Jewish Americans Break Hard for President Obama, the Lunatic Fringe Scratch their Heads

This year one of the biggest pushes by the Republicans (contextually not literally) was with Jewish American voters. In a highly negative attack campaign, The Republican Jewish Committee and the Emergency Committee for Israel have literally spent YEARS and millions and millions of dollars all to warn all of us Jewish voters that President Obama was a Muslim Brotherhood loving, Jihadi Sympathizer who wanted nothing more than to bring destruction down upon our brothers and sisters in Israel as well as eventually submit the U.S. to Sharia Law.

They pulled out well known racist Pamela Geller to go around calling Muslims "savages", and talked about siding with Israel and "civilization". They even borrowed images of Israeli Prime Minister talking about Nukes in Iran to attack President Obama and on their websites talked about the President actually helping Iran get nukes.

They downplayed President Obama's true friendship with the nation of Israel and it's people. They downplayed the fact that America bankrolled Israel's Iron Dome Missile Defense system. They downplayed the fact that America and Israeli security cooperation are at an all time high. They did everything they could to minimize the words of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli President Shimon Peres who called President Obama an "exceptional friend".

But worse than that... They played their game on the racist assumption that American Jews were not really interested in America. They assumed all we cared about was Israel and stopping "Teh Islamic Menace". They simply NEVER figured out that despite what every poll showed, Jewish American voters are Liberal and Jewish American voters prioritize their own country over any other. These folks simply played the racist Dual Loyalty Canard WITHIN our own community.

All of this, the racism, the lies and the hatred were all to swing two or three states that were going to be close to the Republican column.

But in their delusions and derangement over President Obama (and his middle name as well as his upbringing), they simply never really understood American Jewish voters and honestly... Still don't. That is why they are sitting there today in a state of shock. They simply thought things like this:

Whatever good Obama may have done, none of it comes close to the damage that he is doing with his embrace and acceptance of political Islam.  This is not just damage to the state of Israel, nor the Jewish people, it is damage done to the United States and to the west, in general.

and

Most American Jews, thankfully, are not ultra-super sophisticated progressive-left genius Jews, but it is the genius Jews that most loudly sing the praises of an administration that is friendly toward political Islam.  Political Islam, needless to say, seeks to oppress women, commit genocide upon the Jewish people, slaughter Gay people outright, and impose Islamic Supremacy, via sharia, upon the west.

and the propagandists thought THIS drivel is what would bring Jewish Americans to support Mitt Romney. And that is where they failed, and failed completely. Why? Because Jewish American voters are concerned with the well being of their fellow Americans first and foremost. We saw Paul Ryan's Medicare killing budget that would have put American seniors into a voucher system. We saw Mitt Romney's lie after lie where he never defined a plan outside of various catch phrases and slogans. We saw the Republicans run TWO candidates for Senate that talked about things like "Legitimate Rape" and "Pregnancy from Rape as G-d's will". If that were not enough, we saw Republicans running on platforms to deny LGBT Americans their equal rights, and do all of the things they were so worried about happening in the Islamic world.

As American Jews and Liberals, it's not that we didn't/don't see what happens in Islamic nations, and it's not like we think the blending of religion with the state is not dangerous... BUT we were much more concerned with what was happening here in our own nation. We were concerned with American children that would have faced incredible hardships brought on by Republican Policies. We were concerned for Women's Health and Reproductive Rights. We were concerned with all of the civil rights that would have been at risk in a Republican / Teahaddist America.

Oh and as for Israel which is important to us but not on the level that the Republicans or their ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) suffering friends think... We see President Obama as a strong friend to Israel and to Jews worldwide. Because, you see, not all of us buy into the Right Wing narrative that is threatening to destroy Israel. Most of us understand that the Right's reliance and fear and hatred is just that. We can see that the President is a man who cares about our community and nation.

In the end all of that hate and $ 40 million dollars could do nothing to stop the 70% of Jewish Americans that stood up and were counted to support our friend and President, Barack Obama. Sure the Republicans siphoned off 8% of the Jewish vote from 2008, but the country as a whole was off from it's previous level of popular support.

