Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rabbi Marc Gellman Thinks More Jews Should Have Supported Lieberman

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:40 PM
Original message
Rabbi Marc Gellman Thinks More Jews Should Have Supported Lieberman
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 09:46 PM by journalist3072
Repent, all you Jews who did not support Joe Lieberman in his Senate primary race last week! Rabbi Marc Gellman thinks you should have voted for Lieberman because, well, he's a Jew!

You may recognize Rabbi Gellman from his appearances on Tim Russert's Meet the Press and other shows. He usually appears to wax poetic about some of the spiritual issues of the day.

Now, he's speaking out about Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman in last week's Connecticut primary. And it seems as though the Rabbi is a little mystified on why an overwhelming number of Jews did not support Joe Lieberman last week.

In his latest column for Newsweek magazine, Gellman writes in part:

"Joe Lieberman did not lose the Democratic primary because of his support for the war in Iraq. He lost because of his lack of support from Jews."

-snip-

"He got the support of all the Connecticut papers, and he got the support of most Jews, but not at all an overwhelming number of Jews and that is why he lost. He lost because Barbra Streisand's highly publicized contribution to Lamont and because of the number of Jews who hated Bush and the war more than they loved Joe. That's why he lost, and I don't get it."

-snip-

"I have opinions on way too many things I don't know nearly enough about, but I know about Jews. I am a professional Jew, and yet if you asked me to explain why Jews did not vote for Joe the way blacks voted for Barack Obama or Catholics voted for John F. Kennedy I would not know what to tell you."

NOTE TO RABBI GELLMAN: To suggest that you should vote for a politician on the basis of their religious affiliation or race, is nothing short of racism in itself. And it is an insult to the African-American community, to suggest that African-Americans voted for Barack Obama because he is also African-American. If that were the case, Lynn Swann in Pennyslvania, and Michael Steele in Maryland, would be in much better poll positions than they currently are.

The African-American community has never been, and probably never will be, monolithic. And that's a good thing. The people of Illinois sent Barack Obama to the Senate because they agreed with him on the majority of the issues, NOT because of his skin color, as you would have them to do.

If you're wondering why Jewish voters weren't more enthusiastic in their support of Lieberman, understand that just because someone looks like you, or shares your religious affiliation, doesn't mean they share your values.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14308339 /


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. I heard the other day that Lamont is actually jewish too
nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
23. Hi Ninja Jordan!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack from Charlotte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
24. Eric Alterman tears The Rabbi a new one.... here.....
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870 /

It's down a paragraph below the Kurtz, Huffington quotes.

Snip...

Still in Connecticut, I happened upon perhaps the dumbest sentence of the year: Liberman lost because Barbra Streisand's highly publicized contribution to Lamont. Hey Newsweek Rabbi Marc Gellman," maybe you should stick to theology.

Lord help him, it gets worse: if you asked me to explain why Jews did not vote for Joe the way blacks voted for Barack Obama Um, Rabbi dude, the same blacks who voted for Obama deserted the um, black Alan Keyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
33. Lamont is a Scottish name..I
looked it up..but I know why a lot of Jewish people like him.

Ned Lamont thinks bush and lieberman are taking the country in the Wrong direction(into the abyss) and is stepping up to the plate to do something about it.

What if we didn't have Lamont right now? lieberman would be the dino nominee..all lies and smiles coming from his flabby face. BUT, we have Lamont who designated joe to indy status.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pale Blue Dot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. In 2000, the same Rabbi said that it was not necessary for Jews to vote
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 09:43 PM by Finnfan
Gore/Lieberman, even though there was a Jew on the ticket.

Why the sudden change of heart, Rabbi?

Note: I don't have a link for this, I heard in on The Majority Report tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Atrios has it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
34. Wow! He sounds like
fucking republicon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. You throw around the "r" word too loosely
There's nothing racist in ethnic solidarity. If you disagree with the rabbi, say so, but he too, is entitled to his opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I don't think this is ethnic solidarity.
I think it's judging someone by the color of their skin, or their religious affiliation.

It's about someone saying "I'll vote for you because you're Black" or "I'll vote for you because you're Jewish." That's what Rabbi Gellman's commentary suggest that we should do.

And Martin Luther King fought against that. He believed in judging people by the content of their character.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Have you ever lived through a race riot? I have.
After MLK was killed, Brooklyn turned violent - and I was in Crown Heights, epicenter of the clash between Blacks and Jews. Did we have anything to do with his assassination? Of course not, but that didn't matter to the kid who threw his shoe at my head.

That's reality. King's dead and people like me are doing our best to keep his vision alive. To get to that promised land, we're going to have to start with the way things are - and my ethnic identity is not something Martin would have me disregard.

