Pelosi: Jewish Republican voters being 'exploited’

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says she thinks Republican Jewish voters are “being exploited” by party leaders.

The California Democrat made the comment when asked during an interview with Bloomberg News whether she thought President Obama would win the Jewish vote, which historically goes to Democrat candidates.

Pelosi, a Catholic, first said the election would answer the question, then said yes.

"I think that he will, because the fact is when the facts get out," she said. "You know, as many of the Republicans are using Israel as an excuse, what they really want are tax cuts for the wealthy. So Israel, that can be one reason they put forth."

During the TV interview scheduled to air this weekend, Pelosi attempted to explain her comment by agreeing with the interviewer that Republican Jewish supporters are very active this political season and that Jewish voters are intelligent enough to realize the situation.

"Well, that’s how they’re being exploited,” she said. “And they’re smart people. They follow these issues. But they have to know the facts. And the fact is that President Obama has been the strongest person in terms of sanctions on Iran, which is important to Israel. He’s been the strongest person on whether it’s Iron Dome, David’s Sling, any of these weapons systems and initiatives that relate to Israel. He has been there over and over again."

Pelosi also is facing criticism that she implied Obama as president has been to Israel "over and over again."

He has never been as president, went once during his 2008 presidential campaign and reportedly went twice as a senator.

Yet before Romney visit

While Romney is left to implicit contrasts with his Democratic opponent, Obama has been focusing on Israel, signing legislation on Friday increasing military and civilian ties between the U.S. and Israel. And he authorized the release of an additional $70 million in military aid for Israel, a previously announced move that appeared timed to Romney's trip.

**LordofHats**

What's that Nancy. Politicians cater to the special interests of political blocs to earn their favor and their votes in elections? Why my god, I think you've finally passed basic civics. Congratulations.

In other news from the Obvious is Obvious party: Fire Hot.

**Henners91**

I spam this everywhere I can:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

**BolingbrokeIV**

TBH I think the implication that this topic is a waste of time, LordofHats, is fairly ironic when your own comment is just pointless miserable cynicism.

**Jihadin**

Its Nancy Pelosi..yes she's a democrat....but its Nancy Pelosi

**Chowderhead**

Jihadin wrote:Its Nancy Pelosi..yes she's a democrat....but its Nancy Pelosi

Alright. You can point out names. But what's your point?

**LordofHats**

Glorioski wrote:TBH I think the implication that this topic is a waste of time, LordofHats, is fairly ironic when your own comment is just pointless miserable cynicism.

The topic probably isn't, but Nancy Pelosi pointing out that a powerful political demographic is being catered too as if its something new is a waste of time. That's pretty much the height of a "well no dip Sherlock, how'd you figure that out" moment. That's what democratic politics is.

its especially silly to see her say this, when she spent years as essentially nothing more than a mouth piece of the Democratic Party. Playing people to win their votes is what she does, its the entire basis of her profession.

**Scrabb**

Nancy Pelosi has done more for the republican party than a lot of republicans.

Shame so many of the republicans do so much for the democratic party.

**Ouze**

I've never really understood this fascination with defending Israel to begin with. They are more then capable of defending themselves without our assistance, and I think we should stop involving ourselves in their affairs... and vice-versa.

To put it differently, I think we get a lot less out of this relationship then we put into it, when we could be putting those resources into other regions that are more productive, less controversial, generate much more useful returns, and would be IMO much less likely to crap on us publicly at any given moment.

**Phanatik**

LordofHats wrote:What's that Nancy. Politicians cater to the special interests of political blocs to earn their favor and their votes in elections? Why my god, I think you've finally passed basic civics. Congratulations.

In other news from the Obvious is Obvious party: Fire Hot.

LOL!

I'm still chuckling two minutes later.

G'day

**Henners91**

Ouze wrote:I've never really understood this fascination with defending Israel to begin with. They are more then capable of defending themselves without our assistance, and I think we should stop involving ourselves in their affairs... and vice-versa.

To put it differently, I think we get a lot less out of this relationship then we put into it, when we could be putting those resources into other regions that are more productive, less controversial, generate much more useful returns, and would be IMO much less likely to crap on us publicly at any given moment.

QFT, pretty much the point of the article I linked

**Ouze**

Henners91 wrote:QFT, pretty much the point of the article I linked

Yeah, that article is super long but I think makes a lot of really good points.

**Melissia**

Pelosi is pretty much right, though.

The only reason most evangelicals want to defend Israel is that they hope that Israelis will cause the Rapture to happen early somehow.

**Manchu**

The issue isn't that Romney is catering to Jewish voters; it's that he's "exploiting" them by posturing on Israel. Romney has been talking about Jerusalem as the capital of Israel despite the United States maintaining its embassy in Tel Aviv. And when asked whether he would move the embassy, Romney demurred and said he didn't like to make foreign policy while on foreign soil. So -- talk a big talk to energize Jewish fence sitters when it is clear that such a shake up would be against U.S. interests and he has no real intention of doing anything. All this is meant to call out Obama's rationalist approach to Israel. Obama is the first president ever not to consider Israel with some kind of mythic reverence and so a lot of Jewish Republicans have labeled him a cold fish. Why should we be forever tied to a anti-American middle eastern government that consistently works against our interests? Obama's attitude toward Israel has been refreshingly pro-American as opposed to pro-Israeli. Pelosi is right about Romney.

**Phanatik**

Manchu wrote:Obama's attitude toward Israel has been refreshingly pro-American as opposed to pro-Israeli.

I would say that Obama is closer to being more pro-Israel than he is pro-America.

And he isn't very much pro-Israel.

Cheers!

**Melissia**

Why you would say that, I wouldn't know.

I mean, I'm sane.

**Phanatik**

Melissia wrote:Why you would say that, I wouldn't know.

I mean, I'm sane.

Well, you say you are.
I'm sure the Manson Family may have thought they were taking their cues from the Brady Bunch, but that's not how it worked out.

Lets judge Obama by his results.

The country is worse off than when he got into office.
Everything he does makes things worse.

He wants to do more of what hasn't worked.

Why do YOU suppose that is?

Have a nice day.

**Manchu**

Phanatik wrote:He wants to do more of what hasn't worked.

This is a valid point for both candidates to use against one another--except on the issue of Israel. On that issue, the president is not doing "more of what hasn't worked." Treating Israel like any other nation, no more or less special than any of its neighbors, is exactly what we need more of. Whether or not it's "working" kind of depends on whether you think Israeli interests are more important than American ones. If you value American interests as the priority, it's working just fine. With Romney, it's not currently a matter of foreign policy at all. It's a matter of riling up some of the Jewish vote. Hence Pelosi's dead-on comment.

**LordofHats**

Also depends on if you think a change in US attitudes towards Israel will really improve or degrade anything. I honestly don't think regional politics change much is the US and Israel stop being butt buddies.

**Manchu**

Regardless of what happens in the region, I don't think the U.S. needs to kowtow to such an anti-American nation like Israel that constantly bullies its neighbors and so forces us into tight spots.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:Regardless of what happens in the region, I don't think the U.S. needs to kowtow to such an anti-American nation like any country in the region that constantly bullies its neighbors and so forces us into tight spots.

Fixed your typo, but we are in agreement otherwise. Time to be like Ze Swiss. Buy stuff we want. Sell stuff we can. But never get involved.

**Phanatik**

In the interests of full disclosure, I will say I'm STILL miffed that Israel attacked a U.S. vessel.

Otherwise, I have no problem with them.

Cheers.

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
Manchu wrote:Regardless of what happens in the region, I don't think the U.S. needs to kowtow to such an anti-American nation like any country in the region that constantly bullies its neighbors and so forces us into tight spots.

Fixed your typo, but we are in agreement otherwise.

It wasn't a typo. Israel is a nation that puts us into tight spots by bullying its neighbors. Sure, I don't think we should kowtow to other nations that do the same. But it's high time to specifically acknowledge that Israel's policies are often no better than any other Middle Eastern nation when it comes to furthering U.S. interests.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Manchu wrote:Regardless of what happens in the region, I don't think the U.S. needs to kowtow to such an anti-American nation like any country in the region that constantly bullies its neighbors and so forces us into tight spots.

Fixed your typo, but we are in agreement otherwise.
It wasn't a typo. Israel is a nation that puts us into tight spots by bullying its neighbors. Sure, I don't think we should kowtow to other nations that do the same. But it's high time to specifically acknowledge that Israel's policies are often no better than any other Middle Eastern nation when it comes to furthering U.S. interests.

COnsidering Turkery didn't allow the IronHorse division, and supports running stuff to Gaza, Saudi Arabia supports terrorists blah blah they all are equal members in the "with friends like these who needs enemies" conga line.

Sell them stuff.
By stuff from them.
Do nothing else. Support no one. Fight or threaten no one.

Life is marvelous.

**LordofHats**

Saudi Arabia's government doesn't really support terrorists. Rich people in Saudi Arabia who sell us oil do

**Jihadin**

Since oil came up might as well keep everyone current

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

**Henners91**

Ouze wrote:
Henners91 wrote:QFT, pretty much the point of the article I linked

Yeah, that article is super long but I think makes a lot of really good points.

Yeah, 'tis the folly of academic writings... I'd never have come upon it if it hadn't been compulsory reading for a foreign policy module at University.

**Melissia**

Phanatik wrote:Lets judge Obama by his results.

The country is worse off than when he got into office.

No it's not. The country is better in civil rights than during the Bush administration, and the economic crash that happened shortly after he took office has reversed, albeit slowly. In fact, we can really thank him for stopping it from getting any worse, but truth be told both he and McCain would have passed a very similar stimulus package anyway, and yes, he would indeed have passed one. He very likely would have made the exact same decision regarding the bail-outs, too. And, let's be fair. If you think that Obama's Affordable Care Act, which was taken from Republican ideas, is bad for the country, then perhaps we should go look at Democratic ideas. Public single payer, anyone?

Phanatik wrote:He wants to do more of what hasn't worked.

He's not the one advocating trickle down economics.

**Phanatik**

Melissia wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Lets judge Obama by his results.

The country is worse off than when he got into office.
No it's not. The country is better in civil rights than during the Bush administration, and the economic crash that happened shortly after he took office has reversed, albeit slowly. In fact, we can really thank him for stopping it from getting any worse, but truth be told both he and McCain would have passed a very similar stimulus package anyway, and yes, he would indeed have passed one. He very likely would have made the exact same decision regarding the bail-outs, too. And, let's be fair. If you think that Obama's Affordable Care Act, which was taken from Republican ideas, is bad for the country, then perhaps we should go look at Democratic ideas. Public single payer, anyone?
Phanatik wrote:He wants to do more of what hasn't worked.
He's not the one advocating trickle down economics.

Yes, our civil rights are better off when the constitution is trampled upon and we are forced by the government to purchase a product against our will. (I couldn't care less whose idea this was - it's unconstitutional.)
Yes, our civil rights are better off when the obama administration sells weapons to drug cartels.
Yes, our civil rights are better off when Obama steals property from bond holders and gives it to a union (GM government takeover.)
Yes, our civil rights are better off when Mrs. Obama (who doesn't have any kind of nutritional degree I know of) is trying to tell people what to eat and how much.
Yes, our civil rights are better off when a democrat controlled Senate illegally refuses to pass a budget, for years.

Due to built-in delays and when the budget is done, Obama would not have had any direct effect upon the economy until halfway through 2010, and even then his actions made things worse.

While McCain is a moderate, I doubt he would have used tax-payer money to fund the unions so that they could send money back to the democrats (a stimulus package for "shovel-ready jobs.) Also I doubt McCain would have given tax-payer money to Obama bundlers that started fake Solar Energy companies so they could get rich, and send more money back to Obama. Most people not from Chicago would call that money laundering, but oh well.

I believe the average U.S. recession is 18 months, which Obama is extending by his incompetence and leftist ideology.

Cheers

**AlmightyWalrus**

Do you have any proof for your accusations or are you just spouting nonsense?