Download the Isranet Daily Briefing in .pdf format
Obama’s Victory: Isi Leibler, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 8, 2012 —By now, Obama may also have independently reached the conclusion that by distancing the US and exerting harsh pressure on Israel, all he achieved was to embolden the radical Islamists and encourage the Palestinians to become more intransigent in their demands
America’s Yearning for Change Produces the Status Quo, Only More So:George F. Will, National Post, Nov 8, 2012 —Voters littered the political landscape with contradictions between their loudly articulated discontents and their observable behavior. Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals 2-1 in a nation that has re-elected the most liberal president since Lyndon Johnson and his mentor Franklin Roosevelt
Why Mitt Romney Lost: Christopher Ruddy, Newsmax, Nov. 7, 2012 —With the 2012 election results in, there are no short- or even medium-term "silver linings" for Republicans. President Barack Obama has won a decisive victory and the GOP, expecting to gain Senate seats, actually had a net loss of three.
Why American Jews Don’t (And Won’t) Vote Republican: Jonathan Kay, National Post, Nov 8, 2012
Startling Puzzle of O’s Second Chance: Michael Goodwin, New York Post, November 7, 2012
Same Old Same Old in the U.S. Election: Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post, Nov 8, 2012
Isi Leibler
Jerusalem Post, November 8, 2012
Being in the US this week during the elections has truly been a remarkable experience and roller coaster. The outcome is that, for better or for worse, the American people have determined that President Barack Obama will serve a second four year term as leader of the Western world.
Aside from Americans, this will probably impact more on us in Israel than any other nation because of our heavy reliance on US political and military support….Our government should now concentrate on devising a strategy to maximize a meaningful relationship with the second Obama Administration without compromising our security or independence. This will not be easy but it is achievable so long as we behave rationally, American grass roots support for Israel remains strong and Congress does not abandon us.
Despite the fact that most politicians routinely abrogate pre electoral promises, we should act on the initial assumption that Obama will behave honorably and broadly adhere to the positive undertakings relating to Israel that he constantly reiterated over the past six months. He should be reminded that in the course of the last debate with Romney he went so far as to say “Israel is a true friend… It is our greatest ally in the region. And if Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel.”…
We should be heartened by the fact that Obama’s “charm campaign” and pragmatic pro-Israeli policies designed to obtain support from American Jews during the pre-election period, suggest that he is not necessarily committed to an ideological anti-Israeli agenda. Hopefully, from Obama’s vantage, he may have appreciated that bullying or demeaning Netanyahu was counter-productive and in fact strengthened rather than undermined his popular support In Israel.
He must also be aware that over the past few years, despite some erosion within the Democratic party, Congress remains overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, reflecting the record levels of support which Israel enjoys overall with the American people. Should Obama revert to his earlier approach of continuously publicly reprimanding Israel whilst treating the duplicitous Palestinian leaders with kid gloves, he could bring about a confrontation with Congress.
By now, Obama may also have independently reached the conclusion that by distancing the US and exerting harsh pressure on Israel, all he achieved was to embolden the radical Islamists and encourage the Palestinians to become more intransigent in their demands. Moreover after burning itself on so many occasions in its former failed Middle East policies, the new administration may well decide to distance itself from seeking to resolve the intractable Arab-Israeli conflict.
We should therefore, at least at the outset, adopt a positive approach to the new administration and assume that Obama will adhere to his commitments and that the improvement in relations with Israel created over the past six months will be sustained. However it is important for pro-Israel activists to be prepared immediately to raise their voices should he renege on his electoral undertakings. This applies particularly in relation to Obama’s passionate pledge that Iran would never be permitted to obtain a nuclear bomb under his watch. He stated repeatedly “As long as I am President of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon.”
Israel must also, if necessary, be prepared to initiate a public campaign to explain our position should Obama revert to insisting that the indefensible 1949 armistice lines serve as the opening benchmark for negotiations with the Palestinians. In addition, American Jewish leaders – presumably led by AIPAC – must as a priority, launch a major campaign to reinforce the traditional pro-Israeli attitude relationship of the Democratic party. Such a course of action would have been equally imperative had Romney been elected.
At a grass roots level there is now unquestionably a growing far-left minority emerging within the Democratic party which is indifferent and, in many cases, out rightly hostile to Israel. It received a boost from the Obama Administration when it sought to distance itself from Israel in order to appease the Arabs.
These trends were accelerated by agitation from Jews bitterly opposed to the Israeli government, as exemplified by Jeremy Ben-Ami, head of J Street who claims to have a better understanding of what is good for Israel than Israelis themselves and Peter Beinart who is adored by the liberal media and calls for a global boycott of Israeli settlements. Ignoring the fact that today, subject to the Palestinians recognizing Israel’s security needs, a consensus prevails in Israel favoring a two state policy – these Jews have been continuously trying to persuade elements within the Democratic party that Israel was the intransigent party and the obstacle to achieving a peace settlement in the Arab-Israeli conflict….
The reinforcement of bi-partisanship towards Israel is crucial, because if elements hostile to Israel become dominant or even influential amongst either of the two mainstream parties, it would undermine one of the strongest foundations sustaining the US Israel alliance. That the majority of Jews continued to support Obama in the elections should strengthen the ability of Democrats seeking to marginalize the anti-Israeli elements and restore the standing of Israel in the Democratic party.
We may be facing difficult times. But we must remain optimistic in the knowledge that the United States is a democracy. As long as public opinion continues to support Israel, the relationship between both countries may, as in the past, undergo strains and stresses, but will remain intact.
AMERICA’S YEARNING FOR CHANGE
PRODUCES THE STATUS QUO, ONLY MORE SO
George F. Will
National Post, Nov 8, 2012
America’s 57th presidential election revealed that a second important national institution is on an unsustainable trajectory. The first, the entitlement state, is endangered by improvident promises to an aging population. It is now joined by the political party whose crucial current function is to stress the need to reform this state. The Republican Party, like today’s transfer-payment state, is endangered by tardiness in recognizing that demography is destiny.
Perhaps Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election on Sept. 22, 2011, when, alarmed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s entry into the Republican nomination race, he rushed to Perry’s right regarding immigration, attacking the DREAM Act. He would go on to talk about forcing illegal immigrants into “self-deportation.” It is surprising that only about 70 percent of Hispanics opposed Romney.
As it has every four years since 1992, the white portion of the turnout declined in 2012. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first person elected president while losing the white vote by double digits. In 2012 — the year after the first year in which a majority of babies born in America were minorities — Hispanics were for the first time a double-digit (10 percent) portion of the turnout. Republicans have four years to figure out how to leaven their contracting base with millions more members of America’s largest and fastest-growing minority.
Romney’s melancholy but useful role has been to refute those determinists who insist that economic conditions are almost always decisive. Americans are earning less and worth less than they were four years ago; average household income is down $3,800; under the 11 presidents from Harry Truman through George W. Bush, unemployment was 8 percent or more for a total of 39 months but was over that for 43 Obama months. Yet voters preferred the president who presided over this to a Republican who, more than any candidate since the Great Depression, made his economic expertise his presidential credential.
Voters littered the political landscape with contradictions between their loudly articulated discontents and their observable behavior. Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals 2-1 in a nation that has re-elected the most liberal president since Lyndon Johnson and his mentor Franklin Roosevelt. A nation said to be picnicking on the slope of a volcano, with molten anger bubbling just below its thin and brittle crust, has matched a rare record of stability in its central political office: For only the second time — the first was the Virginia dynasty of the third, fourth and fifth presidents, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe — there will be three consecutive two-term presidents.
A nation vocally disgusted with the status quo has reinforced it by ratifying existing control of the executive branch and both halves of the legislative branch. After three consecutive “wave” elections in which a party gained at least 20 House seats, and at a moment when approval of Congress has risen — yes, risen — to 21 percent, voters ratified Republican control of the House, keeping in place those excoriated as obstructionists by the president the voters retained. Come January, Washington will be much as it has been, only more so.
Obama is only the second president (Andrew Jackson was the first) to win a second term with a reduced percentage of the popular vote, and the third (after James Madison and Woodrow Wilson) to win a second term with a smaller percentage of the electoral vote. A diminished figure after conducting the most relentlessly negative campaign ever run by an incumbent, his meager mandate is to not be Bain Capital. Foreshadowing continuing institutional conflict, which the constitutional system not only anticipates but encourages, Speaker John Boehner says of the House Republican caucus: “We’ll have as much of a mandate as he will.”
The electoral vote system, so incessantly and simple-mindedly criticized, has again performed the invaluable service of enabling federalism — presidents elected by the decisions of the states’ electorates — to deliver a constitutional decisiveness that the popular vote often disguises.
