Obama vs. McCain: The Facts for Jewish Voters

As John McCain is lying to try and get Jews to vote for him, it might be a good idea to review the facts about Obama and McCain from a Jewish perspective. This comes from the National Jewish Democratic Council:

OBAMA STANDS WITH PROGRESSIVE VALUES ON DOMESTIC ISSUES

• He supports reproductive rights and will uphold Roe v. Wade.
• Obama cosponsored the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.
• He will provide affordable access to health insurance for every American.
• He has fought for increased investment in renewable fuels.

OBAMA PERFECT PRO-ISRAEL VOTING RECORD

The pro-Israel community has always used voting records to determine whether a candidate is “pro-Israel.”
• He has voted in favor of foreign aid to Israel every time.
• He has signed onto numerous pro-Israel letters and resolutions.
• When in the State Senate, he cosponsored a bill authorizing the state of Illinois to invest in Israel bonds.

OBAMA BELIEVES ISRAEL’S SECURITY IS PARAMOUNT

• Obama said, “Israel’s security is sacrosanct [...] I will also carry with me an unshakable commitment to the security of
Israel and the friendship between the United States and Israel.” – New York Sun, 2/25/2008
• At the NJDC Washington Conference, Obama declared, “When I am President, the United States will stand shoulder to
shoulder with Israel in search of this peace and in defense against those who seek its destruction.” – Philadelphia Jewish
Voice, 7/2007

OBAMA PRO-ISRAEL MIDDLE EAST ADVISERS

• Tony Lake: former Clinton National Security Council adviser
• Eric Lynn: senior aide to former Rep. Peter Deutsch (D-FL)
• Denis McDonough: former senior foreign policy adviser for Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)
• Ambassador Dennis Ross
• Dan Shapiro: former National Security Council official during the Clinton Administration
• Representative Robert Wexler (D-FL)

OBAMA SAYS “NO” TO IRANIAN NUKES

• He introduced an Iran divestment bill in Congress, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007.
• Obama stated, “My approach to Iran will be aggressive diplomacy. I will not take any military options off the table.” –
New York Sun, 2/25/2008

OBAMA REPUDIATES HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH

• Obama cosponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.
• He joined a letter calling on the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist groups.
• Obama said, “I am not naïve. There is a hard core of jihadist fundamentalists who we can’t negotiate with. We have to
hunt them down and knock them out. Incapacitate them.” – New York Sun, 2/25/2008
• The New York Times reported, “He again called Hamas a terrorist group and said that ‘we should not talk to them unless
they recognize Israel, renounce violence and are willing to abide by previous accords’ that Israel has negotiated with its
neighbors and with the Palestine Liberation Organization.” – 5/16/2008

OBAMA: SUPPORT FROM HIS HOMETOWN’S JEWISH COMMUNITY

• “Obama’s stellar record on Israel gives me great comfort that, as President, he will be the friend to Israel that we all
want to see in the White House – stalwart in his defense of Israel’s security, and committed to helping Israel achieve
peace with its neighbors.” – Lester Crown, well-known Jewish philanthropist from Chicago, 1/2008

OBAMA: PRAISE FROM HIS CRITICS

• Matt Brooks, Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition: “Obama’s voting record on issues related to Israel
has been ‘fine’ during his three years in the Senate, Brooks says.” – Palm Beach Post, 4/26/2008
• Senator Joseph Lieberman, in response to whether he trusts Obama’s commitment to be supportive of Israel: “I have
no doubt about that.” – CNN, 5/9/2008
• Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard: “Obama and McCain don’t actually differ [on the Middle East
...], even on Iran.” – Huffington Post, 6/2/2008

McCAIN IS A CONSERVATIVE

• McCain opposes women’s reproductive rights and favors a repeal of Roe v. Wade.
• He has never voted against a Bush nominee to a federal court at any level.
• CBS News reported, “McCain, the eventual GOP nominee, promised to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.” – 5/6/2008
• McCain believes intelligent design should be taught in public schools.
• He supports continuing the Bush tax cuts, would add business tax cuts, and says he doesn’t know enough about the
economy: “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” – New York Times, 1/14/2008

McCAIN: AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION

• McCain believes the “Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation” and “that is hardly a
controversial claim.” – CNN, 10/1/2007
• He once stated that a candidate’s Christian faith is “an important part of our qualifications to lead.” – AP 9/29/2007

McCAIN CHARGES GUILT BY ASSOCIATION

Both Obama and McCain have fine records on Israel. However, McCain’s allies attack Obama’s record by using charges of guilt by association.
If this is their standard, they should explain the following:
• McCain said he “would send ‘the smartest guy I know’ [to the Middle East...] ‘Brent Scowcroft, or James Baker, though
I know that you in Israel don’t like Baker.’” – Ha’aretz, 7/28/2006
• He also suggested, “as president he would seek to develop a kind of consensus foreign policy, consulting the ‘best minds
I know,’ including President Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.” – Los Angeles Times, 3/16/2008
• McCain actively sought the endorsements of radical ministers John Hagee and Rod Parsley.

McCAIN CONFUSES HIS FOREIGN POLICY INFORMATION

• McCain repeatedly confused Sunni insurgents with Shiite extremists.
• McCain’s statement that the U.S. had “drawn down to pre-surge levels” was flat-out wrong. – Washington Post, 6/1/2008

To download a fancy version of this fact sheet, go here (PDF).


http://culturekitchen.com/mole333/blog/obama_vs_mccain_the_facts_for_jewish_voters
Mouse over the text to select it, then press Ctrl-C to copy it.
Your rating: None
mole333's picture



Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Links to specified hosts will have a rel="nofollow" added to them.

  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see <a href="/interwiki/4">interwiki</a>.
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • E-Mail addresses are hidden with reCAPTCHA Mailhide.

More information about formatting options

Captcha
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.

User login

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

Upcoming events

  • No upcoming events available

QUOTES

So the recent struggles about network neutrality have led me to recognize something I hadn't quite seen before. And that something in turn makes more puzzling the debates that have been raised around network neutrality. The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight --the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end. So from this perspective, it is easy to understand those who reject FU and NN (who are they?). And it is easy to understand those who embrace FU and NN. What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other --at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of "government regulation".

Poll