web analytics
December 9, 2016 / 9 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘democratic’

The Democratic Party has Tuned Out the Jihad… if it Ever Tuned it in to Begin With

Sunday, December 4th, 2016

The Ohio State University Jihad attack a few days ago did not really happen.

Or, to be more precise, for many Americans it did not really happen because they simply don’t care about Islamic theological violence against their fellow Americans. The reason that many Americans, particularly of the progressive variety, tend not to care about this kind of violence is because to do so is considered “racist” by president Obama, the leadership of the Democratic Party, and the elite media.

Koranically-based attacks on innocent Americans are, therefore, perceived like the weather. A typhoon or a flood or an earthquake may happen now and again, but what can you do? You cannot dwell on such things. They are simply “acts of God” and there is very little to be done or said, for most of us, beyond, “Gee, how unlucky.”

The truth is that the Ohio State attack will, with the obvious exception of 9/11, slide down the memory hole along with all the others. Abdul Razak Ali Artan, apparently inspired by the Palestinian-Arab “car ramming intifada” put eleven people in the hospital for reasons of Muslim religious intolerance while Democrats cannot even bring themselves to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism.”

We know, however, that the attack was done for religious reasons – and was thereby a Jihadi attack – because Abdul told us so on a recent Facebook posting where he wrote, “By Allah, I am willing to kill a billion infidels.” It should also be noted, shamefully enough, that ONLY conservative outlets are covering this angle of the story.

The problem is that after eight years of Obama administration, and Democratic Party, obfuscation concerning the rise of political Islam people are terrified to so much as discuss the matter lest they get smeared as racist… which is part of the reason that we just saw the election of Donald Trump to the presidency. Progressive-left Democrats are not afraid that if they speak out against the most fascistic and widespread political movement in the world today that some crazed Shaheed will leap from the bushes with a scimitar, but something far worse. They are afraid that their own friends will look down upon them as Neanderthal racist pig farmers.

So, people won’t discuss the Jihad because there is too much at stake. Friendships and reputations and, even, employment can be at risk. In Europe one can literally go on trial for questioning immigration policy in manners too blunt. Alternatively, in the United States we tend to apply social and economic pressure, rather than the direct threat of imprisonment, for crimes of political incorrectness.

Furthermore, in the US we all understand that the good people favor open immigration, because the US is a country of immigrants. It’s only the bad people – the rat-bastard racist Trumpeteers – who want to significantly screen Arab-Muslim immigrants for ties to political Islam. Those who prefer open borders, however, insist that just as our ancestors came to this country with no intention other than to build better lives for themselves and their families, so people throughout the Middle East and North Africa are likewise seeking better lives. 

And, needless to say, no one should be more cognizant of this than American Jews, such as myself.

{My parents had me rather late in life, but my father came through Ellis Island as a baby in the arms of my grandmother early in the twentieth-century from the Ukraine via Argentina. They fled the Ukraine and the town of Medzhybizh which, as it happens, was the birthplace of the Chasidic movement. The Nazis also paid a visit to my paternal ancestral hometown in Operation Barbarossa during World War II. Were it not for my family’s earlier departure, not a one of them would have survived, chances are.}

But, the point is that there is intense social pressure within the United States to avoid discussing either the Jihad or the potential problems with large-scale Arab-Muslim immigration. Consequently, we rarely even think about these questions, because as human beings we tend not to fret about things which have no real place within out cultural-political frameworks. So, because we don’t discuss it, we don’t think about it, and because we don’t think about it we don’t pursue vital questions around such issues.

It is for this reason that the great majority of Americans have not the slightest clue what is happening in Europe, particularly in Germany and Sweden, under the burden of mass Arab-Muslim immigration. They don’t know about the Rape Game called “taharrush” or rising rates of immigrant crime or the never-ending violent conflicts with the cops and the indigenous population. To the extent that Americans have even heard of such figures as Geert Wilders or Robbie Thompson, they are vaguely dismissed as the irrational and hate-filled vestiges of hard-right White Supremacy in Europe.

Thus most Americans, like most Europeans before them, are simply tuning out the Jihad when it arrives in their own neighborhoods.

The Obama administration refuses to acknowledge it, the major media barely discusses it, and virtually no one in the Democratic Party does so beyond smearing the reputations of those of us who would like to open a national discussion on the question.

