Thu, Jul 24, 2008

User login

TAG:

Bill Clinton

The Last Clinton Power Play

 

On Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton gathered her supporters in a literal concrete bunker several stories beneath the surface of the earth, with walls thick enough to block out all cellular reception and no TV monitors or any other medium of communication with the outside world. There, amid cheers of "Denver! Denver!" she congratulated her friend Senator Obama for having run a sporting race, proclaimed herself the rightful victor, and appealed to Americans young and old to pawn their video games and withdraw from their pension accounts (respectively) in order to keep her historic campaign squarely on track to the White House. Yet by the following evening, her aides announced the suspension of her campaign and her endorsement of Barack Obama.

!Hillary Siempre! ¡Venceremos!!Hillary Siempre! ¡Venceremos! What transpired in those fewer-than-24 hours? Only the most audacious squeeze play of Bill and Hillary Clinton's political careers, and --- because of its spectacular failure --- the last.

Clinton's Tuesday night pseudo-victory speech was an attempt to extort concessions from the Obama campaign and the Democratic party, including a right of first refusal to the vice-presidential nomination, a pledge not to put any other woman on the ticket, and an indefinite grace period in which Clinton would keep her campaign formally intact and concede nothing.

The threat, in case her demands were not met, was clear: Clinton might not be able to win, but she could undermine the legitimacy of Obama's nomination, whip her supporters into a frenzy, and ensure John McCain's election. To make clear her assessment of the balance of power in the party and put the screws to Obama and the DNC, she recruited, of all people, Bob Johnson (yes, that Bob Johnson) and Lanny Davis (yes, that Lanny Davis) to attempt to seize control of Obama's vice-presidential selection, and tried to mobilize support on Capitol Hill to bolster that coup.

The Clintons' power play failed because --- like Gorbachev, Honecker, and Ceauşescu before them --- they grossly miscalculated both the breadth and depth of their power. On Wednesday, Ed Rendell, whose machine delivered Pennsylvania to Clinton, told NY1 that "[t]here’s no bargaining...You don't bargain with the Presidential nominee. Even if you're Hillary Clinton and you have 18 million votes, you don't bargain." Maxine Waters flipped her support to Obama, while Charlie Rangel announced that "[u]nless she has some good reasons-- which I can’t think of-- I really think we ought to get on with endorsements [of Obama]." Hilary Rosen, one of Clinton's chief backers among Democratic insiders, switched to Obama and rebuked Clinton in sharp and unequivocal terms: "I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat." That's what happened publicly. Just imagine what her remaining supporters told her in private as they scurried from a sinking ship.

On its own terms, the Clintons' last, failed power play is a fascinating story of cloak-and-dagger politics, but its real importance is what it portends for the campaign going forward. Clinton herself has not yet come to terms with the significance of the dissolution of her core of support; the AP reports that she is "exploring options to retain her delegates." MoDo reports that she "has told some Democrats recently that she wanted Obama to agree to allow a roll call vote...so that the delegates of states she won would cast the first ballot for her at the convention," apparently unaware, as the Economist puts it, that "[t]he convention is supposed to be a coronation, in this case of Mr Obama. It loses some of its impact if nearly half the states stand up and say they proudly support the next president of the United States...Hillary Clinton." In other words, she still thinks she can dictate terms.

If Obama takes the bait --- fortunately, the indications are that he will not --- and centers his strategy on placating the Harriet Christians of the world rather than expanding his appeal to independents and Republicans, he'll hand John McCain his best shot of winning.


 

Why Was Bill Clinton Shaking Hands With Jeremiah Wright?

 

Early this morning a photograph surfaced of Bill Clinton shaking hands with Jeremiah Wright. Two separate sources publicized the photo --- a blog dedicated to defending the Trinity United Church of Christ, and the Obama campaign. The implication is that Wright can't be all that far out of the mainstream, if Clinton was willing to associate with him.

Notice the date of the photo: September 11, 1998, "at the depth of the MonicaBill Clinton and Jeremiah WrightBill Clinton and Jeremiah Wright Lewinsky scandal" in Ben Smith's words, which is probably a better way of putting it than "at the height." Notice the occasion: a prayer meeting in which Clinton sought absolution for his affair from the assembled Sanhedrin. Amazingly, no one reporting on the Clinton-Wright photo has yet managed to put two and two together. Clinton and Wright weren't photographed on a chance encounter. Clinton can't laugh off the photo as one of the many thousands of random meet-and-greets he did as president. Wright was standing with Clinton in the White House exchanging pleasantries because Clinton wanted him to be there. Because Wright actually is a figure of some prominence and stature in American black Christianity, and Clinton's MO whenever times got rough was to beg forgiveness from a prominent black preacher in order to demand that the rest of us forgive him, too.

