SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (28924)2/11/2004 4:07:46 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793717
 
Narcissist and Windbag
Howard Dean's self-destruction is reason to take heart.

BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Wall Street Journal

"Embarrassment of choice" is the ideal term for the current competition to decide on the precise moment of Howard Dean's flame-out. That celebrated primal shriek in Iowa has arguably been overdone, catalytic as it no doubt was for numerous latent anxieties on the part of Democrats. The latest pseudo-populist "You Choose" Dean ads for the Wisconsin campaign, featuring equally excruciating spots from "Steve," "Mike" and "Max," have already attracted hearty yucks even from the sort of voter who identifies with the LaFollette tradition of that great state. The Gore endorsement has been chosen, by Mr. Dean himself, as the point when things began to go what the English call "pear-shaped." With typical conceit and lack of grace, however, Mr. Dean selected this moment as the one when the "Washington establishment" began to fear him. And it's that breathtaking analysis which decides me on my own favorite among the rich choice of embarrassments.
It's not long since Mr. Dean publicly entreated Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to tell the other candidates to back off. Surely it was time, he argued, that his own pre-eminence be recognized and baptized and his rivals and critics made to feel petty and divisive. It's really quite difficult to imagine a more lofty "establishment" tactic: Who needs an election when we already have a designated "front-runner"? And who could possibly better represent the Beltway insider type than Mr. McAuliffe, a holdover from the bonanza years of Clintonian fund-raising and a professional organizer of the high-value ZIP-code donor?

Well before this, of course, I had experienced moments of shock unaccompanied by awe. Mr. Dean was simply appalling when he spun a yarn about a preteen girl supposedly impregnated by her father, and used it against parental notification of abortion. A physician has no business with demagogy of this kind even if the story is half-true, which in this case it apparently was not. And imagine the contempt that Mr. Dean must have felt for the pro-choice audience on whom he road-tested this potential but ultimately self-defeating fund-raising tactic.

It's always interesting when people don't seem to feel shame or embarrassment--and it's often not a very good sign-- so when Mr. Dean went on about his black roommates in college he was as toe-curlingly awful as when he condescended to those who display the Confederate flag. To be crass about both groups in a matter of weeks is quite something.
Worst of all was the heavy innuendo about the President's supposed foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 conspiracy. I think it is absolutely essential that no accusation of disloyalty be leveled against those who criticize the authorities in time of war: criticism at such a time being more of a civic duty than a right. If Mr. Dean had the smallest evidence of collusion or coverup at any level of the administration, one could have admired him for airing it, and never mind that Al-Jazeera might have used it for ammunition. What was really abysmal was that he knowingly took the latter risk without any foundation of seriousness. Before disowning it, he described this notorious piece of Internet paranoia as "rather interesting," which in a depraved way it is (not unlike the ingenuity of suggesting that Jews evacuated the twin towers just in time). So what are we to conclude--that he just thought it worth passing on?

I have now several times seen Mr. Dean saying that there is Islamic terrorism in Iraq now, but that there wasn't any before last March. If this means anything, it means that the activities of the bin Ladenist mercenaries in that country are the fault of George Bush. You can, I suppose, believe that if you care to. But watching, I realized something even more depressing: It's not just that Mr. Dean doesn't know anything at all about Iraq, it's that he doesn't care. His bored shrug at, first, the overthrow and, second, the capture of Saddam Hussein was a shrug of indifference as well as ignorance. And how can a man who flirts with moral equivalence between Washington and bin Laden expect to be listened to when he talks about a "distraction" from the hunt for the latter? He clearly thinks that the main enemy is at home.

I would not charge any of this against, say, Dennis Kucinich. He is in my opinion seriously wrong about the war, but not frivolously wrong. Not flippantly wrong, or irresponsibly wrong, or willing to please any old crowd with any old rant. This is not merely a difference of style. The misled and disappointed young people who are still wasting their time for Mr. Dean in Wisconsin had an idea that they wanted to emulate the campaigns of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. There's no shame in that. The United States was very lucky--I would even say privileged--to have such candidates at such crucial times. These were and are men of principle and character, whose opponents were eventually compelled to acknowledge and respect them, and who were in some important matters proved right. After the 1974 midterms, the brilliant Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell even found many people who claimed to have voted for Mr. McGovern when they had not. Nobody is going to look back on the Dean campaign with this kind of pride and nostalgia.
Look at it from one point of view, and you can take heart from all this. There are, clear across the country, people who sincerely cannot stand the policies or the personality of the president. When they say "ABB" (Anybody but Bush) they say it as if they really mean it. But there are limits, and Mr. Dean managed to find them in only a few weeks of cocky, half-baked and spendthrift posturing. This is not a time when the United States can afford even to flirt with the idea of an insecure narcissist and vain windbag as president. It's good to know that many liberals and leftists recognize that fact and act upon it, even when it costs them something.

Mr. Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair, is author, most recently, of "A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq" (Plume, 2003).

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (28924)2/11/2004 6:46:12 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793717
 
It could make a difference in Florida.