The truth, of course, is that there is nothing the least little bit “racist” about opposing Koranically-based violence in the United States, or anywhere else, for that matter. Opposing Islamic terrorism is no more racist than opposing German National Socialism or Soviet Communism. It has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity and everything to do with a political-theocratic ideology that demands the submission or death of the infidel, the violent elimination of Gay people, the conquest of Jerusalem, and the complete domination of women.

And this is part of the reason why Trump took the White House.

Perhaps things will change when liberals rediscover their liberalism.

Michael Lumish

Michigan Vote Recount Reaffirms Trump Election Was Legitimate

Tuesday, November 29th, 2016

A recount of votes in the state of Michigan has re-affirmed that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump legitimately won the office on election night earlier this month.

The GOP candidate, now president-elect, won the state by a total of 306 electoral votes to 232 for Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton, according to the results of an official recount certified unanimously by the Michigan State Board of Canvassers.

ABC News reported the certified results were as follows:
Trump 2,279,543 (47.6%)
Clinton 2,268,839 (47.4%)
Johnson 172,136 (3.6%)
Stein 51,463 (1.1%)

Hana Levi Julian

The Democratic Playbook

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2016

The widespread demonstrations protesting the stunning Republican victories earlier this month – the GOP will now control the presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the governor’s house or state legislative chamber in 44 states with full control in 25 states – indicate that many Democrats are not yet ready to see their party function as a loyal opposition.

And hortatory comments from Democratic luminaries suggest that confrontation will not only be a feature of the Democratic street but also a driving force for elected Democrats. Absent in all of this is the traditional notion that the victors were better at attracting the votes they needed than the vanquished, and that the task at hand for the losing party is to find out, in advance of the next election, why they lost.

Thus, for example, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said the Trump victory made him “soul sick for the America that I know and I love.… If there is a move to deport immigrants then I say start with me….I am a son of immigrants….”

Actually he is a grandson of immigrants and he is certainly here legally.

Gov. Cuomo went on to say, “New York’s message is a message of tolerance, brotherhood, and unity…. New York is going to lead the way in showing the way for positive growth.” The governor announced plans to create “a public-private legal defense fund to provide immigrants who can’t afford their own defense the legal assistance they need.”

And the governor waxed eloquent in his outrage: “You spread fear and we will spread love…. You try to pull us apart and we will stand stronger for each other….Yes, we are black, white, and brown – but we are one…. We are gay and straight – but we are one as a community…..Yes, we are Christian, Muslim, and Jews – but we are one….Yes, we are individuals but we are also one community. One family.”

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio weighed in with a recitation of the horrors he feared to be in the offing if the incoming Trump administration has its way. He warned of an increase in hate crimes; widespread loss of health insurance; tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby impoverishing the state; and the breakup of families through deportations of the undocumented.

He went on to say: “To all Latinos who heard their culture denigrated – we stand by you. To all the African Americans who heard their history denied – we stand by you. To all the women who heard their rights being threatened – we stand by you. To all those in the Jewish community who heard a resonance from history that gave them real fear and pause – we stand by you. To all those in the LGBT community who heard a message of taking us backward – we will never go backward. We stand by you.”

(Do Messrs Cuomo and de Blasio use the same speechwriters?)

We’re not sure what the mayor meant by his comment about “fear” and “pause” in the Jewish community, but more to the point, totally absent is any attempt to critique the logic of even one Trump campaign initiative on the merits. Indeed, there is nothing about how to address the presence of millions of people who are here by virtue of having broken our laws. Nothing about how it is important to preserve our borders and prevent criminals and terrorists from embedding themselves in the general immigrant groups. All that we get is hyperbole and rhetoric and declarations of political war.

And it was particularly troubling to hear that he will actively seek to subvert federal initiatives that will challenge the status quo in New York City respecting immigration, policing, and funding for social programs – he refers to his stance against those initiatives as a national model of resistance and a “better way.”

It therefore comes as no surprise that so far there is not one person either chosen or considered for an important position by President-elect Trump who has not been demonized by Democrats. One gets the sense that the approach ordained by Democrat Central is not to evaluate objectively but rather to bend over backward to find negatives that might in some way seem to support a predetermined adverse judgment. An example of this is the attempt to subvert the appointment of Stephen Bannon, former executive chair of Breitbart News, to a top White House staff position on the flimsiest of hearsay – anecdotal allegations (by his ex-wife during unusually vitriolic divorce proceedings) of anti-Semitism.