As Jay Michelson in the Forward put it so well:

Well, turns out a lot of people, including most Jews. The Jewish bubble, like other conservative bubbles, was burst yesterday. Not only did America vote for the Kenyan Socialist, but American Jews did as well. And they even elected “anti-Semites” who support moving slowly (but resolutely) on Iran and moving deliberately (but securely) toward a Palestinian state. 

This happened not because of ignorance, and not because of Jewish self-hatred, but because outside of the right-wing echo chamber, mainstream American Jews voted their values, and didn’t believe the incredibly heavily funded propaganda that tried to scare them on Israel and other issues. Most Jews simply do not live in the bubble of the professional-Jewish ‘consensus.’

And that is the truth

J Street ad from after Obama won.

So expect liberal
Shalom!

President Obama and PM Netanyahu... Much Ado about NOTHING

So, we had a day of diaries and articles decrying Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu for his supposed challenges to U.S. Electoral Procedures which elicited claims of dual-loyalty of Jewish Americans, bashing of Israel for trying to control the U.S. and other nonsense. We even had one anti-Semitic troll flip out over a movie that he thought was an Israeli/Jewish made film when it turns out that the apparent film-maker is neither Jewish nor Israeli.

Even a diarist here that has a ton of support from the community jumped in and completely messed up the story with a sensationalized headline and commentary to match. BUT... alas for those fired up about this issue. This is simply "Much ado about Nothing".
In brief we had this....

1. Reports yesterday which had President Obama "snubbing" Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu from a meeting in NY

2. The Americans saying there is no "snub", the leaders simply weren't in NY at the same time, however, that SoS Clinton would meet with the Prime Minister and they would discuss what was needed to be discussed.

Of course this prompted cries from the Wingnut Right (paraphrased) of; "SEE the President hates PM Netanyahu and he is friends with Iran"as well as the Paulista Rightist crowd with their babbling about how it was about time that the U.S. stood up to the Israelis.

It also prompted cries from the far-left saying: "HA! way to stand up to TEH EBILZ IZRAILEES" and how President Obama was really gonna show the Israelis "whatfor" in his second term.
Only problem... It was all just nothing.

As Haaretz reports:

Overnight, Netanyahu had held an hour-long telephone conversation with U.S. President Barack Obama, calming things down following reports that Obama had rejected Netanyahu's request to meet when the prime minister visits the United States later this month...... 

.....The White House said both leaders were determined to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and had agreed to continue "close consultations going forward." White House spokesman Tommy Vietor denied reports that Obama had rejected Netanyahu's request to meet in Washington, since "no such request was made or rejected."

And at the same time Prime Minister Netanyahu played down this supposed rift by saying:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu adopted a conciliatory tone one day after his attack on the United States' Iran policy, noting that Israel's "leaders are tested at times of differences with our allies, even our closest allies."

Now... Personally, I am not a supporter of Prime Minister Netanyahu. I support the Opposition Labor Party, but, I don't really see a need for everyone to get all worked up before the whole story came out. How about this... for the supposedly reality based community that we are... we actually base our stories in,.... you know... reality.

We still don't know what really happened though we have both the Israeli and American Administrations saying the same thing. Could this have been a failed attempt by Republicans and those sympathetic to them in Israel to "gin up" a story. Absolutely. It could have. BUT that story has been quickly discredited. So, I would ask could we please just get on with dealing with what actually has happened, particularly in this election season.

Thanks very much.

Obama's America: How Progressives Talk About July 4

Article by Ian Reifowitz - cross Posted from Daily Kos

As I always do, I really enjoyed Meteor Blades' post about July 4, which centers on Frederick Douglass's iconic speech "The Meaning of July 4th for the Negro," delivered in Rochester, NY in 1852. As many of you know, the speech delineated the alienation slaves, and African Americans in general, felt from July 4 specifically but from America more broadly as well.

