Obama talks schools, shofar in call with rabbis
Barack Obama told a conference call of rabbis that he supports government funding for after-school and mentoring programs in faith-based schools.
Speaking to 900 rabbis on a pre-Rosh Hashanah call Wednesday morning, Obama said he opposes "vouchers" for private schools, but would continue to support funding, as is currently provided in the No Child Left Behind law, for after-school tutoring, mentoring and summer programs at private and religious schools, according to a press release from the Orthodox Union and other rabbis who participated in the call.
Participants said Obama talked about a number of issues and took four questions from leaders of the four major denominations during the more than 40 minutes he spent on the call. The economy, education, energy, Israel and Iran were among the topics he discussed, reiterating the "unacceptability" of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
With the call coming less than two weeks before Rosh Hashanah, the Democratic nominee wished the group "Shanah Tovah." He also discussed how the shofar raises people from "slumber" to "set out on a better path" and how he hoped his campaign could do the same, according to rabbis on the call.
Rabbi Sam Gordon, who introduced Obama and serves as co-chair of "Rabbis for Obama," said he believed that a presidential candidate speaking to hundreds of rabbis was "unprecedented" during a political campaign, and that Obama showed an impressive "depth of knowledge" – at one point referring to the largest Modern Orthodox high school in Chicago by name, the Ida Crown Academy, when discussing faith-based schools.
The one complaint about the call was the speech of the other rabbi introducing Obama by Elliot Dorff, vice chair of the Conservative Movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards and a professor at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles. One rabbi who did not wish to be identified said Dorff's speech was "way too partisan" and the Orthodox Union's blog said Dorff essentially compared John McCain to Haman.
The Obama campaign has released portions of his remarks on the call:
"I know that for rabbis this is the busiest time of the year as you prepare for the High Holy Days. So I am grateful for a few minutes of your time. I extend my New Years greetings to you and to your congregations and communities. I want to wish everybody a Shana Tovah and I hope that you will convey my wishes to all of those you pray and celebrate with this Rosh Hashanah. The Jewish New Year is unlike the new years of any other cultures. In part because it's not simply a time for revelry; it's a time for what might be called determined rejoicing. A time to put your affairs with other people in order so you can honestly turn to God. A time to recommit to the serious work of tikkun olam?of mending the world."Senator Obama noted the significance of the Shofar in our lives for Rosh Hashanah and beyond, stating:
"And I know that the Shofar is going to be blown in your synagogues over Rosh Hashanah and there are many interpretations of its significance. One that I have heard that resonates with me is rousing us from our slumber so that we recognize our responsibilities and repent for our misdeeds and set out on a better path. The people in every community across this land join our campaign and I like to think that they are sounding that Shofar and to rouse this nation out of its slumber and to compel us to confront our challenges and ensure a better path. It's a call to action. So as this New Year dawns, I am optimistic about our ability to overcome the challenges we face and the opportunity that we can bring the change we need not only to our nation but also to the world."
Barack Obama also stated the need for leadership in both our troubled economy and foreign policy. Speaking of his recent trip to Israel and his unwavering commitment to the US-Israel relationship and Israel's security, he noted:
"I think that it's also important to recognize that throughout my career in the State Legislature and now in the U.S. Senate I have been a stalwart friend of Israel. On every single issue related to Israel's security, I have been unwavering, and will continue to be unwavering. My belief is that Israel's security is sacrosanct and we have to ensure that as the soul democracy in the Middle East, one of our greatest allies in the world, one that shares a special relationship with us and shares our values, we have to make sure that they have the support whether its financial or military to sustain their security and the hostile environment. And its also important that we are an effective partner with them in pursuing the possibilities of peace in the future, and that requires not only active engagement and negotiations that may take place with Palestinians but it also requires that we stand tough and with great clarity when it comes to Iran and the unacceptability of them possessing nuclear weapons. During my recent visit to Israel, I had the occasion to meet with all of the major political players. That was my second visit there and I think that they all came away with assurance of my commitment with respect to Israel."
