Giuliani’s dangerous assembly of neocon advisers suits his temperament. Giuliani is hotheaded and operatic. I wonder if it also doesn’t serve his fundraising interests. Neoconservatism is a largely Jewish movement, and a large amount of political giving is now Jewish. Over half of Democratic Party giving is Jewish, according to trusted estimates, and as I reported in The American Conservative, the new pro-Iraq lobbying group would appear to be largely funded by Jews (notably Sheldon Adelson, who gives $60 million to birthright’s don’t-marry-gentiles-avoid-the-West-Bank-free-trip-to-Israel program). Just now on Meet the Press, Bill Safire predicted that Obama and
Hillary would choose Rahm Emanuel and Dianne Feinstein, respectively,
as VP nods. Both Jews; is that where the money is in the meritocratic establishment?
Of course Jewish money tends to be liberal. Yes; but is that changing? Emanuel, Safire notes, is liberal in domestic matters but a "hawk" in foreign policy. Last year the Forward reported that when Lieberman lost to Lamont, a lot of Lieberman’s big Democratic Jewish supporters were going to stick with him, out of foreign-policy considerations. I suspect that big Jewish money, typically flowing from Jews in their 50s and older, would tend to be more hawkish than Jewish opinion generally. I don’t know. (Someone should assign me to do some reporting on the question.) But to go out on a limb here, I do think money’s a big factor in politics. Lately the Family Research Council had some important conference and everyone in the media was talking about the right wing Christian influence on the Republican party. What about the rightwing Jewish one?
