August 30, 2011

Romney having trouble raising money from Jewish donors who say they prefer "the Jewish candidate" — Michele Bachmann.

What's going on here? Republican fund raisers are exploiting Obama's weak support for Israel, but Mitt Romney is not doing so well with Jewish donors. If these donors aren't responding to Romney, and if they are indeed calling Bachmann "the Jewish candidate," are they really making a mistake, as the NY Post puts it, not realizing that she's Christian? I doubt it! Bachmann flaunts her Christianity, and her critics critique her for it. And a mere mistake could simply be corrected.
[S]ome in Romney's camp have been wondering whether Bachmann and her allies are pushing the "Jewish" rumor to help their own fund-raising, sources said.
Some! The dreaded some! Sources said. Maybe some in Romney's camp are pushing the Jewish rumor rumor to to help their own fund-raising!

The NY Post article goes on to say:
[Bachmann] has enjoyed strong popularity among Jewish voters and often talks about her stay on a kibbutz during the summer of 1974, when she was a teenager.
In a speech to the American Israel Political Action Committee last year, Bachmann recalled being guarded by soldiers while working on the kibbutz.

"While we were working, the soldiers were walking around looking for land mines," she said. "I really learned a lot in Israel."

She went on to say, "I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish, because it is the foundation, the roots of my faith as a Christian."

Bachmann also told an AIPAC gathering earlier this year that she and her family make sure each year to attend at least one Jewish-theme play or movie.
I think if any of these donors are calling Michele Bachmann "the Jewish candidate" they mean it in the figurative and satirical sense that Toni Morrison used when she called Bill Clinton the first black President.
People misunderstood that phrase. I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp. I have no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race.
There's a somewhat common phrase "honorary jew." It's noted in the Urban Dictionary. It turns up over 20,000 Google hits, and, on the first page, we see discussion of whether Sarah Palin and, elsewhere, Hillary Clinton should be counted as "honorary Jews." Here's a cute blog post about Sarah Palin, noting 10 reasons why Palin counts as a Jew. You get the idea. The big one is support for Israel.

What might have motivated the Romney people to get the idea out there that Michele Bachmann is really Jewish? It could be to generate unease among voters who have some anti-Semitism.Think of the rumor that Barack Obama is really Muslim. The Romney people should not want people to think they meant to ignite that kind of suspicion about Bachmann. Oddly, Romney himself has to deal with the antagonism toward his religion — the religion he actually follows. You'd think his campaign folk would be more sensitive. It's almost as if they're trying to generate a rumor that Bachmann's not Christian at all to deal with his problem with some people thinking Mormons aren't Christian enough (or at all).

But what was the point of saying that the prospective donors are mistaken about such a basic fact about Bachmann? If you're trying to warm people up to your candidate, you don't normally insult them!

UPDATE: I'm told this proves she's not Jewish:

236 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 236 of 236
Dustin said...

Maguro is also correct that it's certainly not proven that Qaddafi is dead. But especially it's strange that Raul would say this about a post I typed up several days ago, when it was actually news that rebels had penetrated one of Qaddafi's compounds. All I said was we should wait for more news on Qaddafi's fate, as accounts conflict. I never said he was alive or dead. I said I didn't know.

That's totally reasonable.

Raul claiming he's proven I'm super-unreasonable just proves he's a hack.

Raul make a mistake blaming the FY2009 deficit on Bush, and all he had to do was note he was in error. It's not a big deal. His dishonest ad hom defense is a lot uglier than making a simple error.

Raul said...

Hoosier - Barack Obama graduated Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude. That would put him in the top 1% or 2% of his class.

ANd since since he was admitted to Harvard Law School, it’s hard to imagine his GPA was much lower than a 3.3.

Raul said...

J- You sound like a really nice person.

Not that bright, but really, really nice.

Thanks for the props.

Maguro said...

J- You sound like a really nice person.

Not that bright, but really, really nice.

Thanks for the props
.

LOLZ. I love this blog.

Dustin said...

" Hoosier - Barack Obama graduated Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude. That would put him in the top 1% or 2% of his class. "

You just make stuff up. It means top ten percent at Harvard Law. And that's post 1999, when Harvard LIMITED the number they granted. So your analysis is simply dishonest.

However, we really don't know much about this. There's plenty of reason to suspect Obama took soft classes for grade inflation, and Harvard is notorious for grade inflation. What about his Columbia grades?

And your claim that Obama had a 3.3 GPA is really amazing. Where did you get that information? Obama admitted he was a terrible student as he abused drugs. Read his books. He's surprisingly frank about it, using the term junky to describe the road he was on.

Would he call himself a terrible student with a 3.3 GPA?

But you just pulled that number out of your ass.

Here's the real question: if Obama's grades are in the top 1% at Harvard, why in the hell wouldn't he release those grades? He was running for office with almost no experience. This would be a great point in his favor.

I think you like to pretend facts when you don't have the facts.

Scott M said...

J- You sound like a really nice person.

Not that bright, but really, really nice.

Thanks for the props.


I have never, not even with Garage's Algore/Bush house thing, seen someone ruin their own credibility with this much velocity.

Dustin said...

Anyway, it's clear to me Obama is pretty smart. If he graduated at all from Harvard and passed a bar exam, he's not an idiot.

Of course, Perry is clearly also pretty smart. anyone watching him in an interview can see that.

Their academics cannot be compared, as Obama appears to be ashamed of his, and his multiple memoirs provide good insight into why. If I were snorting coke and smoking joints all the time, I'm sure I'd have flunked a lot of classes to. I suspect Obama flunked a lot of classes, and perhaps the ones he didn't were taught by professors like Francis Piven at Columbia.

Not interested in conspiracy theories, but they are both reasonably intelligent. Neither are earth shaking geniuses.

But if someone wants to bash Perry's grads and then lie about Obama's (and yes, Raul just lied about Obama's rather than merely guessing) that's pretty stupid.

They both have years of executive experience to compare.

Scott M said...

Neither are earth shaking geniuses.

Earth shaking geniuses don't go into public office by definition.

Pogo said...

"...someone taking over a "failing" business and what is necessary to right the ship."

Mixed metaphor aside, then why did you have to hire a complete incompetent to right the ship/make the business successful again?

Raul said...

Pogo - It's tough listening to some who voted for George W. Bush, twice, trying to tell me who I should or should not vote for.

As time passes, we'll see who historians will judge as the best of the two.

I'm betting on President Obama.

Dustin said...

"Mixed metaphor aside, then why did you have to hire a complete incompetent to right the ship/make the business successful again?"

Hope and change, baby!

Frankly, while Hillary is very progressive (whatever word you want for lefty), she had more sense than Obama. When it was clear things weren't working, she would have thought longer term and stabilized regulations and perhaps even cut spending.

I am really surprised Obama was nominated. Mccain practically let him win, too. That explains a lot.

What annoys me is that we do know what worked. The first six years of Bush's term were much better than the last two. Bush was trying to reform entitlements as well as the mortgage bubble (which democrats actually WANTED).

Seems like what we needed was a lot less dramatic than hope and change.

Raul said...

Scott - Not big on satire, huh?

Dustin said...

"As time passes, we'll see who historians will judge as the best of the two.

I'm betting on President Obama."

You going to apologize for lying? I've noted one about me, and one about Obama's grades. You also were totally wrong to blame the FY 2009 deficit on anyone but the democrats.

I'm sure your historians will say Obama was the better president. Anyone who doesn't say so will be considered not a real historian. Just like anyone who says Obamacare is a stupid idea is not a real economist, and anyone who notes AGW is BS is not a real scientist anymore.

It seems like your argumentation is simply to lie a lot and dismiss those who correct you.

That's what it takes to believe in Obama these days.

Raul said...

"Of course, Perry is clearly also pretty smart. anyone watching him in an interview can see that."

As in this exchange with a young boy:

"I hear your mom was asking about evolution," Perry told the boy. "That's a theory that is out there - and it's got some gaps in it."

Evolution; a "theory" that's "out there."

Scott M said...

Scott - Not big on satire, huh?

More proof that you're not from 'round here. Yeah. That's me. The stoic.

Raul said...

Scott - I saw a stoic at the zoo at the zoo in Chicago recently.

And coincidentally he was standing on his right leg.

Dustin said...

"
As in this exchange with a young boy:

"I hear your mom was asking about evolution," Perry told the boy. "That's a theory that is out there - and it's got some gaps in it."

Evolution; a "theory" that's "out there."

So what?

He's the governor of a large state, focused on making sure the government runs efficiently enough to facilitate growth.

He doesn't need to worry about evolution, because that's a stupid wedge issue, which is why some psycho used her child as a political prop.

Anyway, it's obvious that evolution does not explain the origin of the universe. Evolution explains change in life over generations. One theory as to the origin of life is religion, and you're not educated if you're not informed of this aspect. It's not like Texas schools are endorsing creationism.

It's all a big nothing issue for stupid people to use to ignore what really matters.

Jobs.

You're a hack.

Scott M said...

And coincidentally he was standing on his right leg.

Are you suggesting water fowl are conservative?

J. McCrary said...

M Stone is correct, Evangelical Christians believe they are sons of Abraham.
J McCrary

traditionalguy said...

Raul...No, I could never vote for Perry.

I am a lawyer.

Perry is against injured persons recovering damages from businesses and their Insurance policies.

Like the HPV inoculations drug deal he let be pushed through in Texas, Perry can be swayed by the highest bidder.

And you Raul, do you have the guts to publicly support a real reformer over the Dem crooks and the GOP crooks?

After September 3rd you will have that choice.

Dustin said...

"Perry is against injured persons recovering damages from businesses and their Insurance policies."

What are you talking about? You can still sue. In some cases, *SOME* damages are capped at $250k.

You're a lawyer? You're very imprecise.

"Like the HPV inoculations drug deal he let be pushed through in Texas, Perry can be swayed by the highest bidder."

You sound ignorant. Perry didn't passively let it be pushed. He signed an EO mandating a vaccination requirement (with an opt out option). He did this so insurers would pay for the vaccine, and he explained it was because he hates cancer. He also backed out because the voters rejected the idea.

It's quite dishonest to claim Perry was bribed to do any of this. Merck was a tiny contribution to his campaign. $6100, which was a fraction of a percent.

It sounds like you have a different reason not to support Perry, and are making up reasons. My guess is that you support a different candidate. From the intellectual level, I'll stab in the dark that you support that nutcase Ron Paul and nut nutcase foreign policy.

Trooper York said...

You guys realize that Raul is Jeremy using another name right?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... "I hear your mom was asking about evolution," Perry told the boy. "That's a theory that is out there - and it's got some gaps in it."..."

President Obama: There is s Teutonic shift taking place in the Middle East.

Yeah, that Obama is a real genius you hitched your wagon to.

Right up there with corpseman and Austrian as a language.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... You guys realize that Raul is Jeremy using another name right?..."

Yep. I named that sockpuppet in three posts.

Raul said...

tradional - "And you Raul, do you have the guts to publicly support a real reformer over the Dem crooks and the GOP crooks?"

And who in the world would that be?

Is Jesus stepping into the fray?

Raul said...

Hoosier - "Right up there with corpseman.."

Thanks Sean.

Hoosierman said...

Is there a Bachmann or Romney mezuzah? No but there is a Rick Perry mezuzah. You can buy one here for $999. http://mezuzahstore.com/products/the-rick-perry-mezuzah

J said...

No Raul, even the Alt-tards are onto you, flunkie. You're not too bright, foo, thinking that Romney 's a demo for one

It's not Jeremy . It's a freaky theatre maricone from Sac.--he's liberal one day, and rightist the next. Lies his ass off everyday (but, in essence a Romneytoid--it hangs at DU, and ..Digby's, where he posts as a female at times too. Raulina!)

Raul said...

J - I suggest you find a new line of work.

I haven't the faintest idea why you think I think that "Romney 's a demo"

Huh?

And as for this: he's "from Sac.--he's liberal one day, and rightist the next. Lies his ass off everyday (but, in essence a Romneytoid--it hangs at DU, and ..Digby's, where he posts as a female at times too. Raulina!)"

What in the world are you talking about, Dude?

Unless something spectacular occurs, I'll vote Obama in 2012.

J said...

This freak's Raul's aka Bubba's /Hoss/Byro's been banned from DU/D-kos as a troll numerous times, and hangs on...extreme rightist sites (ie Duke, etc), then sneaks on to Demos/moderate sites to pretend it's a Demo, while praising Romney, and saying how much it loves Obama.

You're no wit, Hoss-Raul, the queer GOP poet, and your nursing classes from Casa Grande don't mean shit. Like Ted Haggard, on crack. Imagine your teeth kicked in, perp

J said...

That's right, joto-Raul, crawl back under yr rock, perp.

Now, many don't know that Romney did his missionary work ....in France! Mittens speaks french, even and...there are some rumors, of the non-het. sort. oo la la.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Hoosier - "Right up there with corpseman.."

Thanks Sean...."

What? Obama did say it. Twice in fact.

Smart people, especially the CinC of our armed forces should know how to pronounce corpsman.

Sounding smart isn't the same as being smart.

Writ Small said...

Ann Althouse said. . .

But what was the point of saying that the prospective donors are mistaken about such a basic fact about Bachmann? If you're trying to warm people up to your candidate, you don't normally insult them!

You're critical of the Romney camp here, but what exactly is the alternative? I imagine they're collecting data on why people won't give to their campaign - a very basic thing that everyone does. And they notice that a whole lot of their "no thank you's" from people who gave four years ago are little old Jewish ladies who say sorry, but they're supporting that nice Jewish girl who goes on the Kibbutzes this time.

What do you do as a campaign manager to counteract that? You can't very well say your former donors are a bunch of idiots, so instead you say Michelle is misleading people. Donors aren't stupid. Bachmann is deceptive. The hope for the Romney campaign is that word gets out in the the Jewish community that Michelle not only isn't Jewish, she's a phony.

You damage your opponent and you set straight potential future donors. (shrug)

It just seems like pretty basic politics to me, and that you have to contort things quite a bit to make this look like a dumb move on team Ronmey's part.

Raul said...

J - You need help.

Bruce Hayden said...

"... "I hear your mom was asking about evolution," Perry told the boy. "That's a theory that is out there - and it's got some gaps in it."..."

While Perry may not have fully understood what he was saying there, he was exactly correct, esp. if you take evolution to mean how we ended up as we are.

I will skip over the theory part, except to note that relativity is still a theory too, as is much else in science, and jump to the gaps.

What we pretty much know is that genes undergo continuous very slow change through random mutation. Different mechanisms are involved. Most are fatal, either to the cells involved or to the entire organism. Some are just detrimental, and some are advantageous. And, for a specific organism, we can somewhat calculate the rate of change. We also have some understanding of some of the mechanisms involved. Much of this understanding is fairly recent.

We also understand natural selection at a fairly simple level. Different traits can be selected for through population pressure, breeding, etc., augmented by the genetic mutations.

The problem is that we are the result of billions, trillions, quadrillions, etc. of these changes through more than a billion years (I don't really know the approximate number, so am just guessing here). And, while we can see the single jumps, no one can prove or even come close to proving that we got from point A to point B through these billions, trillions, etc. of microscopic jumps, aided only by natural selection.

Another part of the problem with the jumps is that we can indeed see single jumps, but there are a myriad of places where our species has made a dozen of these jumps at a time without any leaving any traces in between in relatively recent time (at least since we separated from our chimp relatives). These gaps are statistically plausible, but just that.

This is why it is still a theory, and may always be. At the present time, with our present understanding, it is statistically possible that we arose solely through natural selection. But it is also possible that some divine intervention helped bridge some of these genetic gaps.

Bruce Hayden said...

"... "I hear your mom was asking about evolution," Perry told the boy. "That's a theory that is out there - and it's got some gaps in it."..."

While Perry may not have fully understood what he was saying there, he was exactly correct, esp. if you take evolution to mean how we ended up as we are.

I will skip over the theory part, except to note that relativity is still a theory too, as is much else in science, and jump to the gaps.

What we pretty much know is that genes undergo continuous very slow change through random mutation. Different mechanisms are involved. Most are fatal, either to the cells involved or to the entire organism. Some are just detrimental, and some are advantageous. And, for a specific organism, we can somewhat calculate the rate of change. We also have some understanding of some of the mechanisms involved. Much of this understanding is fairly recent.

We also understand natural selection at a fairly simple level. Different traits can be selected for through population pressure, breeding, etc., augmented by the genetic mutations.

The problem is that we are the result of billions, trillions, quadrillions, etc. of these changes through more than a billion years (I don't really know the approximate number, so am just guessing here). And, while we can see the single jumps, no one can prove or even come close to proving that we got from point A to point B through these billions, trillions, etc. of microscopic jumps, aided only by natural selection.

Another part of the problem with the jumps is that we can indeed see single jumps, but there are a myriad of places where our species has made a dozen of these jumps at a time without any leaving any traces in between in relatively recent time (at least since we separated from our chimp relatives). These gaps are statistically plausible, but just that.

This is why it is still a theory, and may always be. At the present time, with our present understanding, it is statistically possible that we arose solely through natural selection. But it is also possible that some divine intervention helped bridge some of these genetic gaps.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 236 of 236   Newer› Newest»