Florida Republicans will troop to the polls Tuesday (ok, maybe some of them will roll in wheelchairs or shuffle along using walkers, while others drive in pick-up trucks with gun racks) to provide the latest answer to a dilemma facing their counterparts across the country—are they more interested in choosing a presidential standard bearer who could attract a spectrum of support among independents and even some Democrats, or are they more interested in ideological conservative purity deeply tinged with personal and emotional failings?
Polls show Mitt Romney comfortably ahead of Newt Gingrich by double digit figures. The perception of electability, along with confidence he would not be as divisive as Gingrich, his business background and his stain-free past (other than, in the repetitive refrain of Gail Collins of the NY Times, driving to Canada for a vacation with his dog strapped to the roof of the family car) make Romney a formidable challenger to President Obama’s re-election. True, there’s not much passion behind his candidacy, but it’s rare to see an automaton provoke deep feelings in humans.
Gingrich, on the other hand, stirs emotions. He is the personification of the “tumulter,” a term from many languages identifying someone who thrives on “the commotion or agitation of a multitude, usually accompanied with great noise, uproar, and confusion of voices; hurly-burly; noisy confusion.”
The former House speaker says he will stay in the race all the way to the GOP convention (or, more realistically, until the Adelsons stop funding his campaign). If he continues to rile up the conservative base against Romney he’ll be doing double-barreled damage. First, he’ll be providing fodder to Obama’s campaign. There’s nothing better than using fellow Republican smears to smear your Republican opponent in the general election. Obama benefits regardless of who becomes the GOP nominee.
Second, and perhaps more troubling for Romney, will be the cumulative effect on the hard-core right wing of the Republican/Tea Party. Will arch conservatives, evangelical Christians, have enough passion (read that, hatred) in their hearts against Obama to swallow hard, hold their noses and vote for Romney if he’s the candidate, or will they stay home?
Back in 1964, moderate Republicans abandoned the party’s nominee, Barry Goldwater, and voted for President Lyndon Johnson. In 1968, lots of disaffected Democrats failed to rally in time to Vice President Hubert Humphrey, letting Richard Nixon eke out a narrow victory. In 1976, President Gerald Ford couldn’t command enough Ronald Reagan-inspired conservatives to beat back a challenge by Jimmy Carter. Vice President Al Gore couldn’t attract enough of Ralph Nader’s ardent environmental supporters nationwide in 2000 to prevent George W. Bush from eventually getting the keys to the White House handed to him by the U.S. Supreme Court after the hanging chad fiasco in Florida.
Nothing will be decided tomorrow except who gets Florida’s 50 convention votes. But the size of Gingrich’s tally might provide an indication of how strong the anti-Romney sentiment is and whether the GOP in the fall will be able to mount a full-frontal, broadly coordinated assault on the White House’s current occupant.
Showing posts with label evangelical Christians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evangelical Christians. Show all posts
Monday, January 30, 2012
Friday, May 27, 2011
More Than One Issue
I resent the Republican Party trying to cast me as well as other Jewish voters as one-issue voters, that issue being support for the State of Israel.
Israel is important. Very important. But it is not the end all and be all of why and how I choose candidates. Social issues, budget issues, judicial issues, foreign policy issues, economic issues, all these and more figure into my calculation.
I’m steamed as I write this because I just fielded a call from the Republican Jewish Coalition trying to cast the GOP as more favorable to Israel than Democrats and particularly President Obama.
Israel should not be a wedge issue. Democrats as well as Republicans may disagree with Obama. That’s their right.
But according to the young man who called me, Obama wants Israel to return to pre-1967 borders.
Wrong! Obama’s position as explained anew during his speech to AIPAC, the Israel lobbying group, earlier this week, has been borders should be “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” after negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. It’s a position that corresponds to those of past presidents going back to Clinton, along with past prime ministers of Israel.
Obama called for a “sovereign, non-militarized (Palestinian) state.” He rejected efforts to de-legitimize Israel. He demanded Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence and adhere to all existing agreements before it could be considered worthy of being a partner in negotiations. He called for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped five years ago.
If Israel is to be an issue, let’s get beyond the usual bromides of support. Just what type of support does the GOP want to provide? Unlimited, uncritical acceptance of whatever Israel does? Israelis can’t always agree on the right policy. It would be foolish to believe anyone in Washington knows better than those in the vortex of the conflict.
For the last two years I met 16 trauma care first responders from the communities bordering the Gaza Strip. You would think that with constant bombardments from Hamas and its cohorts they would be hawkish. No. They favored peaceful resolution of the conflict, with dignity and respect on both sides. They empathized with Palestinian families who shuttered at the retaliatory strikes by the Israeli Defense Forces.
It is callous for Republicans (and Democrats) to try to make political gain out of the Israel issue. And let’s be clear—it is not just Jewish voters who are in play. Israel enjoys wide support among evangelical Christians.
But as I told my young caller, I would be more susceptible to Republican overtures if the GOP exhibited more Judeo-Christian concerns for the needy, the more vulnerable members of our society. Though he tried time and again to bring the conversation back to Israel, I wouldn’t let him. I want a president and a Congress that respects the rights of all, cares for the downtrodden, provides opportunity for all, endorses and expands educational opportunities, builds and repairs infrastructure for today and tomorrow, invests in science and technology, leads global efforts on climate change and human rights, provides universal health care. These and much more. And yes, I want a president and Congress that supports Israel in reaching a just and lasting peace with its neighbors.
(Editor’s note: From time to time—which means when I remember—I will include the following disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my dear wife, Gilda.)
Israel is important. Very important. But it is not the end all and be all of why and how I choose candidates. Social issues, budget issues, judicial issues, foreign policy issues, economic issues, all these and more figure into my calculation.
I’m steamed as I write this because I just fielded a call from the Republican Jewish Coalition trying to cast the GOP as more favorable to Israel than Democrats and particularly President Obama.
Israel should not be a wedge issue. Democrats as well as Republicans may disagree with Obama. That’s their right.
But according to the young man who called me, Obama wants Israel to return to pre-1967 borders.
Wrong! Obama’s position as explained anew during his speech to AIPAC, the Israel lobbying group, earlier this week, has been borders should be “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” after negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. It’s a position that corresponds to those of past presidents going back to Clinton, along with past prime ministers of Israel.
Obama called for a “sovereign, non-militarized (Palestinian) state.” He rejected efforts to de-legitimize Israel. He demanded Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence and adhere to all existing agreements before it could be considered worthy of being a partner in negotiations. He called for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped five years ago.
If Israel is to be an issue, let’s get beyond the usual bromides of support. Just what type of support does the GOP want to provide? Unlimited, uncritical acceptance of whatever Israel does? Israelis can’t always agree on the right policy. It would be foolish to believe anyone in Washington knows better than those in the vortex of the conflict.
For the last two years I met 16 trauma care first responders from the communities bordering the Gaza Strip. You would think that with constant bombardments from Hamas and its cohorts they would be hawkish. No. They favored peaceful resolution of the conflict, with dignity and respect on both sides. They empathized with Palestinian families who shuttered at the retaliatory strikes by the Israeli Defense Forces.
It is callous for Republicans (and Democrats) to try to make political gain out of the Israel issue. And let’s be clear—it is not just Jewish voters who are in play. Israel enjoys wide support among evangelical Christians.
But as I told my young caller, I would be more susceptible to Republican overtures if the GOP exhibited more Judeo-Christian concerns for the needy, the more vulnerable members of our society. Though he tried time and again to bring the conversation back to Israel, I wouldn’t let him. I want a president and a Congress that respects the rights of all, cares for the downtrodden, provides opportunity for all, endorses and expands educational opportunities, builds and repairs infrastructure for today and tomorrow, invests in science and technology, leads global efforts on climate change and human rights, provides universal health care. These and much more. And yes, I want a president and Congress that supports Israel in reaching a just and lasting peace with its neighbors.
(Editor’s note: From time to time—which means when I remember—I will include the following disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my dear wife, Gilda.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
