« Labor Monday (8-19) | Main | Hispanics in Cali: Earn more than in TX »

August 20, 2002

Jews Picking Black Leaders

You gotta wonder if the Israeli lobby wants to fuel black antisemitism, as they spend millions on two major Democratic primaries, both to defeat prominent black incumbents: Earl Hilliard who was defeated and Cynthia McKinney who fights to keep her seat today.

The Israeli lobby leaders might argue that these two incumbents just happened to be the most vulnerable incumbents with pro-Palestinian views, but being vulnerable is the nature of being a black elected leaders, especially in the South. If the dust settles and the only two incumbent Democrats defeated by largely unknown challengers this year are black, the Israeli lobby will have done more harm to Jews than the marginal gain of two votes in Congress could ever justify.

To have large sums of Jewish money coming in from outside these districts is Louis Farrakahn's wet dream. Good going AIPAC!

Posted by Nathan at August 20, 2002 10:12 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Quite right, Nathan. This crap has been going on for a long time and I for one am sick of it. Ever since the late sixties those Jews who went on to become neo-conservatives who went on to become Sharonistas have seemed to take perverse delight in ripping to shreds whatever was left of the Jewish-Black alliance of the civil rights days.

From the disgusting hectoring of Jesse Jackson for one off the record remark (wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall when these guys get together and hear THEIR private remarks), to the nasty game of refusing "legitimacy" to any black who would not denounce Louis Farrakhan, no matter what else that politician may have done (like the late Harold Washington who had a staunch pro-Israel voting record in Congress but also was a standup guy for black people in addition to being an all-around "mensch"), to the new games of campaign funding in areas where their influence was previously nil this is a never-ending source of disgust for me and I don't believe it's entirely unintentional. These guys want to cement their alliances with the right-wing power centers and do so by becoming the leading anti-black voices around.

But call them on it and you're automatically an anti-semite or self-hater.

Posted by: thinks4himself at August 21, 2002 09:51 PM

That's crap.

This isn't about Louis Farrakhan, for one thing. Earl Hilliard went to Libya for God's sake! McKinney cozied up with the Saudis!

I'm not personally familiar with the McKinney race, but I do live in Alabama and work in Hilliard's district. The Hilliard campaign was constantly talking about how "the Jews" or (in public) "People from New York and New Jersey" were influencing the race. It was ugly, and his backroom campaigning was actively anti-Semitic.

For all the Jewish money Davis and Majette got, they did not significantly outraise or outspend their opponents. And Hilliard (for certain) and McKinney (probably) actually got higher percentages of their money from out-of-state than their challengers. All that happened was that the playing field was level this time and Hilliard and McKinney weren't able to overwhelm their opponents with incumbency. (Also, Hilliard had to fight the campaign on TV, and he looks awful on TV.)

Posted by: Mac Thomason at August 22, 2002 11:35 AM

So why is it that of all the incumbents in the country, it was too black challengers to pro-Israeli policies that got the money to be "even", quite unusual in any primary against an incumbent.

US politics is ridiculously pro-incumbent and sucks on that issue, but when it is only black incumbents who see serious outside money going to challengers, there is a reasonable focus on those funding those challengers.

The fact remains that primary challenges to incumbents are incredibly rare events, yet the two that happened this year (by non-incumbent challengers) were both against blacks whose opponents were heavily funded by Jewish money from outside their districts. My point was not that McKinney or Hilliard have some god-given right to their seats, but that Jews who spent the money on the race are self-destructive idiots feeding antisemitism by using money rather than votes to get their way on policy and elections.

Posted by: Nathan Newman at August 22, 2002 11:45 AM

Given that most of Majette's money came from within Georgia, what you're basically saying is that Georgian Jews, for the sake of Jews everywhere, should surrender their right of representation and allow blantant anti-Semites to represent the state.

Posted by: Mac Thomason at August 22, 2002 04:09 PM

Why is the left so obsessed with symbols and so uninterested in winning battles? Surely the lesson here is that if the left could generate some PACs instead of a bunch of lukewarm air, there are a large number of unchallenged right wing clowns who could be defeated - perhaps by not by a Paul Wellstone, but maybe by a moderate or a moderate conservative. AIPAC played the game by the rules. It found a weak incumbent who was not cooperative and it hammered her. So if the AFL-CIO or the NAACP cannot do the same thing, twice as hard, whose fault is it? Why not campaign in Orange County or upstate new york on the same issue: While Congressman X jumped up an down about keeping Chinese from getting abortions or about gay couples, what happened to our jobs, to investment in the district, ...

Posted by: citizen k at August 22, 2002 10:54 PM

Mac - who are you to tell me what "this" is about.? You want to act as though this started today, I have a memory. I don't like Jews who gleefully stomp on our historic ties to other groups. And that's what they're doing here.

"For God's sake, McKinney cozied up to the Saudis!" You're kidding, right? Who let the whole bin Laden family leave the country on Sept 12? I'm not endorsing McKinney's wilder conspiracy theories here, but what exactly IS the American policy toward Saudi Arabia? Seems pretty damned schizophrenic to me. McKInney is not the only person in the government who had good relations with the Saudis and there's nothing illegal, or immoral about it.

But okay, fine. Just try this thought experiment. Show me one politician up for election this year advocating a policy in the Middle East that's different from that of the Sharon government who hasn't been slimed by AIPAC. Even if, unlike Hilliard and McKinney, they were careful to mind their P's and Q's and not utter anything that even the most sensitive- to-anti-Semitism Jew could object to about the people and/or religion, but rigorously criticized only the Sharon government and its policies and the American stance towards them, do you really think the results would be one iota different?

I don't.

Posted by: thinks4himself at August 23, 2002 12:33 AM

Regarding "Jews Picking Black Leaders":

I cant believe what I read on your website, that I accidentaly found why doing a websearch.

So you are upset that Jewish people (who are also Americans, who I presume McKinney claimed to represent, not JUST African-Americans!) influencing the election of candidates who happen to be black.

If you are upset about Jews getting involved with your politics, how do you think Jews feel about McKinney getting involved with politics going on half way around the world, and encouraging and patting on the back those who have financed and fueled a determined, systematic terrorist campaign against Jewish civilians in Israel?

With that kind of meddling, how can you be so hypocritical as to complain about JEWISH "meddling"!!!

Posted by: L. Nadler at August 23, 2002 06:46 PM

L. Nadler
She's a member of Congress! She's supposed to get involved in policies including foreign policies. It's part of her job!

The United States has been involved in Middle East politics for many years. Without its aid, Israel could not survive. By accepting this aid, Israel invites meddling in its affairs, to a far greater extent than the amount of meddling that has actually occurred.

Posted by: thinks4himself at August 24, 2002 02:46 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)