One of the more egregious examples of this sort of thing came from someone we thought knew better New York Representative Jerrold Nadler. Here are excerpts from a statement issued by Mr. Nadler after the Bannon appointment was announced:

 

I am appalled and disgusted that Donald Trump is doubling-down on hatred and racism in his very first action as president-elect. Instead of calling on the nation to end the violence, racism, and bigotry that is sweeping communities across the country, he has selected a known anti-Semitic, white nationalist, racist – Steve Bannon – to serve at the highest level of the executive branch….

Whoever [Trump] appoints to serve in a position of leadership in our country must serve all of the people and must denounce the type of racism, white nationalism, and bigotry that, unfortunately, Steve Bannon represents to millions of Americans.

 

We suggest to Mr. Nadler that emptying a thesaurus (or having a staff member do it for him) is no substitute for providing facts.

This is not to say that no case of legitimate concern has transpired. Retired General James Mattis, reportedly a leading candidate for the position of defense secretary, has said some very negative things about Israel as an American ally and its settlement policy. (See news story, page 3.)

To be sure, if Gen. Mattis had been proposed by President Obama we would be unequivocal in our concern, given Mr. Obama’s track record on the Middle East. But as Donald Trump during his presidential campaign pursued a wholly different dynamic in terms of support for Israel, we will withhold further comment until we hear more from the Trump transition team.

Editorial Board

Keith Ellison: The Latest Step In the Democratic Party’s Abandonment of Israel & Its Jewish Supporters

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s blogsite, The Lid}

Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison is a leading contender to become the new Chairman of the Democratic Party. He’s garnered endorsements from party leaders such as NY Senator Chuck Schumer , Mass. Senator Elizabeth Warren , Vt. Senator Bernie Sanders, as well as President Obama.

A supporter of Lewis Farrakhan with a track record of being both anti-Israel and Antisemitism, should Ellison garner the spot it would be another signal of the Democratic Party moving to become the anti-Israel party, something recommended by the Center for American Progress back in 2011

As Caroline Glick recently wrote,

“Ellison’s association with the Nation of Islam dated back at least since 1989 and stretched at least until 1998. During that period, he not only knew about the Nation of Islam’s Jew hatred, he engaged in it himself.”

During Ellison’s run for congress in 2006, the The Washington Post reported that Ellison had defended Farrakhan against accusations of Antisemitism in 1989 and in 1990 as well as calling affirmative action a “sneaky” form of compensation for slavery, calling instead for reparations.

Also during Ellison’s initial congressional campaign, Scott Johnson of the must-read site Power Line , exposed Ellison’s Antisemitism and work with Louis Farrakhan in a Weekly Standard piece.  One incident he described, occurred in February 1997 when Ellison was a practicing attorney:

Ellison appeared as a local spokesman for the Nation of Islam with the last name “Muhammad.” He spoke at a public hearing in connection with a controversy involving Joanne Jackson of the Minnesota Initiative Against Racism (MIAR). Jackson was alleged to have said, “Jews are among the most racist white people I know.” Jackson denied making the statement or insisted that it had been taken out of context. Ellison appeared before the MIAR on behalf of the Nation of Islam in defense of Jackson’s alleged statement. According to the Star Tribune and the full text of the statement published in the Minneapolis Spokesman-Recorder, Ellison said:

 

Speaking for the Nation of Islam, Ellison appeared before the MIAR in defense of the truth of Jackson’s alleged statement. According to the Star Tribune and the full text of the statement published in the Minneapolis Spokesman-Recorder, Ellison said, ‘We stand by the truth contained in the remarks attributed to [Ms. Jackson], and by her right to express her views without sanction.’ He finished his comments with, “Also, it is absolutely true that merchants in Black areas generally treat Black customers badly.”

The last sentence alluded to another of Jackson’s alleged statements, providing a personal basis for characterizing Jews as “the most racist white people” she knew. Ellison’s May 28 letter acknowledges only that others supported Jackson’s alleged statement in that controversy while falsely denying that he himself did so.

Since entering congress Ellison has used every opportunity possible slam Israel.

For example, in 2010, Ellison convinced 53 other Democratic members of congress to sign the infamous “Gaza 54” letter to President Obama, which falsely accused Israel of humiliating and wreaking “collective punishment” on Gaza residents and demanded that President Obama should pressure Israel to lift the Gaza blockade

In 2014, Ellison was one of only 8 members of Congress voting against a bi-partisan bill to provide $225 million to Israel’s “Iron dome” missile defense system (vs. 395 who voted for it).   Think about that one for a moment, how many times in recent years have 395 members of Congress agreed on anything?

Ellison is a featured keynote speaker at many BDS organization events including the American Friends Service Committee which runs a BDS boot camp, Progressives for Palestine, and is a favorite of the anti-Israel group ironically called Jewish Voice for Peace. In a rare occurrence of disagreeing with progressives, The Jewish Voice for Peace was named by the Anti-Defamation League as one of the 10 most anti-Israel organizations in America (I am sure their mothers are proud).

There are many more examples of Ellison’s, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic actions, plus his connection to Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas associated groups such as MAS, CAIR, and ISNA. (MAS even paid for his Haj to Saudi Arabia). But in the interests of keeping this post a readable size will be reserved for future posts.

Interestingly, while the Anti-Defamation League has made very public claims of Antisemitism against Trump adviser Steven Bannon based on one unsubstantiated charge by his ex-wife, the ADL has been silent about the possible election of Ellison as DNC chair despite his track record of defending Farrakhan’s Antisemitism, making anti-Jewish comments of his own, and his anti-Israel actions in the congress.  But then again it is not surprising as in 2011 the ADL asked Jews to pledge not to criticize Barack Obama’s anti-Israel policies.  Their treatment of Bannon vs. Ellison reinforces the ADL’s image as caring more about protecting progressive politics than protecting the Jewish people.

Ellison was on the 2016 Democratic Party platform committee and tried to insert language criticizing Israel for her “occupation” of Palestinian lands. Ellison’s attempt was defeated by Clinton supporters, possibly because they feared the language would cause Jewish donors and voters to recognize the former secretary of state’s history of opposing Israel.

After his defeat in the platform committee, Ellison went on complain in this interview with NPR’s Amy Goodman. During the interview he mourned his loss over the occupation plank, and threw in some lies about the Jewish State and Gaza for good measure:

Rep. Keith Ellison: Well, I can—I can lay out in sum, summary. One is that we—that there were six members of the Democratic drafting committee from the Hillary Clinton campaign, five from Bernie Sanders, four from the DNC. We took the base document, and we made several amendments at the drafting committee. We heard testimony over the course of two days. A lot of it was really, really startling and important.

I think we have the best statement on Native American rights we’ve ever had. We have strong language that does critique the TPP, although it falls a little short of openly opposing it, which we tried to do but were not able to achieve. It takes a position in favor of $15 and a union for a federal minimum wage. It takes a position on a whole range of things, including the environment, that are progressive steps forward.

What did we not achieve? A complete opposition to fracking, we don’t have that. What is else not achieved? There are some things on some foreign policy fronts that I think would and could be better, some saber-rattling with regard to Iran that I don’t think is helpful and good to be in our platform. I think that it would be—I think that we could have had a clearer statement on two-state solution and the U.S.’s aspiration to have peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. I think we were a little bit weak on that.

Amy Goodman:  Can you explain what you would like to see there, Congressmember Ellison?

Rep. Keith Ellison: Well, I think that it is important that, you know, the United States state that we don’t think that the occupation of the—what will be the Palestinian state should continue. I don’t think there’s any fear of using the O-word, if you will. I mean, Ariel Sharon used it. You know, the U.N. uses it. I mean, it’s a commonly used phrase to describe what’s going on. I think we could have also made some stronger statements about the—

Amy Goodman:  What is that word?

Rep. Keith Ellison: Occupation.

Amy Goodman: That they’re not using the word “occupation”?

Rep. Keith Ellison: Right. I think that there is a humanitarian crisis going on in Gaza. In fact, you know, the—because of the electricity power plant has been destroyed, the sewage is not being processed, and raw sewage is going up into the Mediterranean. In fact, it’s so bad that it’s flowing up into north, and the Israeli desalinization plant is not able to use its—that plant, because of the sewage that is in the Mediterranean coming from Gaza, because Gaza cannot process their own sewage at this point, because of the horrible situation that is going on there. So, there are some more—so, things like that, I think, really could have been identified much more clearly.

