Every Jewish lawmaker in Congress (OK, that’s only three) and a multitude of other members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives turned out Thursday afternoon for the Republican Jewish Coalition’s “Salute to Pro-Israel Lawmakers” at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis (see video).

Sens. Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Norm Coleman (Minn.), locked in a tough re-election fight with Al Franken, spoke to the hundreds gathered, as did House Deputy Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) that featured lots of talk about how Barack Obama, and Democrats generally, would be unreliable in protecting Israel.

“If you care about the United States of America, if you care about Israel, this election is absolutely critical,” said Sen. John Ensign (Nev.) in a sample of the kind of talking points the GOP will likely use in the next two months.

“We can have a friend of Israel and a pillar of American strength, or have somebody who believes in moral equivalency … [that] there is no difference between the Israelis and Palestinians, said an excited Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), practically screaming into the microphone.

And then there was Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (Kent.), who basically said that the Democratic Party isn’t “pro-Israel.”

“There’s an important and fundamental difference between the two parties in Washington, and I know you’re not going to be fooled by Democrats claiming that just because they’re for foreign assistance to Israel that they’re pro-Israel,” said McConnell. “Israel’s security and U.S. security are inextricably intertwined and they involve … having an assertive, aggressive pro-active approach to danger.”

Of course, AIPAC might disagree about the importance of foreign assistance. The lobbying group calls foreign aid “vital” and a “cornerstone” to U.S. foreign policy in a memo on its Web site. And when McConnell’s fellow Republicans in the House voted against the foreign aid bill in 2007 because they objected to an amendment that provided funding for women’s overseas health groups that provide abortions, Republicans felt it was important enough to sign a letter to the pro-Israel lobbying group affirming their backing, despite their vote on that bill, for aid to the Jewish state.

Among the other members of Congress who attended Thursday afternoon were Sens. Jim Bunning (Ky.), George Voinovich (Ohio), Orrin Hatch (Utah), John Thune (S.D.), John Kyl (Ariz.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), and Reps. Adam Putnam (Fla.), Chris Shays (Conn.) and Chris Smith (N.J.).

Jamie Rubin, a Clinton administration assistant secretary of state, smells Bush strategist Karl Rove tactics all over efforts (led by the Republican Jewish Coalition) to tar Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) as unfriendly to Israel. Rove’s strategy is to beat at an opponents perceived strength until it crumbles (witness the Swift Boat smears targeting the 2004 Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry, a decorated war hero). Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) picked Biden as a running mate in part because Biden’s close ties to Israel and the pro-Israel community help make up for Obama’s relative greenness in that area.

Jack Rosen, the former president of the American Jewish Congress, and maybe the only person in the country to have backed Bill Clinton, then George W. Bush and now Barack Obama, sent along the following e-mail in defense of Joe Biden: Read the rest

I was chatting with a RWSNBN (Republican who shall not be named) earlier today (Thursday) about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s strong showing last night at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul and how the Democrats have to tiptoe around criticizing her, lest they slide into sexist stereotypes. (It’s a minefield: Her experience or lack of it is certainly fair game, but slams on experience have a way of slipping into “what does a woman know?” territory, or at least can come off sounding that way.)

I pointed out that this was a tetchy season for Republicans as well: A lot of the “elitist” cracks at Obama last night suggested to me a trope that could easily creep into “uppity” territory, and sure enough, a day later, that’s exactly the word a southern congressman used to describe the Democratic candidate and his wife. Read the rest

You know you’ve been in this business (Jewish journalism) too long when … the rest of the country is taking in Joe Biden’s tragic/inspiring story of losing his first wife and a baby daughter in a car crash, then managing to press ahead with his political career and raise his other children — but the only family detail you care about is that one of his sons married into a Jewish family.

And if you think that’s bad, here’s what flashed through my head next:

• Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s only child is seriously involved with a Jewish guy.
• One of Al Gore’s daughters is married to a Schiff
• One of Nancy Pelosi’s daughters is married to a Jewish guy.
• Harry Reid married a Jewish woman (they both eventually converted to Mormonism — read more here).
• Howard Dean is married to a Jewish woman — and lights the menorah.

