Sunday, November 02, 2008

GOP Jews Who Cry Wolf

If you keep calling people antisemitic and darkly warning of new holocausts for no good reason, people are going to stop listening to you.

This is a mailer being sent out by the Republican Jewish Coalition in Pennsylvania:



And this is John McCain's deputy communications director Michael Goldfarb:



Thankfully, most Jews see right through them. We're overwhelmingly supporting Obama:

18 comments:

The Candy Man said...

I believe 75% of Jews supported Kerry in 2004... as for Israel and Palestine, I personally hope Obama will pressure both countries to make peace already, a la Carter and Clinton. This feud has gone on way too long, young people are dying, while the solution is blindingly obvious and practically a foregone conclusion.

Stopped Clock said...

What solution would that be? I cant say it's obvious to me ... Israel/Palestine is one of the first issues that I decided was too intractable to debate about ... in other words, no matter what happens a lot of people are going to be upset.

Comrade Kevin said...

Good try, guys.

Anonymous said...

Did it not occur to you that maybe the Jews who are supporting McCain aren't doing so out of "fear of tragedy for Jewish people"?

I'm voting for whoemever I think will make a better President, and the state of our economy is what worries me most.

No point in assigning a false label for McCain supporters.

Holy Hyrax said...

>If you keep calling people antisemitic and darkly warning of new holocausts for no good reason, people are going to stop listening to you.

I agree, I think the same thing happened with the left when they kept on (and still do) call out racism.

Also, secular Jews have always been more supporters of the democratic party, its not necessarily about Obama.

avian30 said...

I believe Michael Goldfarb is referring to Jeremiah Wright, but wont name him because McCain shot himself in the foot by being vehemently against attacks on Obama's association with Wright earlier this year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed1Tb-vrEww
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONHPReg51lo

Random said...

Not sure if it adds anything relevant to the story (browser's blocking the video), but would Jews have any reason to be concerned about Obama (and Bill Ayers - yet more evidence Obama has been lying about how well he knows Ayers) being caught on videotape lavishing praise on a senior PLO spokesman - not to mention about the LA Times suppressing the video in the run up to the election? Or is this just some other professor of English who happens to live in Obama's neighbourhood?

Before crying wolf on this, you should remember how the story of the boy who cried wolf ended.

Jewish Atheist said...

avian30:

I believe Michael Goldfarb is referring to Jeremiah Wright, but wont name him because McCain shot himself in the foot by being vehemently against attacks on Obama's association with Wright earlier this year

I agree with you.


Random:

I'll let neocon and uber-Zionist extraordinaire Marty Peretz answer that:

Excuse me. But the Jews of America have already decided—and by lopsided margins—that they want Barack Obama for president. They are convinced by his committed liberalism and by his committed Zionism.

Yes, I know that McCain and his supporters are exasperated after so many months of seeding completely insubstantial doubts about Obama and Israel only to find their candidate now being left with a nearly historic low among Jewish voters.

Their last gasp is trying to get the Los Angeles Times to release a video in its possession that ostensibly shows Obama saying kind words about Rashid Khalidi. See the excerpt below for an instance of this effort. The substance is nothing.

Wednesday's Jerusalem Post has an article about the Times' refusal to make the clip public. But the news story reports exactly what Obama did say about Khalidi, and frankly it is utter pabulum. Read for yourself.

I assume that my Zionist credentials are not in dispute. And I have written more appreciative words about Khalidi than Obama ever uttered. In fact, I even invited Khalidi to speak for a Jewish organization with which I work.

Moreover, the Israelis are trying to live cooperatively and in peace with Palestinians whose unrelenting positions make Khalidi almost appear like a Zionist.


All this guilt by association stuff is ridiculous.

Random said...

Ja,

if the video is harmless, then why won't the LA times simply run it? After all, they found the time and bandwidth to release old beauty contest footage of Sarah Palin in a swimsuit (and in the celebrity, not politics section too - doubly classy way to denigrate the candidate) - are you really claiming Obama praising a PLO leader is less newsworthy and more trivial than that?

Instead, all you're giving us is an Obama supporter saying the video doesn't show anything that would upset Obama supporters (Marty Peretz has been a highly vocal Obama supporter for something like a year now - he's so far in the tank he even defended Jeremiah Wright, at least before Obama threw him under the bus). Well yes, he would say that, wouldn't he?

Jewish Atheist said...

Random:

I'm not defending the LA Times, I'm just pointing out that saying some nice things about Khalidi doesn't necessarily imply that a man is an anti-semite.

McCain has ties to anti-semites himself, but you don't see the media running exposes on that. Hell, if not for overtly anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-black sentiment among the base, McCain might not have been able to win a single state this election.

Random said...

"saying some nice things about Khalidi doesn't necessarily imply that a man is an anti-semite."

Never said it did. What I am saying is that saying nice things about a former spokesman for Yasser Arafat does imply that a man is less pro-Israel than he wants others to believe. Why should Obama be entitled to any more latitude than, say, Trent Lott was? Or do you think Lott was unjustly treated?

"McCain has ties to anti-semites himself, but you don't see the media running exposes on that."

Presumably because Malek has apologised for the number counting episode and has gone on to win praise from a variety of Jewish groups for the work he has since done in support of the Jewish community. This is a somewhat odd profile for an anti-Semite. Malek is no Khalidi.

In any case, even if the analogy is completely valid and not just a desperate smear to distract attention, I thought people were supposed to support Obama because he was supposed to be newer and better than politics as usual, not because he's no different to the other guy?

"Hell, if not for overtly anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-black sentiment among the base, McCain might not have been able to win a single state this election."

And to think a couple of posts ago you were calling "bullshit" on me for suggesting that anybody who criticises Obama can spend the next 4 years looking forward to be called a racist for opposing him:-/

Jewish Atheist said...

What I am saying is that saying nice things about a former spokesman for Yasser Arafat does imply that a man is less pro-Israel than he wants others to believe.

Does it? Is Marty Peretz also less pro-Israel than he wants others to believe then?

Why should Obama be entitled to any more latitude than, say, Trent Lott was?

Lott appeared to be supporting Thurmond's segregationist platform. That was the whole point of the Dixiecrats and his presidential run, wasn't it?

Presumably because Malek has apologised for the number counting episode and has gone on to win praise from a variety of Jewish groups for the work he has since done in support of the Jewish community. This is a somewhat odd profile for an anti-Semite. Malek is no Khalidi.

Okay, then what about McCain's funding and support of Khalidi himself over the years? And what evidence do you have that Khalidi is an antisemite, anyway?

And to think a couple of posts ago you were calling "bullshit" on me for suggesting that anybody who criticises Obama can spend the next 4 years looking forward to be called a racist for opposing him:-/

One can oppose Obama without being a racist. However, McCain would be doing a lot worse without anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and racist sentiments among the base and older white voters in the South and Appalachia. Those two sentences are not mutually exclusive.

Random said...

"Okay, then what about McCain's funding and support of Khalidi himself over the years?"

You mean when a think-tank run by McCain paid a think-tank founded by Khalidi to carry out opinion polls on the West Bank? I'm sorry, but I have a hard time getting worked up by this level of involvement, especially as I doubt there are so many organisations capable of conducting opinion surveys in the West Bank that McCain's group would have found it easy to engage one that had no PLO connections whatever (and yes, it's possible that Obama was no more involved with Khalidi than this - but if that's the case, why not just release the fracking tape??).

"And what evidence do you have that Khalidi is an antisemite, anyway?"

And what evidence do you have that I have ever called Khalidi an anti-Semite? (I'm assuming you're referring to "Malek is no Khalidi" - to be clear, the comparison is with Khalidi as a terrorist sympathiser. I've no idea one way or the other whether he's an anti-semite, the fact he's a terrorist supporter is quite sufficient for me.)

"Those two sentences are not mutually exclusive."

No, they just sound like "In theory, I suppose it's possible to oppose Obama without being a racist, but in practice most people who oppose Obama are doing so because they're racists." Seriously, you need to back off with this line. It's both highly offensive (which needn't automatically bother you) and garbage (which should). It's no more accurate than if I were to blame sexism as the reason why McCain-Palin are almost certain to lose tomorrow.

