Candidate offends Jewish groups

[oberliner]

Jewish groups today called on the Marion County GOP to pull its support of likely Republican mayoral candidate Bob Parker after he made what were viewed as "unbecoming" comments about the Jewish community.

Parker's comments, made in a recent interview with Indianapolis Star political columnist Matt Tully and reported online today, suggested that Jewish influence within the Democratic Party would drive the party to support an Israeli attack of Iran and Syria.

"I'm sure you realize -- well, most people don't -- millionaire Democrats outnumber millionaire Republicans four to one," Parker said. "It's mainly because of the Jewish faction inside the Democratic Party.

"Most Jewish people are Democrats and they bring that wealth. My opinion is, if Israel would go into Iran, Democrats will follow that cause."

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070222/LOCAL/702220544/-1/topstoriesrecache

[annabanana]

1. Democrats are MORE likely to go into Iran???

My My My, things are getting complicated for some folks out there, aren't they?

They'll never figure it out. They have been twisted in so many different directions at the same time.

[marmar]

2. The Repugs aren't trying to disguise the racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia these days...

I guess we can start calling them the Grand Old Wizard Party.

[skipos]

3. The more money you make, the more likely you are to vote for a Repub

VOTE BY INCOME
INCOME / BUSH / KERRY
Under $15,000 / 36% / 63%
$15-30,000 / 42% / 57%
$30-50,000 / 49% / 50%
$50-75,000 / 56% / 43%
$75-100,000 / 55% / 45%
$100-150,000 / 57% / 42%
$150-200,000 / 58% / 42%
$200,000 or More / 63% / 35%

[ikojo]

34. Actually Jews as a group are fairly well off and

I believe over 70% of Jews voted Democratic.

The pug Jews like Sam Fox in St Louis are doing all they can to demonize the Dems but thus far there has not been a mass Jewish exodus to the pug party. I'll bet more UNION members vote pug than do Jews.

[Jai4WKC08]

41. Actually, 88% in 2006, according to NYT

[Robson]

4. Religious Influence

I have a problem when ANY religious group attempts to influence government. Religions should worry about religions, not politics.

[rebel with a cause]

5. so do most of us,

but when a republican says Democrats will be the ones to take us to war with Iran when they are the ones fighting to keep bush from doing so is not only hypocritical but downright stupid. That is the purpose of the post, I believe, to show how low their candidates will go trying to cloud the minds of the voters and hope they can fool them again. You know. fool me once - shame on you, fool me twice - well, you just shouldn't fool me twice. :banghead:

[Behind the Aegis]

16. perhaps.

But this wasn't about religion, until this POS made it about religion, and guess which one gets the blame?

[Robson]

19. My view is organized Religion has no business in politics..period.

My friend...no religion gets a break from me on this issue, and that is as it should be, unless we support playing favorites.

Sorry....I don't care if it is the Southern Baptists, the Lutherans, Evangelicals, Methodists, Islamic Society or Jewish affiliated groups. No religious group has any business telling parties to remove candidates, as that is meddling into politics where they have no business IHMO.

Now if any individual wants to call political parties about such an issue near and dear, that's a different story.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. You have missed the point of this article.

It is not about organized religion (Jews) doing anything; it is about a politician making claims that Jews are doing something.

[Robson]

25. I agree in concept but strongly disagree on principle

If the phrase "Jewish groups" was changed to "Evangelical groups" ..... told the Democratic party that they should pull support of a candidate because he said something that offended them, I would say the same thing. Stay out of politics.

The issue to me is not so much the point that they were making, but the point that "X" religious group told X party to pull support for a candidate.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Except that this concerns Jews as an ethnic, not a religious, group

I would agree that it would be inappropriate of Jewish religious groups to ask for a candidate to withdraw because, for example, he was a pig farmer, or owned a business that worked on Saturdays.

But this is different. It isn't that the candidate acts in a way that is disapproved by the Jewish (or any other) religion; it is that he is accusing Jews - and even those who are supported by Jews - of being likely to pursue bad and anti-American policies because of their ethnicity. A better analogy would be for an African-American group to ask for a candidate to withdraw because he had said that "Democrats are likely to increase your taxes because they are supported by black people, and they are loafers who want welfare"; or a women's group to ask for a candidate to withdraw because he had said, "Democrats are likely to pursue anti-family policies because they are supported by women, and they are rebelling against their traditional mothering role and want to work outside the home and leave their children in daycare." Would you not agree with the groups in question objecting to such candidates?

[Robson]

37. Ah....OK

Sorry I seriously question ethnicity as a primary factor of determining Jewishness. Jews are a religion that one can convert to, and if not, was Sammy Davis and all the non Jew but converting spouses aware that according to some they will never be a Jew?

Not to beat a dead horse.....but if I may offer a suggestion to every religion on earth (and by every,I mean EVERY religion) stay the hell out of our political system.

Say what you want in church, synagogue, or mosque but don't ever contaminate our country and politics with your religious fervor. This is a non-secular country and politics and religion should never be spoken in the same breath.

[LeftishBrit]

47. But if you ARE ethnically Jewish, then you can't stop being Jewish!

Even if you convert to another religion, or are totally secular, you are STILL regarded as Jewish in the eyes of anti-semites. Anti-semitism is very rarely based just on religion.

Yes, ethnically non-Jews can convert to Judaism, but the number who do is very small. Unlike many religions, Judaism does not encourage converts, and you need to be quite determined to become a religious Jew if you were not born one.

The Republican candidate here was not implying that Democrats were bad because they would encourage the Jewish faith; he was implying that they were more likely to wage wars because according to his statement, ethnic Jews would support an invasion of Iran as Israel's enemy. This is very ironic because the drive for wars in Iraq and now Iran has been led by Bush and Cheney, who are neither Democrats nor Jews.

I don't want Jewish, or Christian, or Moslem religious fervour affecting politics; but it is not 'religious fervour' to object to a candidate saying, "Democrats are bad because they are supported by group X, and group X has bad characteristic Z". To give another couple of examples: would it be acceptable for a candidate to say, "Democrats are likely to accept corruption because they are supported disproportionately by Italian-Americans who may have Mafia connections", or "Democrats are likely to accept terrorism in the UK and oppose the Irish peace process because they are supported by Irish-Americans who may support the IRA"; or ... (substitute ethnic group and political stereotype of your choice here)?

[Jim Sagle]

42. Translation: "Shut up, Jew!"

[Robson]

45. To ALL Religions ----- Stay the HELL out of our Political System - nt

[Jim Sagle]

46. It's called freedom of speech. Check into it.

[H2O Man]

43. I'm glad

that Martin Luther King, Jr influenced government.

"... and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means." -- Gandhi

[GeorgeGist]

48. Sorry to learn that Gandhi...

was fooled by religion ... and politics.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Aarrrrggggghhhhhhhh!!!!

Thanks for enlightening me. Now I understand the reasons for the Iraq war. Bush and Cheney are Jewish Democrats. Why did I never realize that?

[Behind the Aegis]

7. To some, this is gospel.

This is not at all surprising. If anything, I expect to see more of this...from both sides.

[LeftishBrit]

11. Yes. Nothing like whipping up hate against a scapegoat

When it's not the 'Islamo-Fascists', it's the Jews. And when it's not the Jews, it's the 'immigrants'.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. ...or the gays...or the pro-choice...feminists...

...the list never seems to shorten, it only seems to get bigger. However, it almost always has Jews at the top of said list.

[laura888]

8. Some legitimacy

Of course I don't support this guy...but what he says MAY have appeal.

He says: "...if Israel would go into Iran, Democrats will follow that cause."

Of course, its not only democracts that might do this - its also republicans.

But isn't this the stance of Hillary Clinton? Honestly?

May I remind readers: anti-Israeli policies do NOT equal anti-semitism.

Putting blinders on to the fact that Israel influences our foreign policy decisions - and to the fact that some Americans do not like this - will not make these facts go away. And that is NOT anti-semitism.

[cali]

9. The most anti Iraq war religiouus group in

country are Jews. Over 75% oppose the Iraq war. That's 15% more than the next group which are folks without any religious identification.

You might want to keep that little fact in mind too.

