US Elections: 2002 and 2004

[cerulean]

The 2002 elections for Congressional representatives and 1/3 of the Senate are just over two months away. The 2004 elections for Congressional representatives, 1/3 of the Senate, and the presidency are just over twenty-six months away.

One good sign is that pro-terrorist, anti-Israel Congresswoman Cynthia McKinley was defeated by her Democratic primary opponent this week.

Some questions:

* Should the Democratic Party be abandoned by pro-Israel voters?

* Does the Republican Party really support Israel?

* Does either party have a well-defined coherent foreign policy?

* What individual races are particularly significant for voters concerned about issues relating generally to Israel, terrorism, the "axis of evil," and so forth?

* What's the best course of action for centrist and left-wing voters who also support Israel?

* I presume Bush will be the Republican presidential candidate in 2004. Who would be a good replacement for Cheney in 2004, who probably will not run as VP again?

* What should be done to get a pro-Israel, strongly anti-terrorist Democratic presidential slate in 2004?

Feel free to rephrase the questions or add your own.

[Haifa]

hmm I'm not a US citizen neither am I a Jewish person. But here is what I think which you can take, add 50 cents to it, and buy a cup of coffee with.


* Should the Democratic Party be abandoned by pro-Israel voters?
depends. If you think Israel does not need peace, like NewsGuy does, then yes. If you think there should be a 2 state solution and a lasting peace, no.

The problem is that all Jewish candidates are democrats except for one.



* Does the Republican Party really support Israel?
yes. I think they do it because all jewish people are democrats, and they want to attract voters. Now I do not know if this is temporary or not.


* What's the best course of action for centrist and left-wing voters who also support Israel?
A leftist would not agree with NewsGuy that peace is unnecessary so: democrats, definetly.


* What should be done to get a pro-Israel, strongly anti-terrorist Democratic presidential slate in 2004?
easy. make sure that all candidates are pro-israel. you will then have to answer a simple question: "should I vote for this pro-israel guy or that pro-israel guy?" :D

[Mediocrates]

* Should the Democratic Party be abandoned by pro-Israel voters?

No. There are still plenty of pro Israel Dems like Tom Lantos but the danger is always either or. Increasingly democratic issues are painted as 'us' and 'the Israelis'. In fact the Georgia race (see above) has shown up on African American radio shows like Tavis Smiley as a kind of danger to the black community some whom view this as a threat to their own issues.

* Does the Republican Party really support Israel?

As much as it suits their other goals and objectives like oil interests, WoT, Iraq and so on. They certainly have not entertained any of the social or internal issues that many Jewish groups have focused on like elder care, medicare, education and the separation of church and state.

* Does either party have a well-defined coherent foreign policy?

Yeah, get money, get elected lather rinse repeat. No. Actually no one has a coherent foreign policy.

* What individual races are particularly significant for voters concerned about issues relating generally to Israel, terrorism, the "axis of evil," and so forth?

Down here in the Bible Belt even the Republicans hate Libby Dole. And because the Jewish community is so small the candidates really don't address it except for the fringe loonies who want to cut off aid to Israel, pull up the draw bridges and restock their Y2K bunkers. Of course down here the John Locke Foundation and the Cato Institute are meddling in everything and what they want is a virtual disassembly of the government generally. To say nothing of the right wing groups demanding censorship and 'family values' issues. So Israel is a rather small blip here and I imagine through most of the Bible Belt.

* What's the best course of action for centrist and left-wing voters who also support Israel?

Centrist- moderate voters may feel they have to cross party lines (like Michael Bloomberg :p ). Left wing voters will be, sadly, in the wilderness unless you live in an urban area with a sizeable Jewish population.

* I presume Bush will be the Republican presidential candidate in 2004. Who would be a good replacement for Cheney in 2004, who probably will not run as VP again?

Darth Vader? Savonarolla? Lorenzo de Medici?

* What should be done to get a pro-Israel, strongly anti-terrorist Democratic presidential slate in 2004?

