Is President Obama good for the Jews? For more and more Jewish-Americans, the answer is no.
In a Pew Research Center report issued on Thursday and entitled “Growing Number of Americans Say Obama Is a Muslim” (tragic in its own right), there was another bit of bad newsor Obama: the number of Jews who identify as Republican or as independents who lean Republican has increased by more than half since the year he was elected. At 33 percent it now stands at the highest level since the data have been kept. In 2008, the ratio of Democratic Jews to Republican Jews was far more than three to one. Now it’s less than two to one.
This is no doubt a reaction, at least in part, to the Obama administration having taken a hard rhetorical stance with Israel, while taking “special time and care on our relationship with the Muslim world,” as Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, put it in June. If that sounds like courtship, it is.
(It should be noted that the Pew poll was taken before Obama’s bold support for the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque a few blocks north of ground zero.)
Some of the president’s most ardent critics and some of Israel’s staunchest American defenders — two groups that are by no means mutually exclusive — have seized on what they see as the administration’s unfair and unbalanced treatment of Israel and have taken their denunciations to the extremes.
In September 2009, Obama went before the United Nations and declared
It was a line that the president had used a few months earlier in a speech in Cairo, but this time it threw critics into a tizzy. John Bolton, an ambassador to the United Nations during George W. Bush’s administration, responded: “This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making.”
In March, while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Israel announced it would move ahead with plans to build housing in East Jerusalem. The administration was not amused. Biden condemned the decision as undermining “the trust that we need right now” in order to have profitable negotiations.
Story continues below…
In other words, “You announce this now? You can’t be serious!”
In April, after President Obama urged Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Representative Eric Cantor, the House minority whip and the lone Jewish Republican in the chamber, lashed out: “The administration’s troubling policy of manufacturing fights with Israel to ingratiate itself with some in the Arab world is no way to advance the cause of Mideast peace.”
And, the Gaza flotilla incident in May that left nine people dead and drew international condemnation of Israeli tactics only added to the tensions.
The White House, feeling pressure over the developing rift, sought to mend fences in May through a series of meetings and statements, but as Helene Cooper reported in The Times, “It remains unclear whether Mr. Obama’s latest outreach will reassure American Jews and the general public in Israel, where Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have plummeted.” And, it’s still foggy.
When the president met in July at the White House with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he stressed the United States’ unwavering support for Israel and his commitment to the “special bond” between the two nations.
Still that was not enough to quell the cries of those like Representative Mike Pence, the Republican Conference chairman who earlier this month told the Christian Broadcasting Network<>, “I believe the Obama administration is the most anti-Israel administration in the modern history of the state of Israel and our relationship with her.” The more extreme the statement the better I guess.
Fair or not, these criticisms are crystallizing into a shared belief among many: Obama is burning bridges with the Jewish community in order to build bridges to the Muslim world.
There is very little independent polling, aside from Pew’s party identification polling, to help us understand how American Jews see the president, his stance toward Israel and the political implications. So in that vacuum, pollsters with partisan leanings have been spinning their findings like dreidels.
In April, the Republican polling firm McLaughlin & Associates released a surveythat they said showed that only 42 percent of American Jews would vote to re-elect President Obama. He captured 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008.
Recently, the democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg and the Israel Project, a nonprofit in Washington, conducted a poll that they said found American support of Israel was dropping like a rock.
Wherever the truth lies, it is fair to say that it doesn’t bode well for Obama. While Jews are only 2 percent of the United States population, their influence outweighs their proportion. Furthermore, in crucial battleground states like Florida, their vote is critical. Obama won Florida by 3 percentage points in 2008. Jews represented 4 percent of the overall vote in that state.
As Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, told Fox News in
April, “I have been a supporter of President Obama and went to Florida for him, urged Jews all over the country to vote for him, saying that he would be just as good as John McCain on the security of Israel. I don’t think it’s true anymore.”
The president now has another, more visible chance to reverse this perception. On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that Israel and the Palestinians would resume peace talks in Washington early next month. The administration has to decide how heavy its hand will be in guiding these discussions and what its tone will be with the two parties — who gets the tough love and who gets the free love.
I think we are getting ready to repeat a class in history—good luck on your Final Exam.
RandyTexas said, “No matter what happens or what Obama does, he will retain a following who will always blame others.”
There are still people who support Hitler or Stalin, but generally not both. It was not their ideologies, but their charisma that won them followers. Obama’s got charisma and it is enough for his adherents. Only infrequently are people rational! Simple “if-then” escapes most people.
“If you were convinced Obama was a psychopath, then would you support him?”
“Can you show me how he is a psychopath? I really don’t know what a psychopath is. Can you explain?”
But no one asks. They already know. Such people are already irrational. There is no new knowledge for them. Their opinions are quite sufficient, please and thank you. That is why we are in such deep kimshi (Korean rotting cabbage).
