Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Andrew Sullivan, Salon, since we're a leftist site, why not let the Dem's weigh in. This is, after all, how neonazi support for Republicans will be played.

=============

http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/israel_terrorism/index.html

 

We've recently noted serious porblems on Israel about the following; one might ask which of these key Republicans has been criticized by the Republican Jewish Coalition:

  1. Key GOP Senators on Foreign Policy -- the top two Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman John Warner (R-VA)
  2. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
  3. Karen Hughes -- a key member of Bush's inner-most circle -- and Senator Warner.
  4. More on Hagel.
  5. Ron Paul.

Not to mention that J.D. Hayworth has some serious explaining to do about questions he has opened up for himself about whether he is anywhere near sufficiently sensitive to anti-Semitism.

NJDC criticizes our own -- do Republican Jews do the same?

 

-----------------

http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2006/08/mckinneys_out.html

McKinney's Out

Overall, the Democratic Party is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But, if ever we find an odd man (or woman) out, we will certainly criticize any anti-Israel voices in the Party. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), the most staunchly anti-Israel Democrat in Congress, has been ousted from the House race in Georgia's fourth district. She lost the Democratic bid in last week's primary.

NJDC has criticized McKinney in the past and we're not afraid to do it again. While neither NJDC nor NJDC PAC endorse primary candidates, we can safely say we're glad McKinney will no longer be representing the Democratic Party and Georgia's fourth district. We'd rather see a  more pro-Israel Democrat in the seat, and Hank Johnson seems to be that person.

In 2001, a McKinney aide accused Jewish lawmakers of "seem[ing] to care more about Israel than human rights and American values." NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman responded in a letter to The Hill, noting in part:

Only a scoundrel and a bigot would choose to impugn a member's loyalty and commitment to this country based upon his or her ethnicity or religion. Accusing Jews of being disloyal to their country - due to their support for Israel and other central aspects of our faith - recalls the most vile anti-Semitic canards that have been invoked against Jews throughout the ages. These Jewish lawmakers are among the finest public servants our country has to offer, fulfilling the ancient Jewish tradition of remaining civically engaged and serving the larger community. They demonstrate their continuous defense of America's interests every day with every vote they cast. And speaking out to ensure a safe and secure Israel - supporting America's democratic and strategic ally in the Middle East - only confirms their commitment to serving America's best interests.

A year later when McKinney was driven out of Congress the first time, Forman told the Washington Post, "One of the most antagonistic persons - if not the most antagonistic person - to the U.S.-Israel relationship is gone."

Now that the Democratic Party has gotten rid of its worst anti-Israel member, it's time the GOP looks at its counterpart, Ron Paul. Not only did Paul vote against the House Israel Resolution on July 20th,in his speech on the House Floor, he said:

I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good... It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.

Yes, Mr. Paul, the resolution does take sides. It takes the side of peace and freedom over terrorist regimes. That's a problem for you?

This wasn't the first time Paul stood solo on a nay vote for pro-Israel legislation.

In 1997, the Jewish Herald-Voice and the Congressional Quarterly wrote:

Showing a complete disregard for families victimized by the recent terrorist attack in Israel, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the only congressman to oppose an otherwise unanimous resolution to condemn two terrorist bombings. Paul was the lone dissenter when the House of Representatives adopted a resolution to condemn the tragic bombing that killed 13 people and wounded 170 others in Israel.

Additionally, Paul once suggested in a political newsletter that the Israeli government was one of the most "evil lobbying groups in Washington" (Houston Chronicle, 2/23/97).

In a fundraising letter in 1996, Paul wrote: "It's time that Israel stopped running American foreign policy and draining American taxpayers' wallets." When groups protested to the Republican leadership that Paul was being assigned to the international affairs committee, Paul blamed the Israeli government for the loss of his promised seat.

Come on GOP, we've cleaned up our party. Take a stab at yours.

And, RJC -- criticism of Paul or Hagel or Warner or Sununu or... would be nice.


8 posted on 11/14/2007 5:37:03 AM PST by SJackson (every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: SJackson
Andrew Sullivan, Salon, since we're a leftist site, why not let the Dem's weigh in.

Really. Might as well let the Paultards start plastering Ted Rall cartoons all over the place, while we're at it. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

9 posted on 11/14/2007 5:39:17 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!" -- Jim Robinson, 09/30/07)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
And, RJC -- criticism of Paul or Hagel or Warner or Sununu or... would be nice.

I would think that a Robertson endorsement of Giuliani and Giuliani's welcome of it would greatly outweigh anything about the others you have listed.

RJC is free to host who they choose at their debate. But they aren't free from criticism over the extremely strange standards they impose on who to exclude and include.

So if RJC ends up endorsing Giuliani (almost certain), will Giuliani's embrace of Robertson make RJC completely irrelevant? I would think so.

I'm trying to figure out whether RJC, Giuliani, or Robertson is the most dishonest in this episode. It's pretty amazing to me.
13 posted on 11/14/2007 5:47:53 AM PST by George W. Bush (Apres moi, le deluge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson