Yuge increase in US citizens registering to vote from Israel in US elections
The number of US citizens who have registered to vote from Israel in the upcoming US Presidential election is now approximately 120,000, as compared with 75,000 in 2012. Republicans are pleased, because most Americans in Israel tend to vote Republican - meaning for Donald Trump.
Republicans see this as a net success, since they estimate that the
vast majority of US citizens living in Israel would prefer Donald Trump
to Hillary Clinton.
Senior trump campaign staffers arrived in Israel in recent days to
meet the party's strategic team in the Holy Land. They will help them
prepare for the presidential campaign's final stretch, which will
include events in Israel.
It's official: Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) endorses Marco Rubio
South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, the first black Republican Senator in the deep South since reconstruction, has endorsed Senator Marco Rubio (Florida) for the Republican nomination for President. This came to me by email today.
Israel,
Our
nation’s future is on the line this election. We must nominate a strong
conservative leader who will fight at all costs for our country
and put our citizen’s needs before their own.
And Israel, we need the person that can defeat
Hillary Clinton next fall to be our nominee.
That’s why today, three weeks before the
all-important primary in South Carolina, I’m standing up for and endorsing Marco Rubio.
Israel, I spent a lot of time thinking and praying over this decision. This is an
important election, and I did not take this decision lightly.
There
are a number of good
candidates on our side, but I am voting for Marco Rubio as our next
president because he will not only restore our great nation -- he will
take us
into a New American Century.
I’m proud
to stand with Marco as part of the next generation of
conservatives. Marco has a proven conservative record of standing up to
the Washington establishment and pursuing conservative solutions for the
21st
Century. And that’s exactly the type of leader we need in the White
House next year.
Well maybe the candidates talked about those things because they are the antithesis of the views of Obama and the current Democratic candidates. That's not pandering to any of those three core Republican groups - it's showing how the Republican candidates are different from the Democrats.
How about Huckabee, Rubio, Kasich etc talk about Israel's sturdy and effective border fence? https://t.co/1WSyFQN0N1
I would be cool with that (although as longtime readers know, I don't think it's anywhere near as effective as it's touted to be). But in that case, wouldn't you ask 'why talk about Israel's border fence when we should be talking about America's?
No, it offends me that so much time was wasted on things all GOPs agree on. https://t.co/3vezaywGMM
Having read an awful lot of comments... I don't think so. It seems that unfortunately, the GOP of my generation and my children's generation still includes a lot of the John Birch Society types that kept my parents (and most Americans to this day) away from the Republican party. Perhaps that's why many of the Republican candidates feel the need to 'pander' (as Coulter insists on calling support for Israel) to Jewish voters.
Sure hope you can't tell Ann Coulter's views by the company she keeps...
“We must realize Iranian leadership refuses to acknowledge Israel’s
right to exist, and, in fact is hell-bent on Israel’s, and ultimately
our, annihilation,” Palin wrote on her Facebook page.
“The
only thing standing between a president who’d jeopardize our country by
ignoring our Constitution, and foes capitalizing on lopsided
international treaties that weaken our allies, is Congress,” she said.
“Congress
must not sit back and watch our own president flirting with the devil,”
Palin, a GOP vice presidential candidate in 2008, added.
Palin
also argued Obama’s tentative framework with Tehran had severely
damaged U.S. relations with Israel. She called on Republican lawmakers
to repair the frayed bonds between the two nations in Congress.
“Our
president and his anti-peace foreign policy supporters have not acted
in the interest of our ally, Israel, resulting in dangerously
compromised American interests,” Palin said.
“The
GOP majority must stop giving lip service to halting liberals’
fundamental transformation of our relationships with friendly nations
and finally take a stand by exercising its constitutional right and
responsibility to approve international treaties,” she wrote.
“Certainly they must with such grave consequences involved.”
The campaign site of Marco Rubio, who officially announced himself as a candidate for President on Monday, has a Stand with Israel page on his campaign site (Hat Tip: Sunlight).
He knows who his friends are.
It's kind of funny reading the Leftist media's critiques of Rubio. This is the New York Times (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
He enters the fray
with surprisingly low support. Despite four years of national
prominence, he has averaged 6 percent of the vote in primary polls over
the last few months. That’s the same or worse than five candidates who
are thought to have a much smaller chance of winning the nomination: Ted
Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie. Mr.
Rubio is acceptable to many but, so far, the first choice of few.
Mr.
Rubio’s struggle to break through is a powerful reminder that winning a
presidential primary is not just about skill as a politician. It’s
about positioning, and Mr. Rubio, at the moment, is in a much worse
position than many assessments of his political talent would suggest. In
basketball terms, he’s boxed out.
His central problem is that Jeb Bush
has found considerable support from the party’s mainstream conservative
and moderate donors in the so-called invisible primary — the
behind-the-scenes competition for elite support that often decides the
nomination.
I don't think the country wants another Bush v. another Clinton. And ultimately, as the field thins, if Rubio ends up being the only conservative in the race, I think he will gain support. Then again, I would say the same thing about Ted Cruz. (You all should know by now that I am a big fan of both of them).
If Rubio were both serious and talented enough to move his party away
from its most inhibiting orthodoxy, in defiance of those donors, his
candidacy would represent a watershed. His appeal to constituencies
outside of the GOP base would be both sincere and persuasive.
But
Rubio is not that politician. He is no likelier to succeed at persuading
Republican supply-siders to reimagine their fiscal priorities than he
was at persuading nativists to support a citizenship guarantee for
unauthorized immigrants. In fact, nobody understands the obstacles
facing Marco Rubio better than Marco Rubio. But rather than abandon his
reformist pretensions, or advance them knowing he will ultimately lose,
Rubio has chosen to claim the mantle of reform and surrender to the
right simultaneously—to make promises to nontraditional voters he knows
he can’t keep. My colleague Danny Vinik proposes that
Rubio wants to "improve the lives of poor Americans" but he must
"tailor [his] solutions to gain substantial support in the GOP, and
those compromises would cause more harm to the poor." I think this makes
Rubio the most disingenuous candidate in the field.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s campaign, which officially kicks off
Monday, has so far attracted paltry support from Republican voters,
according to polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as nationally. He’s down near Chris Christie! Yet, when we talk about him in the FiveThirtyEight office,
we usually put Rubio in the top tier, in front of everyone except Jeb
Bush and Scott Walker, the two candidates at the top of the polls.
Why? Rubio is both electable and conservative, and in optimal proportions. He’s in a position
to satisfy the GOP establishment, tea party-aligned voters and social
conservatives. In fact, Rubio’s argument for the GOP nomination looks a
lot like Walker’s, and Rubio is more of a direct threat to the Wisconsin
governor than he is to fellow Floridian Bush.
To win a presidential nomination, you need to make it past the party
actors (i.e., elected officials and highly dedicated partisans). You can
have all the strong early poll numbers in the world (hello, Rudy Giuliani),
and your candidacy can still fail if party bigwigs come out against
you. Rubio has a real chance of surviving — or even winning — the
invisible (or endorsement) primary.
Rubio doesn’t have the flaws the other two official GOP candidates
have. He’s a hawk on foreign policy (with an 89 percent conservative
foreign policy score in National Journal’s vote ratings), so he’ll be able to avoid the pitfalls of Rand Paul’s candidacy. And Rubio isn’t anywhere near as extreme
as Ted Cruz and has not alienated his fellow senators, so we shouldn’t
expect mainstream party members coming out of the woodwork to stop
Rubio. But he’s a solid conservative; statistical ideological ratings
put him right in line with the average Republican in the 113th Congress.
Rubio also vowed to reverse course on Obama's recent diplomatic endeavors with Iran,
with which the United States is working to finalize a nuclear pact, and
Cuba, with which Obama has opened diplomatic relations.
"I think from a national-security perspective, this deal with Iran is an
extremely dangerous one," Rubio said when asked what he would do on his
first day as president. "I think the next president of the United
States is going to have to deal with that on day number one."
Of the diplomatic opening with Cuba, Rubio said, "I would reverse every single one of the decisions that [Obama] made."
Obama: 'Once I sign the agreement, you can read the agreement'
On Monday, nearly 50 Republican Senators sent a letter to Iran, informing that country's regime that once President Obama leaves office in January 2017, no President who succeeds him will continue to abide by any agreement that he enters into with Iran, unless that agreement first passes the Congress (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations
with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional
system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive
agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an
executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses
could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
...
Many inside the Republican caucus, however, hope that by pointing out
the long-term fragility of a deal with no congressional approval --
something Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also noted -- the
Iranian regime might be convinced to think twice. "Iran's ayatollahs
need to know before agreeing to any nuclear deal that … any unilateral
executive agreement is one they accept at their own peril,” Cotton told
me.
...
The new letter is the latest piece of an effort by Senators in both
parties to ensure that Congress will have some say if and when a deal is
signed. Senators Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Tim Kaine and the embattled Bob Menendez have a bill pending that would mandate a Congressional review
of the Iran deal, but Republicans and Democrats have been bickering
over how to proceed in the face of a threatened presidential veto.
The White House reacted furiously, arguing that the bill 'undermines' the President's ability 'to conduct foreign policy.' No kidding. Wasn't that the whole point of the letter (Hat Tip: Memeorandum)?
White House press secretary Josh Earnest was unusually
blunt in ripping the Senate GOP, saying “it’s surprising to me there are
some Republican senators who are seeking to establish a backchannel
with hardliners in Iran to undermine an agreement with Iran and the
international community.”
Earnest said Republicans have a
“long and rather sordid history" of putting military options ahead of
diplomatic ones, and called the letter, signed by 47 GOP lawmakers, “the continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president’s authority."
...
Congressional Democrats joined the White House in
denouncing the letter, with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) calling it “a
cynical effort by Republican Senators to undermine sensitive
international negotiations — it weakens America’s hand and highlights
our political divisions to the rest of the world.”
“Understand
that if these negotiations fail, a military response to Iran developing
their nuclear capability becomes more likely,” added Durbin, the
second-ranking Senate Democrat.
Senate Republicans
“should think twice about whether their political stunt is worth the
threat of another war in the Middle East,” he added.
...
The White House and Democrats appeared to be coordinating
their response, with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
assailing Republicans on the Senate floor as “undermining our commander
in chief while empowering the ayatollahs."
"Republicans need to find a way to get over their animosity of President Obama,” Reid said.
"It's
unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an
international negotiation with a sole goal of embarrassing the president
of the United States."
The letter is just the latest
instance of Republicans using control of Congress to challenge Obama on
foreign policy, in part by going over his head.
A member of the press asked Obama, "Can you comment on the Republican letter to Iran? Can you comment on that?"
"I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting
to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran. It's an unusual
coalition," Obama told the reporter.
"I think what we’re going to focus on right now is actually seeing
whether we can get a deal or not. And once we do -- if we do -- then
we’ll be able to make the case to the American people, and I'm confident
we’ll be able to implement it."
That reminded me of this from then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
Report: Rubio a candidate for 2016 Republican nomination
Some of you may recall that for a while now, I've been saying that I'd find a Marco Rubio candidacy for the Republican nomination for President very exciting. Now, reports ABC News, it looks like it's going to happen (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Leading the effort to raise the $50 million or more he’ll need to run in
the Republican primaries will be Anna Rogers, currently the finance director for American Crossroads, the conservative group started by Karl Rove that raised more than $200 million to help elect Republicans over the past two elections.
Rogers will begin working at Rubio’s political action committee on February 1 and would become the finance director of Rubio’s presidential campaign.
Rubio, 43, will gather on Friday and Saturday at the Delano Hotel in Miami with 300 supporters and major donors to his Reclaim America PAC to discuss his political future.
Aides expect Rubio will make a final decision in the comings weeks, but
his schedule for the next month already looks more like the schedule of a
presidential candidate than a senator.
ABC News has learned Rubio plans to skip all votes in the Senate next
week and instead take a campaign fundraising swing through California with events in Beverly Hills, Newport Beach, Rancho Sante Fe and Costa Mesa. He also plans fundraising stops in Texas and Chicago.
Rubio has also scheduled a book tour that will take him to all the early primary states. A senior aide to the Florida senator tells ABC News Rubio’s book tour will include stops in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada. The first stop is tentatively scheduled for February 13 in Des Moines.
Here's wishing Marco Rubio all the success in the world. If you need someone to work on your campaign among American ex-pats in Israel (there are lots of us), please call. Promise to repeal FATCA and you'll get lots of votes here.
This ad - for Republican Senatorial candidate Allen Weh (New Mexico) is brilliant, says what has to be said, is entirely about foreign policy and the fallout of the United States' lost stature in the world under Obama.
Let's go to the videotape.
We should be seeing a lot more like this over the next two months. By the way, did you note that only 17% of Americans are satisfied with Obama's handling of 'Israel-Hamas'? Can I interpret that as saying that Main Street USA still loves us? Or are they upset that Obama hasn't put a stop to the war yet? Comments invited....
Ronald Reagan famously quipped, "I didn't leave the Democratic party. They left me." Could it be that American Jews are starting to do the same? According to Michael Goodwin, there are some hopeful signs (Hat Tip: Jammie Wearing Fool).
So, is this the moment when American Jews realize the Democratic Party has left them?
Gallup surveyed 88,000 Americans through June and found that 55
percent of Jews approved of the president, while 41 percent disapproved.
Among all religious groups, Muslims gave him the highest approval, at
72 percent.
The 55 percent Jewish approval marks a big decline from the 69
percent of the Jewish vote Obama got in 2012, and the 78 percent he got
in 2008.
Despite what anti-Semites believe, not all Jews care equally about
Israel, and certainly don’t agree on what is best for Israel. Other
issues affect their vote as well.
Still, the well-being of the lone Jewish state is a significant
factor for many, and they want a president who shares their concern.
Given Obama’s recent hostile conduct and comments, a new poll likely
would find his support falling even more.
It’s not a “Reagan moment,” but it’s getting closer.
AIPAC gives cover to Debbie Wasserman Schultz's anti-AIPAC campaign
Are there some Congresscritters who are too big to oppose? That appears to be the case with Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl). Adam Kredo reports that none other than AIPAC itself is giving cover to Dumb Debbie's anti-AIPAC campaign.
AIPAC’s initial letter on the controversy, which circulated two weeks
ago, urged Wasserman Schultz’s constituents to “respectfully ask” that
she clarify her position on the congressional measures and issue a
statement supporting them.
However, on Jan. 24, AIPAC’s Southeastern states director Mark
Kleinman issued a second letter, this one defending Wasserman Schultz.
Some pro-Israel activists in South Florida are not happy about AIPAC
reversing course to defend Wasserman Schultz, who continues to stand in
opposition to the group’s own legislative efforts.
“Friends, I wanted to forward a statement issued by AIPAC national
board member Ike Fisher after the Huffington Post released an inaccurate
article regarding AIPAC and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz,”
Kleinman wrote in the letter sent on AIPAC letterhead, a copy of which
was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
“Thank you and Shabbat Shalom,” Kleinman added before attaching a statement from board member Fisher.
“Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz has a strong record of support for
the U.S.-Israel relationship,” read Fisher’s statement. “She is a good
friend of Israel and a close friend of AIPAC, and we look forward to our
continued work together for many years to come.”
The letter did not state why AIPAC considers the Huffington Post report to be inaccurate.
When asked about the controversy on Twitter, Huffington Post reporter Jennifer Bendery said that no one at AIPAC ever “contacted me with any problems.”
“Sounds like they just need an excuse to flip,” Bendery said on Twitter.
Fisher, by the way, is the guy who told Florida Jews in 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama is a genuine supporter of Israel. A lot he knows....
But the real question is why AIPAC is supporting Wasserman Schultz despite the fact that anyone with their eyes open and a brain in their head can see that her position on Iran sanctions stands in stark opposition to AIPAC's. Kredo has an ominous explanation.
Jewish activists in Washington and South Florida say that AIPAC’s
flip-flop is unusual for an organization that typically exercises great
restraint and discipline.
