Joe Lieberman, the 2008 election, and Jewish voters

The Wall Street Journal has a startling opinion piece today written by Senator Joe Lieberman in support of John McCain.  He criticizes the Democratic left-- which consitutes a huge chunk of the most politically active elements within the party at the national level-- because of its de facto opposition to the War on Terror.  And he states the following:

When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.

John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.

We knew Lieberman was leaning this way.  But today he uses unequivocal, plain, tough language openly.  He cannot be considered to be the definitive "voice" for Jewish Americans nationally, but there is ample reason for watching this particular voter segment.

Obama's support for Israel is tepid.  He talks about wanting to achieve "justice" for the Palestinians.  He refers to the "most hawkish" elements within the American Jewish community.  His former pastor was not a big supporter of Israel, nor were others from Chicagoland with whom his political/religious sponsors worked.  There is reason to believe, based on information regarding his past positions, that he might not do whatever it takes to defend and support Isarel. 

Greensboro has a large, active Jewish community.  Only within the last several weeks, there was a local Jewish event, and a media quote from prominent members of the community suggested how central the state of Israel is to their Jewish identity and concerns.  The question is how this will translate into votes at the polls in November-- yes, locally, but much more importantly, in various other states.

There has been some suggestion that the Jewish vote in states like Florida and Pennsylvania might be at risk for Obama.  Other states with heavier concentrations of Jewish voters might see this segment brought into play.  This group had in the past been overwhelmingly Democratic.

It will be an interesting election because the traditional red-blue state paradigm is going to be challenged because of various factors. And the Jewish vote could influence the outcome in certain key states.

Addendum:

An excellent article by Mark Hemingway details some of the case against Obama on issues of interest to Jewish Americans.  I suggest readers take the time to review it, because it contains fairly important information.  This includes his past relationships with terrorist sympathizers-- for instance, Rashid Khalidi, who has had a past working relationship with the PLO.

Comments

[bubba]

"This is going to be an interesting election because the tradition red-blue state paradigm is going to be challenged because of various factors"

There's a fair amount of evidence that the Dems and their cronies won't be able figure that out.

Let's see how if the McCain campaign, and those other Republican oriented groups who would promote issue oriented election information will be smarter than the Dems.

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, that is probably the most important question of this campaign for Republicans. Obama has provided a target-rich environment for Republicans. The only question is whether the key players on our side are adroit enough to handle it properly.

McCain is not the typical conservative Republican candidate. And of course, he has strengths and weaknesses relative to Obama, and also some advantages and disadvantages. These factors will make him a possibility to win some "bluer" states, while perhaps even losing some "redder" states to Obama.

Republican strategists-- and his campaign-- need to tailor the
message to his unique circumstances this year.

[Spag]

I think McCain will beat Obama, but the rest of the GOP is probably toast for another election cycle or two.

They abandoned their conservative principles against a motivated Democratic Left. They deserve to lose until they come back around and have a candidate that the base can be excited about.

[Joe Guarino]

Sam, unfortunately I agree. I hope we can at least keep the presidency; and also that we can keep the Senate Democrats from climbing above the magical 60 vote mark.

[Everest]

Sam is right on - and there is no better example of why than the remarkable $280MM boondoggle known as the Farm Bill. Republicans in the House (over half the caucus) and Senate voted to override a Presidential veto on this bill, at a time when food prices are going through the roof.

To his credit, McCain stayed true to his principles (and in keeping with his history on this bill) and voted against it. As expected, Obama voted for it. McCain has long been a foe of ethanol and other related subsidies, even when campaigning in Iowa. The other Congressional Republicans, sadly, have not learned the lessons of 2006, and will once again secure their place in the minority...and deservedly so after this.

[Just Saying]

The left has been anti-Israel for years.

At best, they view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a battle between two equally legitimate sides. At worst, they believe the Israelis are oppressing Palestine.

In reality, of course, the conflict is between a democracy and staunch U.S. ally (Israel) and a terrorist, anti-American state (Palestine). We should be more concerned about standing up for our friends than appeasing our enemies.

[Joe Guarino]

Everest, thanks for the comment, and you are unfortunately right.

Just Saying, you are right also. And it is abundantly clear from the Hemingway article to which I linked in the addendum that Obama has previously swum in these anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian waters as a reflection of his being a part of the political left, back in his Chicago/Columbia days.

This is a difficult reality for some in the American Jewish community to accept; and some are in denial about it right now. And there have been some creative attempts by Obama and some of his advocates in the media to obscure that reality.

[Spag]

"We should be more concerned about standing up for our friends than appeasing our enemies."

I agree, but I also think Israel is fully capable of taking care of itself. Their interests are not automatically our interests. Our policy should always be America first.

[Just Saying]

Israel has been on the front lines in the War on Terror for decades. They are fighting the same extremists as we are -- we're on the same side.

It also is the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East. Clearly, keeping Israel free and safe is in America's best interests.

And Israel has been able to defend itself - but in part, that's been because they have been given access to American military technology.

[Stormy]

Spag,

You may be right, but do we really want to find out if they can do it without America having their back? The people of Israel are tough, and they have been fighting for their very lives since Israel was established as a sovereign state. Just Saying is right, we have provided much support in technology to Israel, but they also provide America with something as well....ground intelligence. They have been very important to us in learning what is going on in the Middle East since the Church Commission gutted the CIA.

We have no idea what a President Obama would do with Israel. Given his comments about withdrawing our military precipitously from Iraq, it would not surprise me that he would provide little support to Israel, if attacked,, which I feel would make the ME even more dangerous. Israel will do what it has to do to survive, and surrounding countries might go after it like a wounded animal, if they know that America will not stand to help.

Orson Scott Card had an interesting Civilization Watch column this week, very much about this issue. He seems to indicate that if Obama wins the election, you just might see Bush make a move against Iran to remove and destroy their emerging nuclear capacity, as he knows that once Obama becomes President that America will do nothing. A nuclear Iran, Israel standing alone, and America going into military isolation is not a promising scenario for peace in the ME.