For those keeping score, that’s the top Democrat in the House of Representatives, the top Democrat in the Senate, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, the most recent Democratic president and first lady, the most recent Democratic vice president, and the current vice presidential candidate. All we’re missing is the One, but to be fair the Obama children haven’t even reached Bat Mitzvah age — give ‘em time (until then, be happy with the news that Michelle Obama has a cousin who’s a rabbi).

Back to Biden… he played up his Jewish connection Tuesday, during a town hall in South Florida packed with Jewish seniors:

“Look, my son married — and matter of fact, her, uh — my son married into the Berger family,” he said, referring to his son Beau Biden’s marriage to the former Hallie Berger. “We’re going to be mishpokhe before this all is over, I promise you.”

In general, I’m not sure whether that’s the best crowd for boasting about the whole intermarriage thing (though I have a hunch that many in the audience would be more comfortable with a Biden marrying in than, say, an Obama). I’d be especially reticent during this campaign, given the Internet track record of the anti-Obama forces.

Forget the Muslim stuff, I can see the new conspiratorial e-mail: Stop the Democratic plot to destroy the Jews with intermarriage. Every time a Democrat wins, another Jewish family loses. And with those two precious Obama girls, this year it’s likely to cost us two good Jewish boys.

Of course, for Jewish paranoids — I’m sure there are only a few of them out there, but they all seem to have my e-mail address — it’s a tough choice: Do you prefer a party whose goyim want to marry us or convert us?

First Linda Lingle, Hawaii’s Jewish Republican governor, came to the defense of Sarah Palin. And now Sandra Froman — the only Jew and only the second woman to serve as president of the NRA — has the GOP running mate’s back, in an op-ed that she’s sent out via e-mail.

Our favorite line: “In addition, Palin’s an NRA member and hunter. Barack Obama has never hunted wild game or field-dressed an animal. Frankly, Barack Obama should not welcome a comparison with Sarah Palin as to who is more rugged.”

Fine, but how would Palin stack up against Woody Allen?

Here’s Froman’s full piece: Read the rest

After hearing the charge three times in the last 36 hours, it is obvious that attacking Barack Obama for “flip-flopping” on the issue of Jerusalem is going to be a major talking point for Republicans in the Jewish community this fall. But there’s one huge problem with it. While even Obama has acknowledged that, at the very least, he has clarified his stance on Jerusalem, his original position was more hard-line than John McCain’s — and his current one is exactly the same as the one held by his GOP opponent.

Obama surprised many people at the AIPAC policy conference in June when he told delegates that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

The next day, after he received criticism from Palestinians and others for the speech, Obama revised his remarks in an interview with CNN. “Obviously it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” he said. Asked whether he would be “against any kind of division of Jerusalem,” the candidate said, “My belief is that as a practical matter it would be very difficult to execute. And I think that it is smart for us to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in old Jerusalem. But Israel has a legitimate claim on that city.”

That same week, McCain was asked for his thoughts on Jerusalem. After criticizing the Democrat for changing his mind, he said, “The point is Jerusalem is undivided … Jerusalem is the capital.” McCain then qualified his comments by emphasizing that regardless of his position, the status of the city is still subject to negotiation. “The subject of Jerusalem itself will be addressed in negotiations by the Israeli government and people,” he said.

One candidate says “Jerusalem will be a part of … negotiations.” Another candidate says “Jerusalem … will be addressed in negotiations.” Sounds remarkably similar — but not to Republicans.

Wednesday night in his keynote speech, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani told the crowd in St. Paul, “When speaking to a pro-Israel group, Obama favored an undivided Jerusalem, like I favor and John McCain favors. Well, he favored an undivided Jerusalem — don’t get too excited — for one day until he changed his mind.” He didn’t add “to the same position John McCain actually has taken.”

On Tuesday afternoon, Republican Jewish Coalition Matt Brooks also criticized Obama for changing his mind on Jerusalem, but when asked whether the candidates’ position on the division of Jerusalem were identical, said he didn’t think so but would check it out.

And earlier Wednesday evening, Sen. John Ensign (Nev.) leveled the same charge. He said the “flip-flop” indicated that Jewish voters are “not sure what they’re going to get with Barack Obama. There’s doubt — it depends on what audience he is talking to.”

Perhaps, but that would mean that on the division of Jerusalem, the two choices are either the same position as McCain — or a position that goes much further in allowing Israel to dictate the terms of a Jerusalem settlement than McCain has endorsed. Hardly a choice that should make voters concerned about Israel nervous.

To be fair, there is one major difference in the two candidates’ positions on Jerusalem. McCain has said he would move the embassy to Jerusalem when he enters office. Obama has not, and his campaign has called McCain a liar for suggesting he would. That’s because the last two presidents both made the same promise during their campaigns — and neither ever even made an attempt to actually carry that promise out in the last 16 years.

Not a lot of foreign policy in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s vice-presidential acceptance speech on Wednesday night at the Republican Party convention in St. Paul, but what little there was nodded to pro-Israel concerns about her thin resume. (Palin met with officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Tuesday.)

Lots of red meat from Rudy, though.

And around the margins of the convention, Republicans are trying hard to make the case that it wasn’t all about John McCain, the man. (Much - no, make that just about all - of the convention has been about the extraordinary biography of Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), with little room left for policy.)

In a special press conference Wednesday for foreign press (with an RNC official checking passes!) and at a session of the Center for U.S. Global Engagement (held at U-Minnesota’s Hubert Humphrey Institute), top foreign policy advisers to the campaign said McCain was much friendlier to the notion of working with allies than - well, it was left unsaid, but certainly the Bush administration’s record of unilateralism hung heavily over the proceedings.

Key to making the case was Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the onetime Democratic vice-presidential nominee - and McCain’s preferred running mate until the Arizona senator caved last week to party base demands for a conservative candidate (embodied in “hockey mom” Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin).

Lieberman was the star speaker at the event hosted by Global Engagement (a group that advocates for greater political investment in foreign policy and that held a similar event at the Democratic confab in Denver last week) and brought reassurances that McCain has been mis-characterized as a hawk. McCain, a former POW, “hates” war, Lieberman said, suggesting that as president, McCain would shift powers from the Pentagon to the diplomatic corps.

“He’s going to take a very close look at our foreign and defense policy,” Lieberman promised.

At the foreign press event, deputy foreign policy adviser Kori Schake was asked what foreign policy advice McCain would take from Palin. Schake evaded the answer, replying that McCain would keep trusted advisers close - chief among them, Lieberman.

Schake also emphasized that McCain would reach out to allies, but was uncompromising on facing down Iran’s suspected nuclear threat: “A nuclear Iran would be an unacceptable danger for all of us.” Pressed for details, Schake told reporters to dig up two speeches: one to the Los Angeles Council on World Affairs, and the other to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Hizzoner got in the Jerusalem line.

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, brought attacks on Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to a crescendo on Wednesday night at the Republican Party convention in St. Paul. That’s the night when parties traditionally trash the opposition, and then use whatever time’s left over to debut vice presidential picks (in this case, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin).

“When speaking to a pro-Israeli group, Obama favored an undivided Jerusalem, like I favor and John McCain favors it. Well he favored an undivided Jerusalem, don’t get excited — until one day later when he changed his mind.”

In fact, Obama did not retreat from favoring an undivided Jerusalem: After his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama’s campaign clarified (after Palestinian complaints) that Jerusalem’s final status should be left to the parties.

That’s also the position of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the Republican candidate, by the way.