“This is clearly a problem for them,” said another pro-Israel
activist for has worked with AIPAC. “One of these letters shows their
incompetence; we’re just not sure which one it is.”
Others said that the contradictory letters are a sign of deeper trouble at AIPAC.
“This is only the beginning,” said Steve Rosen, a former top AIPAC
official. “At the center of AIPAC is bipartisanship and the day it
breaks with either of two parties is the day it ceases to exist—and
they’re pretty close to this.”
AIPAC is facing a “terrible dilemma because [Wasserman Schultz] is not going to change her position,” Rosen said.
And you thought that J Street would support the Democrats and AIPAC would end up supporting the Republicans, didn't you?
If adopted, the anti-FATCA resolution would
reflect the party's political priorities for the time being but would
not change its presidential campaign platform, according to the RNC.
Approved
in 2010 after a tax-avoidance scandal involving a Swiss bank, FATCA
requires most foreign banks and investment funds to report to the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service information about U.S. customers' accounts
worth $50,000 or more.
Criticized
by banks, libertarians and some Americans living abroad as a costly and
unneeded government overreach, FATCA is on the books, but its effective
date has been delayed repeatedly, with enforcement now set to start on
July 1.
Repeal seems unlikely, but
more political heat from Republicans could further complicate and delay
implementation, said financial industry lobbyists.
Moreover,
Republicans are eager to use FATCA as a campaign and fundraising issue
against Democrats ahead of the congressional mid-term elections in
November, RNC members said. "I see FATCA just like Obamacare," said Solomon
Yue, an RNC official from Oregon who is leading the party's FATCA repeal
effort. "It will attract American overseas donors."
The act, which as noted is intended to prevent Americans from hiding money in foreign bank accounts, is the bane of the existence of many Americans residing abroad. Here in Israel, for instance, if you are a US citizen, unless you live here full time, you cannot open a bank account, and if you had one, you were probably forced to close it. Moreover, if you're a dual citizen living here and open a bank account, you must now give your US social security number. Yes, this issue resonates with Americans overseas - at least with the ones who haven't already given up their US citizenship to avoid issues like this one.
She 'wears her love for Israel to work on her sleeve every day' but she opposes sanctions on Iran
Forced to choose between her professed love for Israel and her love for Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic party, you know which one Debbie Wasserman Schultz chose. Yes, of course, she chose Obama and the Democrats. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl) is blocking bipartisan approval in the House of new sanctions against Iran. Because King Barack wants her to....
Wasserman Schultz has broken with leading pro-Israel Democrats like
New York Senator Chuck Schumer and New Jersey Senators Robert Menendez
and Cory Booker, privately urging her fellow Democrats to follow the
White House’s lead by opposing a bipartisan House resolution backing new
sanctions on Iran, according to multiple congressional sources close to
the debate.
The Iran resolution fell apart in the final days of 2013 after House
Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) withdrew his support for it following a
last minute lobbying campaign helmed by Wasserman Schultz, who sources
identified as the “key Democrat” leading the anti-sanctions charge.
Wasserman Schultz’s backroom bid to kill the sanctions measure has
angered some Democrats on Capitol Hill and in her hometown of South
Florida.
“Debbie has been busy at home telling her constituents she is doing
all she can to stop Iran, but in reality it appears she is busy behind
the scenes working to scuttle bipartisan action to put increased
sanctions pressure on Iran,” said one Democrat on Capitol Hill who is
closely tracking the Iran debate.
“Every minute she is publicly silent, or working against bipartisan
efforts to pressure Iran, is a minute she is siding with the Mullahs
over the American people who overwhelmingly want mounting pressure,”
said the source, who asked for anonymity.
Sources inside Wasserman Schultz’s heavily Jewish South Florida
community say that the lawmaker’s opposition to strengthened sanctions
has become a “problematic position” for her constituents.
Wasserman Schultz has become “one of the two problems in Florida in
regards to support for those sanctions,” according to one South Florida
Jewish community insider.
The other Democratic opponent is Rep. Alan Grayson (Fla.), according to the source.
