Posted on 09/06/2002 10:53:18 AM PDT by gubamyster
September 6, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
By Edward B. Miller
For some time now, Jewish voters have been disproving the old adage that Jews live like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. Republican incumbents such as New York's George Pataki and Ohio's George Voinovich, and recent Republican officeholders like New York's Rudy Giuliani and Al D'Amato and Massachusetts's Bill Weld each won more than 40 percent of the Jewish vote in one of their campaigns. However, if the recent division between blacks and Jews in the Democratic party continues to grow, these politicians will no longer be the exception and Jewish support for Republicans will be the rule.
This latest rift within the Democratic party began in late spring when rank-and-file Jews across the country targeted for defeat several black members of Congress, because of their positions on Israel.
The first to lose his seat was Earl Hilliard. During his nearly 30 years in elective office the Alabaman repeatedly took positions which were offensive to Jews. These included voting against non-binding resolutions supporting Israel in her fight against terrorism, including one in May less than one month before his primary. He also opposed U.S. sanctions against rogue regimes, and introduced legislation only weeks after last September 11 to remove the sanctions in place against Iran, Iraq, and Libya, among others.
The division widened after Cynthia McKinney, a ten-year veteran of Congress was defeated The Georgian, too, had voted against pro-Israel resolutions, joining Hilliard and 16 other Democrats (compared with only five Republicans) in opposing the May resolution. She had also criticized New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for rejecting a $10 million donation from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal to aid the families of the victims of September 11 because of comments the prince made tying the attacks against the U.S. to its Middle East policy and support for Israel. In addition, last year, one of her congressional staffers, referring to Jewish members of Congress, wrote in a Capitol Hill newspaper, "[M]ost disturbing to me is that many of these pro-Israeli lawmakers sit on the House International Relations Committee despite the obvious conflict of interest that their emotional attachments to Israel cause. The Israeli occupation of all territories must end, including Congress."
The fact that two veteran Democratic officeholders were defeated by two political novices would have been cause enough for concern for the Democratic-party leadership. In fact, aside from Gary Condit and redistricting-related primaries in which incumbents faced one another, Hilliard and McKinney were the only incumbents in either party this year to lose a primary election.
That both were black and their defeats resulted from overwhelming Jewish opposition is cause for panic among Democrats. Without the combination of Jewish money (Jews raise at least one-third of all Democratic funds) and black-voter turnout (nearly twenty percent of Democratic voters are black) Minority Leader Richard Gephardt has about the same chance of becoming Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives this November as Newt Gingrich. However, as a result of Hilliard's and McKinney's defeat this is exactly what is now unfolding.
Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D., Tex.) said that among black voters there was a growing perception that "Jewish people are attempting to pick our leaders. There is some concern about that." And, when asked to explain his daughter's defeat, state representative Billy McKinney, said, "J-E-W-S."
Indeed, Hilliard's and McKinney's challengers, both blacks, received strong support from Jewish donors, including eight out-of-state Cohens who contributed to McKinney's opponent. As Jews become more attuned to the voting records of elected officials outside of their own districts the differences between Jews and blacks within the Democratic party will only expand. For years now, Jews have looked the other way as the Democratic party has embraced the likes of Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney and acquiesced to their anti-Israel positions. But, for several reasons, Jews are no longer willing to do so.
For starters, the number of Jews being killed in Israel during the past two years has led many American Jews to conclude that the stakes are just too high to sit by and let the Earl Hilliards and Cynthia McKinneys in Congress continue to shape U.S. foreign policy. Other Jewish Americans have become emboldened by President Bush's decisive leadership in the war against terrorism and in support of Israel's right to self-defense, and consider themselves political free agents, free to support and oppose candidates based on their records. Many see survey results, such as those released by Time magazine earlier this summer in which 53 percent of Republicans term themselves supporters of Israel compared with only 40 percent of Democrats, and choose to identify with Republican candidates. On top of that are the results from the congressional votes on Israel, like the one last May, in which the vast majority of those opposing pro-Israel measures are Democrats. Finally, demographics are also playing their part in reducing Jewish ties to the Democratic party. The most pro-Democratic Jewish voters are those who came of age during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency and each election cycle will continue to see fewer of them at the polls.
Such a shift will make it much harder for the Democratic leadership to keep its fragile coalition intact. Consider Hilliard's election. Responding to criticism from the Congressional Black Caucus that the Democratic leadership had not done enough to protect black incumbents (from more moderate black challengers), the Democratic House leadership contributed nearly $50,000 to Hilliard's campaign after he had been forced into a runoff. Yet, it was at precisely this time that Jewish donors were pulling out all of the stops in their fundraising efforts, correctly sensing that momentum was on their side.
The Democratic congressional leadership has taken for granted Jewish support for so long that it ignored the potential political fall-out from making such a sizable contribution in the face of overwhelming Jewish opposition to Hilliard. Moreover, Jewish success in defeating McKinney and Hilliard has given Jews a newfound sense of political empowerment, which they may use against additional Congressional Black Caucus members with poor records on Israel. This will only intensify the conflict within the Democratic party between Jews and blacks, many of whom already feel a sense of disenfranchisement in the wake of these losses.
This is not good news for Democrats, who need only look back to 1994 to see the effects of low black-voter turnout combined with large-scale Jewish support for Republican candidates. That year, the GOP captured Congress and a majority of the nation's governor's mansions. Without the support of Jews and blacks, Democrats look likely to live with those results for some time to come.
— Edward B. Miller is an attorney practicing in New York and formerly a Republican pollster.
Okay, people. It's GUT CHECK time. The time has come for the Republicans in general and the Right in particular to reevaluate how it appeals to the pool of voters.
Both younger blacks and Jews are far and away more receptive to the conservative message than their parents and grandparents are and/or were.
What are you going to do about it? Will you take advantage, or, will you do what you've always done?
It's up to you.
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Why do you think 95% of blacks voted for Gore? Do you think the average black voter was stupid enough to believe those Jasper, Texas hit pieces that the Democrats aired? What do you suggest the Republicans do to get the message out that we believe in black people as individuals who have the power and intelligence to live their own lives?
I work in high tech and every black I work with is educated, skilled and conservative. There has to be a way to get the message that Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Clarence Thomas have out in the world of ideas to compete with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
What we need is a massive black middle class, in debt up to their eyeballs, looking at sending 2.3 children to college and hoping the transmission on the Ford holds out until after Christmas. In short, a part of the American Dream.
This would be a good start. It surely would beat what has been done.
Check the link in #7 and tell me if I'm advocating "pandering."
Keep your stupid ass assumptions and stereotypes to yourself! Aight? READ FIRST. You have no idea where I'm even coming from.
No one said anything about pandering.
There have been several threads over the last few months that have gone into detail about this issue.
If you don't want to participate in any form of outreach, then let the more constructive people work on something, and keep your snide remarks to yourself.
I ain't no damned "Negro." I'm an American black man in general and a serious unhyphenated "American" in particular. Did I say ANYTHING about Rice or Powell winning the Presidency? What the hell are you talking about?
Is that your idea?
Hell no! Did I say that it was my idea? Did I intimate or infer any such thing? You have an overactive imagination.
Toady to blacks with bells and whistles because they aren't smart enough to discern their own self-interest? Is that your idea?
Thank God we're not face-to-face. Again, did I say any of that?
Sowell, Williams, Rice, Thomas and Powell all got it. Parading dancing girls or promising a warm place to defecate ain't gonna do it; it ain't gonna bring anyone over to our side because the other side is promising the world.
This is proof-positive that you didn't click the link I provided in post #7. You went nowhere near it.
And, I'm sorry, but it seems like well-intentioned racism to me. Maybe, maybe I'm wrong. And yes, dear readers, I do acknowledge that nothing is forever. There you go, my friend, is that enough?
Hell no it ain't enough! You aren't even arguing fairly, using your bigoted AND stereotypical rants, and you also refused to address what I said in #7. You have your mind already made up.
Folks, it is THIS BIGOTED DROPPINGS OF AN UPSET STOMACH BOVINE that must be addressed. He does no one on the Right any favors at all.
Normally I would feel sorry for someone like you. But I don't. Naaa... Wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
No one has said word one about changing our message. What we have said - repeatedly - is that we change where and how we deliver that message in order to reach blacks and and other minority audiences.
When you hit the ground, you're already in an uphil battle; the left in general, and the black left in particular is delivering "our message" now. The catch is that they are delivering their version of our message, which is why we, at this point, are persona non grata in the black community. This is why we are percieved as "evil" by most blacks.
All we have said is that the truth has to be presented to the people in question. If this does not happen, then the Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's of the world will "deliver" our message for us. Do you want that happening? I certainly don't.
I do not see that as pandering.
I mean, neither you nor I said ANYTHING about pandering to anyone. But that was the automatic assumption that was taken.
What Nelly say? It's gettin' hot in here!
Oh, please.
Sowell, Williams, Rice, Thomas and Powell got the message after it was introduced to them.
They didn't go out and seek it to begin with. I'm sorry, the average black person is not going to go out with the mindset of "Let me go see what the GOP has today." Especially since the mainstream media and the race warlords are playing on their worst fears and personal prejudices in order to maintain the veil of secrecy and division between the two groups.
The poverty pimps and the networks are the ones "delivering the conservative message now." Don't fool yourself into thinking they aren't. Just watch and listen to what they say about us. That we're evil. That we only want to help the rich. That those of us who happen to be black have sold our souls for "crumbs from the master's table."
If anyone's pandering, they are! I don't know about you, but I don't want them delivering my message for me. But if we don't want that, then we have to take our message to them! Notice that I said nothing of promising them rose gardens or free money. We don't need to compromise our integrity or our principles in order to tell the truth.
You want a gut check? You got one - step back. Think. If you want to include the best and brightest in America, then give them the truth. Take the truth to them. Let them decide.
Like I said, it's GUT CHECK time. If conservatives who claim they're "principled" truly are, then they most certainly wouldn't have any fear of taking the conservative message directly to black voters. Right?
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.