Republicans can take some solace from the popular vote. But unless they respond to accelerating demographic changes — and Obama, by pressing immigration reform, can give Republicans a reef on which they can wreck themselves — the 58th presidential election may be like the 57th, only more so.
This election was fought over two issues as old as the Republic, the proper scope and actual competence of government. The president persuaded — here the popular vote is the decisive datum — almost exactly half the voters. The argument continues. As Benjamin Disraeli said, “Finality is not the language of politics.”
WHY MITT ROMNEY LOST
Christopher Ruddy
Newsmax, November 7, 2012
It was the worst of times and the worst of times. With the 2012 election results in, there are no short- or even medium-term "silver linings" for Republicans. President Barack Obama has won a decisive victory and the GOP, expecting to gain Senate seats, actually had a net loss of three. The "morning after" will bring the expected explanations and after-game quarterbacking. Still, it is important that the GOP understand why we lost this one in hopes of future victory. Perhaps the easy explanation is that two hurricanes and two betrayals by Chris Christie killed Mitt Romney's chances.
The first hurricane was Isaac, the one that skirted Tampa in late August during the Republican convention. That one seriously disrupted the official schedule. GOP star Marco Rubio — who gave the best speech of the convention — was bumped off prime-time TV coverage, and so was the video biography "introducing" Mitt to the nation….
The ground lost in Tampa wasn't regained until the first debate in Denver, when Romney shined. It was the first, best, and last time he would really sparkle. As a result of the debates, by late October polls showed that Romney was finally beginning to see a surge. Then the second hurricane, Sandy, struck on Oct. 29. The campaign went into “freeze” mode while Obama swung into “commander in chief” mode. Romney's surge was suddenly frozen too. Enter Iago.
It was perfectly fine for Chris Christie to join with Obama in the wake of the crisis. But to lather the president with praise, calling his response to Sandy “outstanding” in the immediate aftermath of the storm was completely unjustified.
It was another act of treachery. (As the disaster unfolded, and with hundreds of thousands still without electric power as I write this, there is plenty of evidence that the leadership by Obama and federal agencies has been seriously lacking, as it has been from Christie and other state and local officials who have failed to adequately prepare and respond to the disaster.)
As I said, it is easy to blame Sandy and Christie for Romney's loss. I won't. Sure they hurt Romney. But he lost for other reasons. Sandy and Christie's double-dealing can be compared to bad turbulence that any experienced jet pilot should expect on a long mission. The turbulence may be rough, but it is nothing more than a passing episode for a good pilot with a smart flight plan. On to why our pilot Mitt Romney and his plan were so flawed.
1. Paul Ryan. Romney's choice of Ryan was almost inexplicable. A good conservative, Ryan was unqualified for the job of vice president, and therefore the job of president. A sitting member of Congress, he held no leadership position on the Hill. Romney's VP selection was the most important one of his campaign, and by it he telegraphed his lack of political wisdom to the nation.
With his VP pick Romney had the opportunity to show he was willing to reach out to middle voters and break out of the GOP's demographic box (think Rubio, Nevada's Brian Sandoval, or New Mexico's Susana Martinez) or pick a Republican heavyweight who exuded gravitas while potentially giving him a state (think Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty).
2. The Ryan Plan. Romney had endorsed Ryan's plan for Medicare even before he tapped him as a running mate. But by selecting Ryan, he was nailing the odious plan to the masthead of his campaign. Ryan's plan, which first called for abolishing federal Medicare in 10 years and later for a substitute voucher program, proved to be disastrous for Romney and other Republican candidates.
As far as I could see, the Ryan plan was the No. 1 policy focus of Obama's and other Democratic attack ads against the GOP. I am not sure what the GOP was smoking when they decided to propose demolishing or radically altering the cherished healthcare program for seniors. Apparently, the Romney campaign began to realize Ryan's negatives late in the campaign, banishing his public appearances to secure red states. But it was too late.
3. The Myth of a “Base Election.” Romney totally bought into the notion that this was an election about energizing the conservative base. He seems to have ignored the fact that the base was already highly energized because of its dislike of Barack Obama. This election was just like every other one in modern times — about winning middle, swing voters. We used to call them Reagan Democrats but the better label today is Clinton Democrats. Romney did much to annoy them (like backing the Ryan plan) and almost nothing to reach out to them….
4. No Plan. …Romney needed to espouse several simple ideas that explained what he would do if elected president. Romney promised to create 12 million jobs. That's not a plan, it's a promise. He didn't clearly articulate how he could fulfill that promise. In fact, Romney's team offered the fewest specifics of any presidential campaign ever.
5. Crushing Optimism. When, in 1980, Ronald Reagan put the GOP on the path of optimism and economic growth, he not only won two landslide elections, he also changed the political landscape for three decades. When Romney did offer a plan, it was about "hard truths," such as tackling the deficit, cutting the debt, cutting the budget (killing Big Bird), and cutting Medicare.
What happened to the Grand Old Party that once advocated cutting taxes and spurring economic growth — ideas espoused by the late Jack Kemp and people like Arthur Laffer, Larry Kudlow, Newt Gingrich, Mike Reagan, and others? This is the party most Americans and I identify with.
6. Poor Campaign Staff. Considering that Romney's presidential quest was the best funded Republican race in history, his campaign staff was certainly not the best money could buy. The Romney staff was insular and arrogant, and his campaign strategy team led by Stu Stevens and Russ Schriefer was simply abysmal.
7. No “Gingrich” Ads Against Obama. Residing in a battleground state, Florida, I had a front-row seat to Romney's ad war on Obama. I was shocked how few ads the campaign was airing over the summer and how many Obama’s campaign was.
Meanwhile, Obama's ads were nasty, negative ones, while Romney's were of the kinder, gentler, country-club Republican variety. I asked a high-level Romney operative why the Republicans were spending $2.5 million to build a wooden stage for the Tampa convention and not putting the money into ads.
The answer: The Romney camp believe people don't remember ads until close to the election. The sea of Romney ads never did emerge that September. I thought perhaps this was just the Florida strategy. But then I read a shocking report in Broadcasting & Cable, the respected TV industry publication.
By late September Romney's campaign had not even run a single TV ad in several key markets in swing state Ohio! And the magazine reported that because Romney's campaign was not planning its ad buys properly, they were often paying five to 10 times more than Obama was paying for the same ad spot.
Obama's campaign, of course, took the opposite approach to Romney's, defining him early on with hard-hitting TV ads. Romney's failure to run tough ads against Obama is mind-boggling, even more so because of how Romney ran his primary campaign….
8. Dissing Hispanics. As the elections of 2000, 2004, 2008, and now 2012 have demonstrated, demographics are trumping ideology in national elections. The Republican Party has a difficult time grasping this concept. Romney seemingly ignored this truth by taking an ultra-hardline on immigration — one so tough he called for the "self deportation" of illegal immigrants. Not only is such a plan impractical and immoral, it is unacceptable politically, as yesterdays' results proved.
Consider that Obama reneged on his promise to Hispanics to make their concerns a priority. They were there for the GOP's taking. The one Hispanic group that has voted consistently for Republicans — Cuban-Americans — gave Obama a record number of votes this year. Already the liberal spinmeisters are blaming the tea party and conservatives for Romney's loss. The facts show the claim is not true.
The success Romney did achieve was due to their support. Romney's loss was due to a concoction of things involving the candidate himself, his team, his strategy, and his decisions.
Soon we will, correctly, move on. The GOP will learn from this debacle. The Republican Party might start the process with an image makeover — putting away the Wall Street look in favor of a Main Street one — while it takes back the mantle of Lincoln; a party that fights for the underdog and appeals to the aspirations of the American people. (Christopher Ruddy is CEO and editor of Newsmax Media Inc.)
Why American Jews Don’t (And Won’t) Vote Republican: Jonathan Kay, National Post, Nov 8, 2012
The Jews get blamed for everything — even Mitt Romney’s defeat. What’s more, the charge is coming from fellow Jews, who complain that their Obama-voting co-religionists were sellouts to the Zionist cause on Tuesday.
Startling Puzzle of O’s Second Chance: Michael Goodwin, New York Post, November 7, 2012
His first four years were mostly a bust, he offered no promises or agenda for the second four—and Barack Obama won anyway.Go figure.
Same Old Same Old in the U.S. Election: Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post, Nov 8, 2012
On the day after the day after, the drama seems less dramatic. Americans did what they usually do. The question is whether doing the usual thing is a sufficient response to the unusual circumstances of the United States
Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at https://isranet.org/.
The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.
Ber Lazarus, Publications Editor, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research/ L'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org
Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.wpsitie.com
