 |
Posted on 06/25/2002 6:24:20 PM PDT by Pokey78
A DECADE after his father hastened his own political demise by alienating Jewish voters, President Bush demonstrated how far the Republican Party has moved towards Israel.
With its promise of “secure and recognised borders” for the state of Israel, Mr Bush’s speech was a huge success among influential Jewish voters and was expected to erode their traditional support for the Democratic Party. But political analysts said that the speech was not so much an attempt to woo voters as it was a candid reflection of where the Republican Party now stood on Israel.
A Gallup poll last month showed that 66 per cent of Republicans sympathised more with Israel than the Palestinians, whereas only 40 per cent of Democrats felt the same. While Democratic leaders criticised Mr Bush’s speech, Republicans, Jewish groups and Christian conservatives rushed to praise it. “The speech reflected a shift in the political Zeitgeist in the US,” Danielle Pletka, Vice-President for Foreign Affairs of the American Enterprise Institute, said. “There’s been a dramatic change from ten years ago . . . People are vying to be pro-Israeli.”
Mr Bush need look no further than his own family to see the importance of pleasing Jewish voters, who make up only 2 per cent of the national electorate but wield influence far beyond their numbers in campaign contributions.
Although George Bush Sr was considered the most anti-Israeli President in years by Jewish groups, his strong stance on Israel helped to foster the process under which Yassir Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo peace accord under the Clinton Administration. He had earlier threatened to withhold loan guarantees to Israel if it continued to expand its settlements in the occupied territories. His support among Jewish voters fell to little more than 10 per cent, one factor in his defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992.
As in other areas, Mr Bush is determined to avoid the mistakes made by his father. Paying sufficient attention to America’s Jewish voters ranks high on his list.
Mr Bush must also keep Jewish voters on side to help his brother, Jeb, who is seeking re-election in November as the Governor of Florida, a state where elderly Jewish voters are particularly active. The White House has a keen interest in Florida politics because the 2000 election fiasco in the state almost cost Mr Bush the presidency.
Another sign of the Republican Party’s commitment to Israel comes in the curious alliance of religious conservatives and the Jewish lobby. Angry at what they see as Christian persecution by Muslim extremists committed to a jihad, or holy war, particularly since September 11, religious conservatives, a key Republican group, have allied themselves to the anti-Palestinian pro-Israeli lobby.
“For many there is no greater proof of God’s sovereignty in the world today than the survival of the Jews and the existence of Israel,” Ralph Reed, the darling of the Christian Right, wrote in May.
Conservative Republicans like Congressman Tom deLay, who was once considered on the extreme fringes of the party but is now a rising star, are very pro-Israeli and increasingly reflect the views of the majority of the Republican Party.
Ms Pletka said: “People who were once considered strident Republicans now own the party. The James Bakers are not important anymore.”
Mr Bush’s success with pro-Israeli voters has alarmed the Democratic Party, which has recently mounted a nationwide campaign, including conference calls with Jewish groups and meetings with key Jewish leaders, to win back votes. But the Democrats’ image of being soft on Palestinians was enhanced last month when dozens of Democratic congressmen refocused to endorse a pro-Israeli Congressional resolution.
The pressures of domestic politics were ever-present in the speech’s constant redrafting of recent weeks. Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s longest-serving political strategist, has his focus ruthlessly on the Republican showing in this November’s mid-term elections and, critically, Mr Bush’s re-election chances in 2004.
Mr Rove is supported by Andy Card, Mr Bush’s White House chief of staff, in seeking to craft policies and messages aimed at potential swing voters as well as Republican core support.
Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, and Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, have spent the past month offering divergent foreign policy advice to the President. But Mr Bush is equally anxious to hear what Mr Rove has to say. “Never underestimate the influence of Karl Rove on anything,” one Administration official told The Times .
Mr Rove’s aim is to increase Mr Bush’s polling among Jewish voters from the 20 per cent he polled in 2000 to the 35 per cent which helped his father to win comfortable election to the White House in 1988.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Bush does everything for Israel and Rove hopes for a third of Jewish votes. Bush still hasn't learned that pandering never works. It didn't work with blacks. It won't work with Hispanics. It won't work with Jews. James Baker was correct in quote #1, although I don't agree with his phrasing.
With its promise of “secure and recognised borders” for the state of Israel, Mr Bush’s speech was a huge success among influential Jewish voters and was expected to erode their traditional support for the Democratic Party.
Gee, secure and recognized borders. What a capitulation! And it's the same thing Clinton and other Democrats say. I think Tony Blair and the King of Jordan said the same. The Jews are sooooo demanding.
A Gallup poll last month showed that 66 per cent of Republicans sympathised more with Israel than the Palestinians, whereas only 40 per cent of Democrats felt the same. While Democratic leaders criticised Mr Bush’s speech, Republicans, Jewish groups and Christian conservatives rushed to praise it.
Putting aside the broadness about "sympathize" (for what?), "only" 40 percent of Democrats felt the same. Are these the alleged Christian fascists? Wouldn't Bush's allegedly unbalanced speech be a good appeal to Democratic voters then?
And what Democratic leaders criticized the speech? I think none, though these writers wish there were.
Mr Bush need look no further than his own family to see the importance of pleasing Jewish voters, who make up only 2 per cent of the national electorate but wield influence far beyond their numbers in campaign contributions.
Really? That much? More money and the Jews libel. They vote more, though. And this "family". try the economy, supid. Weird.
Another sign of the Republican Party’s commitment to Israel comes in the curious alliance of religious conservatives and the Jewish lobby. [ Note - the Jews are always a "lobby", invoking creepiness.] Angry at what they see as Christian persecution by Muslim extremists committed to a jihad, or holy war, particularly since September 11, religious conservatives, a key Republican group, have allied themselves to the anti-Palestinian pro-Israeli lobby.
How are they "Anti-Palestinian." I've seen this leftie idea a lot lately, that only after 9/11 did Christians support Israel. Creepy and ignorant. Ya know, maybe all sorts of people watch and read and came to conclusions not in accordance with the Euroleft controlled media propaganda.
But the Democrats’ image of being soft on Palestinians was enhanced last month when dozens of Democratic congressmen refocused to endorse a pro-Israeli Congressional resolution.
I don't see their image as being "soft". Could say that about Bush, Sr. according to this report. "Dozens" "refocused." What a weasel word "refocused" is.
The pressures of domestic politics were ever-present in the speech’s constant redrafting of recent weeks. Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s longest-serving political strategist, has his focus ruthlessly on the Republican showing in this November’s mid-term elections and, critically, Mr Bush’s re-election chances in 2004.
Really? Maybe. How about that bombing timed for Bush's speech when first planned. I noticed Bush didn't give much forewarning of the speech this time - to avoid bombings, IMO. "Ruthlessly" - how about principles? :) Lemme see what Bush said. Palestine gets a state. Has elections. Israel withraws. - Except for the Arafat thing, about one person, where is the alleged "bias?"
Pretty depressing from the Times they have this leftie crypto-conspiracy stuff posed. Sad. They just can't stand Bush and jews, let alone the forty percent of Democrats who must be Christian Conservatives or Jews not to "sympathize" with the Palestinians "more." (I think about 20% said Palis more)
Did you read Bush's speech?
You couldn't be more wrong. You sound like Cynthia McKinny.
I am not a religious conservative, but I think this appraisal is baloney.
I doubt the anger at what they see as Christian persecution by Muslim extremists committed to jihad is the motivating force. I think they are outraged by antisemitism and injustices committed against the Israelis.
Evidently these people from The Times cannot believe that people would actually act according to principle. This reveals more about these newsreporters than it does about anything else.
This statement is condescending and insulting.
President Bush's speech provided leadership based on principle...something the world must get used to from this American president.
In his short speech President Bush bore witness to his love of freedom and his promise to defeat ALL terrorists.---And, I am grateful.
FYI, just about every black in the USA was a member of the GOP from 1865(because the GOP freed the slaves)until FDR, Kennedy,Johnson and the rest of the Democrats decided to start giving away billions of dollars in exchange for votes.
I'd say that pandering worked pretty well.
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.