Obama's National Jewish Support Continues to Erode

Fresh off the big Democratic party loss in NY-9, Gallup has shared its latest national polling data on Jews with Poltico which shows Obama's support in the Jewish community continues to erode.


Obama’s approval rating among Jewish Americans is down to 55 percent - a five point drop from June and a 13 point drop from May which is when he made the demand that Israel use the 1949 Armistice lines as the starting point for negotiations instead of as the goal of negotiations. 

Four out of 10 Jewish Americans currently disapprove of Obama, according to polling data provided to POLITICO by Gallup, which has yet to post the numbers on its website.

This 40 percent disapproval rating is 8 percent higher than the 32 percent disapproval rating among Jewish Americans that was last reported by Gallup in June.

Together, the rise in disapproval and dip in approval ratings are a net negative 11 point downturn for Obama among Jews.

When the June numbers were released, most pundits felt it was meaningless that Jews would never abandon the Democratic Party not even to the extent they did with Jimmy Carter (who got 45% of the Jewish Vote in 1980).  Last week as attention turned to the Turner-Weprin race the scuttlebutt changed. It seemed as if pundits were now predicting that Jewish voters were going to abandon Obama in droves and the only Jewish votes Obama will get are David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel.
.
Truth be told the pundits were wrong in June and are wrong today. Here are the facts:

• It is true that Jewish voters are angry with Obama's anti-Israel policies, but it is not true that Jews base their votes on that one issue.  If that was the case, George Bush would have gotten much more that 24% of the vote when he ran against the weak-on-terror John Kerry in 2004. Bush was probably the most pro-Israel President in US history. 

•  Even when Jewish voters rejected Jimmy Carter, it was not solely because of his stance on Israel. The economy was in the crapper big-time inflation and unemployment were both high.

• A close look at the NY-9 race shows that Israel wasn't the only reason for the switch of the Jewish vote.  It took at least one additional issue on top of Israel for the voters to switch.

When push comes to shove the fate of the Jewish vote in 2012 depends on three things, the economy, Israel and who the GOP offers.  Two of the three (the economy and Obama's anti-Israel policies) will not  improve before election day. The third is left to be seen. A candidate seen as moderate such as a Romney or a Gingrich would probably be the most attractive to the Jewish Vote.

A big segment of the Jewish Vote is ripe for the picking, that doesn't mean they are going anywhere.  Depending on who the Republicans pick, I would suspect that the GOP garners between 35% (what Nixon got in 1972) and 40% of the Jews (what Reagan got in 1980).  Which is a huge gain but not the total abandonment predicted in some circles.

Frankly, the bigger danger for the Democratic Party is the shift to the GOP is accompanied by disillusionment, the Jews stay home.  In that case it not only causes the President to lose votes, but also the candidates down the ticket.

Even if a major segment of liberal Jews stay home ord vote GOP,  the entire Jewish population represents only 2.2% of the U.S. population what kind of impact could they have? (NY-9 is 40% Jewish).  In a close election, a shift of Jewish votes could lose key battleground states for Obama.  States where there is a relatively larger Jewish population such as

Other states with a big Jewish populations New York, Massachusetts and California wouldn't shift from Obama even if he was caught in bed with the proverbial "dead woman or live sheep."  And as a favorite son of Illinois  he can count on that state's electoral votes.  But a  shift of 73 electoral votes, 20% of his 2008 total of 365 will make it much more difficult for President Obama to be reelected.

In summary, 2012 will see a shift in Jewish voting patterns, but not a total abandonment (and not only because of Israel). While a small percentage of total voters, a change in a few key battle ground states  may lead to some blue states moving into the red column and the presidency shifting party's. But to suggest a total shift or an effect in more than a few states (and only if those states are close) is being irresponsible.

Almost a Decade Ago WFAN's Mike Francesa and Chris Russo Blamed 9/11 on The Jews

On 9/11/01 I was sitting in my office when I received an IM from my brother telling me of the first crash and urging me to turn on the TV (I worked for Nickelodeon at the time and had a TV in my office). Turning on the set I saw what I thought was a replay of the crash, sadly it was no replay, it was the second plane. My entire team crammed into my office. They stared in disbelief as the news grew worse, the attack on the Pentagon, followed by the horror of each of twin towers crashing to the ground. Just thinking about it brings back memories of fear and confusion.

Having driven into the city that morning I was stuck in the city because all bridges and tunnels leading out of Manhattan were closed. But the second TV announced the reopening of the east side river crossings; I rushed out of my office and began to drive home.

The streets of Manhattan were almost devoid of cars. Traffic moved slowly anyway because the streets were packed with dazed people trying to make their way out of the city. It was a surreal picture, almost like those movies where Godzilla attacking Tokyo. The 59th Street Bridge was no different, dazed people, struggling to get off that tiny island and onto the safety of the Borough of Queens. Gazing out from the bridge to what was soon to be known as ground zero; there was an impenetrable curtain of black over the East River. Even with the car windows closed the air had a "smoky" taste and a texture like sand paper.

I made it home to my family and drove into the city the next day. My memories of the drive home on 9/12 is just as vivid not because of another terrorist incident, but because of something I heard on the radio.

Per my usual practice, during the drive home I listened to NY Sports radio station WFAN. I left early enough to hear WFAN’s afternoon stars, Mike Francesa and Chris Mad Dog Russo. The fun of these guys was more than their sports knowledge, you could tell these two really hated each other; there was an undercurrent of tension on air.

On 9/12 however, these two agreed. They launched a fact deprived commentary blaming both Israel and American Jews for the attack on America the day before. Even worse Russo said (Francesca agreed) that American Jews needed to prove their loyalty as Americans; choose between Israel, which Mike called "a failed experiment," and the U.S." The two bigots thought Jews in America should take a loyalty oath to the country to prove that they were loyal to the US and not Israel.

How Did WFAN react to this blatant Antisemitism? One would think that they would have reacted very strongly, after all this is the station that six years later fired Don Imus, their number one money-maker, for calling the Rutgers girls basketball team "nappy-headed hos." Sadly WFAN reacted by sweeping it under the rug while the pair of bigots denied it ever happened ( despite the fact that other listeners including NY Post columnist Phil Mushnick heard the offensive comments).

The ADL was flooded with calls sent a letter to the station which said in part:

"Since September 12th, ADL offices in the tri-state area have been flooded with calls complaining about comments made by "Mike and the Mad Dog" show hosts Mike Francesa and Chris Russo. The complaints focus on the hosts suggesting the motive behind the World Trade Center attack is U.S. support for the State of Israel or, more importantly, suggesting a divided loyalty for American Jews between our country and Israel."

As of November 2009, the ADL never received a response from their letter:

"From: ADL Media [mailto:ADLMedia@adl.org]

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:42 AM

Subject: RE: Abraham H. Foxman's letter to WFAN in 2001

As far as we can recollect, we had no response from WFAN"

To this day the two (who Don Imus called Fatso and Fruit loops) deny that this incident ever happened. I contacted the station and the two bigots last September, the station and Francesa did not respond and Russo met my request for an apology to the Jewish community with derision.

When the NY Post's Mushnick wrote about the incident in the weeks after 9/11, the sports talkers used some of their radio time to express their denial.

Mushnick wrote in 2002:

"… Francesa's claim that I fabricated quotes, then attributed them to him is a total lie because I never quoted either Francesa or Russo in that column. I couldn't quote them because WFAN claimed that it did not tape that particular segment.

But I did hear them - first-hand, not "second or third-hand" - then wrote a column critical of them for characterizing the 9/11 attacks as the fault of Israel, and by extension, American Jews……The fact that no tape was, in Francesa's words, "ever found" - he failed to mention WFAN's claim not to have taped the segment I wrote about - was used by Francesa, Monday, as proof that I fabricated a story about him."

In a 2009 column Mushnick added:

Days after the 9/11 attacks, Francesa, global affairs expert (it's a gift), launched two bigoted, backwoods and facts-depraving commentaries blaming both Israel and American Jews for America's peril at the hands of terrorists.

Francesa also said the Jews he knows are disloyal Americans in that they would go to war to defend Israel but not the United States.

In the wake of an attack on the U.S. by Islamic lunatics, Francesa even called upon American Jews to prove their virtue as Americans, to choose between Israel, which he called "a failed experiment," and the U.S.

As a third-generation American Jew, whose great-uncle was a WWI doughboy, and whose father was a WWII Naval Lt., then commander of the Staten Island chapter of the Jewish War Veterans, I was, shall we say, displeased by Francesa's determination that the time had come for me to swear allegiance to the United States.

On Sept. 23, 2001, the above appeared in this column. In WFAN's response, on behalf of Francesa, station boss Mark Chernoff denied that Francesa said any of that -- despite thousands, including WFAN staff, having heard what I'd heard. My challenge to produce those tapes was ignored.

Like most Americans who suffered through those horrible days, the sounds, tastes and pictures of the horrible attack on America are embedded in my memory. On 9/12 most Americans, stood united against the hatred of al Qaeda. But here in New York, two sportscasters on WFAN chose not to stand united against hatred; they chose to create even more hatred. I am told that they continue to deny what thousands of people heard with their own ears. I couldn't tell you for sure since I haven't listened to WFAN since 9/12/01 (where Francesa remains), nor have I tuned to Chris Russo's year old sports channel on Sirrus/XM.

In less than two weeks we will commemorate the tenth anniversary of that horror. It is about time WFAN, Francessa and Chris Russo fess up and apologize for their hatred. If you agree please contact WFAN program manager Eric Spitz here espitz@wfan.com or call the station at 212-314-9200 to comment on Francesa. As for Mr. Russo you can call Sirrus/XM corporate offices @ 212-584-5100 and tell them you think the Mad Dog should fess up and apologize

Why Does Media Matters Hate The Jews And Israel?

I get it! Media Matters for America (MMFA)  is being paid by George Soros and other progressive money-men to make sure the progressive point of view is protected.  That's why they work so hard to fight the few conservative media sources trying to tell the truth about progressive policies. What I don't understand is if they are so busy trying  to take down media sources such as Fox News and Breitbart's "Big" sites, why do they feel the need to spend so much time pushing anti-Semitic stereotypes such as "the Jews control the government and the media" and  creating anti-Israel spin to the latest news?

The really sick part of it is,  along with their campaign against the Jewish people and the Jewish State, MMFA falsely attacks conservatives on Jewish issues in an attempt to brand them as Jew haters. The year-long MMFA campaign trying to falsely label Glenn Beck as an Anti-Semite is well known and readers of The Lid have read of the MMFA trying to brand this blogger as a Jew basher (a charge I didn't hear about until hours later because it was made on the Sabbath), but MMFA has written inflammatory headlines to imply that there is  is a concerted effort by right-wingers to bash Jews. For example they wrote this about Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit.

Hoft The Latest Right-Wing Media Figure To Attack American Jews For Supporting Obama

What what the content of Jim's horrible attack on American Jews? It was a comment on a recent Gallup poll, which said that Jews were sticking with Obama:

Sad.
The destruction of Israel is at hand and Jewish Americans still march blindly behind Obama.

 That's all! Beyond that reader's of Jim's blog (as I am) will report that Gateway Pundit is strongly pro-Israel and regularly "has the back" of American Jews.

The truth is if you really want to see attacks on Israel and American Jews become a regular reader of MMFA. Here are just a few examples:

• 6/14/10 Media Matter's Senior Policy Fellow MJ Rosenberg created a piece for Huffington Post claiming that Helen Thomas'  was not being anti-Semitic when she told Israeli Jews to go back to Russia and Poland. I wonder what he thinks about Thomas' claim
  

  "We are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. There's no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where there mouth is…We're being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.

• 7/12/10 An  article written by Lara Friedman, of Americans for Peace Now, and Isaac Luria from J Street (both groups regularly demonize Israel) we learned that the years of Hamas rocket attacks against civilian towns in the Negev were Israel's fault (because the left Gaza),  Israel should negotiate with HAMAS, and Israel doesn't need to be recognized as the Jewish state (a key for  peace).

