Trending Topics:

Cantor’s defeat had nothing to do with religion

News
on 64 Comments
Cantor at 2011 AIPAC conference, photo from the lobby group

Cantor at 2011 AIPAC conference, photo from the lobby group

Eric Cantor is the only Jewish Republican in Congress, so his downfall in Tuesday night’s primary continues to resonate in terms of the Jewish place in America. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post is Jewish; he repeatedly cites Cantor’s Jewish background in a column, and then suggests that is what brought him down:

Cantor, who had been on course to be the first Jewish speaker of the House, was an important symbol in a party dominated by evangelical Christians. The ouster of the only non-Christian Republican in Congress by a primary challenger running as an immigration hard-liner is a crucial moment for the GOP because it risks cementing the party’s demographic troubles….

Cantor’s ancestry probably wasn’t an asset Tuesday among some of the voters who had been added to his district because of Republican-led gerrymandering.

I.e. Christian folks in Virginia are anti-Semites. Very much like the Cook report analyst David Wasserman’s line in the Times yesterday.

[Cantor] was culturally out of step with a redrawn district that was more rural, more gun-oriented and more conservative.

“Part of this plays into his religion,” Mr. Wasserman said. “You can’t ignore the elephant in the room.”

This is a traditional response to the Tea Party and more broadly to American populist movements: they’re John Birchers/anti-Semites. But it’s surely simplistic. The Tea Party had no problem with Eric Cantor’s religion in recent years. The Almanac of American Politics reports that Cantor cemented his status as a “leader of the House’s tea party conservatives in” in 2011-2012 by fighting the White House over spending. My in-laws live in Cantor’s district and they say many liberal Democrats voted to get rid of him– just what Annie Robbins reported yesterday. “I bet you a dollar that 30 percent of his district didn’t even know he was Jewish,” my father in law says.

The evening news last night hammered on Cantor’s isolation from his district and his arrogance as the reasons for his defeat. He famously spent the morning of Election Day at a fundraising event in Washington; Paul Blumenthal reports that victor David Brat used Cantor’s big-money politics against him, and good for him.

The Almanac of American Politics also speaks about Cantor’s money. He comes from a wealthy family, he studied real estate at Columbia, his father was a treasurer to Ronald Reagan’s Virginia campaign:

“Cantor is popular with fellow Republicans, in no small part because of his skill at fundraising. He raised more than $10 million in the 2010 election season and another $13.1 million in the 2012 cycle.His largest donors included securities and investment firms… His wife Diana, a liberal Democrat, is a former Goldman Sachs vice president.”

Marsha Cohen at Lobelog reports on the completely imbalanced money sheets in the Cantor-Brat race and says that Wall Street and Israel lobby spending ended up hurting Cantor:

Cantor reportedly spent more than $5 million on his re-election campaign, while his opponent, an Economics professor at Randolph-Macon College, spent only $122,000. With big bucks backing him, Cantor seemed to have little to fear from a political novice supported by the Tea Party. “Brat’s campaign portrayed Cantor as a creature of Washington and an ally of special interests, particularly those representing the financial industry,” writes Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Cantor’s top three campaign contributors for the 2014 cycle were the Blackstone Group, Scoggin Capital Management, and Goldman Sachs.

The New Jersey based pro-Israel political action group NORPAC was also among the major contributors to Cantor’s campaign committee, though Cohn seems to have overlooked this. Ranking #9 on Cantor’s list of top donors, NORPAC had bundled $24,560 from pro-Cantor contributors in the 2014 election cycle, about $2000 less than Goldman Sachs’ $26,600.

The focus on evangelical Christians in Cantor’s largely-suburban district is a distraction from material issues. Cantor was a wealthy candidate isolated from the people. I wish I could say that his district rejected him over his Israel stance, but it didn’t. His defeat has nothing to do with religion.

P.S. As I noted yesterday, the New Republic reported that Cantor rose rapidly inside the Republican Party because he tapped into big money–much of it Jewish.

Over the course of his 14 years in Washington, Cantor never ignored that elephant [his Jewishness] and often tried to exploit it. This was most evident when it came to fundraising, which was the foundation of the Cantor political operation.” 

Sheldon Adelson is also a power in the Republican Party because of his millions. And Hillary Clinton is now trying to say all the right things on Israel, and Bill Kristol is battling her, because they are jousting over fundraising. So yes, Cantor is evidence of the Jewish presence in the Establishment. But that’s not why he lost.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

64 Responses

  1. hophmi on June 12, 2014, 1:04 pm

    I don’t think Cantor’s loss had much to do with religion, although the frequent quoting from the New Testament by his opponent should at least raise your hackles. But this is another indicator that you’ll bend over backward to note someone’s Judaism if you can argue that it’s indicative of some negative characteristic (the money that destroys the political system) while denying that antisemitism could possibly exist in America.

    There is nothing Dana Milbank’s column that suggests that voters in his district are antisemitic. All Milbank suggested was that in an evangelical district, an Evangelical candidate may have an advantage over a Jewish candidate, a fair observation in a race where Cantor’s opposition frequently quoted from the New Testament.

    • on June 12, 2014, 1:19 pm

      There is nothing Dana Milbank’s column that suggests that voters in his district are antisemitic.

      Then WTF does the following suggest?

      “Cantor’s ancestry probably wasn’t an asset Tuesday among some of the voters who had been added to his district because of Republican-led gerrymandering.”

      • hophmi on June 12, 2014, 2:16 pm

        That his Jewishness didn’t help him, not that his Jewishness hurt him.

      • oldgeezer on June 12, 2014, 2:52 pm

        That’s just a passive aggressive way of suggesting that people voted against him due to his religion, ie they’re antisemites. It’s not an uncommon way to accuse people of many things.

      • Woody Tanaka on June 12, 2014, 3:09 pm

        “That his Jewishness didn’t help him, not that his Jewishness hurt him.”

        LOL. Baloney. Unless you can show that it could have be expected that his Jewishness would have helped him, then the only reasonable reading of that sentence is that the writer believed it hurt him (’cause, you know, all them Southerners are all antisemites, amirite??), but is too cowardly to come out and say it.

      • on June 12, 2014, 3:21 pm

        Now why would anyone state that any pol’s religion did not help him in an election?

        Milbanks is most certainly implying that some of the new voters in the district voted against Cantor due to his religion without stating it directly.