[Emit]

24. 77% in a sample size of 303 Jews

agreed with the statement that "the war was a mistake." http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26677


I'm not sure what relevance that has to the entire (voting) Jewish population in the US. To say that "The most anti Iraq war religiouus (sic) group in (the) country are Jews..." based on this kind of poll might not be accurate. One simply cannot make this broad kind of conclusion based on approximately 233 people answering, "Yes, the war was a mistake..." during a telephone poll.


And, for the record, I would say that about all the other groups sampled in that survey, as well. Singling out a small sample and then trying to apply it to the general population is problematic in these types of polls, IMHO.

edit - typo

[Jai4WKC08]

27. Actually, that's a more than adequate sample size

Especially because the data collected was for a wide range of religious affiliations. There's almost no likelihood of significant error in comparing the percentage of Jews to the percentage of Catholics, Protestant, or Mormons.

[Emit]

30. ±6 percentage points, is what the survey indicated

I read somewhere that to get a 3% margin of error (90% level of confidence) you need a sample size of about 750; for a 3% margin of error at 95% level of confidence you need a sample size of 1,000.

It's a small sample, IMHO, especially for cali's broad claim. Edited to add, the question is a little off for such a claim, as well. "Yes, the war was a mistake" does not equate with "anti-war", necessarily, especially compared to the ideals that adamant anti-war groups might hold.

These are just my opinions. You guys can eat them up and spit them out. I don't care. I used to conduct surveys for labor markets and political groups -- and I've had a couple of stats classes years ago. I just know that I've dealt with enough statistics to know not to trust everything you read and to be careful of making broad sweeping statements based on polls.

Frankly, it's an admiral point she's attempting to make. I just think more data needs collecting before one can truly make that connection.

[Jai4WKC08]

35. But in this case, 6± is good enough

In the strictest sense, it means that at the lower extreme of the error range, the percentage of Jews against the Iraq war is 71% (77 minus 6), which is above the higher extreme of the next most anti Iraq war group, which would be 69% (66 plus 3).

But the point I was trying to make above is that we can draw valid conclusions from relationships within the data. Obviously a larger sample would be nice to have, but the small one for Jews, examined in the context of the entire data set, is sufficient to establish a statistically significant correlation between the Jewish faith and opposition to the war. I don't remember the exact formulas to do so, but I've done the general process enough to be quite certain about the outcome.

And please note that Cali said "anti Iraq war," not anti all war.

[cali]

28. Sorry, you clearly know absolutely zilch

about the science of polling. You can indeed draw accurate conclusions from this poll.

[Emit]

29. So, from this poll

You know indeed that the most anti Iraq war religious group in the entire country are Jews? Really?

[cali]

32. Nope. You don't know that and of course that is NOT what the

poll indicates. For instance, the poll didn't include Quakers, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were more anti-Iraq war than Jews. They didn't include Buddhists either. Or Muslims. The poll measured Protestants (lots of different denominations), Catholics, Jews, Mormons and people of no religious affiliation. Of those groups, Jews were the most anti-Iraq war. And Gallup didn't conduct this poll any differently or less scientifically than any of their other numerous polls.

What upsets you so about the fact that of those groups, the one that polled most anti-war, was Jews?

[ikojo]

36. Hellooooo....I'm Jewish and ALL of my non

orthodox Jewish friends oppose the war on Iraq. Even those who are Israel right or wrongers as we say. Even they realize the war on Iraq puts Israel in danger.

My orthodox friends are another story entirely!!

[Behind the Aegis]

15. There is no "legitimacy" to what was said.

Of course what he said has "appeal." It appeals to the Republicans because it attacks the Democrats as being more loyal to Israel than the US. It will also appeal to some of the left because the much-hated Israel is seen as the reason for yet another war or even the suggestion of war. And, you can remind readers all you want that anti-Israeli protests (against her policies/leaders/what have you) isn't equal to anti-Semitism, but what this SOB said is outright anti-Semitic, and I hope that you are able to see that BLATANT fact!

[immoderate]

10. A conservative friend inferred that I was a traitor to "my people"...

because I didn't support the Bush agenda in the middle east. He thinks that the existence of Israel depends on the US making war on Muslim countries.

I told him that I am not a Zionist because I don't support theocracies of any kind, however I wish no harm on anybody, including Israelis and Muslims of whatever nationality, and that US aggression and foreign policy is feeding this danger. His contention is that this is the worst threat there has ever been...blah, blah, blah.

I think that uninformed and naive Jews (and others) are unfortunately going to stoke the fires of anti-Semitism, and while there are not many, enough exist to nurture the natural bigots out there.

--IMM

[LeftishBrit]

12. I don't think any country in the Middle East will benefit from the Bush agenda, including Israel

Unfortunately, the current Israeli leadership are fairly incompetent as well as being right-wing - Olmert was totally unprepared for office, and took over unexpectedly when Sharon became incapacitated - and have been letting Bush egg them on. A bad mistake for themselves and the world, like it was a bad mistake for the Blair government to let Bush egg them on.

However, while I agree that Bush and those governments that co-operate with them are pursuing disastrous policies that are inherently unjust, and increase instability and the risk of terrorism, I don't think they, or their supporters (Jewish and otherwise) can be blamed for 'stoking the fires of anti-semitism'. Anti-semitism has been going on for centuries, long before the state of Israel existed, and has little to do with any actual Israeli or Jewish actions or policies. Like other forms of xenophobia, it has more to do with a human need to focus blame on an 'out-group'.

[immoderate]

18. I largely agree. But Jewish neocon support of Bush doesn't help.

Also see my reply to cali #17, below.

--IMM

[Jai4WKC08]

26. Yeah, but you're talking about a small percentage of American Jews who still support Bush

In 2006, 88% of us voted for Democrats.

The Jewish neocons may be influential disproportionate to their numbers, but don't kid yourself. If there were not one single Jew in the Republican party or the Bush administration, there would still be neocons who want to control the Middle East and its resources.

I consider myself a Zionist. I think we need a homeland in this world. And while I might agree in principle that the ideal democratic nation draws a sharp line between church (synagogue/mosque) and state, I'll consider denouncing Israel for rabbinic influence on her government, which is relatively mild, only when the dozen or so Muslim nations and several dozen Christian nations start to go secular.

But that doesn't mean I think Israel has any hope but to achieve some sort of peace with her Arab & Persian neighbors. And regardless of who is at fault for the violence, the simple fact is that Israel can only survive with less violence, not more.

Any Jew, or gentile either, who thinks we can stop Iran from getting nukes by bombing the hell out of 'em hasn't really given the problem a whole lot of critical thought. Either that or they're stupid. Sure, we could probably disrupt Iranian nuclear development programs, maybe even delay them a few years, but we'll piss 'em off even more in the process, and make their resolve to obtain nukes and other advanced weapons all the stronger.

[immoderate]

40. For practical purpose, we agree.

--IMM

[cali]

13. You might take note

of my post above- you're in the majority of Jews when it comes to opposing the war. And blaming any group for bigotry against it, just becauae of who they are, is flat wrong.

[immoderate]

17. Taken.

I am aware that Jews, in general, oppose the Bush regime more than any other group, except blacks, and I am glad of that. But there are a few, including the powerful neo-cons, who draw attention to the Israeli lobbies that supposedly guide our policy. This is fuel for all sorts of crazies.

I have also gotten messages from non-Jewish friends that believe that AIPAC drives US policy. I told them that it is largely nonsense, but a convenient dodge that takes advantage of the anti-Semitism that is already out there.

On a different topic: Was it you who posted here about the Scrutator site? Do you know what happened to them? Turned out it was all a put-on.

--IMM

[cali]

20. OMFG, How I loved Scrutator.

I had long suspected that it was a put on, but when they decided to blow their cover, it was one of the most spectacular funny things you can imagine. Turns out the guy who runs it is a Vermont liberal.

[immoderate]

38. I'm sea ape.

:)

--IMM

[JI7]

21. i have read similar crap on DU

[lpbk2713]

22. Has this clown been reading Krazy Katie Harris' notes?

[Clark2008]

33. Well, at least he said the DemocratIC Party...

:shrug:

[walldude]

39. millionaire Democrats outnumber millionaire Republicans four to one

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: who the fuck is he kidding?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.