4 Comments |
Share This
| 
barack obama,
John McCain,
Presidential Race |
RJC defends poll, Dems cry foul
The leader of the Republican Jewish Coalition says he did nothing wrong by sponsoring a poll that tested negative messages about Barack Obama, but said he won't provide his poll questions to the media unless Democrats do the same.
"I'll be happy to release the questions when the Obama people release their polls," said Brooks. "I don't want a double standard." The RJC leader said that his organization had "nothing to apologize for" and was simply testing messages like "every single campaign" does. Many of the messages that Brooks confirmed were tested in the poll are statements that have been appearing in RJC advertisements and other literature for months.
He added that characterizations of the survey as a "negative Obama poll" were unfair. There were 82 questions asked, and "less than 10 percent" tested "messages" dealing with Obama. There were other questions, he said, dealing with the economy, energy independence and a "wide range of issues." The poll queried 750 voters in Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Democrats concede that Brooks was not conducting a "push poll" but say that the messages he was testing were filled with distortions and untruths.
Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who was John Kerry's pollster during the 2004 presidential campaign, said the lengthy list of questions appears to indicate that the survey was designed to test messages and "did not meet the definition of a push poll" – which is usually a much briefer call that isn't a poll at all but a call made with the sole purpose of spreading negative information about a candidate.
But Mellman said he felt the RJC was testing messages that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny and that he wouldn't test as a pollster. "There's a line between basically accurate and basically deceptive and they crossed that line," Mellman said.
"I test messages, he's testing lies," said National Jewish Democratic Council executive director Ira Forman, who said that many of the reported questions start with a "grain of truth" but leave out important context or twist the meaning of certain facts. Forman said he would not detail the types of messages he tests.
Mik Moore, who as founder of the pro-Obama organization Jewsvote.org first publicized reports of the RJC poll, said that by the definition of experts the RJC survey was probably not a "push poll." But he said the "effect of it was a push poll" because it ended up upsetting people and spreading negative information about Obama within the community.
But Republican pollster Neil Newhouse said he found the RJC questions "pretty standard in message testing surveys" because pollsters "tend not to give both sides of the story" in such cases. He said both parties do similar types of polls, and that as long as a statement can be defended as true if it shows up on the front page of the newspaper, it will be tested.
He added that the size of the RJC's poll – 750 Jewish voters in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Jersey – was clear evidence that the RJC was not conducting a "push poll," which usually goes to tens of thousands of voters.
Brooks denied "absolutely" and "categorically" that the poll asked any questions that accused Obama of being a Muslim or brought up the Islamic background of his family, or that there were any questions claiming that Obama was endorsed by the president of Iran or donated to the PLO, as some who were polled have claimed in media reports.
He also said that, contrary to reports of some of those surveyed, respondents were not told that Obama supported a "divided Jerusalem." He said the actual question was: "Barack Obama once supported a united, undivided Jerusalem, but now says it's 'up to the parties' which could mean a divided Jerusalem."
Brooks confirmed that the survey included questions about Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef's stated support of Obama, that "Jimmy Carter's anti-Israel national security adviser" is a foreign policy adviser to Obama, and that the Democratic candidate was the member of the board of an organization which donated to a pro-Palestinian organization. He defended all those statements as accurate.
"The questions were designed to understand why the Jewish community continues to have a problem" with Barack Obama," Brooks said.
Forman noted that the questions leave out important information, such as Hamas' renouncement of the endorsement after Obama's speech at the AIPAC policy conference, and that the "pro-Palestinian organization" is primarily devoted to social service work in Chicago. Forman also said he didn't believe Brooks' denials about the content of the questions after speaking to people who were surveyed and claimed they heard such statements.
1 Comment |
Share This
|
barack obama,
polls,
Presidential Race,
RJC |
Source: Hoenlein aimed for bipartisanship
A source helping Malcolm Hoenlein organize next week's Iran rally tells JTA – on condition of being quoted only as an "official" – that Hoenlein genuinely saw the pairing of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential pick, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as an appropriate match for the event.
As I reported earlier, Democrats are furious that organizers, in particular the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations executive, matched a Democratic lawmaker with the number two on the GOP ticket. The official agrees that, in hindsight, Hoenlein's decision not to approach the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) after he secured Palin (apparently last week) was naive. The official adds, however, that Hoenlein's decision was fueled by anxiety that, after having secured Clinton early in August, he was having trouble finding a Republican. In other words, Hoenlein's relief at finally getting a Republican might have gotten in the way of anticipating the fury of Democrats in general and Clinton in particular (she pulled out Wednesday, essentially accusing the organizers of making the event partisan).
Palin has yet to confirm. Officials in the Obama campaign say a surrogate will be there – but would not say if Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), would be the one.
11 Comments |
Share This
|
hillary clinton,
Iran,
Joe Biden,
Sarah Palin |
Both parties do agree: It wasn’t a “push poll”
Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matt Brooks says there was nothing wrong with it, Jewish Democrats say it was full of distortions and half-truths. But everyone does seem to agree on one thing regarding the RJC's controversial survey which tested negative Barack Obama messages over the weekend: It was not a "push poll."
Confirming what others had already pointed out, Democratic pollster Mark Mellman told JTA the RJC survey "doesn't meet the definition of a push poll" because of its large number of questions – 82, according to the RJC.
A push poll, say pollsters, is not really a poll at all, but a brief call intended solely to impart negative information via the form of a poll.
Republican pollster Neil Newhouse agreed with Mellman. He told JTA a true "push poll" would go to tens or hundreds of thousands of voters, while the RJC says it only spoke to 750 Jews in five swing states. He said the message testing that the RJC says it was doing in the poll is something all pollsters do.
Even Mik Moore, who as founder of Jewsvote.org first brought the poll to public attention, said he was willing to concede that the RJC survey did not meet the definition of a "push poll," but said it had "the effect" of a "push poll" because it upset people by spreading negative information about a candidate.
Brooks also said he objected to the characterization of the poll as a "negative Obama poll," arguing that the questions dealing with the Democratic presidential candidate were "less than 10 percent" of the survey.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
barack obama,
polls,
Presidential Race,
RJC |
RJC (mis)plays the Buchanan card
You may recall that our own Ron Kampeas was quick to call out U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler over the Florida Democrat's rush to pounce on what proved to be flimsy reports that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once backed Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign. The Republican Jewish Coalition also jumped in to defend Palin.
Well, now it's the RJC making a dubious play of the Buchanan card.
In its latest "Concerned about Barack Obama? You should be" ad, the RJC – already in the middle of a controversy regarding its recent telephone poll – declares that the Democrat's "Dangerous Views on Israel Have Just Been Endorsed by Pat Buchanan." At issue is Buchanan's recent assertion during an MSNBC broadcast that "I think Barack is right, we ought to talk to the Iranians" and "he's right to say the Palestinian people have got a terrible deal over there and their suffering ought to be recognized. That's Obama's position. It's my position."
The ad goes on to say: "The Anti-Defamation League says Buchanan 'publicly espouses racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-immigrant views.' Yet, Buchanan calls his views on Israel, Iran and Palestinians the same as Obama's."
And the final line (in bold and larger font): "Pat Buchanan says he shares the same views on Israel as Barack Obama. Those views are dangerous, reckless and wrong."
It's hard to know where to start with all of this, since the ad is misleading and hypocritical on several levels. So let's begin with the easy (and short) part: What's true about this ad?
Well, the RJC accurately quoted Buchanan and Buchanan was right in saying that Obama thinks the United States should talk to the Iranians. Everything else requires clarification, if not a correction. [UPDATE: I've been hearing from some Republicans who want to know: If, as I say next, the ad quotes Buchanan accurately, how can I be so harsh in my judgment of it? Their argument is that it's not up to the RJC to fact check Buchanan, or read his mind. Not sure I buy it, but it's fair point and I wanted to put it out there.]
While Buchanan was accurately quoted on the Palestinian issue, his comments on MSNBC were (unintentionally, I suspect) misleading at best. Obama did say during a March 11, 2007 rally in Iowa that "nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people from this whole process" – but the full quote clearly implied, and Obama later explicitly made clear, that he blames their suffering on Palestinian leaders, not Israel. So on the narrow point I suspect Obama and Buchanan do not agree. As for the Israeli-Palestinian situation more generally, Buchanan may think he is closer to Obama than to McCain, but on what grounds? He never says, so we (and the RJC) really have no idea.
What we do know is that both Obama and McCain favor a two-state solution, back the policy of isolating Hamas, think the United States should be bolstering Palestinian Authority President Mahmous Abbas, are committed to maintaining Israel's qualitative strategic edge and safeguarding the country's security, and say that Israel acted appropriately during the 2006 war against Hamas and Hezbollah.
Now I guess the RJC can say that none of these details matter – if Buchanan says he's closer to Obama than it must be so. But if we go by that standard, then we should toss out the facts in the Palin debate, and stick to Buchanan's claim that Palin supported his 1996 presidential run.
All of this would have been enough, but the RJC decided to open up a ridiculous can of worms by citing the ADL (wonder how the ADL feels about being used in this way, especially since its director, Abe Foxman, has said that both presidential candidates are solidly pro-Israel). What exactly is the RJC trying to imply by noting the ADL's assertion that Buchanan espouses racist, anti-Semitic and anti-immigrant views? That Obama should in some way be tainted on all of these fronts because Buchanan happens to say he agrees with him on some other issue? That Obama shares Buchanan's alleged hangups with black people, and hence they end up in the same place on Israel?
According to this way of thinking, it would seem that the much more relevant point is that the ADL says Buchanan is racist, and he agrees with McCain on affirmative action. Or, the ADL says Buchanan is anti-immigrant, and he is now closer to McCain on the issue than he is to Obama.
To be clear, this line of attack against McCain would also be unfair, but it's where we end up if we play out the RJC's logic. And that's before we ask what, based on the logic of this ad, does it say about McCain that he and Buchanan both claim the same president (Ronald Reagan) as a political heir hero. And, for that matter, what does it say about Reagan that he employed Buchanan?
Now that you mention it... Hey, RJC, why you bustin' on the Gipper?
0 Comments |
Share This
|
ads,
barack obama,
John McCain,
Presidential Race,
RJC,
Sarah Palin |
Jewish voter recounts “push poll”
The Republican Jewish Coalition is denying that a recent survey was in fact a "push poll" meant to plant nasty ideas about Barack Obama in the minds of Jewish voters. But try telling that to Joelna Marcus, who is convinced the Republican machine is behind the calls. Marcus recounted the phone call she received at her New Jersey home Sunday afternoon in an interview with JTA conducted outside the New York offices of the company that conducted the poll.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
polls,
Presidential Race,
RJC |
Dems, Jewish leaders takin’ it to the streets? (UPDATED)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this post included anonymous criticisms that should not have been published. The post has been revised to reflect JTA's standards.
Five years or so ago, top Democrats convened an emergency session: How do we get Jews back into the Democratic fold?
The panic was premature, and predicated on the ephemera of President Bush's post-Sept. 11 popularity, soon to diffuse with the failures of the Iraq war. John Kerry won 75 percent of the Jewish vote, and for Dems all was right in the world.
No longer, but this time it's the Jews who might want to convene a meeting on how to get Dems back into the fold.
The most recent fashla (Hebrew for Snafu) is the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations' failure until the last minute to invite someone from the Obama campaign to attend its rally Sept. 22 to protest Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's attendance at the U.N. General Assembly. (So says the Obama campaign.)
The seriousness of the upset was underscored by the unsolicited call I got Wednesday morning from an Obama campaign official: "The Obama campaign was not called until this morning, after the debacle with Sen. Clinton."
Them's fighting words, and unusually strong ones at that.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had been invited, separate from the camapign; she pulled out Wednesday when she learned that Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was to attend. (Palin has not confirmed, according to the latest reports.)
The Dems logic is as follows: A senator is not the same as someone on the ticket. As soon as the Conference of Presidents got Palin (last week apparently) they should have called Obama's folks, is how the thinking goes.
Additionally, there's nothing the campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) would love more than a Clinton-Palin pairing (the real kind, as opposed to the Saturday Night Live version): it would lend credibility to the campaign's claim to the women voters who felt shunted by Clinton's loss in the primaries.
Dem insiders say that fits a pattern of what they claim is a rightward tilt at the conference, under the leadership of executive vice chairman Malcolm Hoenlein. We're trying to reach Hoenlein for a reply, but in his defense it must be said that he recently gave Howard Dean, the party's chairman, free rein at a conference session this summer. Not to mention that some of the conference's right-wing members have been know to grumble that, despite some liberal claims to the contrary, Hoenlein is not one of them.
It's Hoenlein's second to-and-fro with the Obama campaign. In February, he expressed concerns about the "change" tone of the election: Obama campaigners thought that was directed at their candidate, who has most emphasized change, but Hoenlein said he was talking more broadly about campaigns within both parties. Whether it was related or not, weeks later Hoenlein was touting the bipartisan credentials of the conference's 60th anniversary of Israel committee.
Scrambling to kiss and make up might not do it this time, though: Dems are not afraid to say, on the record, that they perceive a pattern of some Jewish establishment leaders allowing themselves to be used by the Republicans, whether it's because of shared neoconservative values, or because there's a longstanding tradition in Washington of, well, fearing Republican retribution more than the Democratic kind.
Ira Forman, the director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, said Hoenlein has to explain more than just this incident because it's not his first time in the hot spot. "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's a good chance it is a duck," he said of his suspicions of Hoenlein's Republican sympathies.
UPDATED FROM HERE:
There have been occasions in recent years when similar tensions have arisen between Democrats and major Jewish groups, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Congressional Democrats were furious last summer when AIPAC failed to excoriate Republicans for voting against the foreign assistance package. AIPAC has long made support for the package the sine qua non of getting into its good graces, partly, of course, because of its Israel component; but also because the organization sees an overall American commitment to global foreign aid as a pillar in perpetuating support for Israel. It's made mince meat in the past of Democrats who have voted against the appropriation in the past (to protest perceived Republican underfunding of overseas aid) but was silent in 2007 when the GOP whipped against the bill in a bid to depict Democrats as overly generous overseas and as committed to programs that fund abortions.
That and other rifts have led Democrats to more outspokenly carpet AIPAC when they think its steering wrong – listen to Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), Obama's running mate, blow a gasket when I asked him about his pro-AIPAC voting record earlier this month. (Some close to the situation say that the Obama camp has said that Biden mistakenly thought I said that AIPAC itself had criticized him, when in fact I had cited attacks fro the Republican Jewish Coalition.)
The latest manifestation – unrelated to the Clinton-Palin-Hoenlein contretemps – was today (Wednesday) when J Street, the dovish pro-Israel lobby aiming to undercut the pro-AIPAC consensus on the Hill, hosted a "strategy session" on the Hill with its endorsees. At first, establishment Jewish leaders mocked the J Street endorsee list as marginal, but it now includes Jewish pro-Israel heavyweights, including U.S. Reps. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Bob Filner (D-Calif.) Schakowsky and Filner both spoke at the event, and said they welcomed the opportunity to be perceived as pro-Israel beyond the traditional Jewish establishment constraints. Schakowsky said debate on the peace process is more robust in Israel than in Washington, a trope that was once unimaginable from a Jewish lawmaker.
Filner agreed, telling J Street: "You give us the option to vote the way we should be voting."
7 Comments |
Share This
|
Uncategorized |
Recent Comments
Blog Roll