Israelis (and, I suspect, much of the AIPAC room) understand a pledge to keep Jerusalem “undivided” to include the possibility — however discomfiting — of a shared capital. The underlying pledge is not to keep Israel sovereign in every neighborhood — but to ensure that the United States will not allow a war that could end with the city divided, as it did 1948.

The Obama campaign muddled the message, though, with surrogates apologizing for “poor wording” in the days that followed, although the wording was boilerplate. That gave Republicans wiggle room to cut away at what had been a very well-received speech.

It was hardly a surprise, then, that Giuliani brought it up as a flip-flop.

A few lines later, Rudy got back to the Middle East, by way of tearing into what he said was Obama’s equivalence in dealing with the Georgian crisis.

“Obama’s first instinct was to create a moral equivalency, suggesting that both sides were equally responsible, the same moral equivalency that he’s displayed in discussing the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel.”

Here, I’m not not clear about what Giuliani was referring to: Obama has said he is willing to pressure both sides in peace talks, but has always added that he believes there is a greater onus on the Palestinians to push forward with peace negotiations.

Joe Biden had a 20-minute conference call with members of the Jewish media today.

Among other things, when asked about a possible Israeli attack against Iran, he said: “This is not a question for us to tell the Israelis what they can and cannot do. … I have faith in the democracy of Israel.” His overall argument was that on a host of issues — from Israeli-Palestinian talks to Syria to Iran — the Bush administration should have done a better job diplomatically and should have been more respectful of Israel’s autonomy.

But the spiciest moment came when JTA’s Ron Kampeas asked him about the Republican Jewish Coalition’s efforts to highlight times when he broke with AIPAC on specific issues. “AIPAC does not speak for the entire American Jewish community,” Biden said. “There’s other organizations as strong and as consequential.” Biden quickly added that his disagreements with AIPAC are always tactical, never about the big picture. Still, it’s not the boilerplate stuff that you usually get from senators when you ask about the pro-Israel lobby.

Listen to the snippet about AIPAC:

Here’s the full call:

Audio sound funny? Upgrade your Flash player.

To subscribe to JTA’s Behind the News podcast, click here.

UPDATE: AIPAC spokesman Josh Block called in this response to our blog post: “Joe Biden is a strong supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship; he has been a staunch supporter of U.S. aid to Israel; he is a leader in the fight against Palestinian terrorism, and is a vocal advocate of the special relationship between the two democracies. We look forward to continuing to work with him in the Senate or in the White House.”

UPDATE II: It’s worth noting that the right-leaning Jewish groups most critical of the Obama campaign are themselves quite willing to break ranks with AIPAC and challenge the notion that it in someway speaks for the Jewish community as a whole (the Zionist Organization of America, for example). And to the hard-working press release writers at the RJC, before you fire one off here … wasn’t it one of your major backers — Sheldon Adelson — who publicly rebuked AIPAC last year for joining Israel in lobbying for U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority?

UPDATE III: And now Obama campaign spokeswoman Wendy Morigi: “Barack Obama and Joe Biden have both enjoyed close and effective cooperation with AIPAC over many years, grounded in their respect for its important mission to support Israel’s security and a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. That is a mission they share, and they look forward to continuing to work closely with AIPAC on their common goals.”

• Sarah Palin meets with AIPAC leaders.
• Ynet reports on an Israeli filmmaker in L.A. who is mesmerized by McCain’s Veep pick.
• Calev Ben-David compares the Olmerts and the Palins, and ponders whether the behavior of a politician’s children ever relevant to voters in assessing the character of a candidate.
• Jerusalem Post columnist Elliot Jager wasn’t thrilled with the Biden pick, but he’s worried about Palin’s lack of foreign-policy experience — and hoping that if he wins, McCain, is going to be around long enough to mentor her.
• Pollster Frank Luntz plots strategy with Republicans in the Sunshine State. And the GOP gets to work in South Florida, according to the Palm Beach Post.
• Guess whose cousin’s a rabbi? Michelle Obama, the Forward reports.

Joe Lieberman wentandunnit and urged his erstwhile party-mates to vote Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) president.

The Connecticut senator, addressing the Republican convention in St. Paul on Tuesday, also brought about the first Clinton applause line at a Republican convention, albeit at the expense of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the Democratic nominee:

“Let me contrast Barack Obama’s record to the record of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who stood up to some of those same Democratic interest groups, worked with Republicans, and got some important things done like welfare reform, free trade agreements and a balanced budget.”

Which is not to say he did not have kind words for Obama — these, however, did not earn the cheers the Clinton mention did:

“Senator Barack Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who I think can do great things for our country in the years ahead.”

Meantime, President Bush delivered his remarks from the White House, ostensibly because he had to manage the hurricane-crisis-that wasn’t (but perhaps he was wary of the sort of GOP confab that would applaud Bill Clinton?).

In any case, Bush delivered one of his famous coded messages (remember the bizarre reference to Dred Scott in the 2004 debates? This one was about abortion, too). Ostensibly talking about the McCains’ adopted daughter, he launched into a paean to McCain’s respect for human life:

“John is a leader who knows that human life is fragile, that human life is precious, that human life must be defended.”

Translation: Forget what you once believed about McCain and a woman’s right to choose.

Finally, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain’s VP pick, reassured AIPAC types about her Israel bona fides.

We hear there’s going to be red meat for the pro-Israel crowd in her speech Wednesday night.

Ron Kampeas and Eric Fingerhut file their first video report from the GOP convention in the Twin Cities.

Here’s the JTA brief on Biden’s swing through South Florida:

Joe Biden reassured older Florida Jews that Barack Obama would be strong on Israel.

Biden, the Democratic nominee for vice president, was introduced by a Holocaust survivor at a speech before several hundred at a retirement community, The Associated Press reported.

“I am chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee,” said the longtime U.S. senator from Delaware. “I give you my word as a Biden, I would not have given up that job to be Barack Obama’s vice president if I didn’t in my gut and in my heart and in my head know that Barack Obama is exactly where I am on Israel. And he is.”

Biden also urged his audience to ignore Internet rumors that Obama is secretly a Muslim, calling the rumors “scurrilous.”

“By any objective fact, Israel is less secure today in the world than it was eight years ago,” Biden said. “I promise you … we will make it more secure.”

The Obama campaign has put significant effort into winning over Jewish voters who could prove to be a key voting bloc in the swing state of Florida.

Just days after Pat Buchanan helped perpetuate absurd claims that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (also, the Republican VP pick) was once an acolyte, now he’s “helping” Obama.

Democrats jumped the gun and attempted to link Palin to Buchanan, a Holocaust diminisher and an acknowledged non-fan of Israel. For Republicans, it’s turnabout is fair play. Danny Diaz, a Republican National Committee spokesman, eagerly put this out Tuesday:

In light of the smearing of Governor Palin by Obama surrogate Robert Wexler and Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski, both of whom alleged Palin was a supporter of Patrick Buchanan and
therefore a “Nazi sympathizer,” this statement from Buchanan today seems noteworthy:

“Let me say about Israel here. My position on Israel is frankly awful. It is like Mika [Brzezinski]’s father’s, it’s a lot closer to Barack Obama’s than it is John McCain. I think Barack is right, we ought to talk to the Iranians, he’s right to oppose the war and, frankly, 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. I don’t think it is a Nazi position.”

Governor Palin never supported Pat Buchanan, having supported Steve Forbes in both 1996 and 2000. Still, it must give great comfort to Wexler and Bubriski that Pat Buchanan does support Obama’s position on Israel.

To set the record straight, Obama has recognized Palestinian suffering - but blames the Palestinian leadership. And he’s bullish on confronting Iran, saying his first priority when elected will be to ramp up pressure on the Islamic Republic to end its suspected nuclear program and recognizing the probablity that if it does not, Israel will strike.

Still, you can’t entirely blame the GOP for wanting to kick back a little.