Sen. Arlen Specter just took to the floor of the Senate to announce he will oppose cloture on card check. Even with the addition of Al Franken, Specter’s vote would be needed to shut down a filibuster. To say this is a huge and unexpected blow to Big Labor is to understate the enormity of the embarrassment. They spent, by some calculations, close to a billion dollars in local, state, and federal races with card check as their Number One priority. They did not get their money’s worth.
May 2013
-
Articles
-
"My Negro Problem-and Ours" at 50
Norman Podhoretz -
Gay Marriage, the Court, and Federalism
Tara Helfman -
The Spirit of '75?
Algis ValiunasAn audacious, and wrong, argument about the American Revolution.
-
In Praise of Sheryl Sandberg
Christine RosenThe controversial Facebook executive's book is exactly the right kind of self-help.
Fiction
-
Onto a Good Thing
Joseph Epstein
Politics & Ideas
-
The Bureaucrat-Driven Life
Heather Wilhelm -
The Making of an Education Reformer
Sohrab Ahmari -
Bork's Watergate
James Rosen -
Dear Prudence
Paul O. Carrese -
Whose Accomplishments?
Mona Charen
Culture & Civilization
-
The Parenting Trap
Dana Mack -
George Saunders, Anti-Minimalist
Fernanda Moore -
A Chekhov in Training
Terry Teachout -
What Ailes the Liberal Media?
Andrew Ferguson
John Podhoretz
-
Taking Obama's Foreign Policy Seriously
John Podhoretz
Threat Assessment
-
More Genocide Threats from Iran
Jonathan S. Tobin
Letters
-
Denying Jewish Peoplehood-and Reality
Our ReadersResponses to Robert S. Wistrich's "The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism"
-
Gun Laws, Crime, and Freedom
Our ReadersResponses to Benjamin Domenech's "The Truth About Mass Shootings and Gun Control"
-
Don't Confuse Principle and Pose
Our ReadersResponses to Matthew Continetti's "Poseur Politics in the Era of Obama"
-
Jews and Sports
Our Readers
Enter Laughing
-
Get Our Free Newsletter
Abe, its all about baiting the Jews into being the bad guys. Hamas sent thousands of rockets into Israel with the goal of bringing negative media attention to Israel’s self-defense. Those Jews will think twice before responding!
I think the Freeman pick was absolutely designed to do the same. It works both ways for the administration. Either you have Freeman in power, or his downfall will bring further negative attention to the “lobby” and continue to mainstream fringe thinkers. Those Jews will think twice before opposing radicals like Freeman! It is an obvious strategy to me.
I’m glad you posted this, Abe. The media accounts (now – it was completely ignored by the MSM up until the time he withdrew his nomination) in the last day or so have been completely ridiculous, saying that many objected to Freeman “because he was critical of Israel.” What? Talk about distorting the issue! We went through a similar thing here in Minnesota last year, when there was an objection raised to Desmond Tutu speaking at a local college. The objection was based on some truly ugly comments that Tutu had made about Israel, Jews, and the Holocaust, but the objections were CHARACTERIZED as being simply about the fact that Tutu had been “critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.” It’s deeply unnerving, this garbage – clearly, many in the media are reading from the Mearsheimer/Walt/Jimmy Carter playbook and are desperate to oversimplify the legitimate criticism of any public figure who is anti-Israel as being “squelching of dissent” by the supposedly all-powerful Israel Lobby. It’s truly disturbing, and thank you for calling it out, Commentary.
Supporters of Israel are a whole lot better as a group than (for example)
1. bought-and-paid-for supporters of reactionary monarchies and dictatorships in the Middle East
2. ideologically driven supporters of terrorist gangs
3. antisemites
4. any of the above in the Obama administration
so it wasn’t “the lobby”, it was… the lobby. it wasn’t the evil neferious cabal, it was the nice concerned supporters of israel
Lester, it’s “nefarious.” We in the cabal feel it’s important to spell our evil, shadowy conspiracy terms correctly.
Sullivan thinks Freeman was driven out by the Jews (so he throws a few Jewish quotes to give him some cover):
Schumer should know that he has taken a scalp in the name of closed-mindedness, which is not a well-known Jewish tradition. He has made Washington even less hospitable for those who aren’t afraid to speak their minds, for those who are reflexively contentious, who would defy the conventional wisdom.–Sullivan quoting Joe Klein
The blackballing of Freeman is also about the intimidation of Blair. My concern remains that many of the same people [Neocon Jews Andrew?] that led us into the groupthink that gave us the worst intelligence blunder in American history are now dictating who gets to review intelligence for the next historic analysis: on Iran. I realized my mistake and have tried to adjust to allow for it. Others have dug in more deeply.–Andrew Sullivan
“In the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions. But you can’t, apparently, criticize Israeli actions too much or question whether America’s blind support for Israel should be re-examined,” – Glenn Greenwald.
So Freeman was so special because he mirrored the feelings of Saudis when he lived there? Blind Support? The only way to break the log jam in Israeli Palestinian relations is to sell out Israel? How naive and dangerous. If Israel thought it could acheive peace with the Palestinians it would give back most of the West Bank to do so. But that is not the log jam holding up peace, that would be Palestinians wanting Israel to give up Israel itself. Unfortuantely Hamas and for that matter Fatah too mean what they say, they want it all. That probably reflects a majority of Palestinian’s views too. Israel makes mistakes, but Israel did not create this dynamic.
Pssst, by the way, secret message to all Elders of Zion: world domination meeting at noon, Central Daylight Time, at “The Location.” Don’t tell Lester!
I am a different Joe than Joe #2 and #5 (#6 is mine). But I agree with my fellow Joe.
I am not #7 either.
This has been going on for awhile.
Check out Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy by Robert Kaiser from the Washington Post of Feb 9, 2003. It contained the following priceless quote:
“The Likudniks are really in charge now,”
It was a front page article and favorably quoted by Pat Buchanan.
And then it was the Israel Lobby in 2006.
And like the controversy over Freeman there was precious little coverage of Walt and Mearsheimer’s book. It suggests that the media agrees that Israel’s exerts disproportionate influence over American policy and don’t consider such judgments beyond the pale.
Think about it for a moment. Chas Freeman has been treated by a number of commentators as some sort of a martyr. But what his critics asserted was that given his ties to Saudi Arabia and China and given his hostility towards – not criticism of – Israel he was unfit for the job. Imagine a different nominee whose ties to Israel were as extensive as Freeman’s are to Saudi Arabia. Would this hypothetical nominee escape the scrutiny of the MSM? (Think Elliott Abrams.) Would this nominee’s critics declare him unfit or go further and suggest that he put Israel’s interests first?
Political antisemitism is all too tolerated in our society.
Most Americans>/b> are supporters of Israel; no doubt this influences
our government’s decisions – as it ought to in a democracy.
Gallup, March 3 2009: the new poll finds 63% of Americans holding a favorable view of Israel, including 21% holding a very favorable view of that country. Only 29% have an unfavorable view of Israel, including just 8% “very unfavorable.
Freeman doesn’t have a job. Those that opposed him are miserable because those that supported him still support him. Everyone is whining with or without Freeman.
I am not #6 or #8, but I agree with my fellow Joes too.
#11: Sorry, botched hypertext; trying again:
Most Americans are supporters of Israel; no doubt this influences
our government’s decisions – as it ought to in a democracy.
Gallup, March 3 2009: the new poll finds 63% of Americans holding a favorable view of Israel, including 21% holding a very favorable view of that country. Only 29% have an unfavorable view of Israel, including just 8% “very unfavorable”.
And most Americans are supporters of Israel not because they are brainwashed by lobbying efforts, but rather because they support a democracy in the Middle East that shares so many of our values. This is what deeply frustrates the “Israel Lobby” conspiracists the most – that the vast majority of Americans aren’t listening to them and in fact are listening to their own consciences. Stupid consciences!
I think Israel’s neat.
Chas Freeman? A poopy-head. Totally.
#7: We should invite Ahithophel too. He asked on another thread if he can be an honorary Jew, because he likes the idea of controlling the world.
The truth is that coverage in the media is very much slanted against Israel, and the poll numbers reflect both the distorted prism through which Israel/Palestinians is presented and the basic decence and common sense of the American people.
…the most heated opposition came from supporters of Israel…
This is just Ben Smith’s opinion. Smith could have said heated opposition came from or he could have said some of the most heated opposition.
When a pseudo-journalist like Ben Smith resorts to the most heated you know he’s writing editorials, not journalism.
Here Ben, how do you like it?: the most bitter anti-semitism came from Politico
Good grief. This campaign started with the indictee Steve Rosen, and his pals are boasting about his role. Schumer pointed to Freeman’s views on Israel as part of the reason for opposing him. The columnists who wrote about this were the usual Zionist suspects. Rahm (son-of-Irgun) Emanuel was apparently involved as well.
Without the active participation of supporters of Israel, Freeman never would have been an issue. And I don’t mean passive supporters whose feelings are vaguely warm toward the place, but the hard-core advocates, who are on the payroll, served in the IDF, etc.
Apparently Freeman’s opponents are free to high-five about their success, but if you point out who they where and why they acted, they’ll call you an anti-semite.
Terms like “Israel Lobby” are designed to stigmatize disagreement in McCarthyite fashion. “Mere words” having meaning and significance. By injecting a term like Lobby into debate, it is a direct effort to repress debate, to smear and intimidate those who disagree with the propounders of the anti-Israel view as disloyal and conspiratorial for the mere act of disagreeing. The Orwellian aspect of this pattern is that those who employ this term or terms like “neo-con” or “Likudnik” always try to represent themselves as heroically standing up for freedom of expression against alleged powerful interests. However the opposite is clearly true, and the ultimate target of this rhetorical gambit is freedom of expression itself. Time after time the critics of the “Lobby” argument point to how vaguely and amorphously the term is employed. Yet what is in one sense a logical defect is also a deliberate intention; by casting the net of stigmatization wide enough to encompass anyone in public life that does not share the anti-Israel view, this allows the motives of anyone making a seeming pro-Israel expression to be maligned. It is ultimately a sad effort to delegitimize dissent. Strange then how so many supposed defenders of free expression in the media and on the internet find the idea of stigmatizing oppositon so seductive so as to either endorse it outright or to maintain a studied ignorance while glibly referring to criticism by mere “supporters of Israel”.
“Apparently Freeman’s opponents are free to high-five about their success, but if you point out who they where and why they acted, they’ll call you an anti-semite.”
this is where you fall apart Grumpy. You can talk about who, where, and why they acted, but you can not really have a discussion about Freeman himself, and neither could his supporters.
The only thing you or Walt can point out is that Jewish people (and Chinese people) opposed Freeman. Why don’t you check out Pelosi’s concerns with respect to Chinese rights? but, I think you will return to the only facts that make sense to you. You whitewash and ignore Freeman’s odious views on the Chinese and Saudi governments, and his vile remarks on Israel. I don’t call you an anti-semite, just a useful idiot.
I’d like to join the Israel LobbyTM. The Pro-Life Lobby just doesn’t strike fear into the heart of conspiracy theorists the same way the Israel LobbyTM does. Sure, abortionists like to paint us out to be a bunch of unabombers planning bombing attacks on our rosary beads. That is, when they aren’t busy jamming scissors into babies’ skulls. In reality, however, everybody knows we’re at the bottom of the political food chain. We’re the proverbial weaklings on the beach getting sand kicked in our faces, and every time the police round a bunch of us up and toss us in jail for praying on a sidewalk, it only reinforces that perception.
The Israel LobbyTM, on the other hand, actually rates first-class paranoid invective from some guy who was supposed to be smart enough to keep us all safe. That’s clout. Most lobbies would love to have that kind of notoriety. Sure, you could say that the Israel LobbyTM actually has a nation state and all the associated accoutrements to go along with national sovereignty. If only the Pro-Lifers could just get a country of their own, this line of thinking goes, they too would have paranoid bureaucrats rambling about conspiracies. Nothing could be farther from the truth, however. As proof I submit that the Armenian Lobby and the Scottish Lobby have been trying for decades to inspire conspiracy theories, and the lack of results has been demoralizing. Nobody cares about Scotland and Armenia. You don’t have to take my word for it, next time you run into an Armenian, ask them what they think about Scotland. The Irish have actually been subsidizing conspiracy theorists since the mid 1960′s, and all they have to show for it is their Patron Saint’s feast day turned into amateur night. Talk about frustration.
So I just have a few questions. Is the Israel Lobby affiliated with The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy LobbyTM, or are they completely separate entities? Are members of the Israel Lobby allowed to fraternize with the Republican Attack MachineTM, or is that generally frowned upon? Does the Israel LobbyTM ever participate in Rovian Plots, say in some type of joint exercises, or do they just exchange emissaries? Would I keep getting emails from David Plouffe asking me for money if I signed up for the Israel LobbyTM email distribution list? I just figure I should do my homework before committing. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance,
-Matt in Portland
Some Jewish people supported, and some opposed, Freeman. It was those who support the “special relationship” with Israel who tended to oppose the appointment.
Freeman’s view that the Chinese authorities might have avoided the spectacle of tanks in Tienanmen had they acted earlier is probably accurate.
“Human rights” is a Jacobin concept generally employed these days to justify either hostility to or intervention in a foreign government. China is a rather authoritarian government and can be quite unkind to its less powerful citizens. Nothing new about this fact, which is not especially relevant to the national interests of the United States.
What really should frighten supporters of Israel is the tin ear and ham handed tactics used by some who claim to be acting in Israel’s interest. How can Greenweld be so blind as to see the incredible irony of his post appearing next to the banner ad that seems to run constantly on Commentary.
It reads President Obama meet the loyal opposition — Commentary
As a new political era begins, America’s most vital magazine will be ready to
Stand up for America and the West
To Stand up to Islamofascism
To Stand up for Israel
And to Stand up to Anti-Semitisim
What does this mean. Is Obma anti-American, Anti-west, for Islamofascisim, against Israel, and for Anti-Semitisim. What is the basis of Commentary’s opposition?
Though reading Contentions, it is clear that most the posters care far more their conservative beliefs than for Israel, which gets a surprisingly short shrift in the entries; one still wonders what’s the meaning of the ad?
It simply isn’t possible to use support of Israel as a sword and a shield. It has to be one or the other. If you politically oppose Obama because he doesn’t sufficiently support Israel then you have made your support for Israel fair game for political responses. Support of Israel can either be an shared national goal or a source political rancor. Commentary, it seems has chosen, for whatever reason, the latter.
I’m not Jewish but I am puzzled by the large number of American Jews that don’t seem to support Israel. Is it because, in general, they didn’t suffer the consequenses of the European
atrocities in WWII?
I have been struck in recent years with the absolutely dismal PR effort that Israel has had. Again, this seems to truly put to lie the various Jewish conspiracy theories. If there was an insidious Jewish conspiracy, one would think at least all the Jews should be on board right?
For the longest time I struggled with myself about my animosity to certain actions and statements by Israel and its supporters. The argument that it couldn’t possibly be out sympathy for the Palestinians, to me was always devastatingly effective. After all the Palestinians hardly are the most sympathetic of oppressed victims.
Than I realized that it was the attitude that Israel took with us.
The fundamental thing I dislike about Israel is that they tell Americans what we should think. I especially din’t like the talk about how we didn’t understand the shelling. Living in New Orleans, I certainly knew what it was like to live with death everyday. The chances that I would have been hit by stray bullet was hundreds of times greater than an Israeli being hit by a rocket. Don’t tell me about what I know.
I imagine a lot of American Jews feel the same way.
#26-American Jews tend to be left-leaning politically and very pro-Democrat. Thus when people make hysterical references to some mythical lobby that supposedly takes its marching orders from Likud party headquarters, that’s what is truly puzzling. Obama got the Jewish vote and even if Israel fell into a giant sink hole as a result of his policies he is all but guaranteed to get it again. The last Democrat to lose a significant portion of the Jewish vote was Carter, and then that was still relative. Of course when people already know you are in the bag politically you get taken for granted. That probably does not explain the Freeman selection, but it reflects the comparative political freedom that administration has to work with on the issue, and perhaps a concurrent lack of sensitivity or concern. American Jews are not single-issue voters and ideology trumps religion.
As to Freeman there is a difference between being reasonable and being a paranoid crackpot. (His farewell rant was classic, unless the Lobby caused that too). Strange as it may appear given the Walts and Freemans of the world, there is a way to state a foreign policy position that emphasizes a need to “resolve” the Israel conflict (good luck) with the usual call for concessions in exchange for peace (more likely mass murder and mayhem, but why quibble), that doesn’t see despotic Muslim governments as all that bad, that blames US “arrogance” for Islamic extremism, and which sees Iran as being sadly misunderstood without demonizing Israel or its supporters or positing an all-powerful Lobby to explain the seemingly inexplicable tragedy of why the American people are just too blinkered to agree. Take away Freeman and this seems to be a rough gloss on the current administration vision. Still if attributing Freeman’s selection, de-selection and epic flame-out as evidence of the all-powerful Israel Lobby makes his apologists feel better, go right ahead.
Grumpy: When you look in the mirror, do you give yourself the finger? Just curious.
william casey- maybe because they are patriotic americans and are loyal to this country as opposed to some other one? just a guess
#20: “Without the active participation of supporters of Israel, Freeman never would have been an issue. And I don’t mean passive supporters “
Naturally, active participation cannot be expected from passive
supporters. Active people are always a minority, whatever the issue.
But support for Israel is a matter of consensus in America; and its active
supporters are supported by less active supporters.
The role of “active supporters” was just to make Chas Freeman’s
noxious views known – just to point to the facts -
something that MSM should have done.
These “active supportrers” have performed a public service and
also have helped the Obama administration save itself from worse
embarrassment in the future.
As soon as the American public got to know Freeman
for what he is, he was bound to become a bad
political liability to the administraion;
- so, to preempt that, he was dropped. This is just another
example of a weak vetting process in this administration.