Posted on 02/13/2007 10:00:19 PM PST by Mount Athos
It is no secret that Jews in America have historically not favored the Republican Party. Several polls estimated that only 25 percent of Jews voted for Bush in 2004. Although disputed for of its small sample size, the National Jewish Democratic Council's 2006 poll showed only 12 percent of Jews voted for the GOP. The Jewish Community Relations Council estimated that Bush got just 19 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000.
Commentators in the Jewish community and party pollsters debate endlessly why Jews are not more favorably disposed toward the GOP. Jews are wealthier and more educated than the average American, generally oppose affirmative action and favor strong support of Israel. On these counts the GOP should, many say, have greater appeal.
Is it because Jews have an historical affinity for FDR and the party of immigrants and the "little guy"? Is it because of Jews' religious devotion to "tikkun olam" — repair of the world — which they translate to support for governmental social services? Maybe some of each but perhaps something else is at work
The dustup over the location of Mitt Romney's presidential announcement — the Henry Ford Museum — may be revealing. For Jews over the age of 40 or so, the name Ford means more than Mustangs and American innovation. Ford, of course, was a notorious anti-Semite, publisher of the International Jew (an update of the Protocols of Zion), and an apologist for Hitler who received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Hitler's Nazi government in July 1938. In many Jewish homes, owning a Ford was verboten.
He was no cultural icon.
Fast forward to today. As soon as Romney announced that he would make his presidential announcement at the Ford Museum, the accusations and statements started to fly. The National Jewish Democratic Council came out first, chastising Romney for making a pilgrimage to the site of this famous anti-Semite. Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks fired back in a press release today, saying, "I'm saddened and disappointed by the attack today by the NJDC against Gov. Romney."
Pointing out that former President Clinton had once said nice things about Ford, the RJC said that "The RJC believes that the NJDC does a disservice to Gov. Romney's strong record of support for the Jewish community and to their own reputation by their actions."
The NJDC responded, ""Presidential campaign announcements are as much about symbolism of the location as the substance of the speech. Mitt Romney went to a museum named after the most premier anti-Semite and xenophobe in American history. But his choice of location suggests that he should do his homework on basic American history."
It is doubtful either of these groups believe Romney is really an anti-Semite. Democratic consultant Dan Gerstein perhaps said it best: "I don't think Romney is guilty of anything other than obliviousness.
But you could argue that obliviousness is indicative of a broader problem with the social conservatives Romney is trying to court, which is a lack of sensitivity to the concerns many Jews have about their place in American society."
Indeed, the incident may say something not only about Romney but about the GOP's problem with Jews. In his boatload of advisers, Romney apparently did not have anyone to say, "You know, a lot of Jews really hate Ford, and it might mess up your message. Let's try Edison's lab to make a point about American innovation."
The GOP has become a rural, overwhelmingly Christian and Southern party. It is not populated by urban ethnics who, even if they aren't Jewish, understand Jews' cultural references and sensibilities. Ask an Italian New Yorker in October why the restaurants are empty, and he'll say "It's Yom Kippur, silly." You would never catch a Greek from Chicago saying, as a Republican from southern Virginia just did, that asking the state to apologize for slavery was like "asking the Jews to apologize for killing Christ."
In short, the Republicans are not just our kind of people, many Jews say. They don't sound like us, they don't talk like us and they don't understand us. Unless and until that changes, Jews likely will likely be voting overwhelmingly Democratic for years to come.
I think the US stayed out because America was so badly burned in World War I. 100,000 dead in World War I, and what did the AMERICANS have to show for it? Nothing. All of the principles upon which Wilson insisted were ignored by the Allies.
There is another piece here, and it's not cynical but true. The USA's foreign policy was PRIMARILY interested, economically, in freely trading its manufactured goods in the rest of the world. Now, the British and French were very willing to open up American troops and military supplies, but when the war was over, were the British Empire or the French Empire thrown wide open to American trade? No. The British and French, between them carved up practically all of the rest of the world (and gobbled up the German and Ottoman Empires too) for their own private trading havens, and kept us out. The destruction of Western Europe was a bad thing for the Europeans, but the destruction of the British and French Empires was a very GOOD thing for American power and American business. Why, precisely, should AMERICANS go die so that the BRITISH and FRENCH could continue to hold a third of the world's population in subjection, and deprive AMERICANS of access to trade there?
This was not articulated exactly like that at the time, but there was considerable resentment in America at the treatment of America by the French and British after World War I.
America did not have a duty to save Poland or the British or French Empires. There was no American DUTY to enter World War II. Hitler was a bad guy, yes. But so was Chiang Kai Shek and Stalin, and they were our allies.
It was France's and Britain's duty to enforce the treaty THEY imposed on Germany, which America refused to cooperate with and did not ratify. America REJECTED the Versailles Treaty. Given that, why was it America's duty to fight Germany in a war that Britain and France provoked by imposing draconian terms on Germany, destined to impoverish the Germans and rile them up, but then further provoked the Germans by their weakness in enforcing those terms? Those sound like French and British and German problems. Why should Americans die to fight that.
Yes, once the Axis attacked America at Pearl Harbor the US had to act, but suppose Hitler had not obliged by declaring war on the USA. Why was fighting Germany America's responsibility at all? We are not Europeans.
Another exception chiming in - Jew, Conservative (Canadian), married to a Republican (American), drive an Explorer - and on days like today I'm glad to have the 4WD.
BTW - Jackie Mason used to have a very funny stand-up act about Jews who drove Caddies being relieved Mercedes were German engineered.
hmmmmmmmmm ping
"Your attack on the Jooos in this post is over the top. Your repeated attempt to draw them as a monolithic, self-obsessed, do nothing bunch, is duly noted."
I didn't attack the Jews.
And you are proving my point.
My post wasn't about you. It was about Henry Ford.
Mitt Romney went to his hometown and declared at the best museum in his hometown, the favorite site of most boys who grew up there. Henry Ford made Detroit. Michigan made the Romneys. He recognized that and went back there.
The attack on Romney, that he "should have been sensitive to Jews" and not chosen that spot is what is ridiculous and over the top. He should have done no such thing. Declaring at Henry Ford Museum was just fine.
Someone asserted that Romney should have had a basic knowledge of US history. A basic knowledge, even a highly refined knowledge, does not include the fact that Henry Ford was an anti-Semite. Nobody knows that, keys on that or CARES about that other than Jews. Well, now we all know it.
And my reaction is: So what. With full knowledge of that, Romney shouldn't have changed his venue. We do not have to apologize for Henry Ford because he didn't like Jews.
One who doesn't understand threads like this aren't representative of FR, much less Republicans, could easily make a determination who the stupid Jews are.
Terms? Taken as a group, e.g., Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, etc., how do they vote? It is well accepted that Blacks are the Dems most loyal constituency and percentage wise the most pro-Dem voters. There are 44 Black members of Congress and all of them are Dems.
Here are some links on the Jewish vote and Congressional Delegation.
Jewish Vote In Presidential Elections
Jewish Members of the 110th Congress. There are only three Jewish Rep members of Congress. Why?
This isn't really quantified, but it seems that the very wealthiest people in the world are all Democrats: Gates, Buffet, Soros, Turner, and all the glittering entertainers and stars. A lot of the Dotcom billionaires are also to the left politically. OTOH, I would agree that there are many, and perhaps even a majority of business executives who are Republicans, but few of them come up to the wealth level of the names mentioned.
Meanwhile, you've got nearly the entire academic world voting left, nearly the entire art world and news media doing the same. Not as wealthy, all of them, but above average perhaps. The American Bar, and the AMA, which represent a wealthy segment of society also tend to lean left.
Then you have perhaps a middle class - IMO it's more conservative than the more wealthy groups mentioned, though there are plenty of middle class "liberals."
Finally, there are the "minorities," most of which vote left for varying reasons.
You may remember reading on this board the outrage being expressed by some "liberals" after W's election. They complained that the Red States, which didn't have the money, were running the country while they, the wealthy liberals, were not. Very ironic comment coming from leftists.
Anybow, at times it seems to me that the very wealthiest Americans and their serfs, the minorities, along with the so called intellectuals, make up the bulk of liberal voters.
These people did not become wealthy by practising socialism at all, that they vote for it is indeed an illogical paradox.
Meant to ping you to 169.
I think you make good sense and that is hard to come by these days. Why has Hillery been given a pass because that was so very ugly what she said and I believe there is much more of that ugliness to come. The truth shall make us free.
Henry Ford ran (unsuccessfully) for the US Senate from Michigan in 1916. What party did he represent? Why, the Democrats, of course!
So we can assume that he was indeed a 'Rat.
Another case of neglect of the relevant historical facts by the Left.
The Dems are the party of the rich.
People who have to work for a living generally don't have the time for utopian dreams nor the means to insulate themselves from the consequences of putting them in effect.
And while we may be able to afford a shotgun, we probably can't afford armed bodyguards 24/7.
And if the kids schools stop providing an education it is burden to switch them to a prep school.
And when someone cooks up a plan to tax SUVs, well we might actually feel it, unlike a Nancy Pelosi or Arianna Huffington.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Yes, I would agree that liberalism is a mental disorder, but many Jews' love for the 'Rats can only be explained as an addiction, not an infectious disease. It seems that some continually pursue this reckless behavior, even though they know on another level that it is harmful to themselves and can eventually destroy them. They can't get enough of a bad thing. That's what an addiction is!
Perhaps I missed a day of class somewhere during my 52 years. Those years have included a lot of reading about Jewish History, the Bible, national movements such as Zionism, American history, including Industry and the automobile.
I cannot recall ever hearing anything about such an attitude concerning Ford automobiles, until after this business about Romney's "announcement."
Not that I'd ever buy one again myself, because I won't, because in my opinion, the UAW makes lousy cars.
Unfortunately, there were other Republicans than just Henry Ford who sided with Germany, but there were Democrats, too, like Joseph Kennedy.
Considering the commander in chief, FDR, was a Rat, that makes it a partisan issue.
Nah. It's a me too light party.
I have heard about it - Ford was a raving anti-Semite, after all. However, it didn't stop me from buying a Mustang GT that a buddy of mine in the Army had to sell before going to Germany back in 1990. It was a good car, and old Henry had been sweating it out Down There for over 40 years at that point.
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.