What the Ellison forces did accomplish was to keep the pro-Israel planks removed in 2012 from being reinserted in 2012. Four pro-Israel planks were removed in 2012, but the Jerusalem is Israel’s capital provision initially removed in 2012, and added back during the convention over the objections of the delegates was left in the 2016 platform.

The pro-Israel planks eliminated in 2012, remaining out in 2016 include

  • The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.
  • The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel.
  • All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

In 2011, Politico reported that the Center For American Progress (CAP) which was at the time run by Hillary Clinton’s future campaign manager John Podesta was fighting with the more mainstream Democrats about Israel.  They want to change the party to the Anti-Israel party.

When one considers the “walk-backs” to the 2012 platform which were maintained in 2016,  and the support for the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic Keith Ellison for the chairman of the Democratic Party, it seems as if the Center For American Progress is getting its way. The only remaining question is, will American Jewry which overwhelmingly (and sometimes blindly) supports the Democratic Party finally wake up and smell the truth.

 

Jeff Dunetz

Survey: Jewish Voters Give Hillary Lowest Support of All Democratic Nominees Since 1980

Saturday, September 17th, 2016

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) has issued a survey of American Jewish opinion, conducted by the research company SSRS based on telephone interviews from August 8 to 28, with a national sample of 1,002 Jews over age 18 and a margin of error of +-3.57%, showing the Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton enjoys the support of 61% of the voters who identify themselves as Jewish. And although her opponent, Republican nominee Donald Trump, only gets 19% of the Jewish vote, Hillary’s figure is the lowest scored by a Democrat among Jewish voters since Jimmy Carter only took 45% of the Jewish vote against Ronald Reagan in 1980.

The highest Jewish vote in the 20th century went to FDR in 1940 and 1944, 90% each time; LBJ also took 90%, in 1964; JFK received 82% of the Jewish vote in 1960; Humphrey 81% in 1968; Bill Clinton 80% in 1992; Gore 79% in 2000; and Obama 78% in 2008 and 69% in 2012.

Even George McGovern, with 65%, did better with the Jewish voters than Hillary has been doing. Trump, by the way, is doing about as well as GW Bush did in 2000. Bush later took 24% of the Jewish vote against Kerry in 2004, McCain 22% in 2008, and Romney 30% in 2012. (Source: Jewish Virtual Library)

Only 51% of the American Jews surveyed identify as Democrats. 26% are Independent and only 18% Republican. The Green Party attracts 2% of the Jewish vote, the Libertarians, despite their admiration for the strong ideas of one Russian Jewish lady, only attract 1% of US Jews to their ranks.

US Jews are still more left- than right-leaning: 51% are Liberal or lean Liberal, 24% Conservative or lean Conservative. 23% say they are moderates.

How about that famous Jewish optimism about the future of America? Not a whole lot of it is left, apparently. When asked if their children would be better or worse off than their parents when they grow up, 39% said the kids better get ready for a worse future; 29% believe in a better future; 27% don’t see a big change coming in either direction.

A whopping 57% of the American Jews questioned identified anti-Semitism on US campuses a problem, 23% of them think it’s a very serious problem at that. Only 6% don’t see it as a problem at all.

Here’s a kind of nice surprise, although in an underhanded sort of way: only 15% of the Jews asked are married to a non-Jew. But wait, don’t celebrate yet: only 35% are married to a Jew, either from birth or a convert, and a full 49% are not married. In other words, close to half of the American Jewish community is probably not involved in promulgating the Jewish community.

52% of the Jewish respondents have never been to Israel (that percent goes up when you exclude the Orthodox – of which 85% have visited Israel), 21% have only been once. So that when they were asked what they think of the fact that Orthodox Judaism is the only denomination recognized by Israel as an official form of Judaism, and 48% said it “Weakens Israel’s ties with American Jews,” it’s likely most of them have not forged their opinions based on personal experience.

And when they were asked what they consider the most important change necessary in Israeli Judaism, and 41% answered, “Securing legal recognition of equality for all streams of Judaism,” that answer, too, was provided based mostly on op-eds and Facebook posts. Likewise when 74% insisted “legal recognition should also be extended to non-Orthodox weddings, divorces, and conversions,” this opinion was mostly theoretical.

JNi.Media

Frank Seddio For Kings County (Brooklyn) Democratic County Leader

Wednesday, August 24th, 2016

In the Democratic primary election on September 13, The Jewish Press endorses attorney Frank Seddio for Democratic district leader in the 59th Assembly District in Brooklyn.