Everyone, Jew and Gentile, should be required to take at least one thirty-minute course in Talmud and at least two hours of formal logic sometime in their lives, but not to close to the end.
The problem is that the people who support Obama: politicians, voters, self-interests groups, and many of the very people who diagnose such illnesses, suffer from the same psychopathy. We suffer from a narcissistic psychotic New Age culture where psychopathy is becoming the norm.
No matter what happens or what Obama does, he will retain a following who will always blame others. We are not going to escape the consequences. It’s not just Obama the symptom, it’s the social disease.
The question here becomes who are the monkeys?
Those who voted for the alleged by you psychopath and rejected all negatives about him that you I and others have read and heard well before the election. psychopath or sane with an insane ideology is almost irrelevant. In the end you are stuck with the consequences and not much recourse to oppose with influence on the outcome.
In a parliamentary system he could be deposed if enough votes can be mustered against in a no confidence vote. Americans chose stability over quality and sanity. So you’re stuck for another two years at least.
Says something about a country with a leader who messes up everything he touches and then some and still commands over 40% approval. Between now and elections of 2012 it’s conceivable he can win back the 8-9% he needs to get re elected.
Seems Obama is not the only one who need a shrink!
Yamit82 said, “OK Dr Freud, lets say for arguments sake that he is a psychopath. what are you going to do with that bit if insight? Or, SO WHAT?”
If Mr. Obama is a psychopath, then it is no longer a question of ad hominem attacks or regurgitation of his policy errors and ideological inclinations ad nauseum. Calling someone crazy is not the same as diagnosing someone as schizophrenic. Calling attention to a series of lies is not the same as demonstrating that a person has no interest in or does not value the concept of truth. Claiming that Mr. Obama is not sufficiently empathetic to the circumstances of Israel and the continuation of the Jewish People is not the same as explaining that Mr. Obama would not be able to shed a tear at Israel’s destruction due to his constitutional limitations. Classifying him as a psychopath helps us to immediately intuit why he is unable to formulate reasonable domestic and foreign policies no matter what the issue. “Tin ear” becomes a symptom, not a momentary lapse commented upon by an astute observer.
Psychopathy comes in degrees or shades of gray. Yet, I would conclude that based upon his well-documented patterns of behavior that Mr. Obama is closer to the top of the scale of this personality disorder. Designation of him as a psychopath permits quick categorization of his behaviors as aberrant patterns and not one-off events that require endless analysis. If he is indeed more psychopathic than the average politician, then he has no business in a position of power whether the person in the voting booth is a Republican or Democrat. No rational person wishes to be subject to someone whose grasp of reality is so limited. The public’s ignorance of the criteria associated with this illness prevents us from quickly rejecting him whether we are of the Left or the Right. Insights come slowly despite their seeming appearance as an “A Ha” moment of clarity. I do not want this insight to be appreciated after he leaves office, as a historical understanding. Rather, I want it accepted now so as to be part of the process of removing him from power.
Hi Bird, Only since 2008?
Missed you too. 🙂
Editorially they can be whatever they choose but should report the news factually and accurately. What they choose not to report is as significant as what they do report, The NYT always has chosen to be very selective in their news reporting. No news organization should be fair or balanced. They should be factual and accurate though. Here the times is on the level of a Hollywood gossip Rag. They are near Bankrupt for a good reason.
ron has a good ear and good sense to spot HWSNBN.
I guess no one told Blow that “influence” is due to geographic concentration, especially in New York, where we are 13% of the voters.
Are they so clueless they do not realize that New York can be a battleground state? Maybe Blow can explain why the NYT decided that THIS was NOT newsworthy – not even one little paragraph in the Metro section: Brooklyn congressman and would-be mayor of NYC Anthony Weiner marries Huma Abedin, personal aide to SecState Hillary Clinton, in a Long Island ceremony officiated by former president Bill Clinton in July. NOT ONE WORD about that wedding. All the news fit to print, my *&&.
beyond mindblowing. As a NYT reader since 1969, the ABSENCE of accuracy, and deliberate bias in most of it’s news (international, national, and local metro)reporting has been dramatic just in the last five years. The NYT opinion writers are a joke. The NYT Business section still does a good job of real journalism, and Arts & Leisure still has some credibility.
The few REAL hard news journalists like Dexter Filkins and John Burns are being squeezed out.
Ted, CAMERA nails the NYT specifically on their news coverage of Israel and the Middle East.
I never read Blow. He still buys into that myth based on exit polls that 78% of American Jews voted for Obama? One of the ironies of this shift to independent-leaning Republican since 2008 (count me in), is that it is in part due to the bias of the New York Times. Made me start looking for other news sources, the bias is so obvious.
Ted: You don’t have to agree with the NY times editorial policy to acknowledge it is the most highly regarded in terms of its excellence in journalism. It is still considered America’s national newspaper of record and is one of the very few papers that is available in every major American, European and other large population centers. Well maybe the world is all nuts and you are the only one who is correct.