So Wright was good enough for Clinton when he needed a confessor. Now the Clintons are engineering a whispering campaign to persuade Democratic superdelegates that Barack Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright should be the grounds on which they overturn the results of the primary. Classy outfit, no?


 

Nothing To See Here! The Clintons Are Making It Impossible To Vet Their Records

 

Hillary Clinton is a thoroughly vetted candidate, about whom there is nothing left to learn. That's probably why the Clintons are shutting down the release of confidential papers from the Bill Clinton presidential library. As Hillary Clinton would be delighted to explain, there is nothing new under the sun about her record; therefore there is no reason anyone should get to look at, say, the chain of events that led from Denise Rich's $450,000 donation to the Clinton foundation to the pardon of Rich's ex-husband, the continent-galloping racketeer and fugitive Marc Rich. What sort of paranoid freak could possibly be interested in Hillary Clinton's records as first lady, who she met with, and what, if anything, she actually did?

Likewise, because the Clintons are so well vetted, they refuse to release their taxHillary Clinton: "What part of 'tested and ready' don't you understand?"Hillary Clinton: "What part of 'tested and ready' don't you understand?" returns. The skeptical might point out that Hillary Clinton publicly demanded that her 2000 senate challenger Rick Lazio release his tax returns. But that's missing the point: Lazio was unvetted, and so he had an obligation to release the returns; Hillary Clinton is vetted, thus she has no such obligation. And besides, everything that there is to know about the Clintons has been known for years. Her 2007 tax returns couldn't possibly yield any fresh information about, say, Bill Clinton's $700,000 windfall profit off of a transaction on a non-public security backed by the People's Republic of China, with an anonymous buyer who paid far more than market value. Why, that's just old hat from the witch-hunts of the 90s. Bo-ring! The source of the savings that allowed Hillary Clinton to loan her campaign $5 million of her own money? Obviously the product of a lifetime of coupon clipping during all the years the Clintons lived on a government salary.

Similarly, what traction do opponents of Hillary Clinton's campaign hope to achieve by prying into Bill Clinton's relationship with his BFF, the Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustria? In 2005, Clinton lobbied for the brutal Kazakh dictatorship of Nursultan Nazarbayev to assume leadership of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, thereby paving the way for Giustra to gain a foothold in the lucrative Kazakh uranium trade. Clinton went so far as to inform Nazarbayev that "recognizing that your work has received an excellent grade is one of the most important rewards in life." Shortly after the deal was completed, Giustra helped raise $21 million for the William J. Clinton Foundation. It's called a coincidence, people; and in any case, all of this was detailed in the Starr Report.

So the Clintons are perfectly justified in refusing to release the names of donors to the Clinton library since 2004. Prior to 2004, unreasonable, Kenneth Starr-like critics will observe, the list of donors included the royal family of Saudi Arabia, the State of Kuwait, Walmart and the Walton Family Foundation, professional war-with- Iran-monger Haim Saban, and many other similarly upstanding persons and institutions. Conspiracy-minded nutcases, of course, will suggest that Clinton library donors were hoping to curry favor with Senator Clinton or a potential future Clinton presidency. But that's preposterous; the far more parsimonious explanation is that every single donor was expressing his or her own gratitude for the 22 million jobs created in the 90s, particularly the Saudi royals.

Yes, it's high time that the press stopped giving a free pass to Senators Obama and McCain.


 

From Krakow, With Love

Polish travel tips from an American secularist
 
Dear Jewcy Aficionados: Dzien dobry from the Krakow airport. I have just wrapped up an unofficial 72-hour Jewish immersion holiday and thought I would offer a few travel tips for those of you who plan on making a pilgrimage this summer. I’m guessing that many of you will be more familiar with the region’s Hebraic history before visiting Poland, but I thought you might still mildly benefit from the random observations of a lay lapsed Catholic American secularist:

