Why Are Jews Liberals?

[Burgold]

Originally Posted by TimmySmith

Jews are not going to ever vote Republican, period. Why should the GOP even bother courting them? Waste of time and money. Why would the Democrats go after Mormons? Same thing. Even still, this is not the issue within the article.

Why should Obama pursue a 50 state strategy that is bound to lead to failure. Rove proved that the only way you can possibly win is by trying for 51% of the vote, locking down you core and putting your resources into one or two borderline states. No way in Hell Obama could turn any traditionally deep Red states. Why is he even bother campaigning there? Just a foolish waste of resources.

[JMS]

Originally Posted by Burgold

Why should Obama pursue a 50 state strategy that is bound to lead to failure. Rove proved that the only way you can possibly win is by trying for 51% of the vote, locking down you core and putting your resources into one or two borderline states. No way in Hell Obama could turn any traditionally deep Red states. Why is he even bother campaigning there? Just a foolish waste of resources.

I don't know if you were being ironic or facecous, but Obama did pursue a 50 state solution as outlined by Howard Dean. The DNC did raise money, and establish organizations in all 50 states including UTAH. I think they ended up arresting the UTAH chairman for the democratic party though. Anyway, they tried.

That 50 state strategy was widely credited with taking back the house, senate, and presidency.

[Burgold]

Was being totally wisearse.

[JMS]

Originally Posted by Burgold

Was being totally wisearse.

I apologize for being opaque to your humor.

[Predicto]

Originally Posted by PeterMP

1. You are mistaken if you think there wasn't a portion conservatives that had an issue with the civil rights in this country especically in the 50's and 60's especially as it related to both a clear violation of the Constitution and with respect to national security.

I never said anything like that in my post.

What I said was that Ike was a conservative, in that he prefered to leave as many issues as possible to local and state control.

[Burgold]

Originally Posted by JMS

I apologize for being opaque to your humor.

No worries. You have to pay for the good material.

The notion that the Republicans seem to have that they need not ever address the concerns of Blacks or Jews seems foolish at best. The idea that no Jew would ever vote for a Republican is ignornant. Groups can be courted and won over.

[JMS]

Originally Posted by Burgold

No worries. You have to pay for the good material.

The notion that the Republicans seem to have that they need not ever address the concerns of Blacks or Jews seems foolish at best. The idea that no Jew would ever vote for a Republican is ignornant. Groups can be courted and won over.

Yeah I was thinking to myself, he's got to be kidding....he's got to be kidding.... but I didn't see no smilie face.


It's kind of interesting too, because African Americans as a block are very socially conservative and fiscally liberal, and the another important block of the Democratic party, Jews are more fiscally conservative and socially liberal; yet other than a few exceptions they really don't conflict with each other and never really have in a meaningful way.

[PeterMP]

Originally Posted by JMS

Again, I don't know of any instance where folks can say Harry Truman backed away from anything. That wasn't really his managment style.

What the Timeline clearly shows is Truman involved in an almost day by day struggle to enforce his integration policy which the day after he signed it was publically objected too by the 5 star general Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff Omar Bradley, and other high military officials.

While Truman was in office he had significant milestones down the road of true integration. Under his watch 95% of Minority forces were placed in integrated units and all of the forces in Korea were integrated.

Now is that the same as complete integration. No. But it certainly isn't Harry backing down or just giving lip service to his Executive Order as you've framed it. The timeline also directly refutes your statement that Harry Truman didn't believe in Equality of the races, because that's the exact language Harry Truman used in Executive order 9981.

Well, that is all true, but it only happened after Korea because of man power issues and white combat troops dying. Essentially, the military was forced to due to combat (not by Truman), and integrated because when forced to they saw it would work.

The fact that Bradly wasn't asked to resign and that integretion wasn't completed for years after his order is all you really have to know about this issue.

Again, treating races equally doesn't mean you actually believe they are. If two people are treated equally, the "better" one will rise to the top. I've given you a link to an article in a paper that makes a big deal about the fact that Dewey has said that all people are equal.

Truman had a famously racist background. For example:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KEb...=coons&f=false

"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest decent and not a ****** or a China man"

Now that was said when he was young, but he I don't believe he ever proclaimed the real equality of the races, and certainly hadn't up to the point that he defeated Dewey, and was known for using racist language his whole life.

There was a clear divide with respect to Civil Rights and the races with people like Dewey on one side and Truman on the other.


**EDIT**
Here's a key quote from the same source on pg. 158:
"We owe the Negro legal equality...because he is a human being and a natural born American"

But then, "I wish to make clear that I am not appealing for social equality of the Negro." This was in 1940.

[JMS]

Originally Posted by PeterMP

Well, that is all true, but it only happened after Korea because of man power issues and white combat troops dying. Essentially, the military was forced to due to combat (not by Truman), and integrated because when forced to they saw it would work.