Ted, if you don’t know who logicom is by now, just three guesses, the first two don’t count.
Amazing for a person just on board to attack others as if he or she had followed the comments over a long period of time.
Laura and Yamit will know.
Logicom. Thanks for joining us. Your statement in support of the NYT is mindblowing. Surely you jest. Israpundit has followed its coverage of Israel closely over the years and have found it to be a distortor of news not a reportor of the News. Respected as it may be by the intelligensia, it is not by the people who value honesty and unbiased reporting. The intelligensia and the NYT are partners in crime. They want Israel to be denigrated and the faults of Islam and the Arabs to be glossed over.
The NYT times had a sorry record when it came to reporting on Communism right after the revolution and they have a sorry record in reporting on Islam. They also support the UN and Obama.
How can they be accurate and biased at the same time. How can they support a liberal agenda and at the same time be accurate, fair and balanced.
NYT is not fit for use in an outhouse; much less to be read or regarded.
Laura:
The ny times is still regarded by most INTELLIGENT people as the premier American newspaper – with excellant journalism and exacting accuracy in its news reports. It is still the most frequently quoted newspaper in the U.S. These are attributes that are not appreciated by the above cited author who appears to lack all the qualities found in the ny times.
Fistel, you’re stealing my thunder.
All of that is true but if Obama were to get down on his knees and point his ass toward the heavens five times a day, he could still say he was a Christian and no one could prove otherwise. One man can’t assert another man’s religious beliefs.
It’s irrelevant; he’s kowtowing to Islamic supremacism and both Israel and America are paying the price.
“Charles M. Blow”… very apropos.
That word should read “tripe”.
Another piece of trip from the rag sheet the NY Slimes.
The answer is no.
He claims to be one and for one reason only, political. He hung out at a so called Christian church of the anti-American, anti-Semitic Rev Wright only because if you are a black Chicago politician, this is the place to be seen.
Is he a Muslim, he certainly embraces Islam.
One thing for sure, he is a fake, a fraud and an incompetent president.
Is Obama a Christian? I believe he is part of the ultra-liberal Christian wing. These people often hold beliefs that are diametrically opposed to biblical Christian values, such as on abortion and homosexuality. They also tend to easily drift into taking anti-Semitic positions, condemning biblical passages they disagree with, and admiring radically different faiths such as hinduism or shamanism, while criticising values oriented Christianity. There are plenty of episcopal bishops, for instance, who are the same way.
Even tho Islam is in no way in agreement with the values Obama believes in, he nontheless has an enthusiasm for it. This is an irrationality that many on the very liberal side seem to share.
If it walks like a duck….
Obama says he is a christian and not a muslim. Yet he attended a radical black liberation “christian” church in Chicago, doesn’t attend church as president, denigrates (white) christians (“cling to thier guns and religion”), attacks Jewish Irael at every opportunity, defends and praises islam at every opportunity, and bows down repeatedly to the king of saudi arabia, while shoving his shoes in Netanyahu’s face.
Israeli leftists say they are “Jews”. Yet they despise Judaism, call religious Jews parasites, claim Jewish Israel is illegitimate, and violently support evey muslim, and every muslim cause, against the Jews.
Netanyahu claims he is a rightist and a nationalist. Yet he stops settlement activity in Jerusalem and the west bank, and pushes for direct talks with fatah (which excludes hamas) and appears willing ot make irreversible concessions to fatah, in return for their “promises” (at the expense of Jewish Israel), which will be ignored by hamas.
Orwell was an optimist.
If we Jews have fallen out of love with Obama it’s not because of his policies towards Israel which haven’t changed from the day he entered office, it’s because they disagree with his domestic agenda. That’s not an ideological divorce it’s more like a family spat. they have two years to kiss and make up and they will still be supportive of the democratic party no matter what. Can you see many Jews voting for Palin or Knewt?
Most will still vote democratic even if it means squeezing their noses on election day.
OK Dr Freud, lets say for arguments sake that he is a psychopath. what are you going to do with that bit if insight? Or, SO WHAT?
Charles Blow said, “In a Pew Research Center report issued on Thursday and entitled “Growing Number of Americans Say Obama Is a Muslim””
The truth seems to be that Obama is Muslim when he is in a Muslim country or addressing private Muslims in America. However, he is Christian when addressing the American public. He is a Liberation-theology advocate in his spare moments, fewer since he is in the White House. Our confusion is not his confusion. He seeks to be everything to all people. He is to all listeners what his immediate audience wants him to be. This is not only the sign of being a politician, but also of being a psychopath. In this personality trait lies his danger to America and the world, to the immediate present and to our future. Recognizing his psychopathic personality explains many things that are otherwise not easily understood about our President’s actions.