Tuesday, March 4, 2008

"Not attacking Iran is viewed as being anti-Israel"

I shamelessly copied a few tidbits from Mr. Weiss' and give you the big picture on my blog. "Don't see the forest for the trees!" - well, not on this blog. Don't get bogged down on detail - always strive to see the big picture.

Try to look at the news and analyze WHY its happening, not just HOW and WHEN.

For the record, Mr. Weiss is perhaps one of the finest political writers in America right now, and his blog is well worth a look.

From Weiss' blog:

Chuck Hagel, democrat:

Says Hagel (Senator Chuck Hagel): "The political reality is that... the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." Hagel then related a meeting he had in New York with a group of supporters of Israel who are pushing the U.S. to attack Iran. When Hagel said it hadn't worked out that well in Iraq, a couple of members of the group said he wasn't supportive enough of Israel.

When Hagel said it hadn't worked out that well in Iraq, a couple of members of the group said he wasn't supportive enough of Israel.

Hagel spoke firmly: "Let me clear something up here if there's any doubt in your mind. I'm a U.S. Senator. I'm not an Israeli senator. I'm a U.S. Senator. I support Israel... But my first interest is, I take an oath to the constitution of the United States. Not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel."


John Sununu, republican:
It's like a handful of pebbles in the shoe. It's there all the time, and this process of not permitting anything that's trying to tug in the other direction, to gain root and thrive, is almost automatic. And it's not just AIPAC, it happens all the time, everywhere. Every congressman, every senator, before they win, is being soft lobbied on the issue. Whether it's their friend that owns 40 acres down the street whose grandfather happened to have come from Kiev, goes in and talks to him about helping him, developing a social relationship on an issue that has nothing to do with the district, begins to communicate their interest. And rightly so-- pulling on their end of the rope. It happens almost invisibly. But across the board. There is nobody who has run for office in this country who has not been soft lobbied the day they announce that they are going to run and not been hard lobbied after they win.


There is nobody who has run for office in this country who has not been soft lobbied the day they announce that they are going to run and not been hard lobbied after they win.

Phillip Weiss, blogger:
One of the most emailed stories in yesterday's Times is a story I've covered repeatedly here, Obama's difficulties courting Jews. The Times emphasized the importance of the at-first private meeting Obama had with 100 Cleveland Jews last week, the meeting I've compared to Kennedy meeting the Protestant ministers in 1960, and then it offered this analysis:

Jews make up about 1.7 percent of the adult population, but they are a stronghold of the Democratic base and important to the party’s fund-raising. Over all, Jews made up 5 percent of the voters when more than 20 states voted on Feb. 5...

And that's all. These statements beg the obvious question, whether Jews are not far more important as donors than they are as voters. Yet the Times repeatedly refers to Obama's efforts with "Jewish voters." Is that really the problem? I have many times cited a Washington Post assertion that Jews make up half the givers to Democratic candidates; and added my own reporting, from Clintonite Steve Rabinowitz, that if anyone did a study of how much Dem money comes from Jews, it would fuel conspiracy theories...

I have many times cited a Washington Post assertion that Jews make up half the givers to Democratic candidates; and added my own reporting, from Clintonite Steve Rabinowitz, that if anyone did a study of how much Dem money comes from Jews, it would fuel conspiracy theories...

Finally, I leave you with this - Mr. Weiss at his finest:
Russert's follow up was (during the television presidential debate - AG), " What do you do to assure Jewish Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel..."
(...)
Why is it that a candidate must assure Jewish Americans about his being "consistent" on a foreign country, Israel? Isn't this an acknowledgement that American Jews feel dual loyalty? Isn't a call to consistency code for political correctness on this issue, rather than exploration of a miserable situation in Israel/Palestine? Should Russert be honoring dual loyalty feelings, or challenging them? Wasn't Irish-American support for the IRA a controversial issue, rather than a Law of Politics, as Russert seemed to say? And is supporting Israel an American interest or a Jewish American interest? If only the latter, shouldn't that be the subject of journalism?

Why is it that a candidate must assure Jewish Americans about his being "consistent" on a foreign country, Israel? Isn't this an acknowledgement that American Jews feel dual loyalty?


The upcoming book website is here: The Much Too Promised Land. This site has audio files of interviews of various big shots in US politics. Well worth a look.


Bonus Material
The Reddit situation:
I just submitted this to the Reddit politics section and it has been downmodded 1 second after submission.

The DIGG situation:
To DIGG the story you need to click on the story and then DIGG it there. For some reason (yet again!) the DIGG's don't show up on the main page...
Edit: Just fixed, DIGG works fine now.

web analytics

No comments: