Seriously.
What a shmuck.

If you just read this slanted article, you should also check out Sen. Lieberman's 'blog' Link Textfor his perspective on the issues.

To paraphrase Joe, too big a topic to talk about on one foot (actually, a very clever Jewish reference), and not even sure I want to; in fact, I haven't even finished reading your article, but the pedanctic in me can't help pointing out that Joe ignoring the primary, which I am on record in criticizing, would not be unprecedented, and the example you cite proves it. Javits did ignore the primary results and ran a real campaign on the Liberal line in the general election. Sadly, this probably inured to D'Amato's benefit, as Javits almost certainly took most of his votes from Liz Holtzman.

Geez Mike, why choose the one and perhaps only example (although there must be others-- Oh yeah, Tonkin Gulf hero Ernest Gruening ran as a write in against Mike Gravel after losing the primary to him---why do these examples always onvolve Jews??? Incidentally, Gravel won anyway) that undermines your argument, or were you being ironic?

Actually found another example of real anti-semitism. The black candidate for Congress in Tennessee doing push-polling to remind white Evangelical Christian voters that State Senator Steven Cohen does not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Or did Cohen bring it upon himself for running in a VRA district?

Lieberman is pulling a Tawana Brawley, that's all there is to this. The fact that he's Jewish is not even incidental to the broader fact that he's a Bush toady. What's really irritating about that is that screaming anti-Semitism out of convenience makes light of the real anti-Semitism that's out there. Check out the comments section on the Tasini web site if you want to know what I'm talking about - ugly, ugly stuff. Lieberman should be ashamed of himself for this kind of sleaze.

As to Jews in the Senate, how many are there exactly? Twelve, if I count correctly? That's a slim basis to build your argument on; and if I look at the Spitzer-Suozzi non-contest, for example, the basis gets slimmer yet.

As to the TN race, I heard about that; that's actually been done before in a contest between Rs and Ds, also somehwre in the South. Deplorable, but no dice on giving "Sixth Question" Yassky a pass in consequence.

As to Javits, no, I didn't know he ran. Must update the post. That was before my time, alas.

Can someone explain what "too big a question to answer on one foot" means, because while you have "opposing me is kinda anti-semitic" in quotes I don't think those were Lieberman's exact words. So either you know something I don't know or you are putting words in quotes that he never stated. I am no fan of Joe Lieberman's policy views, but I at least want to be accurate when presenting his views.

Bouldin: like I thought I said, I wasn't making an argument on Lieberman/Lamont and anti-semitism . In fact, if anyone made the argument in defense of him on this issue it was you. One does not have to believe that either Lamont or Tasini is an anti-semite or even an exploiter of anti-semitism to be aware that a loud portion of the anti-war left has some sort of Jew problem (and when someone on the left believes every national liberation movement in the world has an entitlement to a state but those of the Jews, that qualifies as a Jew problem). I've not visited the Tasini site, but I'll take YOUR word for it, and I'll wager this phenomena is not not-existent among a portion of Lamont's loudest supporters. However, I'm not sure I'm willing to attach any further significance to this observation; some schmucks support Lieberman and Clinton too.

Maybe I will make a (somewhat half-hearted) case for Lieberman sometime in the future. But my hope that he not defeated is based on a cold-hearted political calculus, and I've no real passion for my position. So, please Mike, don't put words in my mouth. And, I'm definately not advocating for affirmative action for Jewish pols; in fact, as you know, I'm voting for Suozzi.

I really wrote because the Javits thing was so glaring. I added the Cohen thing just to zing you. You are right this is not new; Lee Atwater pioneered something similar in South Carolina against my dad's buddy Max Heller back in the 70s. If I was going to make a real point about the Cohen race, it would be the discomfort the "No Whites Need Apply" thing is causing to Senate Candidate Harold Ford.

Shlomo: A wiseass came to Rabbi Hillel and asked him to teach him Judaism while he stood on one foot. He said "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. All the rest is commentary. Don't let the door knob hit you on your way out".

I think it might be helpful to clarify what anti-Semitism is in this context. Merriam Webster definites it as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group". I don't read that as meaning: "hostility towards the policy positions, and in consequence the campaign, of an individual who happens to be Jewish".

There are fringes in the political spectrum to which that definition applies; on the left, it's what I'd call the Ward Churchill/9/11 Truth school of thought, on the right, it's the more old-fashoned country-club set railing against "the Jewish media", "Jewish money", and the entire millenialist/rapture crowd. For example, the anti-Christ in the 'Left Behind' series is a Jewish caricature straight out of Der Stuermer, while one of the good guys is a rabbi who converts to christianity (or so I hear from a précis). Mind you, that series has sold millions of copies. It was the latter that produced the Delaware pogrom; by contrast, I have yet to hear of a similar occurence arising from supposed left-wing anti-Semitism. So perhaps it's worthwhile, if we're discussing anti-Semitism, to put things into context. Left-wing anti-Semitism exists, it just doesn't make policy, is my point. Nor does it sustain campaigns against Bush toadies whose Jewishness is immaterial to their general, well, Bush toadiness.

Mole is absolutely right with his note that some on the left reflexively root for the underdog, as the Palestinians surely are; my private theory is that this group of people basically moved over from the anti-Apartheid movement, without realizing that there really is no equivalency between the two. I'd also note that the Palestinians had everything they wanted handed to them on a silver platter with a sprig of parsley at Oslo, and thanks to the execrable leadership they had from Yassir Arafat, threw it all away. Then, of course, they voted out the corrupt supposedly former terrorists of Fatah and replaced them with the less corrupt current terrorists of Hamas. Well done, folks, and what a stirring example of political maturity.

All sarcasm aside, my private view is that Israel should build its wall and build it well. This because, based on the evidence at hand, the Palestinian political process will not produce a 'partner for peace' any time soon. It should tell people in this country something, regardless of politics, that the only force in the territories advocating for peace, to the best of my knowledge, is the effing communist party. Yes, it is really that bad. I'd argue that Israel is sometimes too heavy-handed in its treatment of the Palestinians, as with the current conflict and its tenuous legal underpinning of equating Hezbollah with the Lebanese government, but that doesn't change the cold hard fact that neither the Palestinians nor for that matter the Arab governments really want peace. The Ward Churchills of the world can caterwaul all they want to their nationwide audience of dozens, but these are the facts.

So that's my Zionist rant of the day. I would guess that Lieberman would agree with most of it; but that agreement does not change the fact that he is, for his wider policy positions and now for his flagrantly dishonest campaign, a divisive, gutter-rolling, dishonest schmuck.

So, details aside, moving from left to right (at least on this issue), Mole, Bouldin, Gatemouth, and Lieberman are in rough agreement. I especially enjoyed Bouldin's analysis of Oslo. Tony Kushner would not be pleased. Arafat, afraid
of his own rejectionist flank, chose the certainty of avoiding his own death to the uncertainty of statehood for his people, and in the end he got neither. How poignant!

Maybe Millstone or one of your other regulars can now remind us what it is we are in agreement against.

The real distinction in foreign policy isn't between left and right, it's between realists and idealists. Politics still stops at the water's edge to a certain, shrinking extent. For every starry-eyed liberal dreaming of universal peace, there's an equally starry-eyed rightwing nutjob dreaming of universal war. Which is what got us into Iraq in the first place, over objections of people like me who kept shouting "national interest! national interest! What about the national interest?"

I considered the Oslo process as realistic, in that it was worth trying to reach a comprehensive settlement, such as worked in Ulster and that hadn't been tried before; but as things are right now, as I see them, there is not enough political support for the peace process among Palestinians or in the Arab world to make it work. That may change, but we have to make policy in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

BTW, our super-lib commentator is rwallnerny, who is of a mind with you on the VRA issue. Heh.

Why equate super-liberal with anti-Israel? Jerry Nadler would plotz. Never seen Rwall talk about anything but VRA, and I'm not sure we have exactly the same view, even if we both sometimes disagree with Bouldin. On the other hand, from what I've seem here and elsewhere, Millstone is never going to be caught singing Hatikvah in the shower.