• 8/16/10 Criticized Fox News for having Bill Kristol on the air. Kristol's offense was forming a pro-Israel PAC.  Funny thing is, you never heard them complain about MSNBC having Al Sharpton on as a regular.  Sharpton incited two anti-Semitic pogroms in NY which lead to a total of nine deaths. If MMFA truly cared about conflict of interest, why wouldn't they write about President Obama receiving foreign policy advice from Samantha Power who has called for a US invasion of Israel.

• 1/28/11 Promoted the anti-Semitic meme that Jews control foreign policy. Senior Fellow MJ Rosenberg demonstrated why he defended Helen Thomas as not being anti-Semitic...he  echoed some of her claims. Using the term Israel Lobby  (its more PC than "Those Dammed Jews) MMFA claimed it was that foreign policy controlling lobby that caused the Egyptian uprising.
  

  If one needs additional proof that the "pro-Israel" lobby and the policies it dictates to US policymakers are bad for both the U.S. and Israel, look no further than what is happening in Egypt.
  
  
  The regime that the Israeli government and its U.S. lobby have depended upon to enforce the status quo is going down. It is not clear when, but it's going to be soon, much sooner than anyone ever anticipated. And you can be sure that any democratic government that takes Mubarak's place is not going to play the role of America's (let alone Israel's) enforcer in the Middle East.

  And later in the same article the MMFA writer implies the Jews control the media:
  

  I am often accused of harping on the lobby's baleful influence. I plead guilty. But it's my obligation because (1) I know from personal experience — 15 years on Capitol Hill and four at AIPAC — how it operates, (2) I know how little it really cares about Israel, and (3) I am free to tell the truth about it. If I worked in the mainstream media or in the U.S. government, I wouldn't be.

• 2/15/11 and 2/17/11 Promoted falsehood that the Muslim Brotherhood does not want to attack Israel.  Forget for a moment that the terrorist organization Hamas was created by the Muslim Brotherhood, since the Egyptian uprisings started there has been many examples of different Muslim Brotherhood figures attacking Israel. For example On Russian television, one Brotherhood leader, Rashad al-Bayoumi,  said that when they came to power they will abolish the treaty altogether. Another, former spokesman Doctor Kamel Helbaoui, explained how they might get out of it. 

• 5/11/11 Senior Fellow MJ with anti-Israel propaganda again.  He says it doesn't matter if Hamas recognizes Israel as long as Hamas recognizes the 1949 Armistice lines.But why does it matter whether Hamas recognizes Israel or not, so long as it agrees to permanently end terror attacks against Israel? Who needs its recognition?  Per his usual style of half truths, MJ omits the fact that Hamas continues to promise the destruction of the "Zionist entity." In other words they are cool with a State called Israel, as long as it is a Muslim State Of Israel.

• 5/20/11 MMFA's Rosenberg promotes the anti-Semitic meme of a "Dual Loyalty" of American Jews, calling critics of Obama's May 2011 Middle-East Address "Israeli-Firsters."
  

  But he failed. Arabs saw the speech as a bunch of empty words. And the Israeli firsters went ballistic. Why? Because of one paragraph.
  
  
  The president said: 

  The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

While I disagree with the official MMFA interpretation of Obama's speech, they have every right to have their opinion.  What is disgusting is their challenge to the patriotism of the Jews who disagree with Barack Obama's Middle East policy.

MMFA is quick to bash anybody who uses a Hitler reference (except for George Soros), and I am not by any means saying they are a bunch of Nazis, but they do use a lot of the same themes.  MMFA claims the Jews control the Media and American foreign policy, in Mein Kampf, Hitler introduced to Nazi ideology "the idea of the Jews as an evil race struggling for world domination."

The MMFA charges that American Jews who criticize Obama are "Israeli-firsters." Hitler said:

The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us, between Germans and Jews.....Even when we have driven the Jew out of Germany, he remains our world enemy  (Rauschning,Hitler Speaks,p. 234)

Understand, there is no claim here that MMFA has any intention of promoting another Holocaust against the Jewish people. What the argument is that the progressive organization will do and say anything to protect President Obama.  In many cases the lack of a factual argument forces their writers to rely on old stereo-types to sell their point.

It is easy for MMFA to claim that the statements provided above as evidence  were not anti-Semitic, after all its Sugar Daddy George Soros is a Jewish Holocaust survivor and all of the MMFA writers mentioned are at least Jewish-born and I assume still Jewish. That of course is an easy out, "some of their best friends...."

One example maybe, but there's lots more examples of MMFA use of anti-Semitic themes and the twisting of facts about Israel.  I would not claim to know if the Soros-funded group is anti-Semitic, its impossible to look into their hearts, but the constant attacks on American Jews made in its name,  it is clear that MMFA leadership must know about and endorse those attacks.  They are just too numerous to ignore.







gg

New Poll Shows Jewish Vote Abandoning Obama

Its seems as if with each passing day there is another poll reporting American Jews dissatisfaction with President Obama. Yesterday it was the Gallup poll which despite the dishonest write up, showed that American Jews were abandoning Obama faster than the general population.

Released later in the day, was a poll conducted by Republican political operative Dick Morris, the headline of the Morris poll is that if the election was to be held today, Obama would get only 56% of the Jewish vote down from the 78% he received in the 2008 Election and the lowest Democratic candidate percentage since Jimmy Carter's 45% in 1980

Triggering the increasing Jewish disaffection with Obama is opposition to his proposal that an Israeli return to ’67 borders be the starting point of peace negotiations. By 10-83, Jewish voters opposed the plan. Jewish Democrats opposed it by 10-67. Asked if President Obama is “too biased against Israel,” Jewish voters as a whole agreed with the charge by 39-30, while 32 percent of Jewish Democrats also agreed (and 40 percent of Jewish Democrats disagreed).

Jews who identified themselves as Democrats also said:

• By 43-42, they break evenly on whether Obama “is being too tough on Israel.” 

• By 61-30, Jewish Democrats think the president “is naïve in thinking that he can make peace with the Arabs.”

The survey probed the issue of 1967 borders in greater depth, the issue brought up by the President's recent speech. Jewish Democrats were given a statement providing both sides of the issue:

President Obama says that Israel should give up the land it occupied after the 1967 war except for some adjustments. He says that these borders would give the Palestinians a viable nation of their own and would lead to a settlement of their conflict with Israel. Others disagree, saying that these borders are too small, exposing Israel to shelling from the Golan Heights in the north and giving the nation a middle only nine miles wide. They say that returning to the pre-’67 borders would not stop the Arabs from wanting to destroy Israel but would make it easier to do so. Which view comes closest to your own?

In response, Jewish Democrats opposed returning to the ’67 borders by 82-8.

....Given the importance of Israel to the Jewish Democratic voters of the United States, it is clear that Obama is playing with fire as he toughens the American foreign policy toward Israel and banks his credibility on the idea that peace is possible simply through Israeli territorial concessions. American Jews — Democrats included — reject the very foundation of Obama’s efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East as “naïve.”

Without a better understanding of how this poll was conducted, I cannot vouch for its veracity. First of all it implies that Jews vote one issue, Israel. This simply is not true. Even hard core pro-Israel Jews do not vote on only one issue. Certainly Israel wasn't the only reason that 55% of American Jews voted against Jimmy Carter in 1980.  But, just as what happened 31 years ago, Barack Obama's anti-Israel policies are causing liberal Jews to wake up and smell the hummus, and evaluate what has happened since January 2009 domestically, and across the world. What they see is not very positive.

Additionally I believe that the numbers are a bit too Obama negative for this early in the campaign. Maybe because it is a generic Republican vs a named candidate, but its hard to believe that without a barrage of campaigning, Obama's support is less than 60%.

That doesn't mean we should throw away this poll totally.  It is simply one more piece of evidence added to the recent anecdotal reports such as the one in Politico and quantitative data, such as the Gallup poll fisked here yesterday, which indicate that a big chunk of the Jewish vote may be up for grabs in 2012.  Hopefully the GOP will pick up this opportunity and run with it, not nationally but in key battleground states where the Jewish vote may make a difference.