Although the most often quoted section is about that sense of alienation, it is also important to remember Douglass's conclusion to the speech:

Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. "The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from "the Declaration of Independence," the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age.

Even in this speech, Douglass remained optimistic about the future, despite the reality that the present in 1852 was so awful for blacks in this country. That's important to note as well.

President Obama gave a speech on June 30, 2008, called "The America We Love," which bears some resemblance in terms of approach to Douglass's speech. It wasn't a speech about the meaning of America for blacks as a whole, but of what America meant to him as an individual. Also, only one of the speakers was in the middle of a presidential campaign. Nevertheless, we can fruitfully compare the two speeches. In fact, Colbert I. King of the Washington Post did so just after Obama made his.
King noted that Obama, even in this speech, even while running for President and having his patriotism questioned, did not whitewash America's history by ignoring the dark chapters therein. Although as a boy he had expressed a childlike love of our country, his patriotism remained strong even as he gained more knowledge and a fuller understanding of our past:

Obama said that as he got older, that instinct, "that America is the greatest country on earth -- would survive my growing awareness of our nation's imperfections."Racial strife, poverty and the political corruption revealed by Watergate, Obama said, were outweighed by the "joys of American life and culture, its vitality and its freedom."

King then neatly summarized the differences between Douglass's and Obama's speeches:

While Douglass noted his estrangement from America's experiment with democracy, Obama claimed America as his own and the Fourth of July as a time to rejoice.

My suspicion, especially given his hopeful conclusion, is that were he alive today Douglass would speak about America in a way that resembles Obama (not only in the above cited speech but in the body of his public remarks over twenty years) in the broadest sense. (My forthcoming book, Obama's America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity, examines Obama's public rhetoric on the meaning of America.)

Neither would ignore the horrific crimes of the past, nor the way the legacy of those crimes continues to resonate for the descendants of the victims in the present. Neither would shrink from highlighting the continuing, fresh injustices being visited on African Americans and members of other groups today. But both would also present a narrative that is, while full of struggle, one of hope and of gradual progress. That's a narrative that is both accurate and far more likely to be accepted as consensus by a broad swath of Americans of all backgrounds. That matters, in political terms, and Douglass, even though not running for office, was a political figure and activist of great importance.
In terms of black Americans specifically, I believe both Obama and Douglass would characterize black Americans' relationship to their country as follows: Blacks have both dreamed of a better future in America and fought to make it happen over time.

We progressives must emphasize that our responsibility as a country is to make those very American dreams of equality and justice come true for members of every group that make up our people.
Frederick Douglass was a hero, and his speech of 1852 was heroic. It's also very appropriate in 2012 to remember that speech, especially on July 4. My comments here do not imply in the slightest that I believe we should not. What I am doing is using Meteor Blades' post about Douglass as a jumping off point for a different discussion.

MB was right, we do too much "heroification" in the U.S. And he's right to identify Frederick Douglass as a hero, maybe even the greatest hero in American history. I'll only add that sometimes, we on the left have to be wary of focusing too much collectively on feelings of alienation from this country. I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should feel, no one can or should do that. I'm talking about what we publish, our public rhetoric, and it's strategic value. What we cannot do, what Douglass himself did not do as seen in the conclusion to his 1852 speech, is cede patriotism and an embrace of America to the right wing.

Even in writing this, I feel reluctant because I know how these comments can be construed. I'm emphatically NOT saying that Meteor Blades or anyone else should tone down criticizing this country's flaws or injustices, whether in the present or the past. To be more specific, I am NOT saying that black or brown or red or gay people or anyone should keep their thoughts to themselves because they might scare the straight white folks. I'm saying that there has to be a way we can shine a light on the problems in our country that need attention while still publicly embracing a commitment to the whole country, the whole community. We have to do both of those things at the same time, over and over again, in order to get our point across successfully.

As politically engaged progressives, we know that this country can and must do better on a whole host of different fronts, and in order to do so we need to understand our history in full. A history that emphasizes only our crimes and ignores the progress is but the mirror image of one that does the opposite, one that presents our history as one solely bathed in glory and righteousness. And if those are the only two options, many middle of the road Americans are likely to be more attracted to the former simply because it sounds more familiar and feels better.

We have to make sure that we present a balanced picture. That way we can get those people who sometimes forget about the crimes to remember them and to commit to reversing their effects, rather than dismiss us as "anti-American" or some other such nonsense because we talk only about the negatives in America. We have to present our case as representing the true American values, and contrast those to the values of those whom we oppose.

This is the way Barack Obama speaks about America's past, present, and future, and connects his vision of America to policies he is proposing going forward. We can see it in his remarks of July 4, 2012:

On that July day, our Founders declared their independence. But they only declared it; it would take another seven years to win the war. Fifteen years to forge a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Nearly 90 years, and a great Civil War, to abolish slavery. Nearly 150 years for women to win the right to vote. Nearly 190 years to enshrine voting rights. And even now, we’re still perfecting our union, still extending the promise of America.That includes making sure the American dream endures for all those -- like these men and women -- who are willing to work hard, play by the rules and meet their responsibilities. For just as we remain a nation of laws, we have to remain a nation of immigrants. And that’s why, as another step forward, we’re lifting the shadow of deportation from serving -- from deserving young people who were brought to this country as children. It’s why we still need a DREAM Act -- to keep talented young people who want to contribute to our society and serve our country. It’s why we need -- why America’s success demands -- comprehensive immigration reform.

Because the lesson of these 236 years is clear -- immigration makes America stronger. Immigration makes us more prosperous. And immigration positions America to lead in the 21st century. And these young men and women are testaments to that. No other nation in the world welcomes so many new arrivals. No other nation constantly renews itself, refreshes itself with the hopes, and the drive, and the optimism, and the dynamism of each new generation of immigrants. You are all one of the reasons that America is exceptional. You’re one of the reasons why, even after two centuries, America is always young, always looking to the future, always confident that our greatest days are still to come.

And of course that's what successful progressives have long done. Frederick Douglass did it, even in the speech discussed above. So did Martin Luther King in his "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," where he predicted that the Civil Rights Movement would succeed because "the goal of America is freedom," and in his "I Have A Dream" speech, where he proclaimed the dream of which he spoke that day was "deeply rooted in the American dream." So did Harvey Milk, when he said, "All men are created equal. Now matter how hard they try, they can never erase those words. That is what America is about.” So did Barbara Jordan, who noted, "What the people want is simple. They want an America as good as its promise."

Progressives must criticize, that is crucial. But we also need to inspire, because inspiration is how we motivate action.

Santorum OUT! Who do the Republicans have left.... A Zionist Perspective

Well, let's see. Senator "Man on Dog", better known as Rick Santorum, seeing as how he was in a close race in his own state and citing family issues, has dropped out of the race.

SO what does that leave us with for the Republican field. You know, the guys we are supposed to support because President Obama hates Jews and Israel - heh.......

We have the following:

1.Mitt Romney - The Human Etch-a-sketch. The man has never met an idea that doesn't like (on BOTH sides). As far as anyone can tell he stands for nothing except for converting Holocaust victims to the Church of Latter Day Saints, making more money for himself and his buddies, and saying absolutely anything to get elected. OH yeah... and Romney fully endorses the Ryan budget plan, a plan which would thoroughly decimate the U.S. economy AND the social safety net created by the New Deal.

2. Newt Gingrich - a compulsive Adulterer and serial Liar who thinks of himself as the next great intellectual thinker of our times AND is famous for loving America so much that he had to cheat on his wife. Oh... and he also has famously said "Do what I say, not as I do" (paraphrased) ... Great words coming from one who want to be elected to head the most powerful nation on the planet.

3. Ron Paul - a cranky batshit insane racist that wants to eliminate NINE major federal departments such as the Departments of Interior, Energy, Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Development and so forth. Paul stands against Federal Civil Rights legislation, and for States Rights (REMEMBER THE SOUTH!!!!) on everything else. Oh yeah, and he hangs out with known racists and Neo-Nazi's (like the folks who run Stormfront), but other than that....

Given the lunacy that these three represent exactly WHY... would anyone in the Jewish community (or any other group) even consider voting for one of this dysfunctional (at best) group?

I mean look at the front runner Romney... On the issue of Israel he promises the moon. He regularly criticizes and lies regarding President Obama (a true friend to Jews and Israel) blaming him for a host of things that he is not guilty off, nor has he done. Romney is full of promises to support Israel no matter what BUT, what does that mean coming from Romney. Not a whole lot. The man has reversed himself on almost every position he has ever taken.  Why in the world would anyone trust him at this point? Is he somehow going to become the magical candidate that actually stands for something?

Then we have Gingrich, who is so volatile that no one knows just what he will do next. Friend to Israel? Well certainly he has shown that he is a friend to the Israeli Right. For Israel itself? Who knows. But Gingrich, is someone who gladly traded in racist "dog whistles" throughout his campaign in the South, was found guilty of massive ethics violations as Speaker of the House (costing his party an election), and has lied, and cheated his entire way up the political ladder. He stands for the most regressive tax rate in the nation and has even come out against Child Labor Laws. Is this someone that we as Jews can trust? If one answers yes... REALLY????

Finally, we have our last Republican offering Ron Paul - better known as "The Mad Elf". Paul is simply a nut... there are no two ways about it. How in the world can anyone to left of unrepentant crazed "Sons of the Confederacy" even sort of think about supporting this lunatic. Here is a man that has hung out with and is overwhelmingly supported by the crowd over at White Power sites like Stormfront and anti-Semitic hate sites like Mondofront (Mondoweiss). His economic and governing powers are straight out of the old Articles of Confederation from the 1780's.. you know, the thing that we turned away from to create the Constitution to make for a more coherent government.

Further, Paul simply wants a complete isolationist foreign policy with only individual corporations dealing with foreign nations. He wants the U.S. to have no presence anywhere else in the world except through predatory business practices. Does that sound like someone we can get behind? Well yes, frankly it is better than having our backs to any of them.... but I digress. The real answer is... "OF COURSE NOT".

With this crew of jokers it is a wonder that ANY Jewish person would vote for such obvious examples of poor political thought. Right now the polls show that approx. 70-72% of the traditionally liberal Jewish polity would vote for President Obama (down from 78% in 2008). As the election season wears on and Mitt Romney and the Republicans continue with their nutty ways I would be surprised if that 70-72% does not rise to 80%. I just cannot imagine how 30% of the Jewish people would so vote completely against their own self interests to support a party that effectively advocates for only 1% of the American Public.

Seriously, how anyone can advocate voting for Romney (or any other clown in the GOP) or advocate against voting for President Obama (which is the same thing) boggles the freakin' mind.

President Obama, President Peres at AIPAC: U.S. and Israel share common visions in Mid-East

Speaking at the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) annual conference speakers U.S. President Barak Obama and Israeli President Shimon Peres reiterated their message that the U.S. and Israel share views and goals not only on Iran but on peace in the Middle-East between Israelis and Palestinians.

Speaking on the U.S. and Iran, President Peres , who received a lifetime achievement award from AIPAC, had this to say:

"President Obama made it clear that the U.S. will not permit Iran to become nuclear," Peres said, adding that Obama has also made it clear that "all options are on the table".

Then going on to talk about the relationship between the U.S. and Israel Peres had this comment:

"Mr. President, I know your commitment to Israel is deep and profound," Peres said. "Under your leadership, security cooperation between the U.S. and Israel has reached its highest level (vb1 emphasis).. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a friend in the White House. He reflects the values that make American great and make Israel secure. Thank you President Obama on behalf of my people."

According to a recent Jerusalem Post poll, the Israeli people seem to agree with him as they (like their diaspora Jewish brothers and sisters here in the U.S.) favor President Obama over ALL of his Republican challengers.

