So am I right in assuming that anything, or anyone, is fair game in an election year?

Question

The democrats have always been ardent supporters of Israel over the years. Countless Democratic senators, congressmen and the Clintons have all weathered barbs from conservatives that we provide Israel with financial assistance and spy data, including raw data that the CIA and NSA won't release to almost any US elected official. And in return we receive censored, often incomplete and frequently erroneous data. On top of which Israel has spyed against us.

However, this year, the tables have turned and the liberals, the most ardent of supporters that Israel has enjoyed over the years, are condemning their use of force to protect their borders from terrorists. Additionally, the Democrats are attacking Bush for mishandling the Israeli incursion into Lebanon and not insisting on a ceasefire and halt to all hostities. As if the President can tell Israel what they must do.

Have the Democrats decided in this election year to throw the Israeli's under the bus for the sake of a few votes?

Answer 1

The short answer is..."just ask Joe Lieberman".

What's happening is that the far left are hijacking the Democratic Party with their new litmus test: anti-Bush diatribes. This has been going on for some time, but it really accelerated during the primary campaigns of 2002 when Howard Dean commandeered millions of $ in donations and nearly grabbed the nomination by whipping a blogosphere full of youthful zealots into a “we can change the world” frenzy.

(Nobody bothered to ask why the world needed changing)

The "lesson" on the left was that extremist positions get noticed, generate donations, and maybe capture nominations. Civility went out the window, maybe for good. Fast forward to Ned Lamont in Connecticut.

However, it takes more moderate views to win a general election. That's the cruel irony for Democrats...how to get nominated by the rabid left and then appeal to Aunt Emma in Ohio on election day.

The chameleons (John Kerry and soon Hillary Clinton) have not been able to disguise their fast-shuffle politics. The "loyal-to-the-far-left" stalwarts (Humphrey, McGovern, Dukakis, Gore, et al) until now have been flat out unelectable.

So the only strategy left is to paint EVERY position taken by GWB and the Republican Congress as "reprehensible". In addition, our country must be portrayed as going to hell in a hand basket (regardless of the unemployment #'s, the GDP growth rate, interest rates, new home ownership, personal wealth, you name it).

After all, if you scream it loud enough, maybe it really is true!

The idea is to create a campaign based on "America in crisis" where we'll throw them all out of office and elect compassionate chameleons in their place because "ANYONE must be better than these guys".

Get ready for another Jimmy Carter.

Answer 2

Your US political history is one-sided. Recent political history has been this: each candidate and party running for the White House competes to see who can express more fervant support for Israel. Once elected and responsible for foreign policy, the President still supports Israel, but realities on the ground temper that position a bit: say, down to 90% support from the previously expressed 110%.

This has been exactly the same for every election from the 1960s through the present, for either party, up until now.

Bush Jr. has been a little different. Until after he entered Iraq, has was uninterested in the problems involving Israel and her neighbors, and -- reversing the course followed by every other Prez since Nixon, simply voiced support for Israel and didn't try to help with anything other than $.

The Democrats continue to support Israel. Some liberals don't -- the only support for Palestinians in this country over the years have been some on the extreme left, some on the extreme right (such as Pat Buchanan), and middle eastern Arabs and descendants. The liberals who don't tend to vote Democratic but otherwise spend more time criticizing the Democratic party than even criticizing the Republican party. The institutional Democratic party and the elected Democrats aren't criticizing Israel -- and neither are the elected Republicans.


I'm not expressing my own opinion about Israel -- just describing the course of US politics.

Answer 3

Both political parties have supported Israel over the years, but you are correct in saying that the Democrats are the ones often attacked for it. The current times have changed and as of this specific situation, many Democrats feel we could have handled the situation better, they're not throwing Israel under a bus, they're stating that they believe a ceasefire was achievable. I find an honest criticism of the measures taken to be much more respectable than the tactics Republicans have used (lieing about John McMcain by saying he fathered illegitimate black children to boost Bush's votes in the South for example.)