I'm thinking of rwallnerny less because of his VRA stance, but because he's the Hillary-loving ("She can win. Fersure!") super-lib in residence. Millstone is Jewish, I think.

Now I note that Ben S. over at the Daily Politics is posting about 'leftist anti-Semitism' too, with of course not a word about right-wing anti-Semitism; and as usual, the left-wing variant is supposedly some form of disagreement with Israeli policy. The right-wing kind just led to Jews fleeing their homes in Delaware, but it's always easier to bash the left, it looks like. This is because most left-wingers are wimps who respond to getting kicked in the face with whimpering.

So let's play Devil's advocate.

Is it even possible to disagree with any Israeli policy, or even to say that one considers the US-Israel relationship to be unhealthily one-sided, without being called an anti-Semite? How about the question as to which benefit accrues to this country from its longstanding support of Israel? To which extent is the slur 'Anti-Semite' a calculated political tool, with Joe Lieberman's use of it as Exhibit A?

I don't know how I got in this.

I am not a fan of Lieberman; but used to like him a lot. His transformation into a Bush supporter has been very sad to me.

I am Jewish, don't sing the Hatikvah, am fond of Israel in Leon Uris sort of way but don't like the policy of the current Israeli government which -- as I see it -- propells Hamas and Hezbollah into Arab leadership roles. This, it seems, strengthens the Israeli right.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Great article today by Hedrick Hertzberg in the New Yorker. He makes the great and salient point that which party controls the Senate is more important than where one Senator stand on Iraq. This is a point which Bouldin gets when it comes to Clinton/Tasini, but not in Connecticut. Moreover, Hertzberg gives a pretty great analysis of why folks like Bouldin make this distinction; he is absolutely dead on about what makes Lieberman so damned annoying. As I've said before, Lieberman brought this primary upon himself; he deserves to be slapped, But the money Lamont is raising and spending could be spent on better causes; and the national backlash this race will cause is hurting our chances for victory in the fall (although, "The Forward" this week overstates the damage it will cause Dems among Orthodox Jews; to a large extent they've already abandoned our ship, and in those cases where they haven't, this won't damage us--they ain't voting for Michael Steele against Ben Cardin, and would vote for Steele against Mfume no matter what happens to Joe).

I don't see at present that Lamont will be the next Senator; there's a chance, maybe even a reasonably good one, but the odds favor Lieberman, if for no other reason than that he is the incumbent.

The strategic rationale for supporting lamont is precisely that he is not Tasini. Lamont is a serious candidate; Tasini is marginal, aims to be marginal, and has clustered around himself everything that is disreputable about the far-leftist fringe.

The problem is that Tasini's inevitable humiliation is likely to spawn the perception that support of the war carries no political price. The lamont campaign is proof to the contrary, with at present only the heaviness of the price a matter of speculation.

As to deleterious effects on the wider Democratic program in that state, that's possible, though I've seen little evidence to substantiate it. Quite to the contrary, you're seeing a lot of new people drawn into the political process. I have to say that I'm less worried about CT than I am about NJ; the shenanigans over there are giving young Mr. Kean a lift; the difference being that there's not a screaming hysterical diva like Holy Joe Sharpton at the center of it. Hence, there's perhaps a bit more decorum.

Bouldin: You misunderstand my objection:

1) the blood and treasure expended on Ned Lamont would better be expended on Bob Menendez and Bob Casey, among others.

2) a Lieberman defeat would not be interpreted in a way that would inure to the benefit of the party and its candidates.

...but the $3 million Lamont is spending, plus Lieberman's $6 million (roughly, those are the figures) aren't going to make or break things. Casey is very secure at this point, and Mr. Menendez has more to fear from what Corzine does than anything else. The netroots, meanwhile, are present in all the pickup opportunities in Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Arizona, Nevada, Rhode Island, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

As to the nationwide impact, remember, lamont is not Tasini. He's a credit to the party, though not as much as Lieberman is a discredit. That would be too heavy a task for almost anyone, as the LA Times lays out.