Biden On The Obama-Biden “Still” Ad

Posted September 23, 2008 by jewishrepublicangirl
Categories: Election 2008

Tags: , , , , , ,

Sorry about the lack of updating.  Jewish Republican Girl has been out of town.  Pics from the September 22 Stop Iran Rally in NYC will hopefully be posted later today.

In the meantime, even Joe Biden admitted that the Obama-Biden TV ad which mocks John McCain’s inability to use a computer due to his war injuries was terrible.  From ABC News’ jake Tapper’s Political Punch blog (bold added by me):

In an interview that aired on CBS, Sen. Barack Obama’s running mate Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., distanced himself from an Obama-Biden TV ad.

Katie Couric asked Biden about the “tone of the campaign” adding that “you guys haven’t been completely guilt-free, making fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer.”

Couric was apparently referring to the fact that an Obama-Biden TV ad tried to make fun of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for being so out of touch he doesn’t use a computer — though as ABC News reported,  the real reason McCain doesn’t use a computer is because of his war wounds. Small tasks make his shoulders ache, so he tries to avoid any repetitive exercise.

“I thought that was terrible by the way,” Biden said of the ad.

“Why’d you do it then?” asked Couric.

“I didn’t know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it,” Biden said, “and I don’t think Barack, you know, I just think…I don’t think there was anything intentional about that, they were trying to make another point.”

Later on, Biden remembered his lines and issued a statement predictably blaming McCain.  Also from Jake Tapper’s blog:

UPDATE: Biden issued a statement tonight, saying, “I was asked about an ad I’d never seen, reacting merely to press reports.  As I said right then, I knew there was nothing intentionally personal in the criticism of Sen. McCain’s views, which look backwards not forwards, and are out of touch with the new economic challenges we face today. Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that, given the disgraceful tenor of Sen. McCain’s ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize, especially when they continue to distort Barack’s votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators.”

I have to say, from telling North Carolina voters to vote for a black candidate, to his claim that patriotism = higher taxes, to his admission that his own campaign’s ad was “terrible”, Biden is an endless source of comic relief this year.  I’ve heard the rumors that Obama camp will replace Biden with Hillary Clinton in October.  I don’t know how much truth is in this rumor nor would an Obama VP switch change my vote, but I’d miss Biden’s memorable quotes.

Palin Disinvited to Stop Iran Rally

Posted September 19, 2008 by jewishrepublicangirl
Categories: Election 2008

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

First Hillary Clinton canceled her invitation to speak at a NY rally to stop Iran from getting nukes because having a prominent Democratic woman speak alongside a prominent Republican woman, Sarah Palin, is “partisan”.

Then the National Jewish Democratic Council(NJDC) called to have Sarah Palin removed from the speakers’ list, the justification being that this protest “is too important to be tainted by partisanship” (hat tip: Opinion Journal):

WASHINGTON, DC – Marc R. Stanley, Chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), released the following statement:

Monday’s protest against Ahmadinejad is too important to be tainted by partisanship. Unfortunately, the campaign of Senator John McCain is much more interested in scoring political points than insuring there is bipartisan solidarity around the anti- Ahmadinejad efforts. Therefore, we call upon the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations to withdraw the invitation to Governor Sarah Palin and we applaud Senator Hillary Clinton’s decision to not attend the rally after the attendance of Palin was announced.

By withdrawing Palin’s invitation, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations will be able to return the focus to America’s outrage towards the genocidal musings and nuclear ambitions of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The NJDC is obviously a partisan group and Clinton admittedly has a conflict of interest if she attends (although I still think it’s bullshit).  But for the NJDC to “applaud” Clinton’s decision not to attend because Palin was going seems a contradiction of priorities.  Wouldn’t the NJDC want to have a strong showing of Democratic players at the anti-Ahmadinejad rally?  And the second sentence is complete bullshit:

Unfortunately, the campaign of Senator John McCain is much more interested in scoring political points than insuring there is bipartisan solidarity around the anti- Ahmadinejad efforts.

There WAS bipartisan solidarity until Clinton decided she couldn’t show up.  Why should Palin base her decision on whether or not to come on Clinton, or Obama for that matter?  It’s the Obama camp here that’s playing politics and not sending a strong message to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and this argument to disinvite Palin is the stupidest I’ve ever heard.

Unfortunately however, it worked.  From the Jerusalem Post (bold added by me):

Organizers of an anti-Iran rally next week have dropped Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin from the event, days after Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton pulled out.

The National Coalition to Stop Iran Now said Thursday that it would put on a rally without “American political personalities” and Palin won’t be there.

The move angered Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who accused Democratic rivals of having his running mate disinvited. All Americans should agree on the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he said.

“Governor Palin was pleased to accept an invitation to address this rally and show her resolve on this grave national security issue,” McCain said in a statement. He blamed “Democratic partisans” and Barack Obama’s campaign for pressing organizers to dump Palin.

A number of American Jewish organizers are staging the rally in New York City against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They had announced earlier this week that the event would feature both Clinton and Palin.

Clinton aides fumed over what they saw as a slight by organizers, because they had no idea until told by reporters that Palin was supposed to attend as well.

The New York senator had agreed weeks ago to attend the rally, but abruptly backed out late Tuesday, as soon as she learned of the pairing. Clinton, whose historic bid for the presidency came up short, has sought to avoid a public face-off with Palin. A Clinton-Palin double billing at such an event would have been awkward.

Casey Sanders, a spokeswoman for rally organizers, had no explanation for why Palin shouldn’t be there or who decided that.

The Republican ticket of John McCain and Palin is working hard to win over disappointed Clinton supporters, particularly women voters. And Obama, who beat Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, has been trying to assure Jewish voters that he is firmly committed to Israel’s security.

McCain’s campaign did not explain why it thinks Democrats and the Obama camp were behind the rescinded invitation.

The Palin camp criticized Clinton for backing out, saying all parties should rally together in opposition to the threat posed by a nuclear Iran.

Pathetic.  Really pathetic on the part of both the Obama and Clinton camps.  If a Clinton-Palin face-off would have been too “awkward”, they should have at least sent Joe Biden to the rally instead and show bipartisan solidarity with the two VP nominees.  But they didn’t.  They turned a bipartisan event into a partisan one, then into a “nonpartisan” event.  Their actions say a lot about Obama’s supposed commitment to Israel’s security.  Obama is not firmly committed to Israel’s security.  Obama is firmly committed to getting himself elected.

And even more outrageous, the LA Times blog manages to twist this whole incident into a McCain camp plot:

John McCain’s campaign also felt compelled to issue a comment that includes casting aspersions at Barack Obama. As has become de rigueur for the GOP camp, it questioned his motives in apparently resisting a push from McCain that he show up in lieu of Clinton. Here’s that part of the statement:

Gov. Palin was pleased to accept an invitation to address this rally and show her resolve on this grave national security issue, regrettably that invitation has since been withdrawn under pressure from Democratic partisans.

We stand shoulder to shoulder with Republicans, Democrats and independents alike to oppose Ahmadinejad’s goal of a nuclear armed Iran. Sen. Obama’s campaign had the opportunity to join us. Sen. Obama chose politics rather than the national interest.

[UPDATE: An Obama spokesman, Tommy Vietor, responded with an e-mail that said in part: “This is another dishonorable lie from John McCain. The Obama campaign had planned to send a surrogate to the rally.” Vietor also scolded McCain for refusing “to stand up to his allies in Congress ” who this week blocked an Obama bill aimed at helping states and private pension funds divest from companies that invest in Iran.]

Yeah sure.  It’s all McCain’s fault.  Obviously.

Well, unlike Ms. Clinton, I will be at the September 22 rally to Stop Iran from getting nukes.  The partisan imp in me almost considered not going so as to punish the event organizers for denying me the opportunity to hear Gov. Sarah Palin.  But unlike certain others, I’m still going because I think the threat of nuclear Iran is above partisan politics.

Biden on Patriotism

Posted September 19, 2008 by jewishrepublicangirl
Categories: Election 2008

Tags: , , , ,

Democrat VP nominee Sen. Joe Biden redefines patriotism:

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.

Biden says he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama want to “take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

Under the Democrats’ economic plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

Biden told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Thursday that, in his words, “it’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

Really, paying more taxes is patriotic?  This call to “help get America out of the rut” coming from a candidate whose party threw the American flags away at their “green” convention?

Let’s at least start by proper handling and disposing of the American flag.  Then Biden can try to make his case about higher-taxes-as-patriotic-duty.

Ms. Clinton’s “Bipartisanship”

Posted September 17, 2008 by jewishrepublicangirl
Categories: Election 2008

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Remember the Hillary Clinton who touted her experience of reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans?  I wonder what happened to her.  From the ABC News Political Radar Blog (bold added by me):

Sen. Hillary Clinton has decided to skip a pro-Israel rally in New York next week because Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was also scheduled to appear. (AP Photo/newscom.com)

Sen. Hillary Clinton has decided to skip a pro-Israel rally in New York next week because Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was also scheduled to appear. (AP Photo/newscom.com)

No Joint Clinton-Palin Appearance at New York Rally

ABC News’ Imtiyaz Delawala and Teddy Davis Report: In the case of the 2008 presidential election, life does not always imitate the art of well-received Saturday Night Live skit, especially where a joint appearance of Sen. Hillary Clinton and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin are concerned.

Clinton backed out of a protest scheduled for Monday in New York against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s attendance at the opening of the UN General Assembly after learning that organizers also invited the Republican vice presidential nominee without informing her.

Organized by American Jewish groups, the “Rally to Stop Iran Now” sent out a media advisory billing the joint appearance in their headline: “SEN. HILLARY CLINTON AND GOV. SARAH PALIN AT “RALLY TO STOP IRAN NOW,” AT UNITED NATIONS, MONDAY, SEPT. 22nd, 11:45 A.M.”

The rally will feature Palin as well as Speaker of Israel’s Knesset Dalia Itzik and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel.

Clinton aides were described as “furious” after learning from reporters — not rally organizers — of the plan to have Clinton and Palin appear together.

“Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event,” said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines in a statement to reporters. “Senator Clinton will therefore not be attending.”

Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt released a statement on Clinton’s canceled appearance saying, “Governor Palin believes that the danger of a nuclear Iran is greater than party or politics. She hopes that all parties can rally together in opposition to this grave threat.”

Clinton’s spokesman had no direct response to the argument made by Schmitt.

I do not understand how an event in which a prominent Democrat woman and a prominent Republican woman are both invited to speak is a “partisan” event.  I can understand how Clinton might potentially be upset by not knowing the full speakers list.  But if she assumed no Republicans (or perhaps, no prominent Republican women, aka Sarah Palin) would be speaking, did she think that meant the event was “bipartisan”?  How did the event become “partisan” by having representatives of both parties speak?

Clinton’s canceled appearance is a bad move on all fronts.  It’s a bad move for Clinton herself, because the event is organized by a number of American Jewish groups, and Jews represent an important constituency in her state of New York.  Clinton also misses out on the major career opportunity of appearing on the same program as Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, an opportunity you’d really have to be a fool to pass up.  It’s a bad message to send to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that only half the country is concerned about nuclear Iran.  And it’s a bad move for Barack Obama, whom Clinton is campaigning for, because her actions will reflect on him and make him look partisan and petty (so much for all his talk about being a unifier and bringing the country together).

Unless Clinton, like Obama, thinks John McCain is a greater threat than Iran.  After all, Iran is a tiny threat

Student Told Rosary Is Gang Symbol

Posted September 17, 2008 by jewishrepublicangirl
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , ,

A Texas high school forbid a student to wear a rosary because it is considered a gang symbol.  From MyFox Dallas (bold added by me):

SEAGOVILLE  —  A Dallas-area high school student says she’s been forbidden from wearing her rosary to school because it’s considered a gang symbol.

Tabitha Ruiz says her silver and ruby beaded rosary is a gift from her mother that she’s worn ever since she was a child. She had it around her neck last week at Seagoville High School when a security guard stopped her at the door.

“I went to school, walked through the metal detectors and they told me to take it off,” said the teenager. “I asked them why and they said because it’s gang-related.”

Ruiz said school officials told her to hide the rosary or take it off, and she did, before calling her mother.

On Monday, she wore the prayer beads again, only to be told again to take them off again. Her mother is furious.

“If we back down to everything the gangs are doing, the gangs win,” said Taire Ferguson. “Why should we take away her choice to express her religious beliefs because gangs are doing it? It’s not right.”

Tabitha and her mother both say they’ve never heard of a rosary being a gang symbol, but police have.

“Lately they’ve been seen wearing religious jewelry such as the rosary worn by gang members, so it is a factor,” said Sr. Cpl Kevin Janse of the Dallas Police Department.

Although rosaries are not specifically banned by name in the district’s dress code, a DISD spokesman did say, “It’s up to the principal’s discretion. We chose to err on the side of caution.”

That’s no consolation for Tabitha or her mother, who says she’ll take the district to court to fight for her daughter’s religious rights if necessary.

The quote from Sr. Cpl Kevin Janse is priceless.  Gang members wear rosaries, thus rosaries are gang symbols.  Gang members also wear jeans.  Does this mean that jeans are also gang symbols?  Should the school forbid students from wearing jeans?

This incident sounds suspiciously like the infamous 2004 headscarf ban in France, which Human Rights Watch blasted as “an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice.”  Of course, the French government defended the ban against conspicuous religious symbols, which took effect September 2, 2004, as two French reporters were being held captive by Iraqi militants.  In the words of BBC correspondent, Caroline Wyatt, “Nobody in France wants to be seen siding with the kidnappers.

“Transformative”

Posted September 15, 2008 by jewishrepublicangirl
Categories: Election 2008

Tags: , ,

Speaking in North Carolina, Democrat VP Nominee Joe Biden tells voters why they should vote for his running mate:

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says electing a black person to the White House would be transformative.

Biden, campaigning in Charlotte, said Sunday that choosing a black candidate would be a “transformative event in American politics and internationally.”

His running mate, Barack Obama, seeks to be the first black president in the United States. Biden said Obama’s policies make his presidency even more transformative.

Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t it sound like Biden is telling North Carolina voters to pick Obama simply because he’s black?  It’s nice to know that Obama’s running mate thinks that Obama’s main qualification for president is his skin color.

Former Peace Now Member Admits Oslo Was A Failure

Posted September 15, 2008 by jewishrepublicangirl
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , ,

September 13, 2008 marked the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Oslo Accords.  From the Jerusalem Post (bold added by me):

“As a philosophy professor at the University of Haifa and an active member of Peace Now, [Yuval Steinitz] recalled that he went out that night with friends to celebrate the dawning of a new era for Israel.

But after two years, as the Palestinians armed themselves in the West Bank and suicide bombers began blowing themselves up in Israel, a disillusioned Steinitz came to the conclusion that instead of fostering peace, the accords that had held so much promise were actually leading Israel on a path to its demise.

“Oslo could have been right. I gave it a chance, but then I had to be a skeptic and reexamine my position. Then I felt that what we did was a terrible mistake,” said Steinitz.

“I realized that, to my frustration, we were giving up land for war and terror and incitement,” he said.

As the Palestinians continued with their anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric, he worried that “instead of a demilitarized Palestinian state we might end up with a militarized Palestinian state in the center of the country.”

Terror attacks on Israelis were at their highest following the signing of the Oslo Accords.  It’s time that someone has finally admitted that the Oslo Accords, and the idea of giving up land for peace with a partner who was not committed to peace, was a mistake.

Unfortunately, not everyone has learned this lesson.  The Annapolis Conference continues the principles of the Oslo Accords.  And there are some, like Foreign Minister Uri Savir, who think they will work.  From another Jerusalem Post article:

But Savir said the negotiations now taking place between the government and the West Bank Palestinians, as part of the Annapolis process begun in November 2007, were an extension of what began on September 13, 1993.

“It is either the continuation of Oslo or nothing,” he said.

“At the Annapolis Conference everything that was said was based on Oslo. That it took longer than we had hoped is a fact of life, but it is still the same process, even if there are some who would like to define it differently,” he said.

The JPost article goes on to describe Savir’s take on the US presidential elections:

He believes the peace process would be better served by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama than his Republican rival John McCain.

Obama, Savir said, would put more emphasis on foreign policy and an active American diplomacy. He would also make the United States more popular overseas and thus he could serve as a better broker for the process, Savir added.

Many of Obama’s foreign policy advisers helped US president Bill Clinton and knew the issues very well, Savir said.

Yet another reason not to vote for Barack Obama.  He would continue the ineffective land for peace deals that led to more attacks in Israel.  We saw the same thing happen after the 2005 Gaza Withdrawal.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.