Abe Greenwald is not your classic Christian name, but one cannot assume based on a name. However, Wikipedia describes Commentary (magazine) as "a monthly American magazine on religion, Judaism, Israel, politics, and social and cultural issues." So one can assume.
Finally, Michiganders will break free of the Jewish money that’s been destroying their lives all these years.
"Jewish money" is not standard anti-Semitism. It is flashing red light anti-Semitism. This is significant, though not as significant when the anti-Semitism is obscured by a patina of sincerity. This person leaves a former Barack Obama advisor battered and bloodied:
So @davidaxelrod pulled the "as a Jew" move on CNN tonight — right on cue. He opens by invoking that he "speaks as the son of a Jewish refugee," then uses that cover to call it "a legitimate question" whether AIPAC should be treated as "an agent of any foreign government, whether… pic.twitter.com/9YIYh3STlO
18 U.S. Code, Section 951 establishes the punishment for being an "agent of a foreign government," which it defines as "an individual who agrees to operate within the United States subject to the direction or control of a foreign government official." There is no evidence that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee operates within the USA subject to the direction or control of anyone, excepting perhaps the American citizens who contribute to it.
As this twitterer notes, David Axelrod is giving a green light to anti-semitism. No matter how often he or anyone else follows "as a Jew" with a lie, being Jewish is no excuse for falsehood and bias. David Axelrod should put up or shut up.
In mid-May, Chris Cillizza noted that when pollsters asked Democrats their opinion of the Democratic Party, the word that often came to mind was "weak."
There are many reasons for that. One, however, is that when major Democratic operatives are asked about the Party, they are loathe to be seen or heard defending it. At the beginning of the video below, David Axelrod contends "More and more, the Party has come to approach working people as missionaries and anthropologists. We show up and say "we're here to hep you become more like us..."
"More like us." Black? Gay (or, rather, "queer")? Former federal prosecutors? Axelrod continues "... and we know what you need and we're fighting for it. And there's a fundamental disregard associated with that and I think that's been communicated and I think that disdain has been weaponized by Trump.."
At 1:51, Axelrod claims
But look, there's a larger problem, uh. And I think Democrats do themselves a disservice by not doing, engaging, in some introspection here. It is that the party that sees itself as the party of working people came to be seen by so many working people as the party of elites and institutions.
Oh, good gravy. Democrats are forever and ever looking themselves in the mirror. They are the party of introspection. Republicans do not do this, though at least not since early 2013, when they conducted an "autopsy" which concluded that it must be a more inclusive party, more welcoming to immigrants, blacks, and other minorities. They then nominated Donald Trump, and the rest is history.
There is a modicum of validity to Axelrod's observation. However, at least in this segment, the veteran consultant, as is common among similar critics, does not specify what "elites" or institutions Democrats are enamored with. Further, the assessment might be a little more credible, or at least genuine, if it hadn't come from a chief strategist and senior adviser to a famous former President, who once remarked.
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a
lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and
nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and
the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that
somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to
guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or
anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their
frustrations.
Barack Obama did not offer this "introspective" and definitely not elitist comment after his presidency or even during his presidency. He said this on the campaign trail in April of 2008- seven months before he would be elected President. And this fellow, who maintained Americans in the heartland "get bitter (and) cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them" was re-elected. Sometimes, smug prevails. And elitism.
Of course, it's not that Obama was wrong. Nor is his former consultant/adviser arguing that the policy prescriptions or analysis of Democrats is inaccurate. However, Barack Obama's success at winning presidential elections suggests that the perception that Democrats are elitist is not a cause of electoral failure bur a result, or proxy for, something else.
I don't know what that is. But if talk is cheap, diagnosis without prescription- as practiced by Axelrod- is nearly worthless, or worse. He and others try to distance themselves from the Party, which reinforces the perception of Democrats as weak: if its heavyweights don't stand up for the party, why should others
Noting that President Biden stated that he would support
ending the filibuster to codify abortion rights, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell asked him
... many Americans are grappling with this. What is your
sense today about the integrity and the impartiality of the Supreme Court?
Should Americans have confidence in the Court as an institution? and your views
on abortion have evolved in your public life. Are you the best messenger to
carry this forward when Democrats, many of them, many progressives want you to
do more?
So the President responded
Yeah, I am the President of the United States. That makes me
the best messenger and I really think it's a serious problem that the Court has
thrust upon the United States- not just in terms of the right to choose but in
terms of the right to who you can marry, a whole range of issues relating to
privacy and....
CNN's Jake Tapper played O'Donnell's second question and
Biden's answer, "Yeah, I am. I am the President of the United States. That
makes me the best messenger. I'm the only President they got.". David
Axelrod responded
It was not the best answer, I'll give you that. But also,
you know, you know, I feel his pain because I know what it's like to be sitting
in these situations and being pummeled by elements of your own community.
We know from the comments made by Tapper that Axelrod's
"elements of your own community" was somewhat of a cheap shot against the progressive left. And those unnamed "elements" have
indeed been criticizing President Biden. Nonetheless, I had intended to defend
President Biden from this criticism by Axelrod, who did not specifically state his problem with the response. As a campaign strategist
for Barack Obama during his two presidential campaigns, then becoming a Special
Advisor to the President (whatever that is).
Axelrod has never served a President who has been criticized by members
of his own Party with so few individuals coming to his defense.
"I'm the only President they got" seemed to me to
be an approximate throwback to President Truman's "the buck stops
here."
Well, Scranton Joe fooled me. Slate's Mark Joseph Stern reports
President Joe Biden struck a deal with Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell to nominate Chad Meredith, a Republican anti-abortion
advocate, to a federal judgeship on the Eastern District of Kentucky, Slate has
confirmed. Under the arrangement, Meredith would take the seat currently
occupied by Judge Karen Kaye Caldwell, a George W. Bush nominee. Caldwell
submitted her move to senior status on June 22, which, once complete, will
allow Meredith to take the seat. A lawyer with connections to the Kentucky
governor’s office who is familiar with the agreement told Slate that Caldwell
conditioned her move upon the confirmation a successor—specifically, the
conservative Meredith. In exchange, McConnell will allow Biden to nominate and
confirm two U.S. Attorneys to Kentucky.
The deal has prompted fury from Democrats since it was first
reported by the Louisville Courier Journal’s Andrew Wolfson and Joe Sonka on
Wednesday....
Although it's possible that Biden won't go through with this
terrible deal, one of those Kentucky Democrats, US Representative John
Yarmuth told Slate that, according to his White House
contact, the president “is aware of my concern and the governor’s concern,” but
has not yet responded. The congressman added, of Meredith: “This is a bad
appointment for Kentucky. It’s a bad appointment for the federal courts. This
guy is aligned with a Federalist Society. He represents everything that is
anathema to Democrats.”
And so it goes. Whatever Axelrod's concern with Biden's
response to O'Donnell's question(s), it likely wasn't this sort of thing. And whatever
Democrats thought they got from the nomination for President, and election to
the presidency, of Joseph R. Biden, it wasn't this. Two consecutive weak Democratic presidents
isn't the way to prevent election of a Republican as a President, nor the way to
brink us back from the brink of complete disaster after his four years of destruction.
It's hard to determine which is worse: the statement of
Representative Maxine Waters or one of the responses to it. Waters infamously remarked
Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And
if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at
a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on
them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get
the children connected to their parents.
Actually, it's not difficult at all. An appropriately restrained Nancy Pelosi contended "In the crucial months ahead,
we must strive to make America beautiful again. Trump's daily lack of civility
has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable."
Slightly more negatively, Chuck Schumer charged "If you disagree with a politician, organize your fellow citizens
to action and vote them out of office, but no one should call for the
harassment of political opponents. That’s not right. That’s not American...”
Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education for most of President Obama's
tenure, at least was humble when he acknowledged his statement was only "my
personal opinion":
My personal opinion:
No matter how much we dislike or disagree with someone, we should not deny them the chance to have a meal.
The history in our country of denying people access to restaurants, to water fountains and even bathrooms is too raw, too real.
We can’t keep dividing.
What is happening is completely unrelated to discriminating
against an individual because of an inherited characteristic- race- or against
someone born as a man or a woman and comes to realize it's not who he or she is. Still, Duncan seems to realize that bias against blacks and transgendered
individuals is a part of our history, and far worse than requiring someone to go elsewhere for her Chanterelle & Scape Risotto. Not so aware, David Axelrod responded to Waters with
Kind of amazed and appalled by the number of folks on Left who applauded the expulsion of @PressSec and her family from a restaurant.
This, in the end, is a triumph for @realDonaldTrump vision of America:
Now we’re divided by red plates & blue plates!#sad
"Folks on the left" is another shot against progressives by the
Democratic establishment. Worse, insertion of the adverb "now" was no
accident. It is Axelrod- unlike Duncan- reinforcing the GOP meme that now that
some Democrats are uncivil, we have (suddenly) become divided.
Axelrod, Senator Barack Obama's chief campaign strategist in 2008 and 2012,
evidently needs to remember the following (compiled in September, 2016 by CNN's Gregory
Krieg):
1. "Why doesn't he show his birth certificate? There's
something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like."
- March 23, 2011, on "The View"
2. "He's spent millions of dollars trying to get away
from this issue. Millions of dollars in legal fees trying to get away from this
issue. And I'll tell you what, I brought it up, just routinely, and all of a
sudden a lot facts are emerging and I'm starting to wonder myself whether or
not he was born in this country."
- March 28, 2011, on Fox News
3. "He doesn't have a birth certificate, or if he does,
there's something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody
told me -- and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it
would be -- that where it says 'religion,' it might have 'Muslim.' And if
you're a Muslim, you don't change your religion, by the way."
- March 30, 2011, on The Laura Ingraham Show
4. "I have people that have been studying [Obama's
birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they're finding ... I would
like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I
hope he can. Because if he can't, if he can't, if he wasn't born in this
country, which is a real possibility ... then he has pulled one of the great
cons in the history of politics."
- April 7, 2011, on NBC's "Today" show
5. "His grandmother in Kenya said, 'Oh, no, he was born
in Kenya and I was there and I witnessed the birth.' She's on tape. I think
that tape's going to be produced fairly soon. Somebody is coming out with a
book in two weeks, it will be very interesting."
- April 7, 2011, on MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
Donald Trump never would have become President Donald Trump,
would never have even sniffed the GOP presidential nomination, were it not for
his campaign to convince voters that Barack H. Obama was not born in this
country. It's analogous to Obama's
opposition to the upcoming Iraq War, inasmuch as the Illinois senator would never
have been considered for his party's presidential nomination had he never given this impressive speech.
Axelrod's worship of his former boss knows no bounds. When Axelrod maintains "now we're divided by red plates &
blue plates, he suggests that in the Age of Obama we were
contentedly sitting in a circle and singing "Kumbaya." And, yes, we noticed the hashtag-
"sad"- popularized by Donald J. Trump himself, likely employed here
without sarcasm.
We don't even have to go back to 2011. The morning after Red Hen restaurant turned
Sarah Sanders and her party away, she tweeted about the incident in a
relatively restrained (albeit probably illegal) manner. Encouraged by the President to lead Monday's news conference with a statement, Sanders unremarkably stated "Healthy debate on ideas and political philosophy
is important, but the calls for harassment and push for any Trump supporter to
avoid the public is unacceptable."
However, in between, President Trump stirred the pot with
The Red Hen Restaurant should focus more on cleaning its filthy canopies, doors and windows (badly needs a paint job) rather than refusing to serve a fine person like Sarah Huckabee Sanders. I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it is dirty on the inside!
Criticism of critics of Truimp, combined with nostalgia for the America which Axelrod imagines existed oh,
say, 17 months ago, does not mollify
Republicans. One GOP snowflake,
Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona, has introduced a resolution to censure Representative Waters and has proposed she apologize to the President, release
a public statement denouncing harassment and violence, and resign.
No good can come from Maxine Waters' remarks, especially because if the GOP retains control of both houses of Congress after November, game over. However, even
before the restaurant confrontation and the ensuing fallout, it was clear Republicans will not be soothed or placated.
They will not compromise. It is now Donald Trump's party. They will accept only total victory.
On May 3, 2017 Rebecca Savransky of The Hill wrote
Democratic strategist David Axelrod says Hillary Clinton would be well served to move on from last year's presidential election and stop talking about it. "It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump," Axelrod told CNN on Wednesday. "Let me tell you, he was the least popular presidential candidate to win in the history of polling."
No, Ms. Savransky- David Axelrod was not, and is not, a Democratic strategist; he is a Barack Obama strategist.
If Axelrod were not an Obama strategist, he wouldn't have been repeating this grotesquely misleading theme since November 8, 2016 because he would recognize the role of President Obama in Hillary Clinton's defeat.
I'm not speaking here of Obama's failure to inform the public that intelligence agencies had concluded that the Kremlin had interfered in the American electoral process in order to promote Donald Trump's general election candidacy. Nor am I referring to the "red line" the President drew on Syria until Damascus crossed it and he ignored it, an issue effectively exploited by Donald Trump in the campaign.
Neither am I referring to North Korea, which was allowed to continue its nuclear program without interference by the Obama Administration, with a concomitant inability to gain assistance by mainland China to downgrade the program- while the USA's trade imbalance with China only grew. The Administration's slap on the wrist of Wall Street offenders, which candidate Trump (dishonestly) helped use to run his disingenuous "drain the swamp" campaign, is an unrelated matter.
And I'm not speaking- not directly, anyway- of President Obama's decision to ignore the national party, which partly as a result was shellacked in state and congressional elections during his time as head of the Party.
President Obama facilitated the defeat of his party's presidential nominee of 2016 in a manner for which he cannot be held accountable, though must be held responsible.
The recent study "Understanding White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism"observed that the tendency of whites without a college education to vote Republican emerged in 2000, rose through 2012, and increased further in 2016. Researchers Brian Schaffner et al. controlled for both general populist and authoritarian values but as the Pacific Standard's Tom Jacobs summarized "While the economic variables in our models were significantly associated with vote choice, those effects were dwarfed by the relationship between hostile sexism and denial of racism and voting for Trump," the researchers report. "Moving from one end of the sexism scale to the other was associated with more than a 30-point increase in support for Trump among the average likely voter. The relationship for the denial-of-racism scale was nearly identical. Moving from the highest levels of acknowledgement and empathy for racism to the lowest level was associated with about a 30-point increase in support for Trump."
Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton can be blamed, or commended, for being black or female. However, significantly one represented a racial minority, the other a gender minority (in power and societal status). Unsurprisingly, therefore, University of Pennsylvania political science and communications professor Diana C. Mutz in a published article concluded "status threat,not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote." In a recent interview with Slate's Isaac Chotiner, Mutz explained
One indicator that people feel increasing threat is social dominance orientations: the extent to which you feel your group should be put above others. We don’t define the groups for people. It is whatever groups they think they are. That [feeling] went up between 2012 and 2016. In addition, though, we have measures that ask people to what extent they think men are discriminated against in American society, to the extent women are, and the same with whites, blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Muslims, etc. And it’s those who are particularly likely to see the dominant groups—whites, Christians, men—as currently being discriminated against that are supporting Trump.
Mutz was given an opportunity to clarify and emphasize her interpretation of the election when asked by Chotiner "what is your response to people who say, 'A lot of these people voted for Obama in 2012. It can’t be race?'” She replied
It’s not racism of the traditional variety that we think of. This is status threat. It’s not thinking blacks are poor and uneducated. It’s the idea that they are actually doing better and may threaten the control of dominant whites in society, and have more control of our political process, and so forth. And this is something that having Obama as president actually highlighted. Here we have a very well-educated, very accomplished, and very powerful black man in the White House. That doesn’t suggest the usual negative stereotypes about minorities. It suggests instead that the status quo hierarchical nature of our national culture is changing in some ways. And it’s the same kind of thing with “Make America Great Again”—that we aren’t the superpower we once were, and we need to regain that superior, dominant status in the world.
Having all this publicity about the rise of majority-minority America at the same time as the news about the rise of China—all of these things make people feel like, “Gosh, we need to fight back.”
Republicans, who are targeting Hillary Clinton as their boogeyman, will not admit this. Democrats will not admit this because, as Axelrod exemplifies, too many Democrats still look admiringly and almost lovingly upon the first black President of our country. Fortunately, there are researchers who- though not framing their conclusion in as many words- have inescapably concluded: without President Obama there would have been no President Trump.
