presidency

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949

You want citations, I got citations!

So, nu, let's talk building a coalition. By the numbers, the Republicans ain't exactly a majority party -- even with considerable numbers of them fleeing to the Independent category (you can tell, because like any minority party that wants to be in control, they seek to impede voting. look at St. Louis if you don't believe me). But never fear, there are ways to fix this! I strongly believe that a two party system where both are close to even, at least close enough to both believe that they can be the majority party -- and act like it, is a good thing.

The Moderates

Upbeats -- well, actually I'm going to toss them out, because they're voting 73% for GWB. When you can win that much then there's no real need to worry about the demographic.

Disaffecteds -- Sound an awful lot like the Scotch Irish to me... a traditional GOP constituency, and yet they really don't vote. If you wanted to find someone to "increase turnout" with, these might be the people. But they don't fall for the Reagan Sunshine Shtick. They're the type that like demagogery, like simple solutions that point at people who aren't them. The democrats will try to buy them by pointing at Corporations, so far the Republicans have tried to buy them by pointing at Immigration. It's a hard group to motivate, and might drive out Enterprisers from your party if you do manage to motivate them.

Bystanders -- these are the new Obama voters, particularly the ones in the Interior West. The key to winning this group is BOTH motivating them and helping them, I think.

What's Left

Liberals -- oddly enough, the largest demographic. Why might you want to appeal to liberals? It might help to gain back some votes, particularly if you swing hard towards Environmental Conservatism or Pro-Immigration. Also, liberals are much more freedom-oriented than many demographics, particularly in regards to foreign policy.

Conservative Democrats -- Current Republican approaches seem to be actively targeting these individuals, so the better question is -- why aren't they Republicans? Not a likely group to target, regardless of how many "another democrat for McCain" signs you print.

Disadvantaged Democrats -- These are the people who need solutions most desperately. A republican who could provide effective, efficient governmental solutions would do well among these folks. I don't see that happening, however.

You just can't trust these lefties to tell the truth.  Having watched the technically well made video, one is left with the impression that all security and military people in the Israeli military and intelligence have strong positive feelings for Obama. While some actually do, others do not. Not one contrary voice is heard on this video.  Indeed some of them seem to have a positive impression of Obama, basically because Obama endorses no pre-condition talks with Iran.

Yossi Alpher, appearing in the video and tagged as a "former Mossad senior officer" (but the Jewish Council for Education & Research failed to associate Alpher with one of his other jobs, that of Senior Advisor to Ehud Barak at Camp David [where Barak tried to give away most of Yosh to Arafat who chose not to end the conflict]) appears in the video endorsing Obama as a negotiator and reinforces one of the themes of the video that Sen. McCain is essentially a second President Bush and that would no longer be helpful. 

More interesting is the assertion by Ret. Brig. Gen. Shaul Arieli in the video that the "Bush Doctrine" has intensified the fundamentalist Islamic threat and has strengthened Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Arieli is interviewed in the JPOST article and endorses Obama. Arieli is a member of the "Council for Peace and Security" which includes in its http://www.peace-security-council.org/about.us.asp#abGuiding Guiding Principles  these gems:

• PEACE IS ACHIEVED BY COMPROMISE  Peace and a strong army are the essential ingredients for Israel’s security.  The army must at all cost retain its deterrent ability.  It should however be borne in mind that peace is not achievable without compromise and willingness to make sacrifices.

• THE OCCUPATION IS CAUSING DAMAGE  Continued occupation of the Territories and control over the Palestinians is damaging the democratic character of the State of Israel.  It is weakening the army, undermining its ability and its preparedness to respond to military threats.

• A PALESTINIAN STATE IS NOT A THREAT  The establishment of a Palestinian State in the major part of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip – with necessary security provisions – does not constitute a threat to Israel.  On the contrary, it is essential in order to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel.  A realistic permanent boundary between Israel and a Palestinian State should be that of the Green Line (Israel’s provisional border before the Six Day War in 1967), with certain adjustments in Jerusalem and in other places.  The large Jewish settled domains on the eastern side of the Green Line should be annexed to Israel.</blockquote> I suppose giving away Gaza and offering to give away Yosh has had nothing to do with strengthening the more visible anti-Israel forces amongst the Pali population vis a vis the terrorists in suits. It is much easier to blame the American president than take responsibility for advocating failed policies which have brought increased bloodshed and rocket attacks. More of the same policies will leave a devastated Israel in its wake. A PA terrorist state will certainly NOT enhance Israel's security in any way.

 

Essentially, this video was constructed to be an Obama outreach to Jews and people close to Israel, made by lefties advocating the Obama way as the most effective method to preserve Israel's security. To what extent the Obama campaign assisted in its creation or advised the producers remains to be seen. That misleading and deceptive editing was needed to sell the message is something well worth noting. I wonder though if any of those appearing in the video actually are thinking that an inexperienced and naive Obama will be easier to manage from Jerusalem than someone else?

I also wonder what some of the desire for "change" in US policy is all about.  The Bush administration has, more than any previous Presidency supported the Palis politically all the while, not backing down in support for Israel in the issues that matter.  The Bush administration has publically called for a Pali state which was a game changing event. At the same time, the pretense of having free elections and at least some lip service to a commitment to "living in peace" with Israel by the PA has insulated the Bush team and prevented the forcing of any significant concessions.  Bush even sat quietly while watching Arafat rot in the Muqata. The Bush policy has certainly helped reveal a pali population that actually is more concerned with bringing on Jewish suffering than they are establishing a civil government by giving them a vote. Sen. 'say it ain't so' Joe Biden, speaking for the Obama camp during his VP debate with Governor Palin believed removing the veil of concealment covering the true intentions of the Pali population to be a negative. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017470356&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull  (Ex-generals misled by pro-Obama video)

Oct. 6, 2008
Matt Zalen and Shani Rosenfelder , THE JERUSALEM POST
A video released by the Jewish Council for Education & Research, which appeared to show several retired senior IDF and Mossad officials supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has proven to be misleading, with a number of officials who appeared in the video saying on Monday that their words were taken out of context.

The film's producers have stressed in response that the Obama campaign was not involved during any stage of the production.

"It's not only misleading, it was an interview about what the next president was going to have to deal with," former deputy chief of General Staff Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan told The Jerusalem Post. "And to know that they used this interview and took five seconds, and put me in a list of people praising Barack Obama…

"It wasn't about the campaign, it was about the political and security issues of the Middle East that the next president should be involved in," he continued. "Nothing was said about Obama or [Republican presidential candidate John] McCain."

"I don't want other people to interfere in my elections, and I must not interfere with the elections in the United States," he said, adding that to do so would be neither "ethical nor smart."

In the video, the senior Israeli officials appear to support Obama's stated policy that dialogue with Iran would be the best way of confronting the current nuclear crisis. Dayan said that his position is just the opposite.

"I don't think that we - either the United States or Israel - should be engaged with Iran, because the Iranians will take advantage of that," the former deputy chief of staff said. "Our issue is to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capability."

"We need more powerful, effective sanctions to delegitimize [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," he continued. "A military option should be prepared, but used only as a last resort."

Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, who appeared in the video praising the Democratic candidate, also said that he was misled.

"I was interviewed for a documentary dealing with what issues the new American president must deal with regarding the Middle East," Halevy told the Post. "I was asked about the candidates, and was complimentary to both."

But when asked about his opinion on who was more qualified to be president, Halevy said that he had rejected the question.

"I said that I thought it was inappropriate for an Israeli to advise Americans on who they should vote for, as it would be for them to advise Israelis on who they should vote for prime minister," he said.

Halevy added that it would be irresponsible to comment on the positions of any US presidential candidates before an election, as those positions may change once the new president takes office.

Both Halevy and Dayan said that representatives of the Jewish Council for Education & Research had been in contact with them, and promised to deal with the matter.

According to Israel Radio, Maj.-Gen. (Ret.) Amram Mitzna and Brig.-Gen. (res.) Giora Inbar, a former IDF commander in south Lebanon, both said that they were also unaware of the true nature of the video. However, Inbar said he did not have a problem with the clip because it represents his views.

In the video, Mitzna had said that another four years of indecision, stagnancy and a lack of intense US involvement in the Middle East peace process would be bad for Israel. He claimed Obama would achieve a greater involvement and that he "brings many hopes."

For his part, Inbar was filmed saying that he would personally vote for Obama to help Israel. Inbar said he was not convinced that the Bush method was the right way to deal with the axis of evil and that he would welcome anyone who chose to handle it differently.

Revised Films, the independent film company that produced the clip, issued the following response:

"Our firm is an independent company that created a clip that was composed of interviews with senior Israeli security officials, and whose subject was the American policy regarding Israel, in light of the upcoming elections in the United States, while focusing on the two central candidates for president, and Barack Obama.

"The Obama campaign was not involved during any stage of the production, or [the film's] distribution. After the film was completed, the Jewish Council for Education & Research, took charge of the film and used it."

A response by The Jewish Council for Education & Research has yet to be obtained due to the time difference between Israel and the US.
 

VIDEO LINK

http://vimeo.com?pg=embed&amp;sec=1882159

Is guilt by association fair? Many blogs and websites, including APRPEH ( http://aprpeh.blogspot.com/)   have made an argument that Barry Obama's true feelings towards Jews and Israel can be measured by his associations. Undeniable facts about Obama, many of them posed as questions left unanswered or not answered in a credible or believeable fashion have formed the core of the No-Bama effort. These questions remain legitimate campaign issues and concerns. Obama DID indeed maintain a 20+ year relationship as a member of TUCC in the Jeremiah Wright flock, listening to what is undeniably anti-US and antiJew rhetoric only distancing himself when his crusade for the Presidency was jeopardized.