulted...or are too stupid to notice.
You, sir, are a living, breathing example of the total worthlessness of modern education.
August 31, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too many of "Offensive" (to the world)'s incessant and irrelevant ad hominen comments infest the comment blogs of Rosenberg's commentaries. There must be a way to edit out this juvenile garbage.
September 1, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ PTroub
Don't you realize that the less-educated are not as dumb as you think? They read posts like yours. Go to any right-wing site and you'll find quotes (see, for example, "Husaria" which I looked at only a few days ago).
Your post is a direct, ad hominem attack on such people. It is not a factual rebuttal of their positions.
Worse, you are ignorant of the facts, not knowledgeable about them. Read leftist descriptions of the Republican party from TR to Eisenhower and you do not find "principled conservatism" but selfish thievery. And. What happened, beginning with Reagan, is the southern racist conservatives and blue collar whites everywhere moved from the Democrats to the Republicans. What did that make the Democrats prior to Reagan?
September 1, 2008 5:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that Palin's past support for Schmuck Buchanan can be exploited effectively in the condo communities of South Florida and the Jewish communities in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michgan. But she is certain to adopt the very pro-Israel views of her current patron, Senator McCain, so Obama needs to play up Joe Biden's long record of support for Israel as one of the reasons he considered Biden suitable for the job.
September 1, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ apacmember
you say
while Rosenberg says
I don't think you can both be right. Care to comment?
September 1, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has consistently supported Israel's right to defend its citizens from terror, has consistently supported increased U.S.--Israel military cooperation, particularly as resepects the development of the Arrow anti-missile sytem, and consistently supported Israel's military aid requests. He has been outspoken in his concern over the existential threat which Iran poses to Israel. I am one of the few posters here who think Rosenberg is dangerously naive about the security threats which Israel faces, yet I support Obama for President because: first, as a Democrat McCain's positions on a range of issues are unacceptable to me, second, his choice of Palin is truly terrifying, and third, Obama's choice of Biden and his reliance on Ambassador Dennis Ross as a key advisor on Israel has provided credible reassurance to me that Obama will not be another Carter in terms of dealing with Israel.
Still any objective observer would radily see that McCain's advocacy for Israel has extended for a much longer period of time than Obama's.
September 1, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin never supported Buchanan. See Volokh.com. Will Rosenberg retract?
September 1, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink