Obama bundler David Cohen of Comcast
The Forward’s Josh Nathan-Kazis has a great report on big Jewish donors to Obama. What does this say about Jewish life? What does it say about American society? Such an important story, and no one is allowed to touch it. Comcast is the company Chris Matthews works for. Of course he won’t go near this. Note Daniel Levy’s analysis that Obama’s Jewish donors are often dovish, with which I agree: The era of Likudnik American Jewish money is starting to erode. This portends that in a second term, Obama will draw the line on settlements with the confidence that he is not undermining the Congressional elections of 2014. But way too late for the two-state-solution.
The U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, who recently drew controversy over statements about Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe, was a top 2008 fundraiser. Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski, a graduate of an Orthodox day school, was also a top 2008 fundraiser. Federal law bars U.S. government employees from making campaign contributions in federal races.
New top-level Jewish fundraisers include Comcast executive vice president David Cohen, a onetime Hillary Clinton supporter and close confidante of former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell. Cohen, who once served as vice chairman of the board of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, has already raised more than half a million dollars.
Also new to the ranks of Obama’s top-level Jewish bundlers is film producer Harvey Weinstein. He was embroiled in a controversy this year over “Miral,” a film about a Palestinian woman that his firm, The Weinstein Company, distributed. The film drew criticism from pro-Israel advocates after it was screened at the United Nations.
The large number of Jews among top Obama fundraisers could raise questions about Jewish influence on the administration’s Israel policy. There is no comparable presence of Palestinian American, Arab American or Muslim American fundraisers and bundlers within this funding inner circle. But Daniel Levy, co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation, said that within the spectrum of Israel politics of the mainstream Jewish community, the major Jewish bundlers largely cancel each other out.
“I think what you will find is, that group of major Jewish bundlers breaks down into those who have progressive politics also on Israel and would be actively or passively closer to a J Street position, and those who would have a more hawkish position and perhaps be closer to AIPAC”— the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — “and those for whom Israel doesn’t factor in,” Levy said. “The preponderance of balance is not going to be with the hawkish-on-Israel crowd,” Levy added.
The current ambassador to Spain, Alan Solomont, was a top-tier 2008 Obama fundraiser and is a former member of the advisory council of J Street, a dovish pro-Israel lobby that sometimes opposes positions taken by Israel’s hawkish governing coalition. Solow, a former chairman of the Presidents Conference, is a vice president of AIPAC, whose stated policy is to promote relations between the United States and Israel regardless of the government in power in Jerusalem.
“What does this say about Jewish life? What does it say about American society?”
Those goyim you live with in the US should be encouraged to give more to politicians they support. It is really bad form that 2% of the population gives as much or more than the other 98%. The 98% need to get their act together.
Hmm.
Yes and no. Of course Jewish bundlers will have a monopoly of the president’s attention if there is no significant Arab/Muslim donor base to balance the effect out.
Daniel Levy’s argument is not persuasive. Remember that J Street wanted the U.S. to veto the creation of the Palestinian state, despite the fact that they claim to be ‘pro-peace’. And rich people tend to be conservative by nature, especially as they grow older.
But it’s obvious that Levy, a skilled PR man, wants to portray it as perfectially fine to have zero diversity on the ME in the donor class, because Jews will cancel each other out. Sure. Sure, we will. Ethnocentrism doesn’t cancel itself it. It’s a gradient, on a scale.
There is no different perspective, only more hardline and less hardline variations. Remember Obama’s recent speech to the Reform crowd? Didn’t even mention the Palestinians. Maybe Newt was right about them being an ‘invented’ people?
What if he gave a speech to the same crowd and never talked about Israel’s security and only talked about the needs of Palestinians and the duty that Israel has to end the occupation – do you think the ‘dovish’ donor base would smile on and shell out more cash?
Zionist hardliners or ‘liberal’ Zionists take us to the same place.
The only difference is time.
Make no mistake, I believe in the legitimacy of the Israel lobby. But it’s a problem when it’s supposed to be it’s own opposition. We’ve seen how well banks regulate themselves on Wall St.
Why would the same logic work here?
Phil, I’m surprised you fall for this.
+
=
The US will always seek to side with Israel. Israel will always seek to suckle at the teat of Uncle Sam. Israel will eventually bring down the U.S. thanks to its agents in the corridors of American power.
Likudnik Shmikudnik.
from the forward
i’m such a dolt. i can’t believe i never realized we had so many jewish ambassadors because they bought their way in so blatantly.
I would like to see two scales. One that puts the power of Jewish members of the Israel Lobby on one side, and on the other side the money they actually donate.
The second scale also puts the power of the Jewish members of the Israel Lobby on one side, but on the other side is the money that people THINK they actually donate.
The point being that it is the THREAT of Jewish money that counts, not the actual dollars. Our media is critical to promoting that threat.