  • It would be facile (not to mention condescending) for me to comment on how soul-deadening it is to see Auschwitz firsthand, but I did want to share a couple of tidbits from our excellent, somber, forthright tour guide. After explaining that these weren’t my views, but that rather I had “written about Holocaust deniers” (scholarly, no…but still technically accurate), I asked if they’d ever encountered any on the tour. She said no, but added that there had been a couple of teenagers with a Scandinavian school group who espoused Nazi ideals. They were immediately sent home because it is illegal in Poland to express those views. Apparently, a professor was even fired from his job for translating a David Irving book, even after making it clear these weren’t his beliefs in the introduction. Considering the horrific immediacy of the surroundings, the free speech question never entered my mind, but I did find one thing the tour guide told me interesting. She said, “We aren’t bothered by the Holocaust deniers. We are scared by those who sympathize with the Nazis, especially amongst the young, because it is easy to influence their minds.” I guess it makes some sense, but it was striking to hear that Holocaust deniers are no big deal while walking alongside the Birkenau train tracks.
  • Hot Dogs: at auschwitzHot Dogs: at auschwitzI was stunned to learn that, thanks in large part to the efforts of those who been imprisoned there, the camps were opened to the public a mere two years after the liberation. Two years. So, let’s recap: In a poor, desolate country, physically destroyed by World War II, people who were left with nothing after surviving the Nazi nightmare got Auschwitz up and running by 1947 to bear witness to the atrocities they had just experienced. I think you know where I’m going with this…I realize it’s not apples-to-apples, but it sure makes the seven years of Ground Zero squabbles seem awfully small.
  • Casting no aspersions on fellow tourists, but it is very strange to watch people take photos of themselves in front of the crematorium.
  • They sell hot dogs at the Auschwitz snack bar. I’ll let that sink in for a moment... In fact, the only food available for lunch that can quickly be wolfed down before the bus to Birkenau is the hot dog. I can’t say with 100% certainty, but both my wife and I thought it was a traditional frankfurter. And we do enjoy our frankfurters. By the way, the hot dog? Delicious. It was served on this crunchy-on-the-outside-chewy-on-the-inside roll, it came with a homemade relish of big chunks of pickled onions and cabbage, and was topped off with killer tangy ketchup. From the center of Krakow, the Auschwitz tour is an all-day deal, so the sale of nourishing non-kosher concentration camp hot dogs sure seemed like one final twist of the knife.
  • Krakow’s old Jewish quarter, Kazimierz has been reborn since the fall of the Commies. It’s bustling with coffee shops, restaurants, hipster hotels, bookstores, boutiques, etc., and we were told that a lot of the entrepreneurs are the grandchildren of those who were persecuted by the Nazis. That seemed reassuring. However, we stopped into an art gallery with an exhibit--a modern art black-and-white-photos-covered-in-spray-paint collage kind of thing. The picture in the window had two topless women, and the head of a bald man had been pasted over one of the ample-bosomed bodies. The proprietor told us it was a nationalistic Polish priest with a popular radio program (probably Father Tadeusz Rydzyk) who shovels “anti-Semitic propaganda.” This was not reassuring.
  • Ostoya Palace Hotel: where the maids are hotOstoya Palace Hotel: where the maids are hotWord on the Euro street is that Krakow is the hotspot for stag parties and that the town has a thriving sex trade. I didn’t notice an excess of strip bars or sex shops, but then again, we spent most of our time in the Medieval castles-and-churches section. After all, it’s an anniversary trip, and I’m old. What I can attest to, is that Krakow has an incredibly high number of beautiful, beautiful, beautiful women, including our maid at the Ostoya Palace hotel. Fellas, the dollar still owns the zloty, so you may want to take that into consideration before booking Vegas this summer.
  • If you are the kind of person who can power through a full day of sightseeing, I recommend taking the Wieliczka Salt Mines tour as rejuvenation after getting your spirit crushed at Auschwitz. Basically, you walk down a labyrinth of wooden stairs (reaching some 440 feet) into a massive mine filled with statues made of salt, walls made of salt (I licked them for proof) and an enormous chapel with a giant chandelier that hosts weddings, concerts and Sunday mass. There’s even a salt lake where a bunch of drunken Austrians capsized a boat and suffocated to death a century ago. There’s also a health center on the grounds for the traditional salt bath. Salt isn’t like coal or copper: It's good for the system, and great for the lungs. Plus, it’s always a balmy 55-60 degrees in the mine, so the dudes that toiled down there were healthier than the general populace. The Nazis took Wieliczka over and used it as a munitions factory (I think that’s what our guide said) and it was the only time slave labor was ever used in the mine. During World War II, people from the nearby Plaszow camp were brought over to work in the mines. Consider this if you will: you’re a Jewish factory worker reassigned to Wieliczka in say 1940. You bust your hump in the mines for the next few years, which ironically helps with the old lifespan. And for argument’s sake, let’s assume you’re down in the middle of the Earth without much access to the goings on at the extermination camps a few miles away. I’m not saying they’re lucky; they were slaves to the Nazis, after all. However, the mine job with the clean air and the comfortable temperature had to lead to one hell of a whopping guilt complex in the Krakow daylight.
  • Oldsmobil: krakow's american-themed car barOldsmobil: krakow's american-themed car barI lied. Salt mines won’t do the trick. Might I suggest the “Wodka Sampler” at the U.S. car-themed bar, Oldsmobil. I don’t know what happened to the “e,” but the six shots are smooth and clean. And the owner does a great impression of an American that didn’t sound like any American I’ve ever met. Much needed jocularity, though. Na zdrowie!
  • One last note for my fellow American travelers. We aren’t as popular these days, as I was reminded late one night in the land of my ancestors. A sousy Irish bride told me she had never been to “the States” and didn’t care if she ever did. Then she snarled, “Thanks for George W. Bush.” And this was the day after she got married. And this was after a friendly half-hour chat with her husband about New York City architecture and the Philadelphia Eagles. And the Irish are suppose love us. (Note to the County Cork gent who inquired: No, Bill Clinton is not generally regarded as one of the five greatest Presidents of all time.)


So, to the kid from the Oregon private school on the World War II trip--the one in the Jewish bookstore in Kazimierz who insisted on hectoring the young sales girl with variations of, “When the Nazis came, why didn’t they just pretend they weren’t Jews?” You know who you are. The clerk patiently responded about the importance of religion, the poor uneducated populace, the powerlessness… She was being sincere. You were being a dick. That ain’t helping our cause. From one former punk teen to another, you’re better than that.

And she was hot. You sniveling little fuck.

From Cracovia with love,

Patrick J. Sauer

Related: The Connoisseur's Guide to Internet Anti-Semitism


 

When the Clintons Went Soft on Terrorism

 

The Fraunces Tavern BombingThe Fraunces Tavern Bombing The FALN (Armed Forces of National Liberation in English) was a Puerto Rican separatist group active between 1974 and 1983 that attempted to win independence from the United States through terrorism. Their favorite tactic was to firebomb densely populated civilian locations, most famously the Fraunces Tavern in New York on January 24, 1975, in an attack that killed four people and injured sixty others. The final tally of their bomb attacks was 146.

Thanks to diligent, painstaking work by the FBI and federal prosecutors, the FALN's cells were slowly rolled up and its members imprisoned in the late 70s and early 80s. Until the very end, the group had the materiél, the logistical capabilities, and the intent to murder and maim innocent people:

FBI agents obtained a warrant and entered the [group's headquarters], surreptitiously disarming the bombs whose components bore the unmistakable FALN signature. They found 24 pounds of dynamite, 24 blasting caps, weapons, disguises, false IDs and thousands of rounds of ammunition.


Continue reading...

 

Quote of the Day: Clinton Supporter Claims " Whites Probably Are Not Ready To Vote For An African-American"

 

There would be no need to keep harping on the deplorable things the Clinton campaign has said about Barack Obama -- if the Clinton campaign could just stop saying deplorable things.

Unfortunately, from Bill Shaheen and Mark Penn none-too-cleverly insinuating that Obama was a crack dealer, to Bob Kerrey claiming nonchalantly that Obama was schooled in a madrassa, to Bill Clinton describing Obama's opposition to the war as "the biggest fairy tale" he'd "ever seen", to Bill Clinton suggesting that Obama is a Jesse Jackson-style racial protest candidate and nothing more, to Hillary Clinton letting black people know their votes are adorable but not meaningful, the Clintons and their surrogates seem incapable of exercising self-control.

Since these ugly and borderline racist remarks did Hillary Clinton's campaign so much good in South Carolina, it should come as no surprise that today brings two more exhibits.

First, Bill Clinton struggled, but couldn't find any way to make the case for his wife without deriding Obama as "smoke and mirrors." For those keeping track, it took Clinton eight years since leaving office, and a full year into the presidential campaign, to learn the lesson that a former president and party leader could find better ways to spend his time than personally demeaning the party's new star, or as Clinton puts it, "defending Hillary." It took him four days to forget that lesson.

Oh, and never mind that Obama's policies are generally more substantive, more innovative, and more intelligently-crafted than Clinton's.

Then there's this disinterested commentary from Clinton apparatchik Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, who was forecasting the results of his state's primary:

You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.

 Right, there's a crucial constituency that will vote for a woman but not a black man. And the Clintons will ride this feminists-for-racial-separatism movement to victory in November!


 
THE CABAL
Obama Crushes Hillary, Wins Kennedy Endorsement

Over the weekend Sen. Barack Obama crushed Sen. Hillary Clinton in the South Carolina Democratic primary. Pundits are hailing Obama's victory speech (below) as one of his very finest -- it's infinitely more impressive than those "uhhhhhhh"-ridden debate performances. Now Sen. Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, JFK's daughter, have endorsed Obama.

The Clintons will change focus from attacking Obama -- clearly a losing strategy -- to reminding voters of America's economic prosperity in the 1990s. But it might be too late. A Clinton campaign worker tells me: "Super Tuesday really is going to be a nightmare..."

A nightmare? Wasn't it a "fairy tale" a couple weeks ago?


THE CABAL
"Saw"
Mitt Romney's lexical bullshit beats Bill Clinton's

I'm still not voting for him. That's a figure of speech meaning I'm still not voting for him.

 


THE CABAL
How Desperate Is Hillary...
That Bill is using Bush Senior as voter bait in her campaign?
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former President George H.W. Bush has shot down his successor Bill Clinton’s idea of a diplomatic mission under a Hillary Clinton presidency that would send him and other notables abroad to assure other nations that “America is open for business and cooperation again.”
I'll be a goodwill ambassador to Angelina Jolie's house, if Hill will have me. 
DAILY SHVITZ
The Clinton-Berger Reunion

I have to thank the good people of Alfred A. Knopf for my biggest surprise chuckle in recent memory. I was walking into my local Barnes & Noble yesterday when something leaped out at me from the new non-fiction table. It was a handsome hardcover book whose title and author combo stopped me in my tracks: Giving, by Bill Clinton. After composing myself, I spent the next hour or so coming up with additional titles in what I envisioned as a series of books pitched by some guerilla ironist working under cover in the offices of Knopf: Acting, by Keanu Reeves; Davening, by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; Bending, by George W. Bush; Abstaining, by Keith Richards; Hiding, by Oprah Winfrey; Swinging, by Al Gore . . . You get the idea. Coming up with them is almost too addicting. But the list of titles wouldn’t be complete without Believing, by Hillary Clinton. For it was yesterday that I also first heard of Senator Clinton’s unofficial appointment of Sandy Berger (Disclosing) as a campaign advisor. This tawdry development is evidence of the Senator’s immunity to conviction.

Berger, Bill Clinton’s national security advisor, was found guilty of stealing and destroying classified terror-related documents from the National archives. The case has never been treated with the seriousness it demands. Berger destroyed the documents specifically to keep them from the eyes of the 911/Commision – a body charged with reviewing all materials relevant to the September 11 attacks and making recommendations on the defense against such attacks in the future. The destroyed documents presumably painted the Clinton administration in an unflattering light. The most troubling aspect about the insouciance with which the Berger case was handled is that it never allowed for a proper inquest which may have told us something about Bill Clinton’s culpability or consent in the destruction of classified terror-related material. One assumes that Clinton and Berger at least spoke about what Berger was supposed to do when looking though the National Archives. I can’t imagine I’m alone in wanting to know more about the nature of such a conversation.



Continue reading...

DAILY SHVITZ
Elect Bill Clinton's Wife

The era of dynastic politics continues apace:


DAILY SHVITZ
Althouse On The Brink

To catch you up to speed... Ann Althouse takes Jessica Valenti of Feministing to task for wearing form-fitting attire in a photo op with his greasy eminence Bill Clinton. What feminism, cried Althouse. What bullshit, cried the feminist blogosphere. Thus sparked one of the most rewarding cycles of violence known to Movable Type. It seems that a week can't pass without Althouse banging out whatever the conservative legal analyst's rendition of "Stand By Your Man" is on the third-wavers' ovaries of steel. Enter Bloggingheads TV, Althouse and some poor bespectacled lefty from American Prospect's TAPPED. Sit back, relax, watch how the best minds of your parents' generation were destroyed by the internet:

 


Day 4 (Paul Gottfried): Is it Time for Jews to Vote Republican?

A nativity scene on public property is not a pogrom

From: Paul Gottfried
To: Jonathan Gottfried
Subject: Nativity scenes and pogroms

Jonathan,

The American intervention in the Balkans, under President Clinton, was even less warranted than the invasion of Iraq. Exhaustive studies have shown that the media in France, England, and the U.S. glaringly exaggerated Serb “massacres,” while playing down those committed by their Muslim foes. Thus a military confrontation between the two sides at Racak, Kosovo, in January 1999, was spun to place all the blame on the Serbs and to justify NATO bombing of the Serb forces.Less justified than Iraq?: Bombing of Belgrade under ClintonLess justified than Iraq?: Bombing of Belgrade under Clinton

Please note that I am not defending Serb behavior. I am rather suggesting moral parity between them and their Muslim enemies. On the other hand, I would not suggest anything of the kind between Saddam Hussein and those whom he victimized.

You seem to believe that my parents’ generation’s failure to object to public displays of religiosity came from their insecurity. You think this older generation of Jews was afraid of not being regarded as sufficiently American and therefore failed to stand up to bigoted goyim.

My own read is entirely different. Firstly, none of the people in question would have been offended by the Religious Right’s opposition to gay marriage or partial-birth abortion, or its desire to invoke the deity in public classrooms, since among my Jewish acquaintances no one thought differently on any of these matters. Although I knew Jewish “liberals” who protested segregation in the American South or the puniness of the minimum wage, and although some of my parents’ friends were effusively grateful to the Soviets for having fought the Nazis, I never met any Jews of my parents’ generation who professed the views of todNot a pogrom: An outdoor nativity sceneNot a pogrom: An outdoor nativity sceneay’s secular liberals.

Also, most of the older Jews I knew had escaped from the Nazis by their skin of their teeth; they were not likely to equate having to pass a nativity scene on public property with running into Nazi hooligans or with incitement of a pogrom. Most importantly, those Jews did not have to reinforce their collective identity by fantasizing about or exaggerating a white Christian danger to their group. Their strong ethnic identity allowed them to function collectively without reference to a convenient adversary.

Last year I was thunderstruck when I received a message from the national Hillel organization providing advice on how to tell gentiles that one is not coming to class or work because of the Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur holidays. Apparently some of the respondents had worked themselves up strategizing about this problem.

Although I am now almost 65 and have spent most of my life in predominantly non-Jewish areas, never once have I encountered the Christian wall of prejudice and insensitivity that these young Jewish students are being helped to confront. In fact it is hard for me to imagine that these supposedly anxious people are being racked by fears of anything as counterfactual as what they suggest is out Shouting about Antisemitism: The new Shabbat?Shouting about Antisemitism: The new Shabbat?there. What may be happening is that going into fits about antisemitism has replaced more traditional expressions of Jewish identity.

In my early thirties, I belonged to a synagogue in Westfield, New Jersey, whose members became livid when a Protestant missionary crossed public school property to hand out copies of the New Testament. These concerned members then distributed a statement of outrage that was intended for a local official. When asked to sign it, I shocked everyone by refusing. I joked that given the foolishness that went on at local schools, the copy of an ancient text might help to concentrate the minds of students. But I was also genuinely astonished by this disproportionate reaction to the offer of a mainstream religious text to students who could easily turn it down.

Being then naïve, I did not know that the missionary’s misstep violated the most important constitutional protection for my fellow congregants, albeit one based on a selective reading of a privileged phrase of the judicially privileged First Amendment. This phrase, prohibiting Congress from establishing a national religion, has been turned into a vehicle for making secularism into the national religion. And while the Jewish contribution to this process cannot be understated, the Jewish liberal elites that have pushed both the secularization of the U.S. and various forms of multiculturalism were simply not part of my youth.

In any case, I thought that my fellow Jews in Westfield were acting more weirdly than the missionary against whom they were taking up arms. When I spoke about this a few days later to an Israeli friend, he shrugged his shoulders in amusement and then explained to me: “That’s what happens when life is too good. These American Jews should try to live with our neighbors.”

Dad

Next: Jews are opposed to Christianism, not Christianity


more »

Day 2 (Paul Gottfried): Is it Time for Jews to Vote Republican?

Going to synagogue is like plunging into an editorial meeting at The Nation

From: Paul Gottfried
To: Jonathan Gottfried
Subject: American Jews are not so assimilated as you think

Jonathan,

Reading your spirited, penetrating response, I must admire the genetic endowment that your mother and I have bestowed on you. Despite your verbal adroitness, however, I feel obliged to challenge a few of your points.

Contrary to the attacks made on the Republican Party by former Vice President Gore, the Democrats opposed the Kyoto Accords on global warming as much as the Republicans did. On July 27, 1999, the Senate voted against ratifying those accords by a score of 95 to nothing. That figure included all of the Democrats in the Senate as well as the Republicans on the other side of the aisle. Russia, China, India, and Brazil—all of which are happily polluting the environment—also refused to accept the Kyoto restrictions on fuel emissions. According to the research of S. Fred Singer—the physicist who developed the instruments for measuring the temperature of the ozone layer—the reduction of global warming would be no more than 0.02 degrees even if the Kyoto agreements were put into effect.