Actually The Navy and Airforce were the first to integrate after Truman anounced the policy. The Army and Marine Corps held back and objected.
The timeline shows that Matthew Ridgeway the Nato Commander in Korea requested permision to fully integrate his command long before the CONUS army complied.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

The fact that Bradly wasn't asked to resign and that integretion wasn't completed for years after his order is all you really have to know about this issue.

Actually Bradly voiced his opinion the day after Trumans EO. Many in the Army did so, as the timeline shows. Then Truman came out and clarrified his position.

Likewise Integration was a logistical process. There was strong objections to overcome, and Truman was committed to the long term goal. He achieve a lot of intermediate goals which amounted to systemic change in the military.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

Again, treating races equally doesn't mean you actually believe they are. If two people are treated equally, the "better" one will rise to the top. I've given you a link to an article in a paper that makes a big deal about the fact that Dewey has said that all people are equal.

And I gave you a link showing Jefferson used the same language in the Declaration of Independence. Equality wasn't all that shocking or new a concept in 1948.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

Truman had a famously racist background. For example:

Truman was an enigma. Truman had a business partner during the depression who was Jewish Eddie Jacobs I believe. Truman also was the first President to recieved a deligation of Jews in the Oval Office ( seeking his aid for the state of Israel). Truman was the first President to recognize and give aid to the state of Israel. Did so within 24 hours of Israel declairing itself a nation, supplying them with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of aid and weapons needed for their defense.

After truman left office, he was being interviewed by a famous Jewish journalist. The interview was conducted on Trumans Porch in Indepenence Mo. One day the journalist asked if they could go inside as it was getting cold, Truman responded no Jew had ever stepped foot in the home.

The Journalist was incredulous, But Mr. Truman you were the first to hosted jewish deligations in the Oval Office and were the first to recieve and ambasidor from Israel. And your long time busines partner was jewish.

Truman responded the White house is the Americas house, when I lived their I conducted America's business... This house is Mrs Wallace's house (Mother in law) and she's said while she or her daughter(truman's wife) live no Jew will cross the foyer...

The journalist checked with Eddie Jacobs, Trumans habidashery partner. He confirmed he had never been invited to dinner or to Trumans home for social events.

Likewise When Harry's mother came to visit the whitehouse, she said she would sleep on the floor rather than spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Trumans family had been slave holders and fought on the side of the Confederacy.

[PeterMP]

Originally Posted by Predicto

I never said anything like that in my post.

What I said was that Ike was a conservative, in that he prefered to leave as many issues as possible to local and state control.

Which in the context of this conversation suggest that a non-southern white conservative that had such a belief AND supported a strong role for the federal government in National Security (as Ike was/did) wouldn't support an active and aggressive role of the federal government ensuring the civil rights of a large group of pelople weren't regularly infringed upon.

And that's incorrect.

Now, if that wasn't your point, I'm sorry, but then I don't see how your point is at all relevant to this thread.

[PeterMP]

Originally Posted by JMS

And I gave you a link showing Jefferson used the same language in the Declaration of Independence. Equality wasn't all that shocking or new a concept in 1948.

No, it wasn't, but it was a good way to ensure that no state south of the Mason Dixon line and east of the Missippi would vote for you as President, which was a very good way to lose an election (like Dewey did), ESPECIALLY if you were a Democrat, which Truman was.

[Predicto]

Originally Posted by PeterMP

Which in the context of this conversation suggest that a non-southern white conservative that had such a belief AND supported a strong role for the federal government in National Security (as Ike was/did) wouldn't support an active and aggressive role of the federal government ensuring the civil rights of a large group of pelople weren't regularly infringed upon.

And that's incorrect.

You are overanalyzing what I said.

Ike was not a civil rights champion. He simply wasn't. He stayed back, above the fray as it were, with regards to civil rights, with regard to McCarthyism, with regard to pretty much every social issue of the 1950s. He felt that these things would work themselves out over time, and that pushing from the White House was not appropriate. He absolutely refused to stick his neck out, but at the same time, he did not resist when the Supreme Court told him he had to act.

Yes, he was an internationalist, not an isolationist. So he was not a "Conservative" in the sense of a Robert Taft. But he was personally conservative, in the sense of adverse to rapid change.

There are revisionist historians who are now attempting to give Ike a larger role in civil rights than I think he deserves. I do not find what they say particularly compelling. Basically, civil rights progress happened in spite of Ike, not because of him.

[Predicto]

I might add that the same pretty much could be said about FDR.

[PeterMP]

Originally Posted by Predicto

You are overanalyzing what I said.

Ike was not a civil rights champion. He simply wasn't. He stayed back, above the fray as it were, with regards to civil rights, with regard to McCarthyism, with regard to pretty much every social issue of the 1950s. He felt that these things would work themselves out over time, and that pushing from the White House was not appropriate. He absolutely refused to stick his neck out, but at the same time, he did not resist when the Supreme Court told him he had to act.

Yes, he was an internationalist, not an isolationist. So he was not a "Conservative" in the sense of a Robert Taft. But he was personally conservative, in the sense of adverse to rapid change.

There are revisionist historians who are now attempting to give Ike a larger role in civil rights than I think he deserves. I do not find what they say particularly compelling. Basically, civil rights progress happened in spite of Ike, not because of him.

Okay, one, I'm not saying he was a "champion" in the context of MLK (who was not a federally elected official) or LBJ (which I've now stated several times).

Also, I'm not over analyzing your post. You are implying EXACTLY what I stated. Since Ike was conservative, he was likely NOT to aggressively go after Civil Rights changes (again, not as compared to MLK and LBJ, but FDR, Truman, and Kennedy).

That's not true. Eisenhower was conservative, but he had TWO things to motivate him:
1. He seems to have truely believed that all races were equal AND not treating them as such was a Constitutional violation.
2. That Civil Rights was a National Security issue.

Those were reasonably good motivators for his type of conservative at the time, PLUS what ever political gain he could get from taking blacks from the Democratic party.

(I will point out that Eisenhower did support other "domestic" things based mostly on National Security issues, such as the creation of the highway system.)

Ike did like to appear above the fray, but that doesn't mean he was.

Yes, he acted when the Supreme Court said so, BUT his administration also supported Brown via an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. He'd also already integrated military schools and federally controlled schools for their kids independent of the Supreme Court.

He also appointed Warren who was a known Civil Rights supporter.

In your previous post, you said he signed the '57 Civil Rights Act. He didn't just sign the '57 act, his AG proposed it (actually, his AG proposed something much stronger that was than substantially water downed), and then again in '60. Crediting him w/ ONLY signing the '57 and '60 acts is ALMOST as bad as saying that LBJ signed the '64 act. While true, it completely diminishes his total involvment.

The revisionist history is happening because it is correct, and people are really looking at his court appointments and things like that:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/27550903

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additi...hts-Revolution

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/Civil-Rights.htm

The fact of the matter is that Eisenhower filled the courts w/ pro-Civil Right judges to the point that it is impossible to conclude it was an accident.

Your comparision to McCarthyism is flawed because McCarthyism wasn't really much of a national security issue, AND it wasn't just a local issue, but ALSO a separation of powers issue. McCarthy was a Senator. The legislator had the means to control him. The Executive branch stepping in has separation of powers issues. (PLUS to a certain extant it was politically beneficial for him, until it went to far.)

As I've already stated, if you look at what Eisenhower DID and not what he SAID, it is impossible to conclude that he wasn't a strong supporter of Civil Rights in his day (again as compared to Truman, FDR, and Kennedy not LBJ and MLK).

***EDIT***
Just out of curiosity, do you have any reason to believe that a revision in history would be incorrect in this case and not in fact a move to a more correct recording of what really happened as we get a more neutral and scholarly review of what was really happened?

It isn't like the modern Republican or Conservative movement feels strongly connected to or involkes the name Eisenhower, and it isn't likely that they will any time soon, as near as I can tell.

Let's be realistic, once you get to LBJ, neither party has a strong interest in having Eisenhower remembered as a strong advocate of Civil Rights.

**EDIT2***
You, being a lawyer, might find this of interest:
""Seperate but equal" is a contradiction in terms. Schools or other public facilities where persons are segregated by law, solely on the basis of race or color, cannot in any circumstances be regarded as equal."

http://web.archive.org/web/200608281...47-483/022.pdf

[JMS]

Originally Posted by PeterMP

No, it wasn't, but it was a good way to ensure that no state south of the Mason Dixon line and east of the Missippi would vote for you as President, which was a very good way to lose an election (like Dewey did), ESPECIALLY if you were a Democrat, which Truman was.

And again, Truman goes down in history as a great president. Not among our greatest, but in the very next tier of great. Yet for all of Trumans historically popular and well thought of policies, in his time he was roundly critisized and mocked. Truman's approval ratings were historically lowest for any President up until George Bush. Truman's low was lower than Bush's, But Bush beat Truman out for sustained low approval ratings.

Knowing that I would argue that Truman didn't spend much time worrying about Politics when he thought he was in the right. Truman squeeked out a single Presidential victory having inherited FDR's last term in office, and never ran for a second term. Truman announced he was integrating the military just before his first Presidential victory, during the campagne.

Most of the implementation 5 years came after he was elected to that term when he didn't really have job security voter concern issues.