Rabbi Gellman blames the Jews for ousting Lieberman

[Contrary1]

"Aug. 11, 2006 - 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. Joe got the support of black Baptists (except of course for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who stood so conspicuously behind challenger Ned Lamont on election night). He got the support of Catholic Union guys. 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.

Please understand, :eyes: this is not a political rant. Yes, I support the war and yes I support and admire President George W. Bush, but I understand and respect those who have come to another conclusion about how best to fight the war on terror. My disappointment is with my people. I simply do not understand why so many Jews bailed on Joe. I cannot understand why Joe's percentage of the Jewish vote was not in the high 90s instead of the 54-57 percent range (according to Lieberman’s campaign). 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.

In truth I am also bewildered about why Jews do not support President Bush more than the pathetic 22-26 percent (depending on which exit poll you look at) he received in 2004. Bush would win a landslide in Israel, and never once invited Yasir Arafat to the White House, but that is a bewilderment best left for another day. What has frozen me is the lack of support for Joe by Jews. Joe voted the Democratic line 90 percent of the time. Twenty-nine other Democrats also voted for the war and none of them was targeted (yet). Joe is the most famous Jewish politician of all time (unless you count former New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia whose mother was Jewish). He is an observant Jew and obviously he was on the presidential ticket in 2000. He is modest and self effacing. He is moral and faithful. He is principled and intelligent ... and he is one of us! What more do you want of the guy?"

More if you can stomach it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14308339/

[MercutioATC]

1. Possibly, because Jews vote politics rather than religion.

...like most of the rest of us do...


The idea that Jews should have voted for Lieberman because he's a Jew who supports Israel is laughable. This seems to suggest that Jews in America aren't one-issue voters...

[notadmblnd]

2. it's his whiney voice

it has become linke nails on a chalk board to most people.

[marmar]

3. This is really twisted...

You're not "Jewish enough" because you don't support pro-war Joe? What if you support anti-war Russ Feingold?....This rabbi is just embarassing himself. Again, religious fundies of every stripe are poisoning the world.

[leveymg]

4. The leadership of many Jewish congregations are as out of touch

with the grass-roots as Joe was with his constituents on these issues. Take Rabbi Gelman, for instance.

He's right about one thing, though -- many Jews voted to oust Joe, and they knew exactly what they were doing when they got rid of him. Are you listening, Rabbi?

[eyesroll]

5. Because (at least in my observation), many many U.S. Jews don't give

a rip about Israel. Not that they don't have an opinion -- and that opinion is sometimes, but not always, in favor of Israel -- but that in terms of their priorities, they vote for things that matter to them and their families right here. Health care, jobs, education, sanity. You know, the usual things.

This U.S. Jew does, anyway, and so does her family.

My grandmother noticed that there seems to be a generational divide -- younger Jews tend to vote based on what someone will do for the U.S.; older Jews (not her, though) tend to vote based on Israel.

[w4rma]

8. Or maybe U.S. Jews care very much about Israel which is why they support

Democrats over Republicans.

I think you're whole premise that they wouldn't care is utterly flawed. And it falls into the right-wing trap.

[eyesroll]

25. My premise is that most of the U.S. Jews I know (which of course isn't

a lot, but I do know quite a few) don't care enough about Israel to make it THE deciding factor (short of a "death to Israel" position, which exactly no politicians in the US support). Sure, hawkish war policy tends to go hand-in-hand with hawkish Israel policy, and THAT's a deciding factor, but in a vacuum?

(using overly simple terms here, and sticking with the people I know...)

Assuming other stances consistent with their parties, the people I know will generally choose:

A Zionist Democrat over a Zionist Republican.
A pro-Palestine Democrat over a pro-Palestine Republican.
A Zionist Democrat over a pro-Palestine Republican.
A pro-Palestine Democrat over a Zionist Republican.

If I lived in Connecticut, I wouldn't be voting for or against Lieberman because he's Jewish or because of his view on Israel. I wouldn't be voting for or against Lamont because he's a gentile or because of his view on Israel. I'd be voting for Lamont because of his positions on the war on Iraq and on choice (among other things).

Again, this is anecdotal...and I'm sorry if my family is somehow part of the right-wing trap. I think the bigger right-wing trap is that Jews will vote for other Jews, women will vote for other women and (insert other group or minority here) will vote for other (insert other group or minority here) regardless of their positions on just about anything.

[leveymg]

13. Don't confuse opposition to Right-wing Israeli Gov't for apathy about

Israel. In fact, those American Jews who are most strongly opposed to Likud and its political spawn are likely to care passionately about Israeli politics and policies. Otherwise, why should one care?

Another point. Inasmuch as the Israeli Right-wing agenda of unending war and conquest in the Middle East are anethema to U.S. interests, to oppose them is at the same time to act as an American patriot. I would argue that those who support the AIPAC-Likud-Olmert line are, indeed, anethema to both Israel and America. Proof is in the pudding.

[Eric J in MN]

21. We care about Israel, and we want Israeli policies

...which make us proud.

I don't speak for the Jews, but speaking for myself, I don't want Israel treating Lebanon like the US is treating Iraq. In other words: there may be a terrorist living in that house, and so lets blow up the house.

[eyesroll]

28. I don't speak for "the Jews" either...and I didn't say they didn't care

about Israel (well, I did as a rhetorical device, and I'm sorry if it came off more sincere than I intended).

I said it's not a deciding factor when there are so many other things wrong.

I fully agree with you on yor second graf, and I think most of my Jewish friends and relatives would, too. I have very few hawks in my family, and none that I know of in my peer circle. (My mom's friends are single-issue Israel voters, though, but they seem to be in the minority around here.)

I need to leave (I'm going to post a poll though), so this the last I'll be contributing to this thread. Not trying to hit and run.

[w4rma]

31. Actually I think it is a deciding factor.

Opposing the Iraq-war which is supported by the Lukud types in Israel and Bush and is much like the Lebanon invasion is a HUGE issue that has made Israel *less* secure with *less* diplomatic leeway. In fact in your post in response to me, above, you use this as a deciding factor.

[karynnj]

37. Even with older Jews -

It's not just Israel. Among older Jews I know - FDR with his programs is a major hero.

Also, there was a huge divide in the Jewish community before the war - and most Jews were against it in the reform/reconstructionist synagogues we went to. The idea that you could help Israel by inflaming the middle east - which was the logical outcome to attacking and (even temporarily)occupying an Arab county - never made any sense. Israel's own history with Lebanon showed that. Beyond that, Iraq was one of the more secular countries. Saddam was bad, but the inspectors were in and could have insured that there were no WMD.

[w4rma]

6. If this pundit is so "mystified" then maybe he should find a new line of

work. He admits that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[Demit]

7. Joe is the most famous Jewish politician of all time? Really?

Hyperbole much?

[NoPasaran]

33. Take that, Trotsky!

[i miss america]

9. If the Rabbi would only listen to his congregation, he might learn that

the reason over 3/4 of American Jews do not support the chimp-in-chief or Lieberman is simply because we prefer peace over war, and truth instead of lies.

And to suggest that Jews should blindly vote for Lieberman simply because of a shared heritage is kind of ridiculous, IMO.

[Vickers]

10. "I support and admire President George W. Bush"

There goes your credibility, dumbass.

[seabeyond]

11. I understand and respect those who have come to another conclusion

no he doesnt understand and respect people having a different conclusion.if he did understand then he wouldnt be in the quandry of why so many jews didnt support lieberman and why they dont support bush. that is the whole point. so as he goes in circles trying to understand why they dont think like he does,........ he might want to start with understanding he DOESN'T understand

[kenny blankenship]

12. Maybe they got sick of his war loving, freedom hating, Bush fellating ways

Are they obligated or supposed to vote for Lieberman because he's Jewish?

[longship]

14. Ah! So this *is* about being Jewish.

In other words,

Catholics should aways vote for Catholics.
Latin Americans should always vote for Latin Americans.
Caucasians should always vote for caucasians.
etc.

What kind of thinking is this?
And who in the Sam Hell votes like that, anyway?

[WyLoochka]

41. I guess I'd be "obligated"

to support Tony Blair over all else because I'm of Anglican Brit heritage? The concept is as offensive as it is ludicrous.

[CrushTheDLC]

15. I'm a Christian, but that doesn't mean I'd vote for Pat Robertson

Why should Jews (or any member of any religion) be required to vote for some idiot who opposes their values, in the name of a religion?

[BayCityProgressive]

16. exactly.

I am jewish and I would rather gnaw my hand off than vote for LieberBush. Gag me. This Rabbi should stick to his job and not open his fat mouth.

[globalvillage]

17. I'm Catholic. Santorum's Catholic.

Should I vote for Ricky?
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:puke:

[Contrary1]

19. You mean you didn't???

I'm sorry, but as a fellow Catholic and also a true American patriot,
it is my sad, but necessary duty to hereby excommunicate your ass.

[globalvillage]

23. Can't I just say 5 'Our Fathers' and 10 'Hail Marys'

and we can call it even?
Why do you always get more 'Hail Mary's, anyway? Is it because they're shorter?

[Contrary1]

30. I always said my "Hail Marys" first...

so that she could go notify "Our Father" that He was up next. I have to blame some if not all of my twisted logic on 12 years of Catholic school.

Just as a humorous side story...my son, when he was very young, would get the Lord's Prayer mixed up with "Rock a Bye Baby".

It went something like this: "...Give us this day our daily trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass in the treetops, and when the bough breaks..."

It was hilarious when he would say it aloud in church.

But I digress. To answer your question, I'll have to check with Vatican City first.

[leesa]

18. Another a**hole checks in. Perhaps some Jews are smarter than

their clerics.

[Dr Batsen D Belfry]

20. Gellman, please go

shack up with Pat Robertson and his ilk.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, Lieberman lost because he was not doing what his constituents elected him to do? Perhaps his constituents wanted a senator that voted according to the needs of the state he represented. Perhaps they tired of his representing corporations over people. Perhaps they tired of the fact he was mired in national level issues instead of local ones. (Santorum, take a fucking hint on that one) Perhaps they wanted him to actually act in their best interest instead of just stamping his approval on anything sent out from the white house. Perhaps they wanted him to act like a damn Democrat instead of a Republican. Perhaps his viewpoint based on his conservative Judaism did not gibe with the majority Reform Jewish voter block.

Just my 18 cents...

DBDB

[Eric J in MN]

24. He attends Orthodox synagogues, not Conservative.

Orthodox is more strict.

[leveymg]

34. Actually, Gellman leads a Reform Synagogue on Long Island

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6812436/site/newsweek/
http://www.tbtny.org/general/history.htm

[Eric J in MN]

39. I was referring to Lieberman,

...and I think poster "Dr Batsen D Belfry" was referring to Lieberman.

[leveymg]

40. My apologies

The point about Gellman, like Lieberman, being out of touch with much of the Jewish grassroots on these issues remains.

[Eric J in MN]

22. I didn't "desert" Joseph Lieberman.

I never liked him. In 1988, when he was first running for US Senate, he seemed pompous and sanctimonious to me.

[welshTerrier2]

26. total crap

this is truly remarkable ... everything about what Rabbi Gellman wrote is abhorrent ... his entire article is totally misguided ...

what's Gellman's central point? it sounds like he believes voters should vote for people of their own religion ... Rabbi, here's a little hint: Jews would never get elected if all Americans voted that way ...

and should we vote based on our religious beliefs or is voting more importantly a civic function? it seems to me we should care more about someone's beliefs on the issues than which box they check on the bio form for religion, race, gender, national origin, etc ... how they have voted and how they will vote MAY be influenced by their little checkboxes but the far more important criteria is how they actually did or will vote ...

and perhaps Geller sees Lieberman as a great "defender of Israel" ... what he obviously fails to see is that Lieberman's view of the world relies totally on militarism and that militarism will eventually destroy Israel; not save it ... this is not about Israel's right to defend itself; it's about a path to peace that Lieberman will never support ... bush has been a disaster for the entire Middle East including Israel ... he has failed to use diplomacy to build the necessary infrastructure for peace ... in fact, he's done just the opposite ... he's used nothing but warfare and made the Middle East, and Israel, much less stable ... Geller, by endorsing Lieberman, who stood with bush, fails to understand the Middle East and fails to understand that many Americans, Jews and otherwise, fully reject the approach being pushed by this administration ...

when Geller said he "just doesn't get it", he wrote the only grain of truth in his entire article ...

and on top of all this foolishness from Geller, we find him not only climbing way out on the right wing of the plane but finally leaping off completely with his "i support and admire bush" ... not much point listening to this guy anymore ...

[Eric J in MN]

29. Good point. If everyone voted for candidates of their own religion

...in Senate races, there would be zero Jewish Senators.

[alarimer]

27. Because they hate the war in Iraq like everybody else?

Well, everybody with a brain.

They also maybe do not like Bush as much as this guy seems to. The Republican party is mostly composed of fundie Christian assholes who hate Jews and Bush has been toadying up to that side of the party. So why would any group vote for a party that HATES THEM?

[Dutch]

32. Absolute garbage. In fact, one of the most obnoxious articles I've read in

months. Gellman is preaching identity politics of the worst kind. It's grotesque enough that he should basically accuse Jews of being traitors to their race by not supporting Jewish candidates- but it's clear that what really roils him is that not enough Jews have supported a Jewish candidate whose agenda fits with his own- basically, he's trying to shame Jews into supporting Bush and those who conform to his agenda. Stomach turningly vile, I'm afraid. And if it truly "bewilders" him that not all Jews are willing to march in ideological lockstep behind him, well then he must literally be a cretin. Of course, it's not and he's not- he's just an asshole.

And as for Bush winning a landslide if he were Israeli- well the pathetic result achieved by his ideological soulmate Netanyahu show what bullshit that is.

[Cassandra]

35. My email to the deluded man...

Re: your column about Joe Lieberman:
"He lost because Barbra Streisand's highly publicized contribution to Lamont..." Highly publicized? I've been following that race from NY and I hadn't heard of any contribution from Streisand. Perhaps I don't get the right wing emails that you do.
" but I understand and respect those who have come to another conclusion about how best to fight the war on terror." You don't, actually.
"Joe voted the Democratic line 90 percent of the time." I actually have my doubts about that statistic. He doesn't really support Social Security, used his vote to prevent a filibuster against disastrous Supreme Court nominees, and goes out of his way to criticize the Democratic Party while praising Bush; not exactly what I'd call a 90% Democrat. Where is he when it really counts?
"He is modest and self effacing. He is moral and faithful. He is principled and intelligent... " A modest man wouldn't lecture the voters about how mistaken they are in their vote. A moral man wouldn't slander his opponent and his opponent's supporters (loshon hara, anyone?). How principled is it to ignore the wishes of the voters? Whatever Lieberman is in private life, as a politician he is arrogant and high-handed; a raging ego who cares little about the fine details in a democracy (like voting).
As a Jew, I question how supportive we are of Israel when we encourage them to bomb instead of talk. One of Israel's strengths has been it's PR as a moral nation, something that has been slipping away as they kill Lebanese civilians and disrupt the very democratically elected Lebanese government who should be their ally (and ours) in dealing with Hezbollah.
If you can support the massive incompetence and deceptive, immoral and unconstitutional behavior of the Bush administration, you are very foolish. Foolish is better than being a kapo, but not that much. I think you are loving Israel to death, and dragging America's effectiveness down, too.

I have to be pushed pretty far to even bring up the word, kapo. I'm still willing to believe that Gellman is just a dupe.

[karynnj]

36. What more do you want of the guy?"

Maybe a politician who would not undercut the party on important issues.

[Pavulon]

38. So and so blames the blacks, or mexicans...

I dislike any person who puts ideas in the context of coming from an entire group of people.