The Jewish party

Do Jews work together to achieve goals important to the Jewish community,
irrespective of the party structure?

Consolidation of base crucial for Lieberman
Eric Cantor speaks about Jewish support for Joseph Lieberman
by Charles Hurt
Washington Times, 2006-08-04

[An excerpt from the article (emphasis is added):]

"I do not think resources are going to be a problem for Joe Lieberman,"
said House Deputy Whip Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican,
who is leading the effort to raise money for Republican House candidates.
"He is going to get a tremendous amount of support
from the American Jewish community."

In particular, Mr. Cantor said,
those donors appreciate
Mr. Lieberman's unwavering support of Israel and
his determination to root out terrorism.

"I have spoken to
many national contributors in the American Jewish community
who are extremely frustrated
with the steps that were taken to defeat Joe Lieberman,"
Mr. Cantor said.

[Not the least of the interesting aspects of Mr. Cantor’s remarks
is the question of
how a Republican leader knows so much about
the flow of political money to a non-Republican candidate.
It’s not very politically correct to answer that question,
but the answer almost surely is that, to Jews,
the party structure is irrelevant when Israel is the issue.
Then they all work together, for Israel.
And George Bush?
See how much help his White House and his party
give to the Republican candidate.

As to how conservative Lieberman really is,
see Robert Novak’s column GOP's crocodile tears for Lieberman.]

Political Climate Warms to Lieberman’s Favor
New York Times, 2006-10-12

Mr. Lamont ...
has been outspent by Mr. Lieberman by nearly 50 percent

since the primary.

[This seems to validate the remarks of Eric Cantor.
Note that Lamont is the candidate of a major party (the Democrats) and further
has self-funded his campaign to the tune of $6 million since the primary,
while Lieberman is merely an independent, with no significant personal assests.
Yet Lamont is financially behind.
Talk about Jews buying elections!]

Bloomberg Sends Troops to Help Lieberman
New York Times, 2006-10-28

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]

In his battle for re-election to the United States Senate
without the backing of the Democratic Party,
Joseph I. Lieberman is deploying a secret weapon in the race’s closing days:
a sophisticated operation to identify and turn out voters,
courtesy of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

The Bloomberg group includes several top-level operatives
who played key roles in the mayor’s decisive re-election last year or
who are in the administration,
and have taken leaves from their jobs to work on Mr. Lieberman’s campaign.

Since Mr. Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut to Ned Lamont,
they have
helped open campaign offices,
devised a strategy to reach voters and
are corralling enough volunteers
to cover 2,800 shifts at more than 700 polling sites on Election Day, Nov. 7.

Given that
Mr. Lieberman does not have a party apparatus to help build his field operation,
the efforts of the Bloomberg team could prove critical
in one of the most closely watched races in the nation.


[Mr. Bloomberg’s] work for Mr. Lieberman,
which includes substantial fund-raising
and Mr. Bloomberg’s first out-of-state stumping
in addition to the gift of manpower,
marks his most intense and direct engagement in someone else’s political bid.


Lieberman aides say that
Mr. Bloomberg brings a certain gloss and legitimacy to Connecticut,
where he appears to have a strong appeal.

“He is an icon of independence and straight talk
and putting the public interest over party consideration,”
said Dan Gerstein, Mr. Lieberman’s communication director.
“He’s a great practitioner and advocate
for the kind of politics Joe Lieberman practices.”

[Translation: They both are passionate advocates for Israel.]


Lieberman aides say the money the mayor is raising is crucial


“There are a lot of things the mayor had done in his campaign
which the Lieberman campaign needed,”
Mr. Sheekey said.

Lamont Didn’t Carry Message Beyond Opposition to the War
New York Times, 2006-11-08

The war in Iraq, Mr. Lamont said, was a sinkhole of lives and dollars,
the apotheosis of bad decision-making
by an administration that had undermined national security
in the name of fighting terror.
“It’s just a single issue,”
he said as the audience laughed knowingly and applauded.
“It’s the war in Iraq.”

For the Democrats around the country who won election yesterday
by tying their Republican opponents to President Bush and the war in Iraq,
Mr. Lamont’s remarks proved prophetic.
But in one of the odder twists of this midterm election,
Mr. Lamont — who during his primary battle against Mr. Lieberman
came to personify the anti-Iraq vote —
met a different fate.
He not only lost, but
he lost in a Democratic state where opposition to the war ran deep.
he was defeated by one of the war’s most prominent defenders,
Mr. Lieberman, who ran as an independent.


Mr. Lamont’s advisers ...
overestimated the support they would receive from national Democrats.
Several prominent party figures and presidential aspirants,
including Senator John Kerry and Gen. Wesley Clark, the retired NATO commander,
campaigned with him;
others, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, lent trusted aides.

But with the national party’s energy
focused on suddenly competitive races across the country,
Mr. Lamont received only token financial support from it.
[And the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee,
Senator Charles E. Schumer, is a Jew, like Lieberman.
But hush your mouth on talk of a Jewish conspiracy ;-)]

And with Mr. Lieberman tied or leading in the polls,
it made little effort to pressure the senator to drop out,
clearly worried about the consequences if Mr. Lieberman were to win.

Mr. Lieberman, meanwhile,
ran much like Republican candidates did across the country.
He talked about all the issues on which he disagreed with President Bush.
He tried to localize the race....
He emphasized his experience and seniority,
and raised millions from longtime allies,
outspending Mr. Lamont.

For many Republican, that very strategy failed.
But for Mr. Lieberman—
still a Democrat, despite Mr. Lamont’s ribbing to the contrary—
it was enough.

Lieberman a Wild Card in Iraq Policy
Senator Says Bipartisan Effort Is Needed for a Successful End
By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post, 2006-11-13

Voters seemed to be speaking loudly and clearly about Iraq last week
when they elected war critics such as
Bernard Sanders of Vermont,
Sherrod Brown of Ohio and
James Webb of Virginia
to the Senate.

Yet they also gave a fourth term to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman,
a staunch supporter of the war,
and in the narrowly divided Senate that will convene in January,
the veteran Connecticut Democrat is positioning himself to become
a key figure in discussions about U.S. policy in Iraq.

Yesterday, Lieberman -- who won as an independent last week --
spelled out his vision
for a congressional working group
of Democratic committee chairmen and senior Republicans
to monitor the course of the war
and work with President Bush to bring it to a successful end.
Lieberman is already asserting his status as
a self-described political freelancer,
beholden to neither party.
Both sides are seeking to please this political wild card.

Republicans and the White House are indebted to Lieberman
for supporting the unpopular war throughout his tough election campaign.
They view him as a valuable bridge to their Democratic adversaries
on national security issues.

Many Democrats remain angry with their former vice presidential nominee
for not bowing out after his primary loss to the more liberal Lamont.
Still, they recognize that he is crucial to their one-seat Senate majority.

Pro-war in an antiwar state,
Lieberman is one of the few prominent war defenders
to survive a tough challenge on Nov. 7,
and with his victory comes a measure of validation.

Speaking in Hartford last Wednesday,
Lieberman remained unwavering
in his opposition to Democrats' calls for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
"What we are doing now there is not working,
but that doesn't mean in any sense that it is time for us to retreat,"
he said.
"This is a test in a very difficult and dangerous hour in our history."

[A test to which Lieberman unfortunately has the wrong answer.]

Enter, Pariah: Now It’s Hugs for Lieberman
New York Times, 2006-11-15

[An excerpt:]

[I]t is hard to imagine
how Mr. Lieberman could have emerged better from last week’s election.

He was re-elected comfortably,
and the Democratic Party he still belongs to is now in the majority,
assuring him the chairmanship of the powerful Homeland Security Committee.

Yet that majority is slim enough, 51 to 49,
to turn Mr. Lieberman into
arguably the Senate’s most influential member.


Over time [in the electoral campaign],
Mr. Reid’s and other Democratic leaders’ support
for [the putative Democratic candidate] Mr. Lamont
became half-hearted, or nonexistent,
according to Mr. Lamont’s campaign.


Clearly, friends say, he is relishing his sudden ascent
from Democratic reject in Connecticut to Senate kingmaker in Washington.
“He is just sitting there in the catbird seat,
and it must be delicious for him,”
[his colleague and friend in the Senate, Susan] Collins said.

Mr. Lieberman was asked Tuesday
if he viewed his position as similar to a swing vote on the Supreme Court,
a role often played by
former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor or Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
The parallel had not occurred to him, Mr. Lieberman replied,
but he considered it “a complimentary analogy.”

He beamed as he said this, as he did for much of the day.

Labels: ,