Voting God and Israel Out

God and Israel had a tough time of it at the Democrat National Convention a couple of weeks ago. Both were left out of the Democrat platform, which caused a furor requiring Obama’s intervention to get them back in. This launched a floor fight among delegates to the DNC to determine by voice vote if two-thirds of them agreed with their party’s leader – the President. The outcome wasn’t clear. It certainly wasn’t clear to the hapless Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the convention chairman, who looked bewildered when the platform modification voice vote sounded overwhelmingly like a tie, if not a rejection. So the chairman called for the voice vote to be repeated, giving the ayes a second chance. Same results.

The clueless Villaraigosa had that “what do I do now?” look on his face when the convention “rules expert,” parliamentarian Helen McFadden, in essence told him to call for a third vote and then say the “ayes” won. In the third voice vote, ayes and nays were at least tied but to my ear it sounded like the nays won by a considerable margin. Nevertheless, Villaraigosa dutifully complied with McFadden’s instructions, except this time, unlike the previous two votes, he read from the teleprompter. “In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the motion is adopted.” The fix was in. Villaraigosa was booed off of the convention stage for ramming through an affirmation of the platform change that its opponents were sure they’d won. The anti-Israel, anti-God sentiment among the Democrats in Charlotte was embarrassingly evident to a national television audience.

Did those DNC delegates represent the sentiments of the Democrat Party? God only knows. (Not a pun.).

But the Pew Research Center’s American Values Survey conducted this summer and the American National Election Studies show that a deep ideological divide between the political Right and the Left has been underway for 20 years. That polarization has changed what it means to be a Democrat or Republican, which helps understand why God and Israel probably lost the DNC vote, the convention chairman’s ruling notwithstanding.

When Ronald Reagan left office religious faith and its practice, according to these surveys, were essentially the same for Republicans and Democrats. Both believed in God and believed that a Day of Judgment would occur in the future when all people, living and dead, would be called to account for their sins. The traditional view of marriage was equally held by self-identified members of both parties. Only a tiny single digit minority of Democrats held non-traditional views in all of these beliefs. But since then, belief in the existence of God, Judgment, and the traditional view of marriage has declined among white Democrats, especially among white liberal Democrats, less than half of whom (44%) now believe in the traditional view of marriage. Among black Democrats, however, all but a single-digit minority still hold “old fashioned” traditional views about God, sin, prayer, and marriage. They were likely the impetus behind the DNC platform change.

In interviews after the convention Sen. Charles “Chuck” Schumer (D-NY) poo-pooed assertions that the Democrat Party clearly had an anti-Israel tilt, but facts lean in the opposite direction. I’ve previously blogged on the subject of the Obama administration’s support for Israel, particularly as Israel increasingly faces the Iran nuclear menace, but even more telling evidence of the Democrat’s anti-Israel stance is Obama’s reluctance to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. During a press conference this summer, a reporter asked Jay Carney, the President’s press secretary if Obama believed the capital of Israel was Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Carney wouldn’t answer.

An hilarious exchange went on between a reporter and the State Department press secretary about the capital of Israel a couple of weeks ago. The reporter asked which city the US government recognizes – Jerusalem or Tel Aviv – as the capital and the press secretary answered:

Well, as you know, longstanding Administration policy, both in this Administration and in previous administrations across both parties, is that the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. So that’s longstanding Administration policy and continues to be so.

Not to be undone by a State Department head fake, the reporter tried again: “[Then] … no city is recognized as [Israel’s] capital?” to which the press secretary repeated, “Again, I just stated our position, and it’s one we’ve said here many times before.”

“That means Jerusalem is not a part of Israel?” the reporter tried again. “What it means is that the status of Jerusalem must be resolved in final status negotiations,” the State Department robot responded.

If you want more of this “Who’s on First” comedy routine, click on the link given above. The point is that Obama and his water carriers aren’t going to be pinned down on their belief that Jerusalem should be an open city – maybe the capital of both the Jews and Palestinians. Or maybe just the Palestinians.

My, my, my – how the Democrat Party has changed during the Obama era. In 2008, when Obama was peddling hope and change, the Party platform said:

Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel.

Now we find that the 2012 Democrat platform didn’t even mention Jerusalem – until Obama intervened to put it back in. Oddly, the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel has been law since 1995. Yet despite Section 2.14 of the law, the US has failed to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

When the Republicans held their convention, their platform explicitly said:

We support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders; and we envision two democratic states – Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine – living in peace and security. For that to happen, the Palestinian people must support leaders who reject terror, embrace the institutions and ethos of democracy, and respect the rule of law.

So, what’s the beef in the DNC dispute?

It’s a presidential election year. While Jews aren’t the voting bloc that racial minorities are – there are about 6.6 million American Jews (about 2% of the population) – they are significantly represented in battleground states. Historically, American Jews have been liberal Democrats for many and complex reasons, among them their legacy of persecution and their suspicion of conservatism. Obama probably could win reelection without them if he could hold the rest of his coalition together, but national elections aren’t about publicly alienating voting blocs. Besides, elections are like jury trials – despite the arguments presented to a jury the outcomes can be surprising.

And then there’s God.

The 2008 Democrat Hope and Change platform said:

We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.

Hardly a ringing hopeful endorsement of God, but before Obama’s intervention the change in the Democrat platform read:  

We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.

No reference to God.

Black Americans are about 12% of the population and Obama got 95% of their vote in 2008. About 90% of blacks hold traditional views about God, sin, and marriage, therefore, the omission of any mention of God was a faux pas that compelled Obama’s intervention.

Let’s admit that political party convention platforms are symbolic. They are not binding on the presidential candidate. And when it comes to platform wording, each party’s activists are the most interested and the most influential in what gets said. What platforms say is less important than what they said in the past but aren’t saying currently. Observers begin attaching meaning to the changes and omissions. The disaffection of the Democrats with Israel and the party’s growing secularization, especially among liberal activists, probably explain the omission of Jerusalem and God. But the departure from historic platforms drew enough attention to cause sputtering, expanding neck veins, red faces – and a presidential intervention.

I doubt that Mitt Romney fully supports the Republican platform notwithstanding its symbolic non-binding nature. But neither did he have to intervene to modify and call national attention to it.

Dick Durbin’s meltdown with Fox News anchor Bret Baier during the DNC bordered on hysteria. Durbin, the Democrat Whip in the senate and the senior senator from Obama’s home town, accused Baier of trying to make the Democrats appear “godless.” Baier simply asked why God and Jerusalem were left out of the platform. He wasn’t trying to make the Democrats godless or God-fearing. Watch the interview for yourself by clicking on the foregoing link. Paraphrasing Shakespeare’s Hamlet, "The senator doth protest too much, methinks."

When Republicans took note of the Jerusalem omission and called it to the attention of the press, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), the co-chair of the DNC, was quoted by reporter Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner as having said, “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.” Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the US protested Wasserman-Schultz’s published assertion, saying “I categorically deny that I ever characterized Republican policies as harmful to Israel. Bipartisan support is a paramount national interest for Israel, and we have great friends on both sides of the aisle.”

Asked to respond to Ambassador Oren’s refutation of her claim, Wasserman-Shultz said, “Unfortunately, that comment was reported by a conservative newspaper. It’s not surprising they would deliberately misquote me.”

Misquote? Hmmm. Unfortunately for Rep. DWS, reporter Klein had taped the interview. Oops.

In the run-up to the DNC, the “voice” of Jewish Democrats released a video to show that Obama is a really good friend of Israel. Entitled “What Do Israelis Think of Obama?” interviewees are extravagant in their praise for Obama. The National Democratic Jewish Council, which sponsored the video, slathered on the panegyrics:

President Barack Obama’s strong support for Israel has been recognized by Israeli leaders such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as well as many pro-Israel leaders here in the United States. … Today, we’re hearing what Israelis living on the front lines think.

My earlier-mentioned blogs on Obama’s relations with Israel should convince you that I wouldn’t put my bare feet in that statement. But fortunately, a neighbor of the interviewees in Israel saw the video and suspected a rat was in the woodpile (as we say in the south) so he interviewed the interviewees. Sho ‘nuf their anti-Obama comments had been edited to appear to be effusively pro-Obama. Oops again.

The Democrat pretentiousness about their support for the state of Israel is a Potemkin village to hide their true ideology. The DNC platform fumble puts the American Jewish constituency in play for the Republicans, and if that constituency would just examine the historic record, it would have to conclude that American Jews don’t have better friends than the Republicans. To that end, over 80% of the Americans living in Israel, including Democrats, are voting Republican this year.

The Republican Jewish Coalition in the US is running ads in swing state Jewish newspapers, noting that Israel is being abandoned by the Democrat Party:  

At the Democratic Party convention in Charlotte, NC, it's become painfully clear that this Party is no longer the Democratic Party of our parents' generation. This week [of the DNC] has witnessed a shocking series of events. These regrettable incidents reveal a Party that has wandered far from its origins. 

In the 2008 election Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote. The Republican Jewish Coalition is sending representatives and making large ad buys in battleground states to promote “buyer’s remorse” messages among the Jewish voters in those states. Notwithstanding the Democrat anti-Israel policies, the Democrats will probably get the majority of the 2012 Jewish vote. American Jews are not homogenous. There are at least two types – those whose liberalism is rooted in their Judaic religious belief in social justice and those who know Hebrew. Schumer and Wasserman-Schultz fall in the latter category.

But Michael Barone, a very savvy veteran of past election watching, believes that Obama will get a percentage of the Jewish vote in the 2012 election that is close to what he is polling now – about 65% -- significantly down from 78% in 2008. This will cost him about 84,000 votes in Florida, about 42,000 in Pennsylvania, and about 19,000 in Ohio. These aren’t huge numbers, but they could prove very costly to Obama’s reelection if Barone’s models are approximately correct. Keep in mind that George Bush won Florida in the 2000 by less than a thousand votes. Add to those states the loss of about 12,000 Virginia Jewish votes, about 12,000 Colorado votes, about 11,000 Michigan votes, and around 10,000 Nevada votes and Obama’s slam dunk reelection isn’t a slam dunk anymore.

Moreover, Dennis Ross, a Middle East expert, longtime friend and advisor to Bill Clinton, and a campaigner for Obama in the 2008 primaries despite his friendship with the Clintons, recently announced he is going to sit out the 2012 elections. That speaks volumes because Ross is a pro-Israel Democrat. The prestige loss to the Obama campaign is like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Rush Limbaugh collectively announcing that they will not campaign for or visibly support Romney. Sure, Ross gave a cover story for sitting out 2012, but it’s so thin you could read a newspaper through it.

Finally, more than a minor uprising has occurred among black ministers who are telling their flock to stay home for the 2012 election because Obama came out in favor of same-sex marriage. Their congregations are asking them – the black pastors – how a Christian can vote for a presidential candidate who has taken a stand in opposition to Biblical teachings regarding homosexuals.

However, Romney probably won’t get their vote because blacks question the theology of Mormonism and its former ban on men of African descent for the Mormon ministry. Hopefully, they will learn that this restriction no longer applies. But at any rate, this turn of events could cost Obama important votes, since he got 95% of the black vote in 2008. As Thomas Sowell, a conservative black scholar has noted, if Republicans can woo just 10% of the black vote it would put the presidential campaign in jeopardy for the Democrats.

It’s been said that the two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. There wasn’t a lot of hydrogen present at this year’s DNC.