Despite the braying ads of the Republican Jewish Coalition and their conviction that 2008 was finally going to be the Republican’s “time” to capture the Jewish vote, it just didn’t happen. Haaretz reports Obama received 77% of Jewish votes, which compares favorably to the 74% John Kerry earned and 79% that Al Gore earned. The story quotes my friend, Jeremy Ben Ami giving the RJC “what for:”
“American Jews resoundingly rejected the two-year, multimillion dollar campaign of baseless smears and fear waged against him by the right wing of our community,” he said.
“Surrogates and right-wing political operatives in our community stopped at nothing in their efforts to sway Jewish voters against Obama.”
“We can only hope that these results put to rest for good the myth that fear and smear campaigns – particularly around Israel – can be an effective political weapon in the Jewish community,” he added.
Alas, Jeremy and I both know that his last paragraph is for naught. These smearmeisters are one-note tacticians. Attack mode and lies are all they know. They will be back meaner and dirtier than ever. And we have to be prepared for them.
Which is why I’ve been deeply concerned with the Jewish media’s eagerness to take the RJC’s dirty ad dollars up to the last minute. Readers reported to me that Haaretz actually allowed its entire e-mail subscriber list to be solicited with this dirty ad whose text read in part:
Obama has surrounded himself with anti-Israel advisors like General Tony McPeak, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley and Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
I want to make clear once again that I don’t begrudge a publication the right to earn its livelihood from Republican ad money. But I DO have a very serious problem with a publication which absconds from responsibility for smears and lies purveyed by the Jewish right to their readers. Publishers like Haaretz’s Amos Schocken and The Forward’s Samuel Norwich must not be allowed to escape their moral responsibility in this matter. If they wouldn’t allow their reporters to write these smears in their copy, then why do they allow their ad pages to be filled with them?
I repeat, this will happen again in 2010 and 2012. We should put the Jewish media on notice that we will not take it lightly. In fact, I’d suggest that subscribers of Haaretz’s e mail list write the paper that they are cancelling their subscriptions. After all, there are other ways like RSS feeds to subscribe to Haaretz. If enough people complain and take action, Haaretz just may sit up and take notice. I should note that they never even deigned to reply to my own complaint.
In 2006, I wrote that the RJC had wasted the million bucks they’d spent to diss the Democrats. In 2008, they spent much more (though we don’t know how much more) and it had the same impact: zilch. As for 2010, their motto undoubtedly will be: if at first and second you fall flat on your face, try, try again.
I agree. Sheldon Adelson (third richest man in America) is not going away. The RJC and its alternate incarnation Freedoms Watch will continue to push right wing causes on behalf of the Republican Party.
you know that mocking the dead is not permitted. RJC is dead, although someone may prop them up again next time for yet another sequel to weekend at bernie’s… they are dead and we should not mock them, we should move on to deal with the exciting chapter that is at hand
Richard, the Forward has always taken ads they disagree with. Always. I can give you examples going back to the 20s. Part of what makes the Forward such as badass newspaper is that they have always had such a policy. I have to disagree with you on this one, sir.
Keep in min, the Forward has no problem ripping them a new one editorially condemning their ads, even as they accepted their ads.
That’s a great newspaper, Richard. Seriously.
@DK: I’m not troubled that they took an ad that they disagreed with. I’m troubled that they took an ad that was full of lies from A to Z. That’s a different standard. Media publications refuse ads on a fairly regular basis for various reasons. And as I mentioned FOX News rejected a pro McCain ad because it lied about Obama. Yet The Forward claims it doesn’t have the expertise to judge whether political ads are truthful or lies. I think it’s a pathetic avoidance of their journalistic responsibility. Besides, their coverage of the overall issue of the RJC ads was rather anemic as well. THey could have made up for their accepting the ads if they’d redeemed themselves through news coverage. But they didn’t. One news article & one column by Mel Levine did not cover the issue sufficiently to my mind.
As for being a “great” newspaper, it’s a good newspaper that could be better.
more. http://www.forward.com/search/0/15/?query=rjc&go.x=0&go.y=0
@DK: That’s essentially an generic search through the Forward’s archives for any article that mentions the RJC. I don’t claim they never covered the RJC (which they have).
As I mentioned, I’m aware of a single news article & a single column that specifically dealt with the RJC’s scandalous anti-Obama smear ad campaign. That’s what I was referring to–not ALL Forward coverage of the RJC.
And as I wrote, I offered to write a column of my own about the smear ads but Jane Eisner told me to write it on spec & then allow it to be considered for publication by the features editor. I don’t like to write on spec for obvious reasons, especially for a publication which rejects 99.8% of anything I submit to them.