Bush risks losing Evangelicals over Israel (26% of voters)

Jewish World Review ^ | 5/3/02 | Don Feder

[ColdSteelTalon]

Also let me say that I woul never take up arms against the United States although you might like to make that Characterization. I would simply not assist any nation or entity in harming Jews or Israel.

You sound like a supporter for Arafat and his murdering goons..

Remember that people that he supports and are like him caused 911...

[Michael2001]

And Feder is wrong prima facia: most Evangelicals don't care about Israel.

You're wrong on that one buddy. Evangelicals support Israel more than any other group, including Jews. I wouldn't say it's the number one issue, but it is important.

[Michael2001]

So what were those 4 million Christian conservatives that did not vote think: Al Gore was better than Bush? I don't think they exist, or if they do exist, they really don't have a brain in their head.

They do exist and some of them are in my Church. They refused to vote for the lesser of two (in their eyes) evils

[Michael2001]

So what is it? Are the Jews becoming Republicans -- as it has been reported and even discussed on Rush because of Bush's support for Israel? Or are the Evangelicals deserting the GOP because Bush is not supporting Israel? I think there is an inconsistancy.

Both. Jews, who consider themselves to be pro-Israel, but are not as pro-Israel as most Evangelicals, like Bush's stance on this issue and some of them are switching (how many of them have actually switched we will see come 2004). Evangelicals (some of them), who are much more pro-Israel than most Jews, see Bush as not being so pro-Israel, and they don't like it.

[MissAmericanPie]

You mean they are not twins?

[MissAmericanPie]

Where did I hear it? Fox News, FR threads, the newspaper...

[Wild Irish Rogue]

Go to Drudge, click on William Safire and it will take you the NYT editorial page. Scroll down and click on William Safire, April 29-"Walking Back the Cat". The column completely refutes the claim that Prince Abdullah threatened Bush. In fact, it seems Bush was the tough talking one. Also, you can search FR, using the title,"Walking Back the Cat" and you will see more takes on this subject. The whole story of the Saudis threatening Bush, was completely bogus,but it was big news on the day the NYT printed the article. The NYT is getting an incredible black eye for their pattern ,of printing big stories, that later turn out to have been completely false.

[LostTribe]

>Religious right leader Gary Bauer explains, "The Bible is pretty clear that the land is what is called covenant land, that G-d made a covenant with the Jews that that would be their land forever."

Not understanding the Bible is only the starting point for Mr. Bauers problems. Any covenents made with Abraham enure to ALL his descendents. Any covenents made with Israelites were with ALL 12 Tribes of Israelites, not just the few offspring of Judah, Benjamin and Levi who a thousand years later came to be known as Jews.

[whadizit]

I agree with your "if we can't get the job done without them" statement. If we have to go it alone, so be it. Having to sleep with the enemy just makes my blood boil!! It seemed as though GW was coming back around to being against terrorism until the Prince came to visit. Maybe 41's "bond" with the Saudis has influenced 43, too. I would have so much more respect for GW if he ruled with his principles because they were so good up til now. He seems to not be very secure within himself about his gut feelings. He has caved and let the State Dept. rule!!

[MissAmericanPie]

Thanks for the heads up, if the story is false someone needs to sue their pants off. It has been repeated often as fact by other media, so I'm not sure who to believe on this.

What I don't doubt is that Saudi Arabia is responsible for a large, large, percentage of global terrorism. Why we are even talking to them and not bombing them is a mystery to me. Are we gonna have a war on terrorism or wut?

[whadizit]

IMO, the criticism of GW stems from the fact that he is not consistent on his "if you harbor, support terrorists, you are considered a terrorist" doctrine. Some of us just cannot support his saddling up with the Saudis who produce so many terrorists.

[185JHP]

You don't have to be a doctoral candidate in political science to understand this: we had a President who was mean to Israel, became unpopular, and only got one term. The next President staunchly supported Israel, was very popular, and got two terms. Then the next President was mean to Israel, became unpopular, and only got one term. HaShem means what He says.

[truthandlife]

BUMP

[Wild Irish Rogue]

Glad you read the article. Once I got on the net a few years ago, I was dumbfounded to see the media's bias- I knew it was bad, but I had no idea how bad it truly is. I would watch an event live and actually see a person making his comments. On the nightly news or in a media report-the reporter would "tell" us what that person said and usually, it was so slanted and biased, my jaw would drop. If the NYT said it was sunny out, I would go to the window and check for myself. Surfing the net and going on forums,like FR really gives us a chance to get different opinions and share insight and in many cases ,find out the real truth-instead of what Peter and Dan tell us is the truth. As far as the Saudis and other Arab countries,most of us probably have the same emotional gut reaction, as to what we would like have happen-but, it's not realistic and politic and sometimes for the greater good, our country will have to associate with some, that in a perfect world,would never darken our doorstep.