From what I recall, President Clinton did not hesitate to engage in his own “nation-building” and did so with brute force in Kosovo. Moreover, his secretary of state Madeleine Albright and his seBill Clinton: Did he destroy a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory to get our minds off Monica?Bill Clinton: Did he destroy a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory to get our minds off Monica?curity advisor Sandy Berger organized pressure against Austria in 1999 to keep the rightwing anti-immigrationist Jorg Haider out of its government. (Similar actions, to my knowledge, have not been taken to keep communists out of any Western or Central European government since the end of the Cold War.) Although Clinton did not stumble into any engagement quite as disastrous as the Iraqi War, (bombing an aspirin factory, in order to divert attention from his impeachment proceedings, may have been quantitatively less stupid) he certainly meddled beyond our borders. His would-be successor was the preferred presidential candidate of the New Republic, an honor that devolved on Gore for his deserved reputation as a zealous nation-builder. If Bush has taken over traditional Democratic slogans about human rights for the world, Gore held the same instruction book even earlier.

I’m also not sure that Jewish voters in Alabama are all that similar to their Christian white neighbors. In all likelihood, most Jews in Alabama, like Jews in other states, identify with social positions that are more radical than those held by their Christian co-residents. From looking at Gallup Polls since the 1960s, it seems that American Christians have moved leftward on a wide range of social issues but that Jews have done so even more dramatically.

Going from my liberal Protestant college environment to a synagogue service is like plunging from a gathering of fairly standard left centrists into an editorial meeting of The Nation magazine. The reason for this seems clear. According to Anti-Defamation Leage (ADL) surveys, American Jews believe, without serious evidence, that Christian antisemitism is on the rise in this country. Thus they combat the remnants of a Christian, bourgeois society, presumably as a form of self-protection. (Jews do not act this way out of malice but are reacting to genuine anxiety.)

I suspect that Alabama's Jews, except for the handful of Orthodox ones, are as horrified by the Evangelical Right as are the Jews of the Northeast. This revulsion is undeserved since what is called the Christian Right is effusively philosemitic and passionately pro-Zionist.

Jewish dislike for this group seems based on nothing more substantial than conservative Christian opposition to the use of public education to change sexual mores and to Evangelical resistance to the removal of Judeo-Christian symbols from the public square. Although I am not comfortable with all of the Religious Right’s political positions, particularly its passion for President Bush’s nation-building, the attempts to present it as antisemitic are baseless and even outrageous.

But my larger point, Jonathan, is that American Jews are not as fully assimilated into American society as you suggest. Most continue to think of themselves as marginal and threatened and continue to appeal to public administration and the courts against traditional American religious attitudes. Although Jewish Republicans may suffer from some of the same mishagasim, their switch to the Republican Party indicates a more secure relationship with the white Christian majority. I offer this not as a bill of health for their party of choice but as moderate praise for the Jews who have joined it.

One last point: Orthodox Jews and religious Christians in Alabama do not share the sociological or cultural overlap you suggest. The reconstruction of an Eastern European Jewish communal lifestyle in metropolitan areas does not remind me at all of a Southern rural or smalltown Protestant ambience, even if the Jews and Protestants both occasionally cite Hebrew scriptures. Their only common ground is a sense of being threatened by the moral transformation of the U.S., a process in which the courts and public administration have both played key roles. Religiously traditional groups increasingly support the Republican Party as the national party less likely to push forward revolutionary moral and social changes. Whether the Republicans deserve this reputation is of course a separate issue.

Dad

Next: Jews have an interest in a secular society; the Christian Right does not


more »

Day 1 (Paul Gottfried): Is it Time for Jews to Vote Republican?

Jewish liberals are still running from the Goyim

Voting Democrat is one of the defining rituals of American Jewish culture, like shouting over the dinner table or rushing through the seder. The last Republican presidential candidate to get more Jewish votes than his Democratic opponent was Warren Harding in 1919—and then only because 38% of Jewish voters went for socialist candidate Eugene Debs. And yet since 9/11 we’ve been treated to a flurry of articles prophesying or pleading for an American Jewish shift to the Right. Could it possibly be time for Jews to vote Republican? That’s this week’s Big Question.

It's a question redolent with the betrayal of Jewish-American patrimony, and thus the perfect one with which to kick off our Jewcy "Generation Scrap" series, in which a parent and child try to bring one another to the light on a pressing issue of the day. And for the sheer joy of complicating the generational tensions, we've found a father who wants to tear the Democratic Jewish tradition to shreds and a son who wants to preserve it.

Paul Gottfried is Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College and a firebreathing paleoconservative much admired by the Pat Buchanan crowd. His son Jonathan is a French-speaking Harvard Law graduate who fiercely resists his father’s entreaties to join him on the Dark Red side.

For the next four days, each of them will send us one e-mail per day, as they debate the question: “Is it time for Jews to Vote Republican?”

 

From: Paul Gottfried
To: Jonathan Gottfried
Subject: Jewish liberals are still running from the Goyim

Jonathan,

Asking me to explain why I think Jews should embrace the Republican Party is like asking Hillary Clinton to write George W. Bush’s campaign speeches. My profound disagreements with the neoconservatives, who are today the intellectual pillars of the Republican Party, are already well known. (The unwillingness of prominent neoconservatives to exchange views with me on Jewcy or anywhere else is enough proof of their hostility toward me.) Beyond this unwelcome neocon influence on the GOP, I really don’t see much difference between the positions of our two national parties. They are both big-government, patronage machines, which represent no threat to administrative overreach, political correctness, or the expansion of American empire.

As a small-government Robert Taft Republican, I feel disgusted by what the onetime party Now That Was a Republican: Robert TaftNow That Was a Republican: Robert Taftof limited government has become since Taft’s death in 1953. The GOP not only aids and abets runaway government, like the other party, but even more despicably, it lies about its intention. The Republican Party pretends to be getting “government off our backs” while doing at least as much as the other side to worsen our servile condition. That the Republican National Committee often acts thus because it is “reaching out” to Democrats does not make its lies any more tolerable. Whether you want quotas and set-asides for minorities, laxness in dealing with illegals, or the advocacy of reparations for blacks, you can count on Republicans to serve Democratic causes. Thank heavens that President Clinton decided to phase out welfare! I can't imagine Bush doing anything so courageous, anything that might have so offended black voters.

The Republican leadership’s enthusiastic support for the very liberal Senator Joseph Lieberman in his bid for reelection in Connecticut was exactly what I have come to expect from the GOP. His exuberant Republican devotees forgave every leftist stand he ever took because he voted with the administration on the Middle East. I cannot imagine the principled social leftist Senator Schumer fawning on Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson because they agreed with him on Israeli security.

Having vented my contempt for the Republicans currently in power, I am nonetheless pleased to see Jews joining the party. The Republicans are the party of Americans who do not flaunt minority grievances or protest their ethnic disadvantages. If Republicans trip over their feet trying to be sensitive to ethnic whiners, they do so while thinking of themselves as normal Americans—not as victims.

Most Republicans are white-bread WASPs who have neither anger nor a sense of entitlement in relation to other groups. Most Jewish liberals, however, feel insecure about the goyim—that is, about white, traditional Christians—and for that reason throw in their lot with gays, black activists, and feminists.

In my synagogue, most of the members agreed with a fake newspaper headline that suggested the US government had actively collaborated with Hitler to exterminate European Jewry. One would have to be a low-grade moron or absolutely paranoid to believe that. But those of my friends whom are Jewish professionals and fervent party Democrats have no trouble accepting this nonsense.

None of of my Jewish Republican acquaintances would have believed this spurious report. This is not because my Republican acquaintances are more intelligent, but because they are less inclined to fear gentiles. This may be true for Orthodox Jews as well, who increasingly vote Republican and who do not run around panting over the presence of Evangelical Christians. The Orthodox are trending this way only in part because they believe in Old Testament morality, or its Talmudic formulation. Equally significant is that they do not fear the gentileness of the surrounding society in which they live.

Dad

Next: Jewish Democrats are not stuck in the shtetl


more »

DAILY SHVITZ
Breast in Show

Check out the photo below. Which one of these people is betraying the feminist cause, and why?

Shield your eyes, children!Shield your eyes, children!

If you answered "The woman in front of Bill" and "For having boobs," congrats. You've won the Ann Althouse Tempest in a Blogspot Award.

That saucy breast-having minx is Jessica Valenti, who runs the excellent blog Feministing. The photo is from a meet-and-greet Clinton hosted last week for progressive bloggers. As for the betrayal of feminism, well, it's so completely insane to me that maybe Althouse, a law blogger, is best off explaining it herself.

[From Salon's Broadsheet]