      • hophmi on June 12, 2014, 7:36 pm

        Ok, ok let’s play this game where no matter how much I explain what I meant, you just assume I meant whatever you wanted me to mean. Whatever. I could care less.

    • Woody Tanaka on June 12, 2014, 2:01 pm

      “although the frequent quoting from the New Testament by his opponent should at least raise your hackles. ”

      Why should it raise anyone’s hackles? He’s a Christian, so he should be expected to discuss his beliefs. (And it’s laughable that a supporter of Israel would make any complaint about a politician discussing his theological ideas.)

      “while denying that antisemitism could possibly exist in America.”

      Who stated that antisemitism couldn’t possibly exist in America? oh, that’s right, no one, and you’re just a liar.

      “All Milbank suggested was that in an evangelical district, an Evangelical candidate may have an advantage over a Jewish candidate, a fair observation in a race where Cantor’s opposition frequently quoted from the New Testament.”

      Only if you subscribe to the bigoted view that Evangelicals are basing their votes on the religion of the candidates, rather than their politics and positions (and even suggesting that it is a factor, given Cantor’s extreme policy negatives among his constituants, is rather bigoted.) Moreover, the premise is flawed. If Cantor wished to discuss his religious beliefs and quote from the Torah, the Evangelicals would eat it up.

      No, this is Milbank and you stirring up the cesspool for no reason.

      • hophmi on June 12, 2014, 2:32 pm

        “Why should it raise anyone’s hackles? He’s a Christian, so he should be expected to discuss his beliefs.”

        So, perfectly OK to quote lots of scripture? No problems for you? It was a problem in 2000 when Joe Lieberman talked about God.

        I personally don’t care. But it seems to me that people on the left usually don’t like it.

        “Who stated that antisemitism couldn’t possibly exist in America?”

        This blog frequently points out how philosemitic this country is. You’re ignorant.

        “Only if you subscribe to the bigoted view that Evangelicals are basing their votes on the religion of the candidates, rather than their politics and positions (and even suggesting that it is a factor, given Cantor’s extreme policy negatives among his constituants, is rather bigoted.)”

        Did I say that? No. I said it was a reasonable observation. That’s all. I did not say that Evangelicals vote solely based on religion. Do not misquote me again.

      • Woody Tanaka on June 12, 2014, 6:30 pm

        “So, perfectly OK to quote lots of scripture? No problems for you?”

        No. It’s his right as an American to do that as much as he wants. Why should it be a problem for me that someone exercises his Constitutional rights? Besides, I’d rather they stick it out there in the open before hand so I can know who to vote for. I’m all for it.

        “It was a problem in 2000 when Joe Lieberman talked about God.”

        Not to me. Lieberman had a bunch of problems, but his religion wasn’t one of them for me.

        “But it seems to me that people on the left usually don’t like it.”

        Well, that’s because the “people on the left” you’re referring to are not actually people, but a strawman construct you’ve created in your head.

        “This blog frequently points out how philosemitic this country is.”

        Yes, and that is not the same thing as saying that “antisemitism couldn’t possibly exist in America.” So, I ask the question again, “Who stated that antisemitism couldn’t possibly exist in America?”

        “Did I say that? No. I said it was a reasonable observation.”

        Right. And I said that you’re assertion that it was a reasonable observation is full of crap. It’s not reasonable, and, in fact, it makes no sense whatsoever, unless you hold bigoted views about the voting patterns regarding Evangelicals.

        “I did not say that Evangelicals vote solely based on religion.”

        I didn’t say you did. But the thesis that you and Milbank are pushing is, at heart, one that says that Cantor’s Jewishness (rather than the fact that he was out of touch and generally a horrible human being) was disadvantageous, as compared to his opponents Christianity (even when phrased in Milbank’s cowardly fashion), which is a bunch of baloney. This headline had it right “Cantor’s defeat had nothing to do with religion.”

        “Do not misquote me again.”

        First, who do you think you are, thinking you can tell someone else what they can and can’t do? This isn’t Palestine and you’re not one of your Zionist terrorists in uniform, thinking you get to push people around and tell them what to do. This is America where I have the freedom to go tell you to go jump in a lake. So go jump in a lake. Second, I didn’t misquote.

      • Mooser on June 14, 2014, 12:16 pm

        “Do not misquote me again.”

        Damn, man, you drag a lot of weight around here, huh? I guess you are pretty much ban-proof? No touchee the Hophmi?
        Ach, what do I know, maybe providing you with a forum where you are untouchable, and can’t be left in a position analogous to Tra-la-la at the end of the chapter is some kind of mitzvah. But you know, I sorta doubt it.

      • bryan on June 12, 2014, 2:49 pm

        Seems to me that Israel made a stupid decision in its big tent approach to getting support from anyone that would fund and back them, irrespective of their anti-Semitism – how crazy is it that Israel is supported by Christian Zionists who want a return of Jews to Palestine only so that Armageddon can occur and the Jews can be wiped out if they fail to convert. A plague on all your fundamentalist religions, and lets hope that America can avoid becoming a theocracy like Israel and Iran.

    • lysias on June 12, 2014, 2:23 pm

      Brat has a master’s degree in theology from the Princeton Theological Seminary. Why shouldn’t he quote from the New Testament?

      • hophmi on June 12, 2014, 2:32 pm

        DID I SAY THAT HE SHOULDN’T? No, I did not.

      • lysias on June 12, 2014, 6:48 pm

        You may not have quite said it, but you certainly implied it.

        I don’t think Cantor’s loss had much to do with religion, although the frequent quoting from the New Testament by his opponent should at least raise your hackles.

    • Hostage on June 12, 2014, 9:08 pm

      But this is another indicator that you’ll bend over backward to note someone’s Judaism if you can argue that it’s indicative of some negative characteristic (the money that destroys the political system) while denying that antisemitism could possibly exist in America.

      Oh please. The Jewish Press, Arutz Sheva, the Daily Forward, Haaretz, Ynet, and Jpost have all run articles similar to this one. To the extent that anti-Semitic sentiments exist anywhere, the leaders of political Zionism have always pandered, partnered, or sought an accommodation. It was no accident then, that Herzl, Jabotinsky, and Arlosoroff allied themselves or formed business partnerships with anti-Semites like the Kaiser, Petliura, or Hitler.