So will the Jewish community in South Florida stand up and get rid of Dumb Debbie in November? What? And vote for a Republican? Not a chance.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz (Texas) has been named "the most talented and fearless Republican politician ... in the last 30 years" by none other than Democratic pollster stalwart James Carville.
Support for Israel still a 'wedge issue' in the US
A new Pew poll shows that deep divisions remain between Republicans and Democrats over support for Israel even after President Obama's reelection.
Commenting on a recent Pew Research Center for the People & the Presspoll
that showed 75 percent of Conservative Republicans sympathizing with
Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians, compared with 33 percent
of liberal Democrats siding with the Jewish state, the Republican Jewish
Coalition (RJC) on Jan. 3 noted the “continued existence of a large
‘Israel gap’” between the two parties.
In the Dec. 14 Pew poll, 2 percent of
Conservative Republicans and 22 percent of liberal Democrats said they
sympathized with the Palestinian side in the conflict.
Pew had asked 1,503 respondents the
following question: “In the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians,
which side do you sympathize with more, Israel or the Palestinians?”
From the poll’s results, Pew concluded that there continues to be “stark
partisan differences in Middle East sympathies.”
“This poll confirms the troubling shift
among rank-and-file Democrats, for whom support of Israel is now a
minority position,” RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said in a Jan. 3
statement. “Other polls this past year, as well as the boos from the
floor when a pro-Israel resolution was brought before the Democratic
National Convention last summer, all point to lower support for Israel
among Democrats. The traditional bipartisan support for Israel in
Congress and the country is threatened by the leftward shift of the
Democratic Party, a shift that increasingly makes it hard for some
Democratic leaders to support Israel because of liberal pressure.”
National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) President and CEO David A. Harris, in a statement about the Pew poll to JNS.org, said
“American Jews, who care deeply about Israel and follow current events
closely, have seen the unprecedented, powerful support shown for Israel
by President Barack Obama—and that displayed by Democrats throughout the
House and Senate, and across our Democratic Party.” The same American
Jews “have voted with their feet for decades and voted Democratic,”
including on Election Day 2012, Harris said.
Chuck Hagel: Our first battle of Obama's second term
Former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block has a blunt assessment of Chuck Hagel, President Obama's apparent nominee for Secretary of Defense (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
“The record speaks for itself, on issues like consistently voting
against sanctions on Iran to stop their pursuit of nuclear weapons
capability, against naming [Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] a
terrorist organization, refusing to call on the European Union to name
Hezbollah — which has killed more Americans than any terrorist group in
the world except Al Qaeda — as a terrorist organization,” said Josh
Block, a former AIPAC spokesman.
But former US Ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer claims that Hagel is no different than anyone else in the Senate... or the House.
“Anybody who has ever talked to senators or congressmen behind closed
doors knows you hear a lot of that,” Kurtzer said. “A lot of people
won’t talk about that publicly, but Hagel talks about it in public. One
can question whether it’s good politics from his standpoint, but it’s
not a view that’s foreign on the Hill. … A lot of lawmakers resent being
called anti-Israel if they don’t sign these letters. Then, they go out
and sign these letters.”
Kurtzer called the criticism of Hagel’s policy views “terribly misguided.”
“I found him in all the years I served, including as ambassador to
Israel, to be a supporter of Israel and a man also ready to discuss very
frankly with the Israelis the concerns we had about certain Israeli
policies,” he said.
It goes without saying that J Street is in favor.
“Sen. Hagel, should he be nominated, would be an outstanding choice for
secretary of defense, and we’d be surprised by any concerted effort by
anyone claiming to represent [the] mainstream of the Jewish American
community raising any opposition,” said Dylan Williams of J Street. “The
center of the community is exactly where Sen. Hagel is on issues
relating to Israel.”
