View Story | 107 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
It's a great year to run as a Democrat, and I hope you'll be at the forefront of supporting President Obama's progressive agenda on the war, healthcare and energy policy.
Obama, don't take my advice. I'm just an anonymous blogger on the 'nets.
by Bronxist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:19:18 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
It's the DKOS equivalent of a ballot box. Just "reply" to this with a comment titled "Tip Jar For Change" or something like that. Best to do it here so it's top-of-page (and next time post it at the very top as first-comment).
Good luck!
-chris
"A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships are for. Sail out to sea and do new things." - Admiral Grace Hopper, Computer Pioneer
by chrisblask on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:28:42 AM PDT
by Dan Seals for Congress on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:35:32 AM PDT
Dan, I hope you're realize that while many in the 10th are dyed in the wool Democrats, Israel is the one issue that causes people in my family to pull the Mark Kirk lever. Like it or not, he's a leader on US-Israel issues. If you took a more active pro-Israel role, these Democrats would fall back into line and give you the margin you needed.
"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." --Barack Obama, June, 2008
by oldskooldem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:39:26 AM PDT
exclusive terms, as much as "pro-American" and "pro-war".
If this does not relate to your point, I encourage you to elaborate on just what phrases like "a leader on US-Israel issues" and "pro-Israel role" mean, because I am bound to certain inferences when people are so extraordinarily vague.
by fearwig on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:43:35 AM PDT
when what the person really means is 'anti-Palestine'. I wish proving one's cred on Israel didn't have to mean taking one side's position unequivocally so much of the time. Any solution is going to involve compromises. Barack says this and gets accused of not being a friend of Israel.
Not that any of the above necessarily relates to what oldskool was saying, but as fearwig points out, it's hard to tell..
by SheaG on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:17:00 AM PDT
Dan's running in one of the most Jewish districts in the country--a district where Israel is the most important issue on a significant chunk of the electorate. These voters believe strongly in advancing the US-Israel relationship and yeah, they want to see their Congressman taking Israel's side vis-a-vis its neighbors. Its just a reality in IL-10. And IL-10 is a Democratic district. Mark Kirk should not be holding it. He only can with crossover voters. And more often than not those crossover voters are liberal Jewish Democrats who crossover soley to reward Mark Kirk for his strong support of Israel. If Dan out-Israel's Mark, he wins.
by oldskooldem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:20:33 AM PDT
It's about 20% Jewish, with about 80% living in Highland Park.
"It's not just enough to change the players. We've gotta change the game." ~ Obama
by madame defarge on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:26:12 AM PDT
I'm hearing talking points that parallel those of American Republicans on subjects of nationalism, and I don't see how you can line those up with the Democratic Party's values. Foreign policy is not a "good versus evil" story, sorry to say.
And you can't "out-Israel" someone. That's just incomprehensible nonsense. If it weren't for the context, I'd suspect it for snark. Are you saying he should talk more about Israel (that would be the only logical definition I can imagine for "out-Israel" being a verb), or are you (as I suspect) taking the position that he has to take a vocal defense of pro-occupation Israeli nationalists, who are only one faction in Israel?
It's the same notion that leads people to believe a nation is only pro-American ("pro-Western") if it supports conservative American agendas, despite the fact that America also has liberal political factions.
So far I am having trouble calling you a liberal anything with regard to foreign policy, though you are a Democrat. Maybe I have misinterpreted your views.
by fearwig on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:31:59 AM PDT
I'm taking the position that Dan should represent the Democrats of his district who vote for Mark Kirk solely because he is a strong supporter of Israel and himself be a vocal leader in favor of a strong US-Israel relationship. That would cause these Democrats to abandon Mark Kirk because he'd essentially be neutralizing Kirk's only strength in the district.
by oldskooldem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:37:15 AM PDT
supports a strong US-Israel relationship, with the exception of some Western libertarians.
Are you saying you'll only support a candidate who panders to you?
Or are you saying you'll only support a candidate with a conservative, one-state view of the matter? Because that's a very different matter. That's what I've been getting at over the past few posts.
Perhaps you should make your voting decisions based upon policy distinctions, rather than the candidate's favorite advertising points. If you are willing to fall for those sorts of Republican tricks--and to ignore the actual issues--you are scarcely a Democrat.
by fearwig on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:43:02 AM PDT
But the vast majority of Jews support a strong Israel. You're not going to dissuade them from that. And it isn't pandering to support Israel in a district that's Jewish--its represnting your constituents.
by oldskooldem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:04:08 AM PDT
voting to support a healthy Israel, one that's not war-torn and caught up in an immoral occupation that puts it unnecessarily at odds with the whole Arab Middle-East.
But if you're pandering, all you have to do is say: "I support a strong Israel!"
And then do nothing of significance to improve the fate of either nation, and in fact supporting measures that serve to the detriment of both.
But vote how you want, hey. You're free to support the Republican machine with a kneejerk reaction if it keeps you from having to think about the issues. Sadly, it seems you're right--some American Jews are quite willing to let the conservatives play Israel as a pawn in the Mid-East power struggle.
by fearwig on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:17:00 AM PDT
and still has family there (that will be supporting Dan Seals), I have to say to my fellow religionists that if you are voting solely on who is better for Israel (whatever that means to you) then maybe you should consider moving to Israel.
In all honesty that will not happen and as fearwig points out below virtually every candidate for Congress supports a strong US-Israel relationship. And many Jews in IL-10 do not support the neocon, AIPAC line on the Israeli-Palestinian problem but want a viable two-state solution. We, as Jews, have to call to task the small minority of politically powerful groups (as in the neocon movement and AIPAC) of willfully distorting the record of candidates they don't like for their own personal conservative agenda.
[Okay, flame away now -- I'm prepared; I just put on my flame retardant raincoat.]
by batgirl71 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:30:06 AM PDT
We're rooting for you! Can't wait to get up there to canvass for you!
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln
by Jerry 101 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:44:45 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 107 comments