Answer 4

Well this could be a real politcal topic for all. But my opinion is this that anyone liberal, democrat & republicans will do what ever and say what ever the public wants to hear. And actually none of them have our best interests at heart. Our country is falling apart and all you hear is oh what are we going to do wuth this countyr and that countyr and this person and that person. The government is obessed now with Castro and how it will effect things, well what about the people who were effected by the hurricanes last year they still have received help and in some case the governement FEMA is denying them asssitance. Well hello don't you thin that we should start rebuilding New Orleans and some of the other areas hit by the hurriances, and rebuilding SS and medicare programs for our eldery or re build the middle east. If they want to blow themselves up let them, as long as we are not in harms way. We should stay away from the middle east and let them do their own thing, they have been doing it for years we or the Un can't really stop them they will find away.

Answer 5

I don't think it is a partisan thing. I think it is a "politician" thing. I think that in election years most politicians will say or do anything to win.

That said, both parties have been supporters of Israel for ages. That's also not a one-sided item. No politician, of any party, who puts the interests of another nation above that of his or her own, should be allowed to serve. It does not matter if that US politician is a Democrat or Republican. It does not matter, either, which nation is being put ahead of US interests, even if it is an ally it is still wrong to put its interests ahead of our own nation's.

To the respondant who said the old tired bit about "tax and spend, let me enlighten you:

Both parties want to spend our money like water. The ONLY difference is this: Politicians who want to raise taxes are trying to pay for it now. Politicians who want to do things like "raise the debt ceiling" are trying to dodge paying for it to let the mother of all credit card bills land on some other politician (and on US, the citizens) later. The debts our politicians run up are staggering and will have to be paid at some point, it's just a question of how, since none of them will stop spending.

For example:
The war in Iraq is costing what, 400 billon and then some so far? But Bush is not paying for it. He's pushing the debt into the future. If, at some point, a Democrat wins and "inherits" the problem of dealing with the debt, he'll be called a tax-fiend. It won't be because he just arbitrarily wanted to raise taxes. It'll be because someone else left him a bill that had to be paid.

What people need to realize is that it isn't Democrats vs. Republicans. It's politicians and rich people agains the rest of us.

Answer 6

No one is throwing the Israelis "under a bus".

What is different here is that Neoconservatives in Washington are using this as a dry run for their desired attack on Iran. As if we don't have enough senseless adventures in the desert.

You should read Seymour Hersh's article in this edition of the New Yorker magazine. Yes, the same Seymour Hersh that broke the Abu Ghraib scandal (and was mocked for it). It explains a lot about the apparent erratic behavior of this administration during the recent conflict.

Answer 7

Politics has always been dirty. And people have a right (and a duty) to speak out about their government.

But it does seem that much of the dissent has the EFFECT (not necessarily the intent, but the effect) of emboldening our enemies in a war they can ONLY win if we lose the will to fight.

It's the difference between "stopping the war" and "losing the war." No one wants to see killing, but fighting is better than capitulating when the threat is real.

I wonder whether it's somehow easier to believe that Bush is just wrong, stupid or evil than to believe we are facing a global terror threat. If it's Bush's fault, then alll we need to do to return to "normal" is replace him. If the threat is real, though, we're facing a long, costly war that there's probably no way of avoiding.

I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. I also think that, while Bush has made mistakes (unfortunately, people do, in peace and in war), that the terrorist threat must be addressed and fought.

Answer 8

There have alway been people in both parties who are pro-Israel and the extreme left in American Politics and the extreme right have always been anti-Israel. The extreme right because they are anti-Semetic and the exteme left because they are really anti-Semetic also and believe that all Jew's are rich. Unfortunately it seems that particular angle in the Democratic left is dominating now - that is really sad and long-term it will cost the Democrats dearly because a left leaning party can't win.

Answer 9

What makes you think the politicians worry about anyone's vote in this current structure? Yeah i am aware of the 3 incumbents being toss out in 3 different primary state run-offs in 2006 so far! But you got 86%+ of the voting public wanting to throw-out who ever is in office at any government level in any party. In other words kick out the insiders! I think people will vote this way but the results will show something different.

Answer 10

What does social gathering ought to do with Benghazi? If the republicans had completed an identical superb suited factor by using fact the democrats which they might not have of direction could those adult men be any much less ineffective? discover out who did what in spite of social gathering and nail them for it. with the aid of the way, your source isn't even on the brink of being a source.