For years he has served as Brooklyn’s Democratic county leader – county leaders are chosen by their district leader colleagues – and has been a larger than life presence on the Brooklyn political scene. He and his family have been key to the remarkable renaissance the borough has enjoyed in recent years.

He has been a stalwart ally of the Jewish community, staunchly supporting the reelection of Judge Leon Ruchelsman, who enjoys a stellar judicial reputation, and the elevation of Judge Noach Dear to the Supreme Court bench, as well other Jewish candidates.

He has served as a judge on the Surrogate’s Court and continues as a successful practicing attorney. He was recently elected president of the Brooklyn Bar Association. From his perch as county leader he has met with much success in bringing Brooklyn’s various political delegations together for the common good. He is also widely lauded for his accessibility and loyalty.

Editorial Board

Catching Up To Democratic Outreach, Trump Courts American Voters In Israel

Wednesday, August 17th, 2016

In early August, Israeli media reported that the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had launched outreach to an estimated 300,000 eligible American voters living in Israel.

The Trump campaign is working with the Israel branch of Republicans Overseas, an organization that works to reach American citizens abroad who can vote via absentee ballot.

The Trump campaign has reportedly hired former Yediot Aharonot reporter Tzvika Brot and other political and public relations experts in order to reach American voters in Israel.

“Our efforts to reach American voters living or visiting Israel prior to the election are primarily through the Republican Overseas efforts,” which has also been working with groups such as the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) on this front, said Bo Denysyk, a senior adviser for the Trump campaign’s Special Voter Groups attached to Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort.

Denysyk explained to JNS that although the Trump campaign is making efforts to reach eligible U.S. voters in various foreign countries, it is placing a special priority on Israel.

In order to be able to vote, Americans abroad need to fill out a Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) and submit it to their local election office in the U.S. every year. Before an election, such voters will receive an absentee ballot by mail or electronically, depending on their state’s rules. Voters abroad vote in the state where they last lived before leaving the U.S.

As there are large Jewish communities in battleground states such as Ohio and Florida, Denysyk said the Trump campaign is particularly interested in targeting Americans in Israel who come from those states and “can possibly provide the winning margin” during the election. Republicans Overseas estimates there are about 10,000-12,000 Republicans from Florida in Israel

A report published in March by the Rothermere American Institute at the University of Oxford in the UK titled “America’s Overseas Voters: How They Could Decide the U.S. Presidency in 2016” notes past instances in which voters abroad made a difference in results in swing states, such as the famous case of the 2000 presidential election, in which overseas Florida ballots gave George W. Bush a narrow lead after the U.S. Supreme Court had stopped the state’s recount.

If the election had included the ballots that arrived after the Nov. 26 deadline, former vice president Al Gore would have won Florida – and the presidential election.

Professor Jay Sexton, former director of the Rothermere American Institute and co-author of the report, told JNS that efforts to reach U.S. voters in Israel “is a good move” because traditionally Republicans have had “inferior campaign infrastructure overseas” compared to the Democrats.

According to Sexton’s report, the comparable organization to Republicans Overseas on the Democrat side, Democrats Abroad, has traditionally had a more institutionalized relationship with the Democratic Party.

Alex Montgomery, communications director of Democrats Abroad, told JNS that the organization reaches out to its members in Israel and other countries “through e-mails and phone banking, reminding our members that they need to request their ballot to vote this year.”

“We will very shortly start running ads on social media across Israel to let potential voters know how they can vote and answer the many questions voters from abroad typically have about the voting process,” he said.

In Israel in particular, “there are tens of thousands of U.S. voters…so the impact in the U.S. can be considerable, particularly for Senate and House elections with tight races. And getting out the vote in Israel for Democratic candidates causes a ripple effect back home with U.S. voters who are influenced by their families and friends in Israel,” he added.

Meanwhile, Republicans Overseas is working to catch up to the Democrats on outreach to voters in foreign countries. Marc Zell, co-chairman of Republicans Overseas Israel and vice president of Republicans Overseas, recently acknowledged to the Jerusalem Post that outreach to American voters in Israel has begun late and has faced a lot of challenges. Nevertheless, he is optimistic about the project.

Alina Dain Sharon

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/elections-news/catching-up-to-democratic-outreach-trump-courts-american-voters-in-israel/2016/08/17/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: