Eli Clifton at Lobelog says that Bill Kristol and his neocon outfit, the Emergency Committee for Israel, had little traction in the midterm election; and that Jews continue to vote Democratic, and Iran and Israel are not big issues for them:
Hawkish astroturf groups such as the Emergency Committee for Israel did their best to make the Iranian “existential threat” an issue in yesterday’s midterm elections. ECI— which has derived plenty of negative attention in the blogosphere for its links (first mentioned here) to the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI)—did achieve moderate success last night in winning three out of the five House and Senate races where it endorsed candidates. However a closer look at a poll of Jewish voters indicates that neither Iran nor Israel played a significant role in how they voted.
A new poll commissioned by J Street—an organization which identifies as “for pro-Israel, pro peace Americans”—showed that Jews continued to vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates by a 66 to 31 percent margin. In a list of issues, Iran ranked as least important. Israel was identified as the most important issue by only seven-percent of respondents. Issues such as the economy, health care and government spending polled as the most important issues for Jewish voters.
Message to Obama, you have freedom to take a stand on settlements etc. I admit I’m not entirely persuaded for a simple reason: The issues of Iran and Israel are not politicized, they are not part of our democratic process. Show me the candidate who is running against giving aid to Israel. Show me the candidate who says, as so many realists do, we can live with a nuclear Iran. And then show me how Jewish voters in that district vote. I think that Jews are very conservative on these questions, and have not been put to the test because no candidate steps out of line and allows the issue to become an issue. Look at Kristol’s target Joe Sestak’s positions on Israel; they’re not far from AIPAC’s. The flap over Donna Edwards gaining the endorsement of Newpolicy.org, which wants to consider talking about a one-state solution; and J Street’s insistence that Edwards is a two-state gal merely demonstrates the orthodoxy here. If everyone’s on your side, why would you ever vote on those issues?
Or as Philip Giraldi says at antiwar.com:
Numerous commentators have noted the complete lack of any debate over foreign policy in the run up to congressional midterm elections, a curious omission for a country that is at war in at least two places overseas with prospects for more.