It's long been said that Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.

faith-based
Jews Choose
Will George W. Bush get their vote come November?
By Carl Schrag
SLATE

Matthew Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, has been riding high lately. Who can blame him? After toiling away as the leading spokesman of Jewish Republicans for more than a dozen years, he's finally starting to see signs that the tiny interest group might be growing.

When the American Jewish Committee released a poll last month showing that as many as 31 percent of American Jews would vote for President Bush if presidential elections were held today, Brooks could hardly contain his glee. In fact, he didn't seem to try at all.

"It [is] now undeniable that there is a major shift taking place among Jewish voters," Brooks trumpeted in a press release commenting on the poll.

Considering that Bush drew just 19 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000, it wouldn't take much of a shift for the numbers to rise. But the RJC shouldn't pop the champagne corks prematurely; Jews may have some very good reasons to shift their allegiances, but they also have strong motivation to stay within the Democratic fold. November is a long way off, and there's plenty of time for people to think and rethink the question of which candidate to choose.

A few days ago, I spoke with a woman in Chicago who could have been speaking for many Jews I know. "What am I supposed to do in November?" she asked. "Bush has been so good for Israel, and that's so important to me."

"So, what's the problem?" I asked, even though I knew exactly what her problem was. I hear it every day.

"I'm a lifelong Democrat," she said. "How can I vote for Bush?" She is gratified by Bush's support for Israel in the post-9/11 era, and she believes he's right to pursue the war on terror. But she disagrees with just about every plank of his domestic agenda, and she can't conceive of casting a vote that might mean further weakening the separation of church and state or an end to Roe v. Wade.

It's long been said that Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans. Hundreds of thousands of poorer Jews don't fit this stereotype, but for the majority who are members of the upper-middle and upper-socioeconomic classes, these tendencies have been fading in recent years. Still, if Jews were guided solely by their pocketbooks, they'd have shown much stronger pro-Bush sentiment in the AJC poll. After all, the wealthy have benefited disproportionately from two rounds of Bush tax cuts. Wouldn't any normal person want to reward the president who helped him keep more of his earnings in his own pocket?

Not necessarily, if they're Jewish. Even in the Reagan years, when tax cuts were the order of the day, most Jews stayed loyal to the Democrats. With 38 percent, Reagan drew more Jewish support than any other Republican running for president since early in the 20th century (and double what George W. Bush drew), and many of those who voted for him subsequently swung back to Democratic candidates.

Many would ask why the Jewish vote is so important—Jews comprise less than 2 percent of the country's population. But their significance comes from three key factors:

First of all, Jews tend to vote in larger numbers than other ethnic groups. Secondly, their concentration in urban areas in high-population states means their votes help determine the allocation of large numbers of Electoral College votes. And finally, they don't limit their political activism to Election Day; Jews have been among the most generous supporters of political campaigns, especially those of Democratic candidates.

While the high Jewish turnout is likely to continue, the largest concentrations of Jewish voters may not help the president, even if they do swing to his side. New York and California, home to the country's two largest concentrations of Jews, account for 86 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win, but even if Jews turn out for Bush, however, it's unlikely their votes will be enough to tip the balance in these two states. In swing states such as Florida, however, a change of Jewish heart could mean the difference for the Bush campaign.

Much depends, of course, on who ends up running for president in November. To date, we know the identity of only one party's candidate, and like many other Americans plenty of Jews are waiting to see who will face him before they make their final choice.

If Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry maintains his lead and wins the Democratic nomination, the Bush camp will have even more of an uphill battle to win Jewish voters. While former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean worried many Jews, Kerry has a long, positive record on Israel and is far more in step with mainstream Jewish ideas about foreign and domestic issues.

If we're to believe the recent studies, many of the traditional reasons Jews vote Democratic are less compelling than they once were. As Jews grow more assimilated into general American life, some of the values and ideals that shaped earlier generations resonate less.

Orthodox Jews—a small but growing group—tend to back school vouchers and other domestic agenda items that are anathema to what used to be considered "traditional" Jewish positions. Increasing numbers of Orthodox Jews identify as Republicans but, unfortunately for the RJC, their largest concentration is in New York State, where even a surge in Jewish Republicans isn't likely to tip the balance in favor of Bush.

Jews would have to overlook major points of contention on domestic issues in order to reward Bush for standing by Israel. Some of the most vocal in the community may do so, but it's unlikely that large numbers will follow. Nonetheless, the RJC's Brooks need not despair just yet: If we're in for a tight race in November, even a few thousand Jewish votes for Bush—especially in a swing state like Florida—could be the key to a second term in the White House.

After Abraham Lincoln took a clear stand against anti-Semitism, America's Jews were staunch supporters of Republican presidential candidates. This support lasted through the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) after which the growing Jewish population started paying more attention to Democrats. Between 1928 and 1948, 75 percent to 90 percent of Jewish votes were cast for Democratic presidential candidates. For more information, see an excellent overview of the history of Jewish voting trends by Dr. Steven Windmueller of the Hebrew Union College School of Jewish Communal Service in Los Angeles.

Carl Schrag, formerly the editor of the Jerusalem Post, is a writer and lecturer.

Article URL: slate.msn.com