Jewish Atheist said...

And what evidence do you have that I have ever called Khalidi an anti-Semite?

Our conversation, I thought, is about the video above where McCain's spokesperson explicitly referred to Khalidi as an antisemite.

What evidence do you have that he is a terrorist sympathizer?

No, they just sound like "In theory, I suppose it's possible to oppose Obama without being a racist, but in practice most people who oppose Obama are doing so because they're racists."

The big difference is that I wouldn't say "most people," I'd say "some people." This is obviously true and it's quite relevant to the discussion. You hear it among the attendees of Palin's rallies, you can listen to this excellent This American Life episode about trying to convince racists in Pennsylvania to vote for Obama, etc.

It's no more accurate than if I were to blame sexism as the reason why McCain-Palin are almost certain to lose tomorrow

I don't hear of a lot of sexism against Palin -- indeed it seems those who dislike her the most were Hillary supporters, so that charge is kind of absurd. It seems to me that more people who would vote against a woman because of her gender are Republicans than Democrats.

random said...

"What evidence do you have that he is a terrorist sympathizer?"

Seriously? Well, there's the fact that he was head of the PLO's news agency in Beirut from 1976 to 1982 and was a member of the PLO's guidance committee at the Madrid peace conference. Oh, and his 1986 book "Under Siege" was dedicated to "Those who gave their lives in defence of the cause of Palestine." Now I suppose it's possible to hold senior positions in the PLO and glorify Palestinian violence without being a terrorist sympathiser, but it's not the way I'd bet.

"This is obviously true and it's quite relevant to the discussion."

Erm, no it isn't. The reason why should be obvious - racist Republicans will be voting Republican anyway - because they're Republicans, not because they're racists. The only people likely to be persuaded to vote against Obama on the grounds of race are racist *Democrats*. JA, you seem to be a Democrat to me, are there really so many racists in your party that the prospect of them defecting could make the difference between the McCain campaign flatlining and remaining competitive? I know the Democrats are the only party to have a Klansman in the Senate, but even so...

"You hear it among the attendees of Palin's rallies,"

and the fact that the worst allegations at least have been debunked is presumably irrelevant?

"It seems to me that more people who would vote against a woman because of her gender are Republicans than Democrats."

Oh come on! Do you really want me to link to the "Sarah Palin is a c*nt" stuff again? Those pictures were taken at Obama rallies, not McCain ones - and perhaps more relevantly, the people wearing the shirts were happy to pose for pictures. They clearly neither expected to receive, nor did in fact receive, any hostile reaction to them. If that isn't sexism of the crudest, most hateful, sort, then what is?

Jewish Atheist said...

The only people likely to be persuaded to vote against Obama on the grounds of race are racist *Democrats*. JA, you seem to be a Democrat to me, are there really so many racists in your party that the prospect of them defecting could make the difference between the McCain campaign flatlining and remaining competitive?

Um, yes. Appalachia. You didn't think it odd that HILLARY CLINTON was ridiculously popular there? Go listen to that This American Life episode I linked to.

There's a reason McCain thinks he has a chance in PA despite the polls.

Oh come on! Do you really want me to link to the "Sarah Palin is a c*nt" stuff again?

I don't remember seeing those.

Random said...

"Um, yes."

Surprisingly honest of you!

"Appalachia. You didn't think it odd that HILLARY CLINTON was ridiculously popular there?"

I put that down in large part to the "bitter, clinging" episode myself. As a rule people don't tend to vote for somebody who they think looks down on them. doesn't make them a racist though.

"I don't remember seeing those."

It was in the "Colin Powell after his endorsement" comment thread, about halfway down.

Still, this is all just marking time until tomorrow when all this will be irrelevant. Regardless of political differences, I hope the day goes smoothly for you and yours personally and you enjoy the day...

Jewish Atheist said...

Thanks! The fiancee and I just voted for the good guys. ;-) Went very smoothly.