JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

Romney at CPAC is no red meat slouch

By Zach Silberman · February 10, 2012

At CPAC, Mitt Romney picked up Rick Santorum's red meat, chewed it and spat it out.  

Santorum's speech to the conservative confab this morning, which I blogged earlier, was mostly focused on what he said were Romney's lackings: conservative cred and the chops to beat President Obama in November. 

Romney insisted that he embodied the conservative principles necessary to win the Republican nomination. 

Romney said he was “severely conservative” and added that “I know conservatism because I lived conservatism.”  

Romney pleased the CPAC crowd when he stated that he would “defend the Defense of Marriage Act” and would support a constitutional amendment that would “define marriage as a relationship between a man and woman.” 

Also, he received applause when he said that his presidency would be a “pro-life presidency on day one” and he would eliminate any federal funding for Planned Parenthood. 

In addition, Romney received a loud standing ovation when he announced that he will eliminate Obama’s Affordable Care Act on his first day in office. 

“For three years, we’ve suffered through the failures not only of a weak leader, but a bankrupt ideology,” Romney said.   “Barack Obama is the poster child for the arrogance of government.”

Romney also stated that he was the “only candidate in this race -- Republican or Democrat -- who has never worked a day in Washington.”  

Not for lack of trying. Romney in 1994 ran for the U.S. Senate against the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Romney’s speech focused primarily on domestic issues and he did not discuss policy priorities on any foreign policy matters, except that he pledged not to cut the military budget. 

With Super Tuesday less than a month away and momentum shifting to Santorum, Romney’s appeal to the conservative community could impact his chances in the coming contests in Michigan and Arizona. 

0 Comments | Share This |

Santorum’s CPAC message: I can beat Obama

By Zach Silberman · February 10, 2012

 Rick Santorum threw red meat at the CPAC crowd this morning, but not of the kosher variety.

Santorum's been a leader on blasting President Obama's Iran policy, but today he focused more on how he was better positioned than Mitt Romney to beat Obama in November, with a particular focus on health care.

In his speech before the Conservative Political Action Conference, the presidential hopeful and former Sen. (R-Pa.) sought to highlight what he said were the failed policies of Obama and contrast himself with his main rival in the Republican primary, the former Massachusetts governor. 

Flanked by members of his family and receiving loud applause from the CPAC crowd, Santorum talked primarily about domestic issues and did not highlight any foreign policy issues. 

Santorum focused his attention on the Affordable Care Act and he received a substantial standing ovation when he criticized the law and told the crowd that Obama's prime legislative achievement was “about government control of your lives and it’s got to stop.” 

In addition, Santorum criticized Romney for “supporting the step-child of Obamacare” and implied that if Romney was the nominee, the party would be giving away the issue of health care to the Democrats in the fall campaign. 

Santorum’s clean sweep of the Tuesday primary contests in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota placed him a prime position to challenge Romney in the upcoming primaries with Super Tuesday less than a month away.  

0 Comments | Share This |

Why is Marc Ellis on the outs at Baylor University?

By Ron Kampeas · February 10, 2012

Baylor University has suspended Marc Ellis, the director of its Jewish Studies program, for alleged sexual misconduct.

Beyond this, we can glean the following facts from this very long Religion Dispatches dispatch:

--Ellis denies the charges, which his lawyer says involved a former close female friend.

--His hearing is next month.

--Ellis is known for dissenting from conventional Jewish establishment pro-Israel orthodoxies.

--Ken Starr, or as RD puts it, "Yes, that Ken Starr," is Baylor's president.

According to RD -- and not just RD, but the Middle East Studies Association and a petition stacked with left-leaning luminaries, including Ilan Pappe, Desmond Tutu and Cornel West -- this adds up to Starr persecuting Ellis for his religious and political beliefs.

We don't find out until the 11th paragraph -- and then, parenthetically -- that Baylor denies Starr is at all involved in the investigation.

We do learn that the American Assocation of University Professors believes it is wrong to suspend a professor on such charges before a hearing takes place. We never learn if this ever has been Baylor's practice.

Instead we get an arc of presumption that starts off acknowledging that the facts that would underpin accusations of political persecution are simply not there, but concludes that they are there, well, just because.

This paragraph is illustrative:

It’s clear that Starr is a conservative Christian, yet his Israel politics are something of an unknown. Raised in a nondenominational Church of Christ, he would very likely have been exposed to Christian Zionist theology. Years later he joined the McLean Bible Church in Virginia, which he remained a member of years after having moved to California to take a position at the Church of Christ-affiliated Pepperdine University. Starr’s pastor at McLean, Jewish-born evangelical Lon Solomon, has been a board member of the Christian Zionist ministry Jews for Jesus for the past 25 years. It would be unusual were Starr not a Christian Zionist.

Got that? Starr's Israel politics are unknown ... but he's probably a Christian Zionist.

0 Comments | Share This |

Political Points—GOP outreach edition

By Ron Kampeas · February 9, 2012

 Rick Santorum's South Carolina team sent out a Chanukah message quoting ... John. As in New Testament John. Via Hunter Walker's Twitter feed.

Newt Gingrich fears an Iranian nuclear attack on U.S. soil, and the New York Times wonders if he's trying to out-Santorum Santorum.

The Onion's fictional Newt Gingrich wonders if his Florida Jewish outreach was, well just read.

Reuters reviews the potential legal woes of Gingrich's main backer, Sheldon Adelson.

Eric Alterman at The Nation says Adelson is proof positive anti-Semitism is dead, but a warning to the sardonically challenged: Alterman makes the case the way that a feminist might make the case that sexism in media is dead by noting the unremarkable success of Megyn Kelly.

Bill Clinton is called the first Jewish President at a celebration marking 100 years of the Arkansas Jewish Federation, and recommends two books that kind of prrove it, in a one-Jew-two-opinions kind of way: Shimon Peres' Ben Gurion, a Political Life and Peter Beinart's The Crisis of Zionism. (Washington Post.)

Hannah Rosenthal, the Obama administration envoy combating anti-Semitism, recounts her experience in Paris attending UNESCO's colloqium promoting Holocaust education. Left unsaid, but significant: She attended a session at a body the United States is no longer funding because it effectively recognized Palestinian statehood. (Obama administration officials last year emphasized that the defunding did not mean that the United States would withdraw from such events.)

Nate Bloom, the tireless Jewish genealogist, figures out that Mitt Romney, a proud Mormon, and Zach Braff, a Jew who makes a living playing Jews, are related through a common ancestress -- an accused Salem witch named Rebecca Nurse Towne. (InterfaithFamily.com)

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is outraged that Mormons continue to posthumously baptise Holocaust dead, noting such a baptism of its namesake's parents as recently as last month, despite longstanding pledges from the church to end the practice.

Ben Smith at Politico says Jews may be warming to President Obama, based on the drop in complaints to Ed Koch about his endorsement of the president. Hizonner, endearingly, scribbles his replies in longhand on a printout of the email, and an assistant types in the reply. Facsimiles are at Smith's BuzzFeed site (yes, he is the most tireless reporter in this city.)

Michele Bachmann, attending CPAC, the annual conservative political confab, tells Human Events  it would be inappropriate to comment on whether Israel plans to attack Iran because she sits on the House Intelligence Committee. (Um, Yikes?).

She adds that Obama is "the most dangerous president" for Israel because by not imposing tough sanctions on Iran and reaching out to the Islamic Republic for dialogue:

The president gave Iran the luxury of time to develop a nuclear weapon.

Watch:

We've mentioned before that Obama has imposed sanctions tougher than any of his predecessors.

But the "Luxury of time" is a new and interesting meme.

Iran was likely seeking to develop nuclear weapons by the mid-1970s, and the Islamic revolution took place in 1979. Israel was pushing the West to contain the suspected weapons program at least since 1992, the pro-Israel community here has made stopping a nuclear Iran its top agenda item since the mid-1990s, and Congress has been acting since then as well. Finally, Israel has been talking about "points of no-return" at least since the early part of the last decade, and I first remember hearing  the "all options are on the table" formulation enunciated by Condoleezza Rice in a meeting with Jewish leaders in 2006.

0 Comments | Share This |

The Adalah-BDS/NIF-NGO Monitor dustup --UPDATE

By Ron Kampeas · February 9, 2012

 NGO Monitor wrote to the New Israel Fund yesterday calling on it to condemn a client group, Adalah, for speaking at a BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) conference next week in Geneva.

Such participation would seemingly violate NIF's funding guidelines, which ban dealing with groups that deny the "right of the Jewish people to sovereign self-determination within Israel."

As far as I can ascertain -- I can't extract a direct answer from NGO Monitor -- the watchdog did not send the letter (or call) before sending out a press release on the issue. 

A call-ahead might have saved them the trouble of alerting the press: New Israel Fund issued a statement today denying that Adalah was attending the event. It quotes Adalah as saying:

Adalah and its representatives are not participating in the event referred to in Geneva. The invitation to the event was sent out without prior coordination with, or the approval of Adalah.

I hear from NIF that Adalah was not aware of the thrust of the conference, entitled "The Politics of Apartheid in Israel -- the New Racist Laws."

That seems a little naive. The host is called BDS-Geneve. If you're signed on to the NIF guidelines, an invitation from any group with BDS in its name would seem to merit a "No, unless you provide information proving you do not seek to delegitimize Israel" response as opposed to a "Tentatively yes, if you let me first vet the invitation" response.

NGO Monitor notes that the event is still posted, on the website of a group friendly to BDS-Geneve, Collectif Urgence Palestine-Geneve.

In a Twitter war with NIF, NGO Monitor suggests that means the event is still on. And NGO-Monitor says it's checked with the CUF-G folks, who say the event is still on.

It is not, however, posted on the BDS-Geneve website, as far as I could find. And I spoke to a CUF-G spokesman just now, Nathan Finkelstein, who tells me that he does not know if the event is still on -- just that no one from BDS-Geneve has told CUF-G to take down the announcement, as far as he knows. Nor has he asked.

He's asking now. He's getting someone from BDS-Geneve to call me. I've also emailed BDS-Geneve (there are no phone numbers on its website).

UPDATE: BDS-Geneve Tweeted this morning that the event is on, and with the Adalah official, Suhad Bishara, attending.

They have yet to contact me. Naomi Paiss, NIF's spokeswoman, tells me Bishara is "definitely not going" and "Adalah is not a pro-BDS organization."

0 Comments | Share This |

Sheldon Adelson and Israel: Who’s influencing who?

By Ami Eden · February 7, 2012

Over at the MSNBC website, Michael Isikoff is flagging a YouTube video of a 2010 speech by Sheldon Adelson in which the casino mogul and Newt Gingrich-bankroller talks about his dream of serving in the Israeli military.

Isikoff suggests such talk will prove embarrassing for Gingrich, who after all is running to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

But before you go all Mondoweiss/M.J. Rosenberg on Adelson and suggest he puts Israel's interests ahead of the interests of the United States... be sure to watch the portion of the tape starting at the 1:10 mark.

Adelson tells the crowd that the reason he started his Israeli newspaper, Yisrael Hayom, was because the political views of all his Israeli friends were disconnected from reality.

In other words, it's just as easy to look at this video the other way -- as evidence of an American bent on influencing Israeli politics.

1 Comment | Share This |

Iran sanctions: It was executive prerogative, stupid

By Ron Kampeas · February 6, 2012

There's been a lot of speculation about why President Obama attached an "I can ignore this if I want to" caveat when he signed the Defense Authorization Act, which included an amendment targeting Iran's Central Bank for sanctions.

Congress members -- mostly Republicans -- questioned the president's commitment to the sanctions.

The administration countered that it was all about executive prerogative. They noted the many other instances in the Act in which Obama added the "would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations" caveat.

As of today, we can safely say it was about executive prerogative. Obama kicked in the sanctions over the weekend -- but through an executive order.

The "stupid" in the hed to this item is me, among others: In a blog post, I wondered whether this was a matter of executive prerogative, or if there was a shorter-term political calculus.

The order yesterday nods toward the Act's amendment, but Obama makes it clear that he is sanctioning the bank on the authority of the presidency, citing his predecessors' executive orders as precedent.

It's not the first time that the age-old battle between Congress and the presidency over foreign policy supremacy has been cast as a partisan back and forth -- there are plenty of examples of Democrats giving George W. Bush the same heartburn when they ran Congress in the last two years of his presidency.

But casting it purely as a partisan game of chicken obscures a more complex -- and potentially more consequential -- argument over who controls what the United States does overseas.

One person -- or 535?

0 Comments | Share This |

What makes Sheldon give?

By Ron Kampeas · February 5, 2012

 Last night, after Mitt Romney's decisive win in the Nevada caucuses, a reporter asked Newt Gingrich about reports that his white knight, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, had reached out to Romney as well.

The reference was apparently to this good story in today's New York Times, which frames Adelson's willingness to keep feet in both camps in terms of his dedication to Israel and his determination to oust President Obama:

Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino executive keeping Newt Gingrich’s presidential hopes alive, has relayed assurances to Mitt Romney that he will provide even more generous support to his candidacy if he becomes the Republican nominee, several associates said in interviews here.

The signals from Mr. Adelson, whose politics are shaped in large part by his support for Israel, reflect what the associates said was his deep investment in defeating President Obama and his willingness to play a more prominent role in the Republican Party and conservative causes.

This shouldn't be a huge surprise: However acrimonious the race for the GOP nod has been, Jewish donors to the different candidates have remained in touch and convivial as I reported here a while back.

Much of the why has to do with Israel, as explained in Gingrich's response to the reporter, illustrative not just in how he frames GOP perceptions of the Obama-Israel nexus, but in his evident irritation with the question.

From CNN:

SWIFT action on Iran sanctions

By Zach Silberman · February 5, 2012

A new draft bill approved by voice vote by the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday will expand on Iran sanctions already in place through previous legislation.

The key for the Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Human Rights Act of 2012 will be to close loopholes that Iran is using to skirt existing sanctions laws.

One important provision included in the legislation is an amendment sponsored by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) that would place sanctions on banks that have officers on the board of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) if SWIFT continues to process financial transactions for Iranian banks.

SWIFT is responsible for processing electronic bank transfers and serves as the final entry point for Iran into the global financial system.

Who’s attending the Adelson caucus?—UPDATE

By Ron Kampeas · February 4, 2012

Nevada's Clark County held a special Republican caucus today at 7 pm tonight to accommodate a substantial observant Jewish population.

It's dubbed the Adelson caucus because it is being held at a local Jewish school, the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Educational Campus. The actual Adelsons have disclaimed any association with the caucus.

What's interesting, watching it unfold on CNN, is how few of the caucus-goers appear to be observant Jews.