But the comparisons with Chas Freeman have already started.... And a lot of Israel haters admit that appointing Hagel would be 'payback' for Prime Minister Netanyahu's 'lack of support' for Obama's reelection bid (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Stephen Walt, junior partner of the better-known Israel-hater John
Mearsheimer, writes that if President Obama nominates Hagel, it will be
“a smart move.” Why? Because, “unlike almost all of his former
colleagues on Capitol Hill, he hasn’t been a complete doormat for the
Israel lobby.” Indeed, a Hagel pick would “pay back Benjamin Netanyahu
for all the ‘cooperation’ Obama received from him during the first
term.” Furthermore, Walt writes approvingly, Hagel is “generally thought
to be skeptical about the use of military force against Iran.”
For those of us who are pro-Israel, a Hagel nomination would be a test of how much we can help protect Israel in Obama's second term, just like defeating Chas Freeman showed that Obama wasn't going to get very far against Israel in his first term. Oops. We didn't defeat Chas. Someone else found all those great quotes from him about China....
Why is President Obama tempted by the prospect of nominating Hagel? Because Hagel was a Republican
senator. The Obama political types think they’d get credit for
bipartisanship by appointing Hagel. And they think they would avoid a
confirmation fight because Hagel’s former GOP colleagues wouldn’t dare
oppose him: senatorial courtesy, party solidarity, and all that.
Whether Hagel is nominated is above all a test for President Obama.
Is he serious about having Israel’s back? Is he serious about preventing
Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
It’s a test as well for pro-Israel, anti-nuclear-Iran Democrats. Will
they go along with a major policy role for a man they know shouldn’t be
in one?
But a Hagel nomination is also a test for Republicans. Does
senatorial clubbiness trump the good of the country? Do former party
ties trump the importance of having a sensible and mainstream secretary
of defense over the next four years?
The Weekly Standard salutes the Republican senators who stood up
against the prospect of U.N. ambassador Susan Rice as our next secretary
of state. But let’s be clear: Chuck Hagel would do far more damage at
Defense than Rice would have done at State. To have blocked Rice and
then roll over for Hagel would be a disgrace. It would even give some
credence to the thesis that Rice fell victim to a kind of sexism and
certainly to old-boy-network-ism. So, if President Obama goes ahead and
advances what we might call a Hagelian thesis, Republicans have an
obligation to embrace their role as Obama’s antithesis, and to block
him. The synthesis we’ll end up with—a mainstream liberal at the
Pentagon—will still be problematic, but will better serve the nation
that the older Hegel once called “the land of the future, where, in the
ages that lie before us, the burden of the World’s History shall reveal
itself.”
Indeed. Every Senator should be contacted on this one. Every last one of them.
Not to be too critical of Paul Ryan, but Marco Rubio would have helped Mitt Romney much more had he been chosen as the Vice Presidential nominee. One of the demographics where Romney got creamed was Hispanics, and Rubio just happens to be Hispanic.
The word on Rubio was that it was 'too soon.' After all, the Republicans had justifiably criticized the Democrats four years ago for nominating a Senator from Illinois who had served less than one full term. The word was wrong when it came to Rubio. He had previously served as Speaker of the Florida House; Obama had only served as an ordinary State Senator.
Is Rubio the front runner for 2016? He's certainly one of them. Here's what he had to say after the election.
”It has been a privilege campaigning
for Mitt Romney, getting to know him and traveling throughout the
country on his behalf. When future generations look back on this
election, I am proud they will count me among those who chose a path of
limited government and free enterprise at a critical crossroads in our
history. I am proud to have cast my vote for Mitt Romney.
“Now comes the hard part. America faces
monumental challenges in putting people back to work, reducing our
crushing debt and advancing our interests around the world.
“In the next Congress, I am committed
to working on upward mobility policies that will ensure people who work
hard and play by the rules can rise above the circumstances of their
birth and leave their children better off. The conservative movement
should have particular appeal to people in minority and immigrant
communities who are trying to make it, and Republicans need to work
harder than ever to communicate our beliefs to them. I look forward to
working on these goals with my new and returning colleagues in Congress
and hope the President will get behind our efforts.”
The pitch to Romney was what particularly impressed me. It's what we Jews call mentchlicht, and it's a rarity in politics in any country today. (Sorry but the term doesn't translate well, but if you know what it means to be a mentch, being mentchlict means acting like a mentch).
