Skip to comments.Jewish voters and the Ron Paul effect )(And how the "Sarah Palin effect" was a myth)
Posted on 12/23/2011 3:27:33 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
What can they say about Paul?
What happens to Jewish Republicans, or to Jews who might consider voting Republican if Ron Paul takes Iowa - not an impossible scenario according to current polling. What happens to the Obama-bad-for-Israel Republican theme if Paul becomes the leading voice of their party - even for a week (until the New Hampshire vote). What chances do GOP Jews have to finally break the unending chain of broken Jewish-shift promises. How can Jewish GOPers withstand the ensuing Democratic attack on the isolationist, anti foreign aid, anti-Israel party how can they defend a party that is seriously considering the nominating for President of a candidate that Jewish Republicans defined as a virulent and harsh critic of Israel?
They will do it using three and a half lines of defense:
A. Iowa is not important. If Ron Paul takes Iowa GOP Jews might be somewhat embarrassed, but the real loser would be the state of Iowa. Pauls late surge this year may help nudge Iowa back toward political obscurity. Giving the nod to a novelty candidate like Paul would further undermine Iowas already shaky claim to first-in-the-nation status, writes Margaret Carlson. My prediction: Jewish war against Iowa.
B. The Primary is a process: Wait for the final outcome (Romney, Gingrich two better-for-Israel candidates), and dont bother us with the ups and downs of the long campaign.
C. The other party also has its fringe characters and beliefs (weak argument until the Democratic fringe takes over at least one state in the primaries).
And a half: Thats a tricky one, but Ive heard it, tongue in cheek, from a Jewish Republican hack who told me that our fringe candidate might take one state, but theirs took over the party and the country three years ago. Namely, Paul is the right-wing equivalent of Obamas. Such a blunt message might fly with some extremely unhappy voters, but would not sway rank and file on-the-fence Jewish Floridians.
A Paul Iowa victory will, no doubt, make life more complicated for the forces of Jewish Republicanism. The Pauls, Ron and son Senator Rand Paul, have handed the Democrats a handy tool to use every time the Republicans bring up Jesse Jackson, Rep. Jim Moran and others as proof of a Democratic Party that is turning away from Israel, Jim Bnesser wrote two months ago. But will it have real impact on voters? And what kind of impact? Some Jewish Democrats have suggested that the Paul surge can be even more devastating than the Sarah Palin effect on Jewish voters back in 2008. So I had to go back and revisit the Palin effect or should we call it the Palin myth?
The Palin effect
The story of a Palin negative effect on Jewish voters is a well documented story. It keeps popping up whenever theres need for a diagnostic analysis of the inherent incompatibility of Jewish voters and Republican politics. As it turned out, explained this Daily Kos report, a key factor in John McCains failure to get American Jews to choose him was his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. In the run-up to the 2008 election, Newsweek reported that Palin may hurt McCain among Jewish voters. The dynamics in Florida, later carried by Barack Obama, were particularly telling.
Telling in what way? Heres the way the Daily Beast chose to explain the story of the Jewish vote in 2008: this years Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, has appeared to lag among Jews. The AJC poll showed only 57 percent of Jews nationwide supporting Obama, with 30 percent backing McCain and 13 percent undecided. Theres no question that Obama came into this election with probably less going for him than most Democratic nominees, says Wald. But the Palin pick probably blunted any gains the Republicans had made.
In short: Obama was in trouble, as documented by an AJC survey, then McCain picked Palin, and winds have shifted back to the left. Sounds reasonable? If you read the 2008 AJC survey of Jewish opinion you might be tempted to believe this line of argument. Only 57% of Jews said theyd vote for Obama in September, but something changed their minds until Election Day. Could it not be Palin, is she not the most likely instigator of such change?
Im afraid to say the answer is no. With all due respect to all writers explaining that John McCain may have helped Obama with his Jewish problem by choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, and to Jewish Democrats who believe the nomination of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has driven many undecided Jews back into the arms of the Democrats the evidence isnt exactly supportive of such a theory.
While Im pretty sure there are Jewish voters, here and there, who decided to vote Obama because of the Palin nomination, most Jewish voters have jumped on the Obama bandwagon way before Palin was nominated. And to realize that, one has to abandon the AJC survey that was both late and is considered to be relatively conservative, and look at the numbers released by Gallup. The Palin surprise came in late August of 2008 but Jewish voters were abandoning McCain two months before Palin became a player in the campaign. In July of 2008 McCain could still hope for 34% of Jewish support, in August of 2008 his numbers among Jews went down to 25%. Thats pretty much the percentage of Jews who eventually voted for him. Palin didnt add anything and did not take anything away from the McCain campaign (To be honest: If Joe Lieberman would have been nominated as McCains VP candidate, it could have changed the numbers).
(GRAPH AT LINK)
The Palin effect than is a Palin myth. That Palin is not well-liked in many Jewish circles is a given. However, in those Jewish circles, no one was ever serious about voting for McCain, with or without Palin.
Back to the Paul Effect
So heres the impact an Iowa Paul victory will have on Jewish voters:
1. It will put Jewish Republicans on the defensive side for a while. 2.It will harden believes among Jewish Democrats that their Party is the only party a real Jew can vote for. 3.It will force other Republican candidates into raising the level of rhetorical support for Israel even more. 4.It will make Jewish Republicans work even harder for the candidate theyd believe can defeat Paul (I think Romney is the one that is likely to benefit). 5.It will make very little impact on the actual vote of Jews. For details: see the Palin effect myth.
All this changes of course if Paul is able to capitalize on Iowa and to have strong showings in other states. Very few Jews would ever consider voting for a candidate Paul (26 out of 2300 Jews, according to this unrepresentative Windmueller survey). And many conservative-tilting Jews would not feel comfortable with a party in which Paul is playing a major role. No, this isnt a likely scenario, but politics is a tricky game so who knows: A great year for Paul might even give President Obama a chance to do better than he did in 2008 with Jewish voters.
Will Paul get fellow nazi David Duke to lead his Jewish outreach program?
Paul is going nowhere.
Palin on the other hand has a close personal friendship with the conservative Israeli leadership.
Even if not a factor, I can’t tell from the article why Jews would reject Gov. Palin.
And I still don’t know why any Jew would support barry, who clearly wants to finish through the back door what Hitler started: the end of Jews, starting with Israel.
>> “And I still dont know why any Jew would support barry, who clearly wants to finish through the back door what Hitler started: the end of Jews, starting with Israel.” <<
I believe simply because so many US Jews have been conditioned to Marxist socialism.
majority of US jews are socialists who tend to vote Democrats, just like the black population, so its not surprising if US jews vote against Palin. It got nothing to do with their religion or skin color, but their economic ideology
Maybe there are just a lot of folks who don’t like her.
Religion or Ideology or Class be damned.
Can you accept the fact that maybe Her Highness isn’t universally liked?
Seems like over-analysis.
Jews naturally associate public Christianity with anti-Semitism. It’s not personal. Right or wrong, Ron Paul is portrayed as much more secular in outlook than Sarah Palin.
And Jews are likely to see a certain amount of anti-Semitism in any non-Jewish culture. So the preference for Democrats may just be because Jews are numerous and influential there despite obvious anti-Semitism, while Jewish Republicans are still relatively rare.
Palin went out of her way to show utter support for Israel. This article is only talking about liberal Jews who wouldn’t vote McCain because of palin. They must be liberals first, economic repubs second. A true conservative Jew would have known that palin was mre on outside than the majority of our coreligionists.
Paul is an anti-Semite. If he wins Iowa, Jews will stay away from that state.
Palin was more on our side
Is it true that Paul converted to Islam? I’ve heard that rumor, and sometimes his policy seems to be in line with that. Didn’t he say something like Christians deserved to be killed by Muslims?
Of course it must be true, what you say, that Dr. Paul he converted to islam, since only another believer could know such a thing.
And you, you effendi, would certainly not deceive, lie, nor bear false witness.
You are, hopefully, not stupid.
And the rest of us are, hopefully, not fools.
Look, if he's Muslim, he has the same right to be president as anyone else. But if he can't treat other religions equally, this is a problem.
Ron Paul is a neo-isolationist, not a Nazi. He appears to be antisemitic because his wacko foreign policy works to the disadvantage of Israel. But he has the utmost respect for several important (since deceased) Jewish intellectuals of the past in the libertarian movement, some of whom he had personal contact with - Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek - and who influenced his economic views.
Even if that happens, Paul will not be the GOP candidate in November. It will be a pro-Israel Republican vs. the pro-Islamist Obama (with the possibility of Paul and/or Donald Trump and/or several others as third party candidates). What's more, the GOP platform will be decidedly more supportive of Israel's security than that of the Democrats, as it has been for several election cycles.
So any Jewish or pro-Israel voter who is not addicted to the label "Democrat" has no logical reason to even think of Ron Paul when he or she votes Republican for POTUS next year.
Sorry, Shmuel Rosner, your article is based upon what you dream will happen, not on political reality. So you're making a big to-do over next to nothing.
We need to realize that speaking of Jesus may score points with our SoCons, but does tend to drive Jews away.
The morals may be exactly the same, the source may be the same, but the simple act of saying Jesus tends to drive non-Republicans Jews away (ie: independents, as you ain’t going to pry many Democrats away from their party).
Maybe if candidates talked about the morals without mentioning the messagers, it might be more effective?
Or for that matter, simply talk about the fiscal and economic policies and leave the social bits out of the campaign?
Case in point, a modern Jewish joke. Please note that even today, despite America being pretty good about anti-semitism, Christianity still is associated with Jew-hatred. After centuries of it, you'll not be able to get rid of the association with just a few decades of goodwill (see the below joke for an example). Just look at the Russians, despite being free from Mongol rule for over 500 years, they *STILL* harbor a loathing of anything 'Mongol'.
Several centuries ago, the Pope decreed that all the Jews had to convert or leave Italy.
There was a huge outcry from the Jewish community, so the Pope offered a deal.
He would have a religious debate with the leader of the Jewish community.
