There is so much wrong with this that I simply don't have the time or the energy to counter it. Seriously, you need to invest some time into all history not just the revisionist ones put forth by your fellow democrats. Seriously you really think obama cares about America? You are living in la-la land. America is the furthest thing from Obamas interests, except to destroy it at a faster rate than any other previous democrat has tried. And yes, I get the obvious bias in that statement. The problem is that in this case it is considerably more truthful than the BS typically offered by leftist revisonists.
This is nothing new. America has been running on an "Israel First" policy for quite some time. Both parties do it and to America's detriment. Keep in mind that NOT swearing allegiance to this particular foreign nation is seen as being more scandalous than the alternative. That's kinda scary.
You're aware this VP has little or no power? He may have been brought on board to give Obama oomph in Foreign Affairs, but he has hardly been listened to since. There is an argument America is promoting its interests by subsidizing Israel, it's just not a very good one, IMO. Meanwhile, we also subsidize the Palestinians -- and that's not gotten us much, either. Yes, and the NYT coverage of things like the 2008 war was demonstrably anti-Israeli. Or you can check their editorials this week and last, in which they scythed Netanahu.
Do Your Part: Believe whatever conservatives tell you—it's only sane and just They're just trying to frame the discussion so people don't look at the core issue, which is the con job that is the Republican Party. What Cantor said? The problem is that he apparently has two standards of propriety, one for Republicans and one for everybody else. And in the question of tracking Cantor's integrity, well, in my opinion, he doesn't really have any. And that's the thing. People are voting and deciding based on political theatre. And, to be certain, sure, both sides play the act, but such rhetoric is often exploited to assert a false equivalence. If Rep. Cantor thinks (Action A) is wrong, why should he commit (Action B), which is simply a more severe and pointed expression of the same? That is the fundamental question conservatives wish to avoid. Cantor is a hard-liner who benefitted from the Tea Party uprising, and now we see what that uprising has brought us: future House leadership for whom equality is a mere rhetorical toy, and to whom consistency and integrity are curse words. People like Mr. Galt only throw out such one-liners— "But of course this isn't an issue when democrats are actually doing this, instead of perceiving to be doing this!" —because they have nothing of substance to stand on. Thus they assert a false equivalence in order to avoid any direct consideration of Rep. Cantor's behavior: In 2007, Republicans tried to turn Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria into a major controversy, charging her with granting legitimacy to Bashar al-Assad and violating the Logan Act, which makes it a felony to engage in unauthorized diplomacy with a foreign country. One of the Republicans alleging Pelosi had actually committed a crime was Rep. Eric Cantor .... .... Israel is not Syria, but in the midst of an administration effort to get Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop counterproductive settlement construction in occupied East Jerusalem, Cantor promised to oppose the administration's policies with regard to Israel. With friends like these, committed to enabling actions that hurt Israel's long-term interests by scuttling the peace process, Israel doesn't need enemies .... .... Based on Cantor's own standard, he's just committed a felony. Lucky for him, no one's ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act. (Serwer; boldface and bold-italic accents added) It's just another reminder that conservatives will say anything to win points on the cosmic scoreboard, regardless of how contradictory or dysfunctional. Compared to Cantor's own standard, the Virginia Republican has committed a crime. So much, so, in fact, that today Rep. Cantor's office issued a follow-up statement intended to neither clarify nor step back from his initial remarks: A spokesman for the likely soon-to-be House Majority Leader said that there was no clarification being offered on a statement that caused a bit of controversy last week. On Monday, simply put, the office was reaffirming that while Cantor told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday that he planned on serving as "a check on the administration," he would not be playing that function "in relation to U.S./Israel relations. Last week, after a meeting with Netanyahu, Cantor's office put out a statement that caused a bit of a stir within political circles. Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington. He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other. There was no direct reference in that remark to U.S.-Israel relations. But such an implication was read by members of the press and some foreign policy analysts. What followed was several days of critical coverage over the idea that a sitting member of Congress would publicly and actively play the role of foiling the White House's foreign policy agenda .... .... Cantor's office protested the notion that his initial statement contained any foreign policy implications. And while spokesman Brad Dayspring felt compelled to offer a follow-up comment to the Washington Post, he stressed that it was neither a clarification nor a walk-back. (Stein) But none of this is important to our conservative neighbors. After all, like Mr. Galt said, Democrats do it, too. And, apparently, so nakedly that he needs not cite any examples in order to demonstrate what he's talking about. Remember, Bells, that in American politics, reality is a compromise between two political bodies and the facts themselves. And each entity has a role to play. The Republicans tell us what reality is; everyone else nods and accepts it without question; and the facts themselves sit in the corner, ignored, with their mouths shut. See? Everybody has a role to play, and it is very important that we all do our part. ____________________ Notes: Serwer, Adam. "Eric Cantor And The Logan Act". The American Prospect. November 12, 2010. Prospect.org. November 15, 2010. http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/...=2010&base_name=eric_cantor_and_the_logan_act Stein, Sam. "Cantor's Office Issues Second Comment: Won't Serve As Check On Obama 'In Relation To U.S./Israel Relations'". The Huffington Post. November 15, 2010. HuffingtonPost.com. November 15, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/eric-cantor-us-israel_n_783618.html
Mod Hat - Merge Note Mod Hat — Merge Note The thread "'Republicans will serve as a check on Obama's Israel policy'-Eric Cantor to Netanyahu" has been merged into this one based on significant subject matter overlap.
Jewish financiers, on the other hand, vote - or at least support - Republicans, predominantly. At least, until a Democrat is very likely to win anyway, and should not do so without owing Goldman Sachs for big favors. The NYT coverage of the 2008 military suppression (it was not a "war", as there was no other side's military involved) was more or less completely framed in Israel PR terms (such as referring to it as a "war") and strongly biased against the Palestinian viewpoint.
Since nobody around here can do any basic research .... A note for Counte & Ice: According to Sabato and Ernst: Since the New Deal era, Jewish voters have maintained consistently firm ties to the Democratic Party. Notwithstanding the influence of education levels or socioeconomic status, Jewish voters have, by and large, identified with the Democratic Party. This is dissimilar to the tendency of higher-income Catholics to vote Republican, for example. (489) I suppose there remains a question of the breakdown of Jewish Republican voters separate from the Jewish voter in general; e.g., who were the thirteen percent of Jewish voters who went Republican in 2000? What is their demographic profile? But those are questions for another day. ____________________ Notes: Sabato, Larry and Howard R. Ernst. Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections. New York: Infobase, 2006. Books.Google.com. November 15, 2010. http://books.google.com/books?id=d-379E2mFmYC
And you need to get off your high horse and offer something a bit more substantial than this. And Cantor cares by going against his President by making deals with leaders of foreign States to look after their interests? And you live in a land that actually considered candidates like O'Donnell and even Palin as being good candidates for politics. You want to talk about "la la land"? And Cantor's deal making with foreign leaders to further the interests of another State above even that of his own country is putting America first? No? Really? You and bias would be the last thing I'd ever put together in a sentence Mr Galt. What is more truthful? That a Republican is putting the interests of Israel over that of his own country? Or is that a lie to you? How about his actions which goes against what he supposedly believed in? The irony of this is that you are so busy blaming the other side, that you can't even see what your side is doing. You have a senior Republican making a deal to further the interests of another country and saying that they will be keeping tabs on the President to make sure that other country's interests come first. That is bad. Any side who does this.. it's bad. You don't recognise that this is bad? No, you don't. You're too busy pointing fingers and saying 'the other side did it to'.. without any links or proof.. disregarding Cantor's actions in the process. There is a distinct problem in US politics if you have people actively working to further the interests of other countries over even that of their own. It goes beyond being inappropriate to bordering on hypocritical treason.
Mr. Galt should also consult Article II of the US Constitution which gives the president the power to conduct foriegn policy (make treaties and commander in chief)...not the House of Representatives of which Cantor is a member.
But he's still part of the Obama Administration and is the second most powerful man in America. So we have the administration chastising Israel on one front and swearing allegiance to them on the other. Unless Obama comes out and declares that what Biden said is bullshit, the obvious conclusion is that it's all political posturing. It's a moot point in my opinion, though, since I don't see anyone with a chance of getting elected president drastically changing our stance on the Middle East. I'm familiar with the argument and, to be fair, I don't think it's entirely wrong. But I think the negatives of our unwavering support for Israel outweigh the positives. Aside from the fact that I don't think Israel has been the stalwart ally that many claim it is, all we've got in return for our support is what CIA-types would refer to as "blowback". I'm not in favor of foreign aid for anyone other than military allies during times of war, and I certainly don't think we should be getting involved in centuries-old ethnic squabbles. Like I said, I don't know what goes on at the NYT. I don't read it. But Jewish Americans overwhelmingly vote Democrat, so they clearly don't see the Democrats as a huge opponent of their interests.
Technically it's not treason; at least no more so than any other politician that supports Israel to America's detriment (which includes Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. etc. etc.). It's more like he's threatening to undermine Obama's agenda, which isn't treasonous in and of itself, and isn't automatically a negative thing. In this case, I agree more with Obama. But politicians trying to screw over their opposition is nothing new. The problem here is that there is no "special relationship" other than massive monetary and military handouts.
The VP's power is all implied power. That is, he could be president one day, and in the interim, talk to him and there is a good chance he may carry your message to the president. But my impression, generally, is that he is not in the Obama inner-circle of security and foreign affairs. And he constantly says things that contradict stated policy. I once asked a friend what we got for our relationship with Israel other than good feelings. He couldn't really respond. I mean, I know we have a close relationship with their intelligence community, but that same community -- Shin Bet and Mossad -- spies on the US as aggressively as Russia and China. And at this point, Israel can take care of itself. It has its own defense industry -- not to mention, nukes. So we get to feel good, and in the meanwhile, the rest of the world views us with suspicion, and the Muslims can't stand the relationship.
The Pope's power is all implied, from a practical standpoint. That doesn't mean he doesn't have influence and that his words don't have consequences. And, as I pointed out, Biden IS part of the Obama Administration. If Obama doesn't say otherwise (either publicly or to Israel's leaders), he may as well be agreeing with Biden. Israel gives us an ally in a region where we have none. You could make the argument that our support for Israel plays a role in why we have no other allies in the Middle East, and you'd be right. But the ultra-crazies like Bin Laden and the Ayatollah would hate us either way. Israel could be helpful with intelligence regarding terrorists, but that's about it. Most Middle Eastern countries pose no direct threat to anyone but each other. And we could gather the anti-terrorist intel ourselves if we put our minds to it. You're right that most of support for Israel is based on feel-good politics; whether it's based on religion or the notion of helping one of the most oppressed minorities in the history of the world. Really not a good basis for policy either way, in my opinion.