On Wednesday, Rubio turned down an offer from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) to chair the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
The sources, who are familiar with Rubio’s decision, said the junior
senator had mulled the leadership role for some time. As he often points
out, however, being the father of four young children sometimes keeps
him away from the campaign trail.
Whereas some politicians would use an NRSC leadership role to create a
broader national profile, Rubio already has one; in fact, he will be
traveling to Iowa as a guest of Republican Gov. Terry Branstad in two
weeks.
Rubio, a rapidly rising star in the party after his huge but unlikely
victory in the 2010 election, is a favorite of McConnell’s. And as a
41-year-old Cuban-American capable of delivering some of the party’s
best speeches, he’s someone the GOP brass likes to put in front of the
cameras. Not only is he inspirational, but he helps the
diversity-challenged party bridge several divides with voters.
What’s more, Rubio is a star fundraiser who was able to pull in
hundreds of thousands of dollars for Mitt Romney’s failed presidential
bid, a skill that would be a boon to the Senate campaign committee. Of
course, he can still be used by the NRSC to raise money, but he wouldn’t
have to deal with the party’s divisive primaries as one of its leading
strategists.
Much to McConnell’s chagrin -- and for the second time in several
months -- Rubio’s career will not go in the direction that the Kentucky
senator had been hoping for: When Romney was poring over running-mate
prospects, McConnell was pining for Rubio, and he made his preference
well known.
Rubio never made it onto the shortlist, however, as Romney zeroed in
on Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and
Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the ultimate nominee.
I can only hope it's because Rubio wants to concentrate on the Republican nomination in 2016. The kids will be older by then.
The Democratic Party didn’t quite succeed in banning God from its platform, but it did its best to ensure that no-one would listen to him by putting a liberal clergyman who talks about anything except God in front of a deserted stadium. That checked the God box without allowing the Maker of Heaven to get a word in edgewise.
Rabbis from the wrongly named Conservative movement are used to preaching to empty rooms, but there was something surreal in the image of the Los Angeles Sinai Temple’s Rabbi David Wolpe blessing a deserted stadium late Wednesday night long after the Democrats had departed. Named by Newsweek the most influential American rabbi, Wolpe beamed empathy and gestured eloquently to the vacant stadium. After the last-minute vote by acclamation to return God to the party platform, Wolpe’s benediction had deep symbolic overtones. Clint Eastwood talked to an empty chair, while Wolpe talked to ten thousand empty chairs.
...
The whole of the Republican convention delegates remained in place to hear Cardinal Dolan after Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech, unlike their Democratic counterparts, who walked out on Rabbi Wolpe. Viewers of CNN, though, did not hear Cardinal Dolan, because Wolf Blitzer was too busy trolling the punditeska for instant comments on the Romney speech to allow Dolan to be heard. Fox News carried the cardinal’s benediction rather than the pundits.
The opening invocation at the Republican convention came from the Orthodox Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, before whom the whole mass of delegates stood with bowed heads.
...
One difference between the two addresses is the fact that the whole Republican convention heard Rabbi Soloveichik, while no-one but the cleaning crew was there for Rabbi Wolpe. There was a also a world of difference in the content. Rabbi Wild and Wonderful preached social work and psychobabble, while Rabbi Soloveitchik linked God’s revelation to Moses and the American founding, much closer in spirit to Cardinal Dolan than to the progressive Rabbi Wolpe.
It’s no surprise that progressive Judaism is imploding. In the past decade, the Reform and (poorly named) Conservative movements have lost 30% to 40% of their members by various estimates. If Judaism boils down to social work, why not do the social work, rather than bother with the laborious practices of an ancient religion? Progressive Jews have the lowest fertility rate of any identifiable (heterosexual) segment of the United States population, and half of their children intermarry. The American Jews will be a smaller, but far more devout, community a generation hence.
It is perhaps indicative of how seriously 'progressive Jews' take their religion that an image search for "Wolpe benediction" in Google turns up more pictures of his most famous congregant - Monica Lewinsky - than of the 'most influential rabbi in America,' Rabbi Wolpe himself. Pretty sad.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