If the Jews won, they could stay in Italy. If the Pope won, they would have to leave.
The Jewish people met and picked an aged but wise Rabbi, Moishe, to represent them in the debate. Rabbi Moishe, however refused, saying it was no use and the Jews might as well start packing. The people were distraught.
Out of the weeping and wailing, a voice was heard. It was Yakel saying "I will do it".
The people said "you Yakel? you are just a dumb schmuck. How could you, who cannot even read the Torah, face the pope?"
"It is either me or move," replied Yakel.
So the people agreed.
However, as Yakel spoke no Italian and the Pope spoke no Yiddish, they all agreed that it would be a 'silent' debate.
On the chosen day, the Pope and Yakel sat opposite each other for a full minute before the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. Yakel looked back and raised one finger.
Next the Pope waved his finger around his head. Yakel pointed to the ground where he sat.
The Pope then brought out a communion wafer and a chalice of wine. Yakel pulled out an apple.
With that, the Pope stood up and declared that he was beaten, that Yakel was too clever and that the Jews could stay.
Later, the Cardinals met with the Pope, asking what had happened.
The Pope said, "First I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity.
He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there is still only one God common to both our beliefs.
"Then, I waved my finger to show him that God was all around us.
He responded by pointing to the ground to show that God was also right here with us.
"I pulled out the wine and wafer to show that God absolves us of all our sins.
He pulled out an apple to remind me of the original sin.
He had me beaten and I could not continue."
Meanwhile, the delirious Jewish community was gathered around Yakel.
What happened?" they asked.
"Well," said Yakel, "First he said to me that we had three days to get out of Italy, so I said to him, 'Up yours.'
"Then he tells me that the whole country would be cleared of Jews and I said to him, 'Mr. Pope, we're staying right here.' "
"And then what?" asked a woman.
"Who knows?" said Yakel. "He took out his lunch so I took out mine."
Paul has emphatically stated that he believes the principle of pre-emptive war goes against the 'Just War Theory' of Christianity. He has also stated that being in perpetual war does not go along with Christ's teachings. So you are wrong, he seems to be the only candidate who actually CARES about our foreign policy being in line with Christian values.
Here's a clip of him at a debate speaking about pre-emptive war.
By the way, you still haven't shown him defending Christians. Even if he alluded to a Christian (among others), it was only to defend Muslims. He's still not on the record ever defending Christians;.
Absolutely true! And in this year's race, the same can be said for Michele Bachmann. In many ways, Bachmann can be viewed as this year's Palin. In fact, according to Bachmann's autobiography, the two are friendly with each other.
Paul is an anti-Semite.
Please see my post # 16.
One can be isolationist without being anti-Israel. Paul is anti-Israel. He has made his distaste for that country plain on numerous occasions.
This anti-Israel philosophy doesn't so much come from isolationism or libertarianism, but European style rightism, which is abundant among "palaeoconservatives," whether libertarian or statist.
Well, having just emerged from an extremely nasty argument with chr*stians just last week, here's where I win back my "unclassifiable curmudgeon" bona fides:
What kind of chr*stianity? Roman Catholicism? Eastern Orthodoxy? Mormonism? Primitive Baptists (who absolutely refuse to engage in any proselytary activity whatsoever)? Chr*stadelphians? Swedenborgians? Assemblies of G-d? Moravians? Wesleyans? Chr*stian Scientists? Seventh Day Adventists? Quakers?
What about public Black and Hispanic chr*stianity? Or is that different?
And Jews are likely to see a certain amount of anti-Semitism in any non-Jewish culture. So the preference for Democrats may just be because Jews are numerous and influential there despite obvious anti-Semitism
Then why doesn't the Democrat Party promote the Noachide Laws?
You know that little hut Lionel Jeffries lived in in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? That's my house now, and there's plenty of room for all of me.
Given today's geopolitical alignment, it's just about impossible to be an American isolationist without risking the security and existence of Israel - as well as several other American allies.
I’m afraid I don’t understand your animus.
If it’s based on the New Testament, it’s Christianity.
Either political party can be prone to Jew-hate. Jews may simply be picking the one that has more Jews in it, not because they believe one is morally superior. Quite the opposite.
That's the point. Some forms of chr*stianity are murderous, some are harmless. To simply have a negative reaction to "public chr*stianity" (outside of a Torah context) is to engage in stereotyping based on ignorance.
Either political party can be prone to Jew-hate. Jews may simply be picking the one that has more Jews in it, not because they believe one is morally superior. Quite the opposite.
Yes, that's true, but the fact that it's true is not a good thing. Three hundred years ago almost all Jews lived in a self-governing Theocratic entity under the authority of the Rabbinate. Then enlightenment fever came along and brought about the unnatural situation we find ourselves today, where secular figures, organizations, and publications claim to represent the "official Jewish community." That this crowd is now accepted as the "Jewish leadership" (and their presence in the Democrat party makes it "the Jewish party") is a tragedy.
Rabbi 'Asher Meza is definitely outside the mainstream, but I nevertheless appreciate his attitude towards multi-generational secular Jewish "leadership."