      Likewise Zionists, including Cantor, have allied themselves politically with organizations like Christians United for Israel (CUFI), because of their shared extremism, bigotry and intolerance toward Palestinians, Arabs, Iranians, & etc. This despite the fact that members of CUFI view Judaism as incompatible with their “end times prophecy” and eschatology.
      * Controversy stirs at Christians United for Israel summit
      http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2007/07/30/controversy-stirs-christians-united-israel-summit.html
      * Cantor at CUFI
      http://www.jta.org/2009/07/21/news-opinion/the-telegraph/cantor-at-cufi

    • Sycamores on June 13, 2014, 12:52 am

      hophmi you do yourself no favors.

      on the same day you are defending Netanyahu tweet with it Old Testament undertones, “kill those who rise up to kill us”, “reminiscent of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” as Phil puts it and then you have the Chutzpah to tell people that David Brat frequent quoting from the New Testament should at least raise your hackles.

      or is it ok to refer to the Old Testament but not the New Testament?

    • annie on June 14, 2014, 10:53 am

      although the frequent quoting from the New Testament by his opponent should at least raise your hackles.

      in cantors speech announcing he was stepping down from his speaker role he quoted the old testament. should that have raised my hackles? because it didn’t.

  2. LuLu on June 12, 2014, 1:06 pm

    I had no Idea he was Jewish nor who is what in Congress. I do not think it matters or should matter as long as the person is doing their Job and what their voters voted them in for…

    • maz on June 12, 2014, 2:33 pm

      His constituents probably had no idea he was Jewish either. He looks Mexican to me, but I knew he was Jewish.

      But you’re wrong, he was doing his job, but his job was working for Israel, not for the US. He was also extremely disconnected and out of touch as he was pro-illegal immigration and his constituents weren’t, and that’s the bottom line.

    • Citizen on June 12, 2014, 2:34 pm

      @ LuLu
      “… and what their voters voted them in for…”

      Well, that’s the rub–he wasn’t doing what the voters voted him for–maybe you should look into the US-Israel “special relationship” a bit. You can get a crash course by googling the first national summit on the US-Israel “special relationship.”

  3. quercus on June 12, 2014, 1:08 pm

    “Part of this plays into his religion,” Mr. Wasserman said. “You can’t ignore the elephant in the room.”

    Really, Mr. Wasserman. Did his ‘religion’ play a part in his winning of the last 7 (is that right) elections? What an idiot!

  4. quercus on June 12, 2014, 1:09 pm

    P.S. Or is it that hordes of anti-semites have moved into Virginia? One could write a great satirical piece for the “Onion” about this silliness.

  5. on June 12, 2014, 1:17 pm

    You write “I.e. Christian folks in Virginia are anti-Semites. Very much like the Cook report analyst David Wasserman’s line in the Times yesterday.”

    In my opinion the loss of support for Cantor is not antisemitism. Cantor was clearly on occasion backing Israel instead of his own President. I know from my relatives in VA that this aroused a lot of resentment in his district. I can assure you that this is not antisemitism. It is a reaction to rich people inducing a bias in our foreign policy by promoting someone like Cantor who is seen as an elite facilitator for a foreign regime.

    • lysias on June 12, 2014, 2:47 pm

      Practically Cantor’s last act in the House was to gut the bill that was supposed to rein in the NSA. It is reasonable to suspect that Cantor’s down-the-line support of Israel had a great deal to do with his support of the NSA.

      • on June 12, 2014, 4:09 pm

        Exactly – he was a very blatant ambassador for Israel possibly to the detriment of his responsibilities as an elected representative of his constituents. Several of his constituents told me so and I can easily accept that many more citizens agree with them. It is not rocket science. But it is often erroneously described as Antisemitism to express these reservations.

  6. Kay24 on June 12, 2014, 1:37 pm

    This is an interesting article in the Red State. It is clear that Cantor who was elected many times before, lost not because of the religion issue, but because of how he and his staff operated:
    “Cantor and his staff both lost the trust of conservatives and constituents. They broke promises, made bad deals, and left many feeling very, very betrayed. Much of it was because of Cantor’s hubris and the arrogance of his top staffers. He could not be touched and he could not be defeated. He knew it and they knew it. He kept his attention off his district, constituents, and conservatives while he and his staff plotted to get the Speaker’s chair.”
    http://www.redstate.com/2014/06/10/why-eric-cantor-lost/

    He took his re-election for granted, and was arrogantly over confident. Bad mistake.

  7. upsidedownism on June 12, 2014, 1:51 pm

    “frequent quoting from the New Testament” is for hophmi an antisemitic ploy?
    Zionist fanaticism knows no bounds.

    • hophmi on June 12, 2014, 2:22 pm

      ““frequent quoting from the New Testament” is for hophmi an antisemitic ploy?
      Zionist fanaticism knows no bounds.”

      Are you illiterate? I wrote that nothing in Milbank’s piece suggested that the voters in Cantor’s district were antisemitic. What I think it is fair to say is that when candidates in evangelical districts frequently quote scripture, they’re doing it for a political reason.

      What on earth does this observation have to do with Zionism?

  8. crone on June 12, 2014, 2:06 pm

    For those who consider Brat defeated Cantor because of ‘his’ religion (Evangical):

    via Naked Capitalism:

    But there’s no question that conservative economics professor David Brat succeeded in channeling a strain of right-wing populism to target Cantor, and plausibly so, as a corporate stooge and progenitor of crony capitalism. Lee Fang at Republic Report did the most thorough work on this:

    “All of the investment banks, up in New York and D.C., they should have gone to jail.”

    That isn’t a quote from an Occupy Wall Street protester or Senator Elizabeth Warren. That’s a common campaign slogan repeated by Dave Brat, the Virginia college professor who scored one of the biggest political upsets in over a century by defeating Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Republican primary last night […]

    Brat told Internet radio host Flint Engelman that the “number one plank” in his campaign is “free markets.” Brat went on to explain, “Eric Cantor and the Republican leadership do not know what a free market is at all, and the clearest evidence of that is the financial crisis … When I say free markets, I mean no favoritism to K Street lobbyists.” Banks like Goldman Sachs were not fined for their role in the financial crisis — rather, they were rewarded with bailouts, Brat has said.

    Brat, who has identified with maverick GOP lawmakers like Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, spent much of the campaign slamming both parties for being in the pocket of “Wall Street crooks” and D.C. insiders. The folks who caused the financial crisis, Brat says, “went onto Obama’s rolodex, the Republican leadership, Eric’s rolodex.”

    In particular, Brat took aim at Cantor’s work on the STOCK Act, which was prompted by a conservative economist who found major stock gains from members of Congress and staffers in industries where they had inside knowledge. Cantor openly watered down the STOCK Act before passage. If you’re trying to paint your opponent as a corporatist who looks out for himself and his buddies over his constituents, this would top the list.

    The oft-repeated claim that Brat won by framing Cantor as somehow pro-immigration (which comes from a couple off-hand remarks and not any real actions) actually goes together with this. Brat made an economic argument on immigration about how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to import cheap labor to take away “your” jobs. This has a nativist element to it, and it was certainly used as a rallying cry by right-wing radio talk show hosts. But even when Brat says that immigration won the race for him, he says it in terms of Cantor “supporting the U.S. Chamber agenda.” The key ad on this showed Cantor in a picture with Facebook’s Marc Zuckerberg. It’s all coherent with the idea of Cantor as handing corporate America whatever they want.

    And this picture of Cantor has a pretty solid basis, just as you could frame it for anyone in the Congressional leadership of either party. Over a million dollars in contributions came to Cantor this cycle from the FIRE sector (finance, insurance and real estate), and two of the top five contributors were Blackstone and Goldman Sachs. Lloyd Blankfein openly lamented Cantor’s loss. Lobbyists all over K Street are literally expecting to lose money in Cantor’s absence, because the source of their influence has been ousted. In fact, the only individual who’ll make money out of this is Cantor himself, once K Street comes running to throw millions at him to work at their lobby shop.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/cantors-loss-triumph-anti-corporate-right-wing-populism.html

    as Phil suggests, religion didn’t play into this contest…
    perhaps the usual reason the voters throw out the incumbent ~corruption, greed, etc. did. If so, here’s hoping a lot more surprises are in store in November.

    • American on June 12, 2014, 9:47 pm

      “”Brat told Internet radio host Flint Engelman that the “number one plank” in his campaign is “free markets.” Brat went on to explain, “Eric Cantor and the Republican leadership do not know what a free market is at all, and the clearest evidence of that is the financial crisis … When I say free markets, I mean no favoritism to K Street lobbyists.” Banks like Goldman Sachs were not fined for their role in the financial crisis — rather, they were rewarded with bailouts, Brat has said””

      If you go read some of the tea partiers and the christian group’s blogs as I have been doing today you will see that what Brat says is what they consider ‘christian values’ in government….iow, crooks and government crooks are not christian ‘values’ to them…….they view the current corrupt political and government set up as a ‘den of inquity’….as unchristian people, who are acting contrary to Jesus’s teachings and fleecing the flock.

  9. Marshall on June 12, 2014, 2:22 pm

    I doubt anti-semitism played any role in this: more like “incumbent=bad” because of bizarre ill-defined ressentiment. Still, it’s so much fun to watch the Lobby deal with the political death of their golden boy that it’s worth trumpeting the headline “only Republican Jew loses Republican primary to evangelical nut” as often as possible.

  10. lysias on June 12, 2014, 2:44 pm

    According to a front-page article in today’s Washington Post, Cantor supported the redistricting:

    When Virginia’s districts were redrawn in 2010, the state’s legislature altered Cantor’s district and removed some heavily Democratic precincts in the Richmond area. They swapped in heavily Republican New Kent County, east of the state capital.

    Cantor supported the move, which was supposed to make his safe seat even safer from Democrats. But that was a miscalculation: Cantor had misjudged where his real threat would come from.

    The same article dismisses the idea that Cantor’s Judaism had anything to do with his defeat:

    Some Republicans spent Wednesday working on conspiracy theories, indulging the idea that there was no way they could have seen this coming. Maybe, some said, voters secretly and suddenly turned on Cantor because he is Jewish? Or maybe it was the “Cooter Effect?” That was the theory that Cantor lost because Democrats came out to vote against him — following a plan laid out in an “open letter” from an obscure ex-congressman, Ben Jones,who played Cooter the mechanic on “The Dukes of Hazzard.” (Jones had served as a Democrat from Georgia before moving to Virginia and running unsuccessfully against Cantor in 2002.)

    The answers to those questions are likely no, and no.

  11. ckg on June 12, 2014, 3:03 pm

    Cantor has pro-evangelical bona fides. Cantor was a featured speaker at Hagee’s last CUFI conference. CUFI boasts 1.6 million evangelical members. Cantor’s office also recruits Liberty University grads for his staffers.

    • lysias on June 12, 2014, 3:41 pm

      I’m not sure Brat is evangelical at all. His Web site says:

      A man of deep faith, Dave attends St. Mary’s Catholic Church with his wife Laura and their two children: Jonathan, 15 and Sophia, 11.

      I know there are some Catholics who call themselves “evangelical”, but I think they are rather rare. Brat seems to be a rather conservative (in the theological sense) Christian — which is perhaps what led him to Catholicism — except for the fact that he seems to think an Ayn Randish libertarian brand of economics and politics is somehow consistent with Christianity. He also claims that Adam Smith was a committed Protestant and that the laissez-faire economic ideas he attributes to Smith are consistent with such Protestantism. I am skeptical of this claim: Smith was a close friend of the religious skeptic David Hume, and he even got in some trouble with the Church of Scotland for writing a warm eulogy of Hume after Hume’s death. Also, Smith’s ideology seems to have been much less laissez-faire than libertarian dogmatists claim.

      UPDATE: Brat’s Wikipedia entry clarifies his religious affiliations:

      Brat was raised in the Presbyterian faith and his wife is a Roman Catholic.[5] They split their time between two churches.[5] They are parishioners of St. Mary Catholic Church in Richmond.[60] Brat also identifies as a Calvinist, and list affiliations with Christ Episcopal Church, Third Presbyterian, and Shady Grove Methodist.[42]

      • piotr on June 12, 2014, 7:34 pm

        This is a bit weird. To me, it sounds “I am a Protestant, but I really do not care what specific kind of Protestant, and it is fine if kids are raised as Catholics.” Given his Divinity degree, this is not out of ignorance, but perhaps a genuine disinterest in issues that distinguish Christian denominations.

      • lysias on June 13, 2014, 10:24 am

        It does suggest, however, that Brat is very far from being an evangelical Protestant.

  12. lysias on June 12, 2014, 4:07 pm

    Jonathan Broder at Congressional Quarterly sees Cantor’s defeat as a big blow to Israel and AIPAC: Cantor’s Defeat Costs Israel its Top GOP Champion:

    The stunning ouster of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia has eliminated not only the chamber’s only Jewish Republican but also a key ally of the pro-Israel lobby.

    Cantor, who lost to a little-known tea party challenger in a primary upset Tuesday, often served as the main Republican sponsor for bills, resolutions and letters promoted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the largest of the pro-Israel advocacy groups.

    His position as the second-ranking House leadership official also gave him the clout to ensure that such legislation made it onto the House schedule.

    “AIPAC lost their No. 1 enforcer in the House,” said M.J. Rosenberg, a former AIPAC staffer-turned-critic of the lobby. “He was indisputably AIPAC’S No. 1 guy.”

  13. The JillyBeans on June 12, 2014, 4:36 pm

    I’m curious to see how this will affect the “Sheldon primary” since the tea party platform, of which majority at white evangelical christians, are not Israel supporters. In past several republicans I’d met felt the US should abandon ties with Israel, and I suspect that the tea party people are even more atrophied in their view on the relationship.

  14. chuckcarlos on June 12, 2014, 4:40 pm

    it had nothing to do with the jews, those idiot moron zionists or some nazi foreign country like israel

    had everything to do with the American Experience, History and the Constitutional System that was setup to reflect the current mood of congressional districts

    The Country is waiting for a Populist, Libertarian…Ross Perot type…a straight shooter who does not see aliens coming to his daughter’s wedding sent by George Bush

    • stephenjones on June 13, 2014, 9:04 am

      From Counterpunch: Roberts – “I doubt that Eric Cantor ever lost an opportunity to place Israel’s interests above the interests of his constituents. Under US laws, Cantor should have been required to register as a foreign agent.” – Yawn. Virtually EVERY member of Congress puts the interests of the international capital, the US capitalist class in particular and its strategic imperatives over the interests of US or any workers, or more prosaically: the 1% over the 99%. The existence and policies of Israel are helpful to the US capitalist state in a variety of ways. That’s why the US govt lavishes support on Israel, even if it upsets hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims around the globe. It’s also why the US govt and opinion-makers love Taiwan and “Tibet,” even as it risks alienating a major creditor, supplier, and someday maybe even customer… the very populous and powerful China.

      There are plenty of non-Jewish Dems and GOPers who luv luv luv their Israel (and Taiwan and “Tibet” and Ukraine and sometimes the Kurds, sometimes not) because it serves the purposes of the US capitalist state… and more narrowly and immediately, there’s loads of cash and plaudits available in doing so. Sometimes this website gets so wrapped up in “Jewish identity vs Zionism,” that it fails to see that Zionism’s success was/is primarily the product of serious and long-term British and US capitalist-imperialist (and racist) intervention and interests.

      • annie on June 14, 2014, 10:55 am

        The existence and policies of Israel are helpful to the US capitalist state in a variety of ways. That’s why the US govt lavishes support on Israel

        really? then why the need for an israel lobby? explain this: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/feinstein-blasting-palestinian.html

        why do we need aipac pushing legislation if, as you claim, the US govt lavishes support on Israel because it’s helpful to the US capitalist state? there would be no need for a lobby if this were true. the fact is, it isn’t true which is why so much pressure and money is lavished on congress people to vote against what’s in the best interest of the country. same as the drug lobby, the gun lobby, etc. because there is strong opposition, that is why big lobbies exist and are heavily funded; to counter the will of many many many people.

        the money we give israel that is spent on arms which helps driving our arms industry and our economy, it could be argued that this money could be driving another industry. or we could just give this money away to americans who would then spend the money on goods that would drive the economy. there’s no advantage to giving free goods to israel at the end of the day, not when that same investment could be used to offer free goods to americans.

      • just on June 14, 2014, 11:07 am

        Exactly, Annie!

        Thanks for taking the time and energy to obliterate some truly fantastical claims. kerpow!

  15. atime forpeace on June 12, 2014, 6:54 pm

    “I wish I could say that his district rejected him over his Israel stance, but it didn’t. His defeat has nothing to do with religion.”

    Me too but alas tis probably immigration.
    My best guess as the contributors that took Dave Brat over the top were the twin blondes of immigration, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.

    He also got the anti establishment discontents, otherwise known as Libertarians vote.

    Brat: “There is just 1 party up in DC right now. It’s not Republicans & Democrats, it’s one party. It’s the power party & it’s the $ party.”

    “His loyalties both upward and downward have shifted in his eager embrace of the Ruling Class”

    http://saraforamerica.com/2014/01/08/dave-brat-wants-to-be-eric-cantors-term-limit/

  16. ThorsteinVeblen2012 on June 12, 2014, 6:56 pm

    He was elected to seven terms then suddenly they found out he was a Jew?

    • stephenjones on June 13, 2014, 8:35 am

      The 7th district’s composition was gerrymandered and changed. I refuse to dignify Cantor’s loss with the term “anti-Semitism” but we shouldn’t be too dismissive…

      1. Big money = Powerful interests = Banks = Undermining rural WASP culture = Jew… that’s not a trivial equation among the rural WASP southern base of GOP minions. They may not pay the bills for the party, but they respond to the dog whistles.

      2. I’ve lived and worked in this area for years. Keep in mind that Cantor only won his first primary in a MUCH more friendly (professional, suburban, Chamber of Commerce-y) 7th District, 50.3% to 49.7%, in 2000. The Jewish thing came up in the form of anonymous leafleting and snide comments from certain folks. But that’s also the district Cantor’s predecessor, Thomas Bliley (a – wait for it – CATHOLIC) held for years. Again, Jew and Catholic aren’t threatening categories in the OLD 7th district.

      3. More typical of the voter Cantor faced in the NEW 7th district were people like this… (yes, from next-door Tennessee, but culturally the same): From Wikipedia: — In 2011, Cantor was receiving two threatening phone calls, where Glendon Swift, an antisemite, was “screaming, profanity-laden messages (that) allegedly stated that he was going to destroy Cantor, rape his daughter and kill his wife.” Swift was sentenced in April 2012 to 13 months federal prison. — Of course, knowing Cantor, that whole scenario could have have been a woe-is-me set-up… it’s easy to find drunken rubes in this neck of the woods.

      Generally, I think invoking “anti-Semitism” in 2014 America is like invoking “anti-white-ism” or “anti-Christianism” or “anti-hetero-ism”. It’s a farce meant to support the worst reactionary politics, catering to the insecurities of the haves. Racism has to manifest itself institutionally, repeatedly, broadly, in an array of political economic statistics… that’s not happening with WASPs-qua-WASPs, Christians-qua-Christians, or Jews-qua-Jews. It happens with OTHER groups (e.g., blacks, Latino/as, etc). Additionally, the GOP has stoked every hatred and bigotry they can, and the Dems have played enabler to it by refusing to attack that directly (instead Obama, et al, “supercede racism” or “are above race and racism”)… so I do expect anti-Jewish bigotry to be a factor in this area of the country, one which I know very well.

      • annie on June 13, 2014, 8:41 am

        Big money = Powerful interests = Banks = Undermining rural WASP culture = Jew…

        but i read those were the areas of his precinct cantor won. the rural suburbs.

      • stephenjones on June 13, 2014, 9:15 am

        Cantor does well in the suburbs… but not in the hinterlands. Again, the equation between Jew and money and “insider power” and “they hate Phil from Duck Dynasty” is a very real fact in voter behavior.

        That said, only a fool is going to say “anti-Semitism caused Cantor’s defeat” or “queasiness over Jews had nothing to do with Cantor’s defeat”… I wish people would understand the codewords and see that this was a multi-layered, opportunistic pick-off of one guy. For some of them, “Jew” and “out of touch DC insider with the bankers” is pretty much the same thing.

        I again point to the fact that Cantor squeaked into office in 2000 with a lot of overt sneering about his Jewishness in play. Tom Bliley, a Catholic, had to face the same decades before in the 7th CD, when he FIRST got into office. Cantor now faced a new 7th CD. An enraged one, where WASPs are finding out that their entitled position of superiority is worth nothing… who took it from them? If Cantor had been a Paco Ramirez or a Muhammad al-Haq or perhaps a Billy Chang, the same thing could have happened. Don’t expect phone polls – “Hi, did you vote against Cantor cuz he’s a Jew?” – to tell you much. I worked in mental retardation, mental health, and substance abuse services in this very area for 15 years… in people’s homes, in schools, with families… yes, Cantor was going to find a significant subset of voters who didn’t like Jews, or more accurately, equated Jews with their current economic woes and cultural insecurities.

      • annie on June 14, 2014, 10:19 am

        only a fool is going to say …..”queasiness over Jews had nothing to do with Cantor’s defeat”… I wish people would understand the codewords and see that this was a multi-layered, opportunistic pick-off of one guy. For some of them, “Jew” and “out of touch DC insider with the bankers” is pretty much the same thing.

        gag me with a spoon. you can say a very real fact in voter behavior til the cows come home but you can’t put any numbers on that. “a very real fact” can account for 5 people and make your statement true. but only a fool would claim it accounted for cantor’s demise.

        please link to whom you are quoting, for one thing: “out of touch DC insider with the bankers”

        because in today’s wapo we’ve got a headline that reads I’m a Democrat and I helped the tea party unseat Eric Cantor http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/13/im-a-democrat-and-i-helped-the-tea-party-unseat-eric-cantor/ (of course, mondoweiss reported that first: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/defeated-combination-partiers.html )

        and here’s wapo:

        It was the culmination of more than four years of grass-roots organizing, from both the right and the left, to unseat him. Behind the scenes, Cantor opponents who otherwise had little ideological common ground cooperated in his demise. …..

        At that time, an “Anyone But Cantor” mentality was beginning to take hold in central Virginia and the Richmond suburbs. In this heavily Republican district, many Democrats and Republicans told me in conversations that they saw Cantor as a disingenuous political insider looking out for his own self-interest above the interests of his constituents.

        where’s the “banker..code” for jew you quoted? yeah, it was a multi-layered, opportunistic pick-off of one guy. but the reasons didn’t include his ethnicity. he went down with a wide margin by constituents who supports him for 7 terms. people do not turn anti semitic overnight when they are fed up w/their politicians.

        so show me some evidence, otherwise it’s you who sound like the fool.

      • annie on June 14, 2014, 10:31 am

        so i googled cantor and “out of touch DC insider with the bankers” …and guess who is pushing this? people like you w/the allegations, that’s all:

        http://www.nhinsider.com/rep-steve-vaillancourt/2014/6/11/moneyspin-and-ethnicity-in-cantors-loss.html

        No, it wasn’t immigration; it was that Lindsey was paying attention to the folks at home while Cantor was plotting how he’d become Speaker.

        The final tidbit involves identity politics. The Dish is providing Fox Business Network free to me this month, and I had it on as I was leaving the house this afternoon. This will be a blow to Republicans, one commentator said, because Cantor is one of the few Jewish Republicans.

        Oh really?

        Am I the only one who didn’t know Eric Cantor is Jewish.

        I mean, it’s easy to tell if a human being is black or female, but is everyone else keeping track of just who is Jewish these days?

        I wouldn’t know who is Jewish unless the person told us.

        Just like I wouldn’t know who is gay unless the person told us (or perhaps kissed his boyfriend on national TV).

        Oh yes, the Fox Business commentator said. Eric Cantor, as a Jew, has ties to the European banking community. Then there’s this headline in the Wall Street Journal, “Cantor Loss a Blow To Wall Street” (see story below; they even manage to work in the word Hitler). Here it is:

        “David Brat, the Virginia Republican who shocked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) Tuesday, wrote in 2011 that Hitler’s rise “could all happen again, quite easily.”

        Mr. Brat’s remarks, in a 2011 issue of Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, came three years before he defeated the only Jewish Republican in Congress.”

        Is that another way of saying that Jews control Wall Street?

        If so, it’s a sad commentary on identity politics long after I thought we had come to vote for people based on the content of their character rather than their ethnicity.

        so who is pushing this “code”? fox news? WSJ? or regular people?

      • Woody Tanaka on June 13, 2014, 10:32 am

        “The 7th district’s composition was gerrymandered and changed. I refuse to dignify Cantor’s loss with the term “anti-Semitism” but we shouldn’t be too dismissive…”

        Yeah, we should. If it was a squeaker and everyone knew it was a nail biter, then perhaps the fact that Cantor was Jewish might be a reason for his loss, if that small percentage who vote that way because they are antisemitic proved to be the margain of victory. But this was an 11 point loss in which professionals, prior to the vote, believed would be a 34-point victory for Cantor. You can’t blame either an 11 point victory or a 45-point swing on antisemitism, when the guy’s won in that region for over a decade.

        Is there some antisemitism in that region? Sure. Was that the reason he lost? No. He lost on merit.

  17. James Canning on June 12, 2014, 7:13 pm

    Fascinating.

  18. traintosiberia on June 12, 2014, 7:27 pm

    Catch 22 for Americans. Every time a Jewish person fights an election,he should be elected otherwise Americans will be suspected of anti Jewish bias or frank antisemitism. More so if the winner talks of his faith guiding his attitude to social issues and to economic belief.

  19. traintosiberia on June 12, 2014, 7:33 pm

    I doubt that Eric Cantor ever lost an opportunity to place Israel’s interests above the interests of his constituents. Under US laws, Cantor should have been required to register as a foreign agent.”

    This will be Professor Brat’s likely fate even though his election was not about Cantor being Israel’s Representative, a fact that the voters who elected Brat probably don’t even know. Professor Brat himself might not know it, hence this warning. Professor Brat accused Cantor of representing, not Israel, but “large corporations seeking insider deals, crony bailouts and a constant supply of low-wage workers.” This ensures that the transnational corporations and military/security complex will join the Israel Lobby in gunning for Brat.”

    http://www.counterpunch.com. By
    Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.

  20. DICKERSON3870 on June 12, 2014, 7:50 pm

    RE: “This is a traditional response to the Tea Party and more broadly to American populist movements: they’re John Birchers/anti-Semites. But it’s surely simplistic. The Tea Party had no problem with Eric Cantor’s religion in recent years.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: The combination of Islamophobia and sixty plus years of Israeli “Iron Wall” militarism has made Likudnik Israel and right-wing Jews quite popular with many right-wing groups that were once considered anti-Semitic. Israeli flags are now showing up at demonstrations by far-right (white supremacist) groups like the English Defence League (EDL) and the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn (political party in Greece.

    SEE: “What are Israeli flags and Jewish activists doing at demonstrations sponsored by the English Defence League?” ~ By Shaul Adar, haaretz.com, Aug. 13, 2010
    Call it a struggle against a common foe: Islam. Or a journey into the heart of darkness. Or perhaps further proof that Europe is starting to lose its mind again

    [EXCERPTS] LONDON – In March 2009 a unit of British soldiers returned from a stint in Iraq and, as usual, were welcomed with a parade and reception at home – in this case in Luton, not far from London. Standing out in the crowd of civilians cheering the troops was a group of counter-demonstrators, a few dozen long-bearded Muslims who shouted slogans against the British forces and carried posters bearing messages such as “The butchers from Basra.” Many in Luton were outraged, and within a few days a group organized and eventually developed into the English Defence League.

    Indeed, what began as an emotional reaction turned into a popular movement which, according to the British media, is growing rapidly and now numbers thousands of supporters; it’s hard core is located in Luton. The organization calls for taking action against the “Islamization of Britain” and Muslim fundamentalists. British media reports suggest that the league is a magnet for extremist right-wing activists and for unruly soccer fans. In late May the organization gained an important addition in the form of what it calls the “Jewish division.” According to one member, “hundreds of Jews” joined its ranks, including “young people who are dying to do something.” In the streets of England, Jews can now be seen demonstrating together with people they would have shunned in the past. . .

    . . . Along with its activity vis-a-vis the Muslim minority in Britain, the EDL takes a special interest in the Middle East and the Israeli-Arab conflict. Lake puts forward several rhetorical questions, such as whether there was any point in the Oslo process, because he says “those Norwegians” can’t be trusted. What’s the point of international decisions, Lake [an EDL member who is not Jewish] asks: The UN also voted for the partition of Palestine, but the Arabs then started the war.

    “I don’t understand why the Israeli flag doesn’t fly over Al-Aqsa [Mosque in Jerusalem],” Moore [an Israeli now living in London who is a member of the EDL’s Jewish division] remarks. “That mosque is on our land.”

    Maybe because that could lead to war?

    Moore: “Why should it lead to war? It’s my land. Get out of my country. It’s the Temple Mount. They destroy whatever is there and build a mosque in its place. Look what happened in Gush Katif [the Israeli settlement bloc in the Gaza Strip]: It was blossoming, with exports worth millions. Israel left the bloc and left the Palestinians everything, gave them the businesses and the homes. And what did they do? They went in and demolished everything, smashed everything, destroyed every house. There are geniuses in Israel, in the Technion, in the Negev. They grow everything in the Negev, in the desert sand. How much land do the Arabs have? But they don’t do anything with it.”

    Lake: “I don’t understand why Gaza was given to the Arabs. I would have said that it’s my land and that’s that. I don’t understand why there are any Muslims in Israel at all. After all, they want to destroy you. Why do you have Muslim members of parliament? You know, there are no Jewish members of parliament in any Muslim country.”

    What do you think should be done with the Arabs who live in Israel?

    “Your problem is that you are trying to be broadminded and tolerant, but that will not produce any solution. It would be better already for you to kick them all out and build a Jewish society.”

    “I would put them on buses,” Moore adds, “and let them choose [anywhere] from Pakistan to Morocco. They have enough places to go to. And if you want to stay, you are under our law.”

    “I don’t understand why after two wars, you [Israelis] are so nice to them,” Lake says. “I suppose your answer is that there is no choice because this is the nature of democracy and you cannot perpetrate genocide or a mass [population] transfer. But Israel is not my problem. Britain is my problem and we are too soft, we have to change so that we can stand up to Islam.” . . .

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/what-are-israeli-flags-and-jewish-activists-doing-at-demonstrations-sponsored-by-the-english-defence-league-1.307803

  21. American on June 12, 2014, 9:27 pm

    JJ Goldberg disagrees—-and I agree with him. The usual DC pundits have no idea what is happening on the ground out here among conserative christian voters. Its no longer about just immigration, abortion, the national debt—–nope, its bigger than that—they wnat to bring back what they call ‘christian values’ in America and its government—-and its not all bad—-even if they are somewhat limited mentally in understanding of the details of issues and problems..

    ‘Did Eric Cantor lose because of his Judaism?’

    Everybody’s been tiptoeing around the question for the last two days, so let’s just come out and say it: Of course he did. That and redistricting.
    The Virginia Republican leadership accidentally did him in by trying to build him a safer district. They took away some of the purple zones in Richmond and its suburbs and giving him some solid red countryside further north.
    What the GOP’s redistricting mavens forgot to factor in — what’s eluded pretty much the entire chattering class wrestling with this earthquake — is that the prairie fire that’s turned so much of middle America red is as much about Christianity as anything else.
    And if it’s about Christianity, then it’s also about not-Jewish. How does that factor in? Most talk of Jews in politics begins and ends with Israel and anti-Semitism. If it’s not one of those two, we’re done.

    It’s not that they don’t like Jews. I’d bet that 90% of the 36,000 zealots who turned out to vote for David Brat on Tuesday (vs. 29,000 for Cantor) don’t have an anti-Semitic bone in their body. It’s just that they love Jesus. They want more religious values guiding and governing our public life. And by religious values they mean Christian values. That’s David Brat’s main calling card.

    Jews won’t be happy about it, he wrote (referring to Bill Kirstol). The advance of secular humanism has granted Jews “a civic equality and equality of opportunity undreamed of by previous Jewish generations.” As American becomes more Christian, Jews will have to adapt. That adaptation may involve changes in Jewish attitudes toward such matters as school prayer and the like; it would also surely imply a greater sensitivity to Christian feelings than has been evident in certain Jewish organizations in recent years.

    There “may be a revival” of “the kind of economic and social discrimination that was common before World War II,” though it’s “unlikely.” Mostly, “Jews will continue to be nervously ‘at home’ in America.”
    At the same time, inevitably, Jews will perforce become “more Jewish,” which at the very least will mean a firmer integration into the Jewish community, as well as becoming more observant, though not necessarily going all the way to strict Orthodoxy.

    Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/199982/did-eric-cantor-lose-because-hes-jewish-of-course/#ixzz34RFEOBW7

    • Ellen on June 13, 2014, 4:52 am

      American, Cantor lost because he is an entrenched out of touch 7 term Congressman who spear heads everything destructive in the Congress. In the minds — and correctly so — of his constituents, he has greased the wheels of corruption that has stolen from the citizenry.

      The vote was against Cantor period. There are many who voted for Brat who are turned off by his public “Christianity” spiel. But they voted for him anyway because the alternative is voting for organized crime.

      That pundits now dare to hint that Cantor lost due to latent “antisemitism” is hiding behind the last refuge of filthy scoundrels — playing the “antisemitism” or race card instead of facing the truth about their guy.

      • American on June 13, 2014, 11:09 am

        @ Ellen

        I am not saying and do not believe that it was ‘solely the tea party voters or the christian conseratives that out voted Cantor. What I was saying or showing is what the beliefs and ‘attitudes are of the ‘religious voters…what is stirring them in the ‘values’ vote.
        The actual complaints against Cantor and politics as usual in the religious wing are not dissimilar from the complaints and values of the secular voters–the dems, the independents who came out against Cantor.
        Goldberg admitted that anti semitism wasnt a part of the Cantor lost and I dont think it was either.
        But I do think this was a ‘values’ vote on government and its elite corruption by both the religious and the secular—-they were together on that at least—even though they may be divided on the other issues.
        I use to constantly say that what we need is ONE political movement—with ONE platform and goal—and that is ridding the goverment of its corruption. If you do that First…then you have a ‘fair’ table to put all the other issues on.
        If Americans ever put aside their labels and differences and personal political wish lists and unite on that one goal the elite corruption, the present day one at least, will be finished.
        Maybe they will eventually do that.
        I think the Brat win -Cantor lose was a small eruption of that because faith based values or non faith based values—the voters appeared to be on the same page re elite politicos and the gov.

  22. Stogumber on June 13, 2014, 1:59 am

    It is correct that Brat specialises in the moral problems of capitalism – and that in this respect he is informed by the New Testament.

    But nothing prevented Cantor from countering Brat’s New Testament quotations by his own Old Testament quotations. It’s not as if Jews never have spent any thought on the morals of business life. In fact, there’s quite a literature about that – only types like Cantor (or his friends in the media) never seem to know it.

    And don’t believe that Cantor wouldn’t have won the hearts with Old Testament quotations. In fact, Evangelicals like the O.T., often more than the N.T.

  23. Citizen on June 13, 2014, 3:22 am

    A little bit of context? Or no–I bet very few of the 7th District Virginia voters this time around knew:

    “…..the top seven donors to Cantor’s 2008 campaign are followers or associates of Rabbi Pinto. Together, the group of close Rabbi Pinto associates that made up Cantor’s seven top donors in 2008 gave about $330,000 to the Virginia Republican–almost 10% of the $3.9 million total Cantor raised for the 2008 race. None of them are from Virginia, and some had not previously given to US political campaigns.”
    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/cantor-and-pinto.html#

  24. Citizen on June 13, 2014, 3:47 am

    “He was always baffled why more American Jews didn’t vote Republican—especially those for whom the defense of Israel was a primary concern. Remember it was a Republican-controlled Congress, with Cantor as Majority Leader, which gave Bibi Netanyahu 29 standing ovations during his speech on the House floor. Cantor was one of the most unwavering and unabashedly devoted supporters of Israel in American political history.” http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.598462

  25. John Salisbury on June 14, 2014, 1:14 am

    Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson have a considerable say in Presidential politics.In terms of manipulating the process at candidate time.Both are quite blatant about what issues concern them.In fact there is only ONE issue for both men. I think Americans have a right to feel very angry about that.Eventually a backlash must be on the cards.
    Cantor ,too,appeared to have tribal loyalties way outside the interests of his electorate.

  26. NickJOCW on June 14, 2014, 4:46 am

    I think there is disillusion across the Western world with incumbent politicians of all colours into which issues like immigration feed; we have just seen that in the EU elections. Electors everywere are pissed off with them, they got a Gallup trustworthiness rating of 8 six months back, the second lowest of all professionals, just above lobbyists. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx. Interesting to see if AIPAC and the 1% now start throwing manure at Professor Bart; just look how many inches are spent on Cantor’s defeat and how little on Bart’s victory.

Leave a Reply