Why congresspeople fear to cross the lobby

From a website that covers the special Senate election in Massachusetts [Emphasis mine]:

Addressing members of Temple Beth Am in Framingham today, U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown criticized U.S. Representative Mike Capuano for his failure to support a 2008 resolution by the U.S. House of Representatives condemning Hamas for rocket attacks against Israel.
In a press release issued Sunday afternoon, The Brown campaign reported that the U.S. House adopted Resolution 951 “condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations” on March 5, 2008. The measure passed 404-1.
According to the Brown campaign, "Congressman Capuano voted ‘present’ on the resolution, refusing to take a stand on an issue of critical national security for the state of Israel."
Added Brown, “I will never vote ‘present’ when it comes to the war on terror.

The good news is Brown has no chance (although Capuano really doesn’t either — Martha Coakley is the runaway favorite). Still….interesting to see how these kinds of votes get used in campaigns. Why vote No or Present on an AIPAC resolution — all it does is open you up to an attack like this. Also shows how wedded the GOP has become to the Israeli line.

Posted in Israel Lobby

{ 11 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Kathleen says:

    Why congress people fear crossing the lobby.

    Paul Findlay, Cynthia McKinney…Senator Fulbright…Kennedy

  2. potsherd says:

    The Dems are just as wedded to the Israeli line – if not more so.

  3. Nolan says:

    Also shows how wedded the GOP has become to the Israeli line

    .

    That’s odd considering how both the Republicans and the Democrats have been wedded to the Israeli line for decades.

  4. Nolan says:

    Added Brown, “I will never vote ‘present’ when it comes to the war on terror.

    Well, at least he recognizes the difference between the two.

  5. Its a valid point to highlight an opponents voting record.

    If that voting record does not represent the sentiments of the constituency, then that should be a factor in citizens’ decisions.

    • Colin Murray says:

      If “its a valid point to highlight an opponents voting record”, then is it ok to highlight the dual loyalty of the opponent’s campaign donors and constituency (but I repeat myself), who prefer that their politician subordinate the interests of the vast majority of American citizens to send and spend a steady stream of American lives and tax dollars to support a viciously racist regime bent on ethnic cleansing and colonization in stark opposition to American values and security interests? (apologies for run-on sentence)

    • It’s also valid to point out that gung-ho Zionists are a tiny minority with disproportionate wealth and power. I think the point should be made more often.

      If there were a nation-wide plebiscite today on America’s annual $3 billion donation to Israel, the U.S. would have an extra $3 billion to spend next year.

      Luckily for Zionists, Americans don’t have any say in American foreign policy. Richard sure seems content the status quo.

  6. David Samel says:

    As already pointed out, perhaps the recent Goldstone vote, in which 58 reps voted either no or present, represents a new dawn. The more who join, the more difficult it is to target everyone. Safety in numbers.

  7. BluePearl says:

    inside the british israeli lobby expose