Find someone who is electable otherwise, probably on economic issues and then get AIPAC to apply money and pressure to place Israeli and anti terrorist issues on top of it. The Clinton strategy: become the issues of your opponent. I don't trust James Carville to be pro Israel.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
[B]* Should the Democratic Party be abandoned by pro-Israel voters?

No. There are still plenty of pro Israel Dems like Tom Lantos but the danger is always either or. Increasingly democratic issues are painted as 'us' and 'the Israelis'. In fact the Georgia race (see above) has shown up on African American radio shows like Tavis Smiley as a kind of danger to the black community some whom view this as a threat to their own issues.

The congressional resolutions supporting Israel were supported by both parties also.

This article might have some relevance:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-emiller090602.asp

September 6, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
Primary Problems for Dems
The breakdown of the black-Jewish alliance.

By Edward B. Miller

For some time now, Jewish voters have been disproving the old adage that Jews live like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. Republican incumbents such as New York's George Pataki and Ohio's George Voinovich, and recent Republican officeholders like New York's Rudy Giuliani and Al D'Amato and Massachusetts's Bill Weld each won more than 40 percent of the Jewish vote in one of their campaigns. However, if the recent division between blacks and Jews in the Democratic party continues to grow, these politicians will no longer be the exception and Jewish support for Republicans will be the rule. . . .

On the one hand, I really dislike the sort of categorization in this article as it can quickly degenerate to stereotypes. On the other hand, this is the way pollsters, like the author, think.


* Does the Republican Party really support Israel?

As much as it suits their other goals and objectives like oil interests, WoT, Iraq and so on. They certainly have not entertained any of the social or internal issues that many Jewish groups have focused on like elder care, medicare, education and the separation of church and state.

All of these have been less considered in the past year, due to the (understandable) emphasis on terrorism.


* Does either party have a well-defined coherent foreign policy?

Yeah, get money, get elected lather rinse repeat. No. Actually no one has a coherent foreign policy.
The State Department, though, remains pretty consistent in outlook, due to the long tenures of bureaucrats.


* I presume Bush will be the Republican presidential candidate in 2004. Who would be a good replacement for Cheney in 2004, who probably will not run as VP again?

Darth Vader? Savonarolla? Lorenzo de Medici?

LOL. They don't fit the American birth requirements, though.




* What should be done to get a pro-Israel, strongly anti-terrorist Democratic presidential slate in 2004?

Find someone who is electable otherwise, probably on economic issues and then get AIPAC to apply money and pressure to place Israeli and anti terrorist issues on top of it. The Clinton strategy: become the issues of your opponent. I don't trust James Carville to be pro Israel.

"Electable otherwise" -- probably rules out both Gore and Lieberman (as presidential candidates). Who does it rule in?

[cerulean]

OK, it looks like the Republicans got this one. Will this be a good thing for US policy in the Middle East?

[Mediocrates]

This morning I heard a positively Nixonian comment on NPR that this election was a good thing for the Dems because now they couldn't be blamed for anything. I thought this was the most pessimistic and irresponsible thing I'v heard in a long time. I think that slipped of logical restraint the administration will delude itself into thinking everything it does and says is right. The fallacy of unquestioned good times will lead to some pretty poor decisions in the long run.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
This morning I heard a positively Nixonian comment on NPR that this election was a good thing for the Dems because now they couldn't be blamed for anything. I thought this was the most pessimistic and irresponsible thing I'v heard in a long time.

That is indeed an irresponsible comment, but it seems to be pervasive, at least at the leadership level. I recall in respect to the election debacle in 2000 that some Democrats thought Bush should be allowed to "win" because then they, the Democrats, wouldn't be blamed for the upcoming recession. Look at how well that brilliant strategy worked. One might almost say that a party that has this attitude deserves to lose.


I think that slipped of logical restraint the administration will delude itself into thinking everything it does and says is right. The fallacy of unquestioned good times will lead to some pretty poor decisions in the long run.

Democracy requires an effective opposition. That doesn't currently exist.

[Cellis]

what about 2008? :)