Last month, MoveOn.org joined a chorus of liberals and Democrats pleading with New York Democrats not to nominate Charles Barron for a safe New York City congressional seat. MoveOn sent out an email blast aimed at the radical candidate. Barron, a vicious anti-Zionist and radical supporter of dictators like Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, was political poison for the Democrats, and his defeat by the more centrist Hakeem Jeffries caused the entire party to heave a sigh of relief. But according to one of the group’s top leaders, the decision to draw a line between its activities and a hatemonger was a terrible mistake.
As JTA reports, Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, apologized for the email blast at Barron. Calling the group’s condemnation of Barron — a candidate who was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan’s David Duke — “offensive and inflammatory,” Ruben walked back MoveOn’s involvement in the race saying:
The email was all too reminiscent of the kind of attacks that have been used by our opponents to divide progressives over and over again — white folks from African Americans, Jews from non-Jews, recent immigrants from descendants of immigrants, etc.
Why would anyone regret being part of an effort to save the Democrats from the humiliation of nominating someone who has become the poster child for the radicalization of their party? The answer is simple. Ruben’s walk back of the attack on Barron is consistent with the group’s origins and its basic purpose.
The email blast at Barron might have seemed like a sensible thing for a liberal group to do. But MoveOn’s apology is a reminder that it is a beachhead for the radical left in American politics, not a bastion of traditional liberalism.
The JTA article referred to past controversies about MoveOn’s website forums, which were well-known for being home to the worst sort of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist hate speech. The group says it removed any offensive speech, but critics have rightly pointed out that most of the really nasty stuff about Jews and Israel remained. But no matter what its online fans say or don’t say, MoveOn’s far left politics are antithetical to the maintenance of a strong U.S.-Israel alliance.
Even more to the point, as Ruben’s apology highlights, it is the sort of radical group which can never envision having any enemies on the left even if that puts them into bed with the worst sort of anti-Semites and haters. If MoveOn’s political action committee thinks there is something wrong with pointing out that a politician spews bile at Israel and the Jews, it is an indication that the group believes there is nothing wrong with such behavior. Though the group’s condemnation of Barron was the act of a rational liberal group, it was actually out of character with the organization’s spirit and, no doubt, repulsive to many of its activists.
While some in the media have treated MoveOn as a serious player, its moment in the national spotlight during the heyday of the anti-Iraq war protests is over and with it, its claim to mainstream status. The Barron walk back ought to signal those who have lauded it that this creature of George Soros’s wealth should not be accorded the respect it has gotten. The mutual affection of MoveOn and David Duke for an Israel-hater tells you all you need to know about where the group fits into the political spectrum — on the margins where the far left and the far right merge.
Quote: "The Barron walk back ought to signal those who have lauded it that this creature of George Soros’s wealth should not be accorded the respect it has gotten. " n nIt'll never happen. The walkback simply showed the true colors, that's all.
I heard Barron also likes dogs and children.
As usual, Mr. Tobin and his acolytes choose to ignore the singular difference between their approach and those they oppose; namely, that as wrongheaded as the left may be at times because of its needs to consider all the multifarious opinions of those residing under the "big tent", it consistently errs on the side of promoting means that justify ends. On the other hand, as Mr. Tobin and his supporters have proven time and time again, the right is so convinced of its righteousness that it will sacrifice any adherence to Hillel's "what is hateful unto you, do not unto others", indulge in the worst sorts of lashon hara, and generally treat its opponents as Samuel did Amalek without even the pretense of divine approbation. This has been the tactic of the right for years; whereas the left tries its best because of its lack of righteous indignation to patiently delve into the nuances of any action, the right is so convinced of the essential validity of its goal that it will use catchphrases and disingenuity to promote its agenda because, after all, it has to be correct. nWhen Mr. Tobin, or any of his cadre, are ready to make even the smallest apology for keeping the debate in the sewer in order to promote its ends, it may understand why the left at this point felt the need to admit that no matter how egregious the agenda of a member of the coalition, it does not allow a deviation from the commitment to Tzedek.
[part 1 of 2] Yes, I'm sure that Barron has done SOMETHING during his career besides actually trying to fix problems" and not just “specializing in divisive, offensive, and just plain outrageous statements and behavior,” n nPerhaps to fullfill Hillel's dictum, Ruben should have said "“What Barron doesn’t want you to know is that in addition to actually trying to fix problems by doing [list here any positive contributions he has made], he’s spent much too much of his career specializing in divisive, offensive, and just plain outrageous statements and behavior, such as [list]” n nAnd, in furtherance of Hillel's dictum, if I had badly misquoted Hillel, I would want people to assume it was inadvertent, and to correct the misquote. In that spirit, let me remind you that Hillel spoke of not doing to "your chaver" what is hateful to you, and that chaver by definition does not include Mr. Barron. n n
again, disingenuous attempt to deflect the argument away from your faction's self righteousness. My comment clearly did not defend Barron, nor did Ruben. Further, Ruben never apologized for condemning Barron. He simply apologized for the rhetoric he used to do so. the chaver is Mr. Ruben, not Mr. Barron. And from your condescending and supercilious tone, I can only presume that you do not consider either Mr. Ruben or me to be your chaver. I'm interested in your rationale for that.
"the chaver is Mr. Ruben, not Mr. Barron" Okay, that was not clear to me from your post and I wager it was not clear to other readers either. With due respect to my chaver Mr. Ruben, I see nothing regrettable in his original statement (see my reply to you above) and find his regret to me more regrettable than his original justified attack on Mr. Barron. n n"No enemies on the left" was a bad idea then and it is a bad idea now.
So, "no enemies on the left" is a bad idea, but "no enemies on the right" is not? n nRuben's regret was directed not at Barron, but at his coalition partners. You still don't get it. Many of us believe that the ends do not justify the means, and that vitriolic comments simply reduce us to the level of those with whom we are at odds. You may be so comfortable with all your coalition partners that you do not flinch for a moment when you have to make common cause with those promoting ethnic cleansing; I have not learned to be that singleminded.
"So, "no enemies on the left" is a bad idea, but "no enemies on the right" is not? " nThe Jerusalem buses have signs on the windows that say "Forbidden to throw refuse from this vehicle." Is the implication "From this vehicle it is forbidden, but from another vehicle it is permitted?" Don't go all Gemara on ME, buster. n nNo enemies on the left and no enemies on the right are both horrendous ideas. Which is why I have never advocated either one. Anyone who says I have advocated for either is a liar. n n" You may be so comfortable with all your coalition partners that you do not flinch for a moment when you have to make common cause with those promoting ethnic cleansing;" Are you speaking in the abstract, or are you saying that I partner with or am comfortable with people who advocate genocide? If you are saying either of the latter, I have nothing further to say to you on this or any other thread. n n
Defending extreme measures dealing with Palestinians means you make common cause with factions who advocate ethnic cleansing. You may not be comfortable with that, and you may never personally interact with members of that faction, but you cannot deny that you and they support a common goal and the difference is only in degree.
The only ones advocating ethnic cleansing are the PA, Hamas, Hisbollah, Meretz and the US State Department, all of whom demand that Israel reward Jew-hating mass murderers by creating one more Arab state that would be de facto and de jure a Muslim state, and where no Jews would be permitted to live even as second class citizens or non-citizens.You cannot deny that you and they support a common goal and the difference is only in degree
I certainly can deny that I support that. I am a well known and ardent supporter of Kibbutz Zionism. Whenever you develop the courage to debate me face to face, I shall prove that to you. nIn the meantime, to deny that support of a program to forcibly evict non-jews from Israel and to deny citizenship to nonjews is not defacto "ethnic cleansing" is disingenuous at best.
"In the meantime, to deny that support of a program to forcibly evict non-jews from Israel " nMore lies.
"more lies". content analysis=0. the kahanists are not promoting the forcible eviction of non-Jews from Israel? nAnd when are you going to debate me publicly?
You certainly can’t be talking about pres camp because McCain refused to even bring up Obama’s numerous offensive associations that are repulsive enough that if he were conservative his campaign would’ve been over within days let alone to run in election.
As a practical matter Move On extends the olive branch while it extends feelers to MSNBC to give Barron a limited time gig as one of the boxes in a multi-pane 'debate' on one of their interchangeable shows.
For six decades Israel has ethnically cleansed Palestine after its terrorist leaders massacred their country into existence. Challenging this illegal and immoral behavior of a racist state isn't radical, it's righteous.
As one right wing radical yelled, out of turn, at our President, " You Lie"
All of the links provided by "David Evans" are neo Nazi.
You mean that a lie told by a neo-Nazi is still a lie?
Once again, you are either negligently or intentionally distorting MoveOn's action. They at no time renounced their opposition to Barron. Ruben simply regretted the vitriol with which that renunciation was made. You, on the other hand, seem content to misconstrue Ruben's principled decision to refrain from loshen hara style attacks. That seems to indicate that you have no trouble treating others in ways you object to being treated. Why don't you explain to me why you believe that the ends justify the means, in spite of our obligation to refrain from that kind of behavior?
"Ruben's principled decision to refrain from loshen hara style attacks" nBy "loshen hara STYLE attacks", I take it that you are recognizing that by definition, nothing said about Mr. Barron falls into the category of lashon hara. And by definition, lashon hora is a truthful statement. So you we are to applaud Mr. Ruben's principled (!) regret over having told the truth over an enemy of Israel (and I refer here to Klal Yisrael, not specifically to Medinat Yisrael). From what I know of Mr. Barron, the vitriol was altogether appropriate, and the expression of regret, rather than the initial statement, seems to be a lapse in principle and judgement on the part of Mr. Ruben.
I said "style" because Barron is not a Jew, and therefore cannot claim halachic protection. But Ruben's vitriol offended his chaverim and he apologized to them. To attack him for that is truly despicable. As I have said numerous times without you bothering to respond, the basic difference in the weltanschauung of the left and right is that the left demands that the means justify the ends, whereas the right claims the certainty of their mission allows them to let the ends justify the means. I am still waiting for you to address that issue.
No, what is truly despicable is being offended when someone calls a viscious destructive anti-Semtie a viscious anti-Semite. Anyone who is offended by that deserves to be offended.
content analysis=0 ncare to try again? nI wonder how often you would be posting meaningless remarks just to annoy me if you understood how much it is costing you in the metaphysical sense. You know what they used to say about masturbation? "If you keep doing that, you'll go blind!"
Of course it bothers me, and it bothered MoveOn as well. The apology was not for opposing him it was for the rhetoric it used to do so.That'sthe point, and I suspect that you know it. I am not addressing the substance of Barron's candidacy, I am addressing the point that Ruben made and which you and the 14 anonymous voters refuse to acknowledge, that you on the right consistently violate Hillel's direction every time you want, because you feel you have the right to let your ends justify your means. Ruben did not turn around and support Barron. He was simply noting that he regretted the vitriol of his syntax. You, obviously have no problem with that, although I'll bet that were someone to treat you in a way you do not wish to be treated, you would be the first to complain. n nI'm interested. What kind of "doctor" are you? Did you realize when you responded to me that you were ignoring the issue I was highlighting and simply diverting attention away from your inadequacies as an observant Jew?
[part 2 of 2] And if my chaver knew that one candidate was a bigot who supported and enjoyed the support of people who would gladly see me dead for being a Jew, and my chaver tried to find excuses for him, or did NOT warn me, or did NOT make every conceivable attempt to persuade people not to vote for him, I would consider that hateful indeed. n n"simply diverting attention away from your inadequacies as an observant Jew? " nWhere and when did dcdoc claim to be an observant Jew?
Again, a twisting of the issue. n1. Ruben condemned Barron n2. MoveOn worked to defeat Barron n3. Barron lost n4. Ruben regretted, not that Barron lost, nor that MoveOn condemned him, but that the rhetoric used in that condemnation was excessive. n nSo the true issue is whether Ruben was justified in saying that MoveOn's opposition did not need to be as vitriolic as it was in order to satisfy its resolve to defeat Barron. n nThe best I can say of your argument is that is seems you wish not to learn with me, but to argue for the sake of argument. If you wish to prove me wrong, start with an argument based on the facts, go through my comment once more with a correct analysis of my criticism and then give me your retort. n nIn order to aid you, I shall restate my argument n nRuben's regret was not that he condemned Barron but that he did not phrase his condemnation differently which is totally in accordance with the principles of the Chofetz Chaim. What differentiates the left from the right is that the former believe that means must justify ends, while the latter are content to let ends justify means. Tobin's criticism of Ruben is specious and disingenuous, because it attacks Ruben's expression of moderation as a means to cast aspersion on MoveOn even though MoveOn condemned Barron. n nFinally, in response to your gratuitous final comment, why does dcdoc have to claim he is an observant Jew for me to criticize his failure to be one? If I presumed incorrectly that dcdoc is a Jew, then you may have a point. My bet is that he is a Jew.
"why does dcdoc have to claim he is an observant Jew for me to criticize his failure to be one?" nBecause if he does not consider himself to be one, and has no aspiration to be one, it is a bit like criticising me for failing to be a competent golfer.
"What differentiates the left from the right is that the former believe that means must justify ends, while the latter are content to let ends justify means. " nYou are fond of repeating that. Anyone who sincerely believes that to be true is either not paying attention or has taken leave of his senses.
no. specious argument again. Any Jew is open to criticism for not being more observant. Any Jew who is not observant is an inadequate Jew. nI hope you intend at some point to address the more important questions I raised. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath in anticipation…..
a wonderful generalization, and about the best you can do as a denial, since you know that if you delve deeply into the weltanschauung of the right, you are constantly confronted with telic justifications, whether it be evangelical christianity or the citing of the last stanza of the Star Spangled Banner. The entire concept of laizzez faire capitalism is telic. "Trickle down economics" is telic. Plato's Republic is telic. nBut of course, you have to know that I'm telling the truth, because your reply is so weak as to be meaningless.