Newsweek has a web-exclusive commentary by Rabbi Marc Gellman. In it he expresses his mystification that more Jews didn't vote for Joe Lieberman.
Gellman supports Bush and doesn't know why more than 22-26% of Jews don't too. Maybe for the same reasons that only 33% of the country supports Bush. Things like lying about reasons to start a pre-emptive war, building up an enormous national debt, having no energy policy, being one of the most secretive administrations, supporting torture, failing to respond to Katrina, and losing the support of the world after 9/11 have something to do with it. And those are just the non-controversial things, not supporting stem-cell research, interferring in Terry Schiavo's case, spending time on banning gay marriage, nominating Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, having no health care policy aside from a confusing perscription drug give away to the pharmaceuticals, trying to privatize social security, not doing anything about global warming and probably not believing in evolution are things I think most people would agree are problems.
But Gellman wants to talk about Lieberman. "Joe voted the Democratic line 90 percent of the time...He is modest and self effacing. He is moral and faithful. He is principled and intelligent ... and he is one of us! What more do you want of the guy?" Well I agree with those things. But then Gellman says "So he supports the war. So what?" and then goes on to say that intelligent people position on the war is similar. But he confuses things. He only talks about what to do now. Pulling out tomorrow and "nuking the bastards" are both nuts. I agree, but that's not the question here. The question here is was attacking Iraq sensible? Gellman says 29 other Democrats voted for the war, but that's not right. They (and the rest of Congress) voted to authorize military action if diplomacy didn't work and they voted under false pretences of WMDs being in Iraq and there being an al Qaida connection to Iraq. The Bush administration also did not make available all the intelligence to Congress. If you voted for the resolution at the time, fine, but looking back in hindsight you have to realize it was a mistake, and Lieberman doesn't. Lieberman's view that "in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril" doesn't take into account that Bush has already undermined his own credibility and that blindly supporting him only makes things worse.
But the heart of Gellman's argument is that if you're a Jew you should vote for Lieberman, "the way blacks voted for Barack Obama or Catholics voted for John F. Kennedy". Well I'm sorry, that's moronic. If everyone voted for their own religion (or race) we'd have elected officials that matched this map. Almost all Senators would be Baptist or Catholic with a handful of Mormons and Lutherans. There would be no Jews in the Senate. Or is it just Jews, blacks and Catholics that are supposed to vote their own? Gellman makes the distinction between the Jewish race and Judaism (a religion). I'm sorry but voting for someone because they are the same race as you is racist. You're supposed to vote for the person who will best represent your political positions.
For the most part I like Lieberman, but his view on the war and this presidency is wrong, and that's what this election is about.
No comments:
Post a Comment