Wednesday, September 5, 2012

In a night of great speeches Robert Wexler reaches out to Jewish Americans on Israel

Last night the Democratic National Convention of 2012 got off to a rousing start. Reminiscent of the All-Star game in Baseball, speaker after speaker hit rhetorical home run after home run. Honestly, as a Democratic partisan, I have to say that some of the great speeches (not in order) from Duval Patrick to Julian Castro to Ted Strickland, to Michelle Obama all struck a strong cord with me and gave me hope for this election season.

But even more than the speeches, I was so impressed with the diversity of the crowd. I was impressed with how ALL Americans were represented at this convention, not just White Christian Americans. Looking at the crowd I felt heartened by the fact that there people of all races and creeds participating and supporting the candidates and the party. More than that... as Howard Fineman observed on MSNBC with Chris Matthews, Democrats didn't have to try to show they were with the Middle Class, it was obvious that they WERE from the Middle Class. They didn't have to try to be something they weren't.

All in all it was a great night.

As part of that night I got a chance to hear former House Member and President of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace Robert Wexler speak in an outreach to Jewish voters with regards to President Obama's friendship and America's strong alliance to one of our greatest friends in the world, Israel. As many here who read my diaries are aware that American Jewish politics and our friendship with Israel are two of my strong issues. SO... I thought that addressing this issue on the first night of the convention was telling particularly as the Republican LIE Machine is working overtime in key states like Florida and Pennsylvania to sway Jewish voters away from the President.

Anyway, here are some of Wexlers words:

Over the past four years, the president has proven this commitment time and again, in both word and deed. And the Democratic platform reflects the president's unflinching commitment to Israel's security and future as a Jewish state.

To strengthen Israel's qualitative military advantage, the president has increased security assistance to Israel to record levels-- more than any other president.

When he visited Sderot in 2008—an Israeli town along the Gaza border besieged by constant rocket attacks, President Obama saw for himself the toll terrorism takes on Israelis. And that's why he secured the funds to deploy the iron dome anti-rocket defense system which has already saved countless Israeli lives.

And under President Obama, the U.S. and Israel are firmly committed to stopping one of the gravest threats to international security: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. The president has explicitly stated that an Iranian nuclear weapon is "unacceptable" And that He will mobilize all instruments of U.S. power-- economic, diplomatic, Intelligence, And military-- to prevent, not contain, a nuclear Iran.

While the Republicans dither about whether or not the Democratic Platform should call Jerusalem Israel's capital, the President shows his true friendship to the Jewish people through concrete actions.He doesn't need to rely on distortion or deception to make his point, he simply shows his friendship through his actions. 
Moreover (and Wexler left this out), the President shows his friendship everyday whether it is creating a Kosher Kitchen for staffers during Pesach or actually hosting a Seder at the White House, or affirming Jewish History month, or actually having strong Jewish advisers (including his Chief of Staff), or showing his friendship at the many Jewish Political functions around the U.S.  
And how are Jewish Americans responding to the President? Well, as of the last Gallup poll, Jewish American voters were committed 64%-29 % for the President (which when matched up to the same time in 2008 represents a stronger margin). That margin is only increasing and as of late July, a survey of Jewish voters showed the President leading 68%-25%.
The Republicans are serious about trying for the "Jewish vote" this time around. Mitt Romney is specifically focused on it:
Next week, the Republican Jewish Coalition will conduct a voter outreach drive in South Florida, Cleveland and Philadelphia. The blitz, part of an overall $6.5 million RJC effort to sway Jewish voters, will be based on prior polling that will “micro-target” Jewish undecideds. 

So to have a guy like Wexler taking "a swing" at this issue on the first night of the convention shows just how important the President thinks this is. 

I too think it is important and it is important that as supporters of the President we are out there countering the Republican lies and distortions about the Presidents statements and actions. Moreover, we should demand from them (the Republicans) what they would do differently and how that would make a positive difference, because for all their bullshit... they can't (or won't) articulate their own plan.

Most important however is working within the community and spreading the word that President Obama really is a one of the best friends Israel and the Jewish people have had in the White House. We don't have to lie, distort, or deceive to do it. We simply have to tell the truth and as Wexler so aptly did, show the record. 

5 comments:

  1. There's no question that the Jewish vote is important. At AIPAC in 2011, Paul Begala pointed out that historically if the Democratic candidate gets 70% of the Jewish vote he wins. If he gets <60% he loses. 60-70% is a tossup.

    Having said that, and having previously posted on this site that I support Obama's re-election, the issue of the party platform changes is deeply troubling. It's one thing to simply decline to make certain points. It's quite another to actively REMOVE points that were in the platform four years ago. Frankly, I'm less concerned with the language about Jerusalem (which of course will ultimately come down to negotiations, and the Republicans also changed THEIR language concerning Jerusalem in their platform: http://www.timesofisrael.com/republicans-too-toned-down-support-for-israeli-jerusalem-from-platform/.)

    What is of far more concern is the issue that remains the heart of the matter-- Palestinian fealty to the fictional "right" of return for great-grandchildren of refugees from the failed attempt to strangle Israel at its birth. This of course is the backdoor way to call for the end of Jewish statehood. It's the centerpiece of BDS. The way to clearly signal support for "two states for two peoples" is to indicate that any Palestinian "return" will be to a future Arab state of Palestine and not to the Jewish state of Israel.

    I would be far less troubled if this language had been absent from the 2008 platform and then absent from the 2012 as well. But when it was specifically INCLUDED in 2008, what rationale can there be to remove it now? I'm not buying the "there wasn't enough room to put it in." There's a word limit on party platforms?

    Now we all know that the party platform doesn't necessarily represent, word-for-word, the position of the candidate. Look at Romney trying to extricate himself from his own party's platform on abortion. But at least that abortion plank is representative of a large chunk (perhaps most) of Republicans in the House. We know that with the exception of the 10-15 extremists in the House (yes, "progressive" caucus, we're looking at you), Democratic support for Israel in Congress has been rock solid. So this can't have come from the elected officeholders. That leads me to believe that the drive to remove that language came from the White House itself. I'm sure that in the next few days there will be leaks that will clarify this and prove that statement to be correct or incorrect.
    Either way, I see it as an enormous blunder, both politically and practically. It takes the focus off of all of Romney's abortion position problems and allows the Republicans to point to this statement and simply ask "why change it?". And I haven't seen a cogent answer to that. (No, pointing out that the Republicans changed theirs, much more mildly, doesn't cut it).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Dr. Mike, I am not sure what happened on the platform and why or why they didn't change it. However, in all honesty... I don't think it is a big deal. I really don't.

      Here's why:

      1. No one is going to move their embassy to Jerusalem, whether we want it or not. Despite his promise (which he walked backed four hours after he made it), Mitt Romney won't do it. It is American policy that the final status of Jerusalem is still in question. Why should the Democratic platform reflect anything otherwise? It is an "empty plank" that has symbolic value but nothing more.

      2. In a real political sense, it shores up our alliances with countries in the area to counter Iranian hegemonistic interests. Remember, the Democratic platform is a reflection of the White House (whether it is what the White House wants or not). We need all the support in the area we can get in order to assure our defense of our own interests (which includes the safety of Israel). Right now the Iranians are doing everything they can to counter that influence, so to throw out something like a symbolic platform plank to give our "allies" (as much as any MENA country can be our ally) some consideration works for me as long as it strengthens our position against the Iranian efforts to build their own little empire.

      3. The Presidents record on Israel and support for Israel frankly speaks for itself. When the U.S. (at President Obama's urging) has increased security cooperation between the two nations to unprecedented levels AND has supported the Israelis up and down the line to the world concerning both Iran and the Palestinians, I will take real actions over symbolic gestures each and every time.

      Dr. Mike, I think this is all part of the game that is regional political maneuvering in a difficult time. Do I think it is the "best" move the party could have made? No, I think it is a mistake in this election year. HOWEVER, to me it is simply not that much of a big deal. The Republicans, I believe, represent everything wrong with politics in this country, from their incessant lying, to their bigotry, to their greed. As an American, I stand firmly against their vision for my country. SO... in the end whether the DNC includes a platform on J'Slem or not really is of no consequence to me this year.

      Delete
  2. Until such time as Republicans can speak in equally appalled tones regarding their hero and supposed great friend of Israel George W. Bush's active decision made each of the eight years he was president not to move the embassy to Jerusalem, I can't take them seriously. This is nothing but more hypocritical and dishonest pandering to a group of people -- Jews -- they don't give a shit about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Looks like the DNC re-inserted the clause about Jerusalem into the platform. So much for this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm still far more concerned about the Palestinian return clause. We all know that both parties give lip service to Jerusalem, and yet under BOTH Dem and Rep administrations the Stae Dept continues the absurd arrangement whereby the American Consulate in Jerusalem only deals with the West Bank and Gaza and Israeli-Americans can only deal with the Embassy in Tel Aviv. (though of course they probably don't want to give up that beautiful seafront location and have to schlep all the high-tech radio spy gear to Jerusalem...).

      I agree with the issues you raised about Iran but this is a far more fundamental issue than even Jerusalem. Are the Saudis and the Egyptians less worried about the Iranians if we restate the fact that there isn't a Palestinian 'right of return' to Israel?

      Delete