So what is the difference between Republicans who say they are pro-Israel and Democrats who say they are pro-Israel? Actually, a lot. A few examples:
Congresswoman Ileana Ros Lehtinen, Republican of Florida:
Congressman Howard Berman, Democrat of California, a key committee chairman in the House, has done everything in his power in the last 15 months to delay, and soften sanctions against Iran. Why? Because he is loyal to a fault to Barack Obama, who does not want Congress to get out ahead of his own policies, which have achieved absolutely nothing in those 15 months to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Berman is concerned with the political security of Barack Obama, not Israel's security. And then there is Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, who is loyal to J-Street, even as that group lines up with those accusing Israel of responsibility for dead American soldiers, the ultimate blood libel, according to liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz. A Jew who claims to support the U.S Israel relationship, and supports Schakowsky over Joel Pollak, really needs to get his or her head examined. There is an alternate explanation for such self-destructive political activity- the Schakowsky supporter is like Schakowsky-- someone who pays lip service to the U.S Israel relationship, but really cares about other things. When the bar is set so low that Schakowsky is considered pro-Israel, then as Bill Maher says, we need new rules.
New York Senator Chuck Schumer harshly criticized the Obama Administration's attempts to exert pressure on Israel today, making him the highest-ranking Democrat to object to Obama's policies in such blunt terms.
Schumer, along with a majority of members of the House and Senate, signed on to letters politely suggesting the U.S. keep its disagreements with Israel private, a tacit objection to the administration's very public rebuke of the Jewish State over construction in Jerusalem last month.
But Schumer dramatically sharpened his tone on the politically conservative Jewish Nachum Segal Show
today [Thursday], calling the White House stance to date "counter-productive" and describing his own threat to "blast" the Administration had the State Department not backed down from its "terrible" tough talk toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Schumer, a hawkish ally of Israel since his days as a Brooklyn Congressman, described "a battle going on inside the administration" over Middle East policy.
The U.S signals to Iran that a military option is not in the cards. That will certainly help to bring Iran around. Barry Rubin describes the utter futility of US efforts with Iran. So does Michael Rubin. A big day for the Rubins. Also, Michael Totten: It is becoming clearer by the day that the real Obama strategy with Iran is containment, after they go nuclear. And that "strategy" does not seem very well though out either.
Chris Christie is shaking up New Jersey, and trying to save the state from the fiscal catastrophe associated with the contracts (giveaways) Democratic governors and state legislators have signed with public employee unions, in exchange for campaign cash. . Real change is possible- but it needs to start with spending. A Democratic member of the Illinois House says spending control is what is needed in Illinois. The teachers unions threaten legislators if they don't raise taxes to support teacher salaries, benefits, and pensions. Will Frank Rich be heard from, upset with the incivility? Speaking of Frank Rich (I prefer never to speak of the devil), Barry Rubin (again) on the dictatorship of the downtrodden snobs:
If the buyers of the Goldman Sachs created synthetic CDO at the heart of the alleged fraud case, knew who was on the other end of the transaction, and what their strategy was (to bet on a decline in the value of the securities tied to home mortgages), that would seem to undermine the SEC case. Is it possible that the SEC action, passed by a 3-2 vote, along party lines, was politically motivated, to push along the new securities regulations? Gee, the thought never crossed my mind before now. You don't have to love Goldman Sachs, to smell a rat.
Why do Jewish organizations, especially those that consider themselves to be non-partisan, subscribe to and support the JTA? JTA has become a left wing mouthpiece on all things Obama . Ron Kampeas, one of the great cheap shot artists around these days, did all he could to give Obama a clean bill of health during the campaign in 2008, attacking the many well researched pieces by Ed Lasky about Obama's many anti-Israel advisors and friends. Now he goes after yours truly for my article: The Jews of Silence. His argument- I rely on a New York Times story that is not correct. But I thought the left believed the Times was the paper of record? And he says I am partisan. Glad he's not. The good news- Kampeas seems to fear that people are influenced by what they read at American Thinker.