President Obama



speaking right after President Peres added the following:

"We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically," Obama said in an address at the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC's policy conference in Washington. "Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs. I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say."         

"That includes all elements of American power. A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."

Unlike his Rightwing opponents though both here in the U.S.and in Israel the President urged caution and responsible action:

"Already, there is too much loose talk of war," Obama said. "Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend upon to fund their nuclear program. For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built. Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly, but carry a big stick."

Again, even the Israeli public agrees with President Obama as ONLY 19% of them favor a strike on the Iran happening without U.S. backing.     

As for the Presidents messages of Peace and the Two State Solution, President Peres had this to say:
         

"The Palestinians are our neighbors for life," Peres said. "Peace can and must be achieved. A peace based on a two-state solution, a Jewish state - Israel, and an Arab state - Palestine."

"We want to preserve an Israel that is Jewish, democratic and attractive. I meet from time to time with President Abbas and PM [Salam] Fayyad. They need and want peace. I believe that peace is possible. They are our partners for peace. Not Hamas."

Apparently President Peres did not get the memo from Republicans, ODS'ers. Israeli Rightists and U.S. ChickenHawk bloggers that the P.A. will not make Peace with Israel. Now, in fairness to that group (although g-d knows, they don't deserve it) the Palestinian Authority IS making peace negotiations difficult with their insistence on the full return of East Jerusalem and their refusal to curb the rampant anti-Semitism in their ranks, NOT to mention their continued efforts to bring Hamas into their government. Yet, so far the attempts to bring in Hamas have resulted in failure and the P.A. has still admitted it's willingness to go to the table and hammer out a Peace deal.

In this passage though I think President Obama "nails it" (so to speak):

"I make no apologies for pursuing peace. Israel’s own leaders understand the necessity of peace," Obama said. "Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, Defense Minister [Ehud] Barak, and President Peres – each of them have called for two states, a secure Israel that lives side by side with an independent Palestinian state."

"I believe that peace is profoundly in Israel’s security interest. The reality that Israel faces - from shifting demographics, to emerging technologies, to an extremely difficult international environment - demands a resolution of this issue. And I believe that peace with the Palestinians is consistent with Israel’s founding values - because of our shared belief in self-determination; and because Israel’s place as a Jewish and democratic state must be protected."

YES! Exactly,  because it vital to protect Israel as a Jewish, and Democratic State. And as the great statesman Abba Eban and others have stated that Israel can only be Two of the Three following things:

1. Israel can be a Jewish State

2. Israel can be a Democratic State

3. Israel can be a State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea

The President gets that in the long term interests of Israel - it must maintain it's Jewish character while recognizing that it's Palestinian neighbors also have the legitimate right to self determination.

Meanwhile, back in Israel, never one to be left out of the spotlight, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman had told reporters that "Israel will decide independently whether to strike Iran". If that is the case (and it certainly is Israel's right to do that), then I guess that they will also decide if they want U.S. aid in that strike as well. Perhaps the Foreign Minister should listen to 81% of his people when they tell him... DON'T STRIKE W/OUT THE U.S.

Now the question hinges on what will PM Benyamin Netanyahu say. Further what will the meeting on March 5th (tomorrow) bring? We are in for a few very interesting days as the AIPAC conference continues along and Israeli and U.S. leaders meet.

One other important thing of note: In Iran today, President Ahmadinejhad has met with defeat at the polls. While the choice was between hard line candidates Ahmadinejhad's candidates were soundly defeated by those supporting the Grand Ayatollah Khameni. What does this mean for everyone else? Not a lot in the sense that the new group coming in are just as dedicated to Iranian Nuclear Power and regional hegemony as Ahmadinejhad HOWEVER, they are far more rational than the President who many in Iran consider a "loose cannon" (my words).

Also with relation to Iran - not only do their proxies in Hizbollah control the Lebanese/Israel Border but according to the Washington Post (as reported in Haaretz) there are Iranian advisors on the ground in Syria aiding in the slaughter of it's own citizens by Dictator Bashar Assad.