Posted on 01/31/2010 1:15:48 PM PST by ruination
What an interesting allegiance.
I remember the leftist Jewish contingent during the civil rights days in the fifties and sixties.
This allegiance brings to mind a television sit com character form the mid-seventies:
Meet Juan Epstein!
Richard A. Hoffman ran in thew 18th CD in 2004 and 2006.
I’m saying it’s a hackneyed jewish stereotype, that reinforces certain notions about jews, and does little to appeal to a contemporary readership.
...the weakening of the Democrats' grip on Congress with the recent loss of a key Massachusetts Senate seat does not bode well for the passage of reform legislation. The Jewish-Latino alliance on immigration issues builds on the heritage and experience of the Jewish community and on the enthusiasm and urgent needs of the Hispanic community, which has a strong interest in issues of family unification and the status of the some 12 million illegal immigrants, most of them from Latin America. But Jewish activists also see the joint work as an opening for cooperation with the Hispanic community on other issues, such as Israel.Strange, because based on the voting pattern of American Jews, most don't give two sh!ts about Israel's continued existence.
I’m far from NY and know little about who would have been the best candidates in the races you mention. I don’t doubt there are some excellent conservative Jewish candidates around the country, probably mostly in the larger metropolitan areas. But they would be at a disadvantage from the outset because they wouldn’t have any significant support from their own ethnic group. And that is a part of it for some number of voters in all groups, and at least provides a base of support for most candidates, along with other commonalities that often influence voting decisions between candidates with similar political philosophies.
I’d love to see more conservative Jews elected to office. Many of the Jews in Congress are very effective, but unfortunately most all are very much left of center.
I don’t doubt there are some excellent conservative Jewish candidates around the country, probably mostly in the larger metropolitan areas. But they would be at a disadvantage from the outset because they wouldn’t have any significant support from their own ethnic group.
Will, a little more precision is called for here.
Observant Jews tend to vote conservative - sometimes overwhelmingly so. There are parts of NYC (esp. in Brooklyn) that have sent very conservative legislators - Jewish ones - to Albany. (Pity that there couldn’t be a congressional district gerrymandered from those neighborhoods!)
FWIW, Alphonse D’Amato (remember him? 3 term-Republican in the Senate from NY) (not Jewish, obviously) ran very well in precincts inhabited by Orthodox Jews.
Did you know that George W. Bush took 50% of the vote in Beverly Hills in 2004? Most attribute that to the influx of Jews from Iran over the last 2 decades, almost all of whom tend to the ‘right’ side.
The other thing is - how will we define what makes a congressman or senator “conservative?” Philosophy on government spending (remember Warren Rudman from N.H.)? The “social issues” (how was Ron Coleman from Minn. in that regard?) Or are we just talking about “immigration policy?”
I hate to nit-pick (all right - I admit it. Sometimes I like to) but we also have to be very specific as to what type of “immigration reform” is acceptable/in the nation’s interest and what is not.
We can all agree that a “blanket amnesty” a la Reagan’s 1986 amnesty is unacceptable.
Drawing the line on small changes to the immigration law, however, as opposed to an overhaul, requires more work.
There are many ways Congress might tinker with the law that would permit MANY aliens who have visa petitions filed on their behalf (mostly - but not exclusively - those with spouses who are legally here) to get legal status in the U.S. if they pay a $1,000.00 penalty. [This is known as “bringing back section 245(i)).” Congress might also permit people to go overseas to get their “green cards” without being penalized for the time they had spent illegally in the U.S. (That would be “abolishing section 212(a)(9).”
I don’t fear litmus tests for candidates in and of themselves: it’s just that there needs to be agreement as to the precise point on the pH scale that will be determinative.
e.s. (sorry for the length of this post.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.