Oh, but I'm sure DUers will rally around another of his sayings, "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism.

Sorry, journalist, but your words ring hollow to me - I disagree with Rabbi Gellman but he is entitled to his opinion and no matter how you characterize it, his intentions are noble. I just think he's wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pale Blue Dot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Were his intentions noble in 2000, when he said the exact opposite?
Politics isnt baseball. There is no room in politics for irrational rooting for the hometown team. If you believe in Liebermans political views, then you should vote for him; if you dont, then you shouldnt, and you should not feel as if you have betrayed Judaism or the Jewish people or God by your vote. And if you vote for him, it better be for more substantial reasons than simply the fact that he can pronounce a chaf and layn torah. I guarantee you that Jesse Jackson would not vote for Colin Powell just because hes black. Joe Liebermans selection is important not because it tells us how to vote, but because it tells us how far we have come, and because it shows us the new possibilities for living a Jewish life that is public, political, and powerful.


http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0012/opinion/gellman....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #19
28. I think you misread the article
As I noted below, the end of the article makes Gellman's point: that Jews shouldn't fear to vote *for* Lieberman, despite our collective memory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pale Blue Dot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. "Ethnic Solidarity"
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 10:11 PM by Finnfan
To support or not support somebody based on their ethnicity is just as racist (and stupid) as doing so on the basis of skin color, religion, sex, etc.

As a society, we need to begin to judge people solely on "the content of their character", as a great man once said.

On edit: Besides, as per my earlier post in this thread, the Rabbi's "ethnic solidary" is wavering and seems to be predicated on whether or not the Jew in question can help or hurt the Democratic party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Thank you! That's exactly what I said in my post right above yours! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. People are insular for good reason
Rail against it all you like, but you're arguing against success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pale Blue Dot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. On edit:
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 10:23 PM by Finnfan
Upon reflection, you're right. If there's one thing the world has succeeded at, it's the "stick with your own" mentality.

Just because something is successful doesn't make it right, or desirable.

And again, this particular Rabbi's "ethnic solidarity" seems to depend on factors which really have nothing to do with Lieberman's ethnicity. Care to comment on that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Care to elaborate?
I haven't seen anything beyond Gellman's appeal to ethnic solidarity - unspoken is the assumption that he will look favorably on issues that matter to "my" community, like tuition tax-credits for parochial school. Again, I think he's wrong, but to call him "racist" just because he holds these views is, in my opinion, uncalled for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pale Blue Dot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Sure: Gellman in 2000:
Another consequence of this historic selection is that it now frees Jews to vote against Lieberman even though he is Jewish. His selection is the historic moment that marks full Jewish acceptance in Americanot the rise of Henry Kissinger, not the movies of Steven Spielberg, not the corporate mastery of Michael Eisner. None of them have done and none of them mean what Lieberman has done and what Lieberman means. True acceptance means that we as Jews can be delighted that he was nominated and then vote against him because we do not agree with his politics. Voting for Lieberman because he is Jewish is just as wrong as voting against Lieberman because he is Jewish.

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0012/opinion/gellman....

Seems Gellman is really more concerned with idealogy than ethnicity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. I didn't read the article the same way
Seems to me Gellman was indulging in a bit of Talmudic thinking, examining both sides of an argument before delivering the knock out blow. In the end, he seemed to be encouraging Jews to vote for Lieberman despite our fears that holding a high profile could be hazardous to our collective health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
35. Exactly!
Does the rabbi love his tax cuts? Or perhaps he thinks the bombing of all the innocents in Iraq was terrific with our Soldiers dying for bushlieberlies an extra added attraction?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. "There's nothing racist in ethnic solidarity"???
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 10:25 PM by TahitiNut
:wow: Well, the Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, White Patriot Party, and National Alliance would probably be glad to hear you bless their "ethnic solidarity"!

:rofl:

Now I think I've heard just about everything! :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
21. OK, here's another "r" word for you:
Revolting. Frankly, I thought Gellman's plaintive little piece chastizing Jews for not voting for Lieberman was just plain revolting. And there was nothing noble about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
25. Then he's an ethnic bigot
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 09:56 AM by Mr_Spock
The best man should win, who gives a flying hoot what religion a person is.

I'm sick of this crap where certain types of bigotry are considered OK because of some lame excuse making.

Lieberman lost because he is a war-mongering ass hole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. It's not religion; it's ethnicity
And if you don't want to understand, that's okay - but if my ethnic identity offends you, that's your problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Lol - you made a really bad assumption there
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 10:27 AM by Mr_Spock
I am just not using my ethnicity or religious identification as a bat to beat others with.

Shame on you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. A bat to beat others? That's your problem, dude
I've been explaining what it's like to come from an insular community - if you feel beaten, again, that's your problem. I have nothing to be ashamed of ... you're the one expressing hostility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #32
39. Lol - ok, you are playing silly rhetorical games now...
I have nothing to discuss with you any more.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. Yes, that was a bad
assumption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #27
38. who said anything about your "ethnic identity"?
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 11:07 AM by ima_sinnic
--it appears that criticizing the rabbi for saying Jewish people should vote for a Jew no matter that person's political stance (well, as long as it is a REPUBLICAN stance--goes unsaid) is somehow "offensive."

since you want to split semantic hairs, is it okay to say that the a-hole is "ethnicist"?

sheesh.

on edit: meant to say--sure he has the right to say whatever he wants--and we have the right to criticize him for it and point out the truly bigoted and small-minded (not to mention inconsistent) nature of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. He was called a racist - I say that goes too far
Disagree with him if you like - I do. But calling him a racist for appealing to our ethnic identity is misunderstanding where we come from. I don't expect you to understand, but if you can't accept our differences, that's your problem.

What I find interesting is the hostility I see expressed ... it makes civil discussion difficult at best. I would have hoped for better from DUers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mucifer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. there may not be many Jews in this country. But, amongst the
few of us that are here there are a gazillion different opinoins. So, you could probably find a myriad of pro lieberman rabbis and anti lieberman rabbis who all have different reasons to support or not support him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
13. Gellman does NOT speak for me!
Neither Gellman or his "brother in Christ" John Hagee speak for me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. He was trying to speak to you ... not for you. Disagree if you want n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11cents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. You're ignoring the fact that Gellman was saying the opposite in 2000.
People have posted his 2000 comments several times and you've ignored them. It's perfectly obvious what his motivations are: in 2000, when the alternative was voting for the GOP ticket, Gellman thought it was a wonderful thing that Jews didn't feel obligated to support Lieberman. It's only when he's running against a Democrat that we're supposed to display "racial solidarity." Since you say you don't agree with Gellman, and it's clear that he doesn't believe himself and is only playing both sides of the racial card in order to support the right wing, why stick up for his phony argument?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #20
29. Again, I think the article's been misread ... see the conclusion
where Gellman encourages Jews to vote for Lieberman despite our well-founded fears. No, I think Gellman's wrong, but consistent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
43. I refuse to listen to a partisan hack
THe SAME kind of phony like my former rabbi who backed Gray Davis in 2002 and then turned around and backed Arnold in 2003, allegedly because "Arnold is a FRIEND (?) of Israel and Davis wasn't (?!?!?!?).

I quit my temple over that bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
22. The Rabbi has just sold his soul for George W. Bush.

Make no mistake, this is not about supporting a fellow Jew. This is about a man selling his soul - literally prostituting himself for George W. Bush. Gellman has shown us he will say anything for or against another Jew - so long as it serves the purposes of GWB. I am outraged. I think every Jew should be outraged by this behavior. Gellman doesn't support Lieberman - he is only doing the bidding of Bush and Cheney. He would throw Lieberman under a bus if asked - clearly he did that in 2000.

He gets no protection or deference because he is a rabbi. He inserts himself squarely into politics and steps out of the spiritual world altogether. Ain't nothing spiritual about these articles.

More specifically, the good Rabbi lies. Pure and simple. He lies about why people are upset with Lieberman. He glosses over the Iraq war issue - pretends the disagreements are only about when to get out and says everyone wants to get out and it is only a disgreement about timing. He fails completely to say that people are upset about the fact that Joe supported the invasion, whether or not there were WMD.

He then marginalizes people who disagree in good faith. No compassion, no understanding.

He makes his reasons clear in 2000 and in 2006 - he supports George Bush.

I know of Rabbi Gellman. One of my family members went to him for pre marriage counseling. I am absolutely disgusted by his statements and feel he has completely sold his soul -- but not for Joe Lieberman -- for George W. Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
31. They Love Barbra more
than whinerjoe! Go fucking figure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
37. "I am a professional Jew"
What credentials does it take to be a professional atheist? Not believing in something sounds like a pretty easy job to me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
40. And, of course, Rabbi Gellman is the Jewish version of the Pope
so, of course, what he says binding all Jews. (not!)

When will DUers accept the fact that there are wacko Jews, like film critic Medved, or others who say what comes to their mind.

You don't see anyone repeating what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say as an indication of what Christians agree, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
41. What's a "professional Jew"?
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 11:23 AM by kgfnally
Seriously.

Is that where Kyle got his 'jew gold'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 23rd 2014, 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC