Wow: Support for Obama among Jewish voters basically unchanged from last year
posted at 6:20 pm on April 9, 2010 by Allahpundit
I think these numbers are mostly an artifact of bad timing, for reasons I’ll explain, but … wow.
A new, annual survey of American Jewish public opinion by the American Jewish Committee finds that Jews, by and large, continue to approve of Obama — 57 percent say they approve of the job he’s doing — and also back his handling of Israel.
The 55 percent who approve of Obama’s Israel policy is a slight improvement on the finding in the same survey last year, while the disapproval number has ticked up slightly more.
His net support on Israel has declined slightly — 55/37 this year versus 54/32 last year — but given the recent “unpleasantness,” I would have expected a more dramatic change than +22 to +18. Also — dude:

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking of how The One humiliated Netanyahu during their meeting in D.C. and wondering whether he’d have to actually, physically kick him in the stones for this sample to rate relations as “somewhat negative.” That’s where the bad timing of the poll comes in: It was conducted from March 2 to March 23, a few days before news broke of what happened between them at the White House and several weeks before Bibi pulled out of Obama’s nuke summit. The extent of the deterioration in relations simply wasn’t clear yet when these questions were asked. Then again, it wasn’t fully hidden either: The blow up over new construction in east Jerusalem came all the way back on March 9 and top U.S. officials had plenty to say about in the days after. You might think that maybe the sample blamed Netanyahu for all of that and that his approval rating among them suffered accordingly, but you’d be wrong. His handling of U.S. relations is at 57/30, just a few points worse than last year’s 59/23 split. So the respondents think both Obama and Bibi are doing a swell job with their relationship and that the relationship itself is pretty darned positive. Do they … read the news?
Per Jennifer Rubin, who finds the poll even more depressing than I do, it sounds like the answer may be “no”:
What about a Palestinian state? Only 48 percent approve of the idea. What about compromising on Jerusalem? Oh, 61 percent disapprove of that idea. 75 percent of Jews agree with this statement: “The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel.” Do they know what Obama’s Israel policy is? It’s hard to fathom how their support for his policy meshes with his policy positions, which are antithetical to that policy. One is forced to conclude that this is a near Pavlovian response: “Obama=approval.”
68 percent also say that sanctions are unlikely to stop Iran’s nuclear program, but at 47 percent, The One nonetheless has near-majority support for his handling of that too. (I wonder if this will change things.) How to explain all this? Simple: The sample’s 50 percent Democratic and just 15 percent Republican, which is probably roughly representative. Democrats tend to follow the Democratic line and Israel is no exception, even for Jewish voters. Gloomy exit quotation from Rubin: “If Israel supporters hope to apply pressure on the administration to reverse its approach to Israel and Iran, I have a suggestion: get some gentile support.”
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


North Korea fires three short-range missiles as Japan envoy pays “secret” visit

DC firm shaking down Chevron learns lesson about poking the bear






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Incompetency is just a liable as Malevolence…
Doctors are held accountable for incompetence…so should those in Government.
workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM
Here is the crux of the matter. The Obysmal administration was so intent on portraying Libya as a great success in the flourishing of democracy and that Al Qaeda was “on the run” that they hadn’t prepared for the jihadists’ attack. Sending in help or a rescue might have cost even more lives, and they didn’t want the body count to even go higher. The O-team was content to keep the “collateral damage” relatively small for their own cynically political purposes.
onlineanalyst on May 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM
I consider them both but if they are publicly saying this as their excuse, then you can bet they are worried that the actual info is about to come out. For all those not paying attention, that would be Fast and Furious 2; The benghazi edition.
Boehner should step up and say, “ok, we are all in agreement that you are idiots, now we are going to find out just what the hell you were doing over there!”
can_con on May 17, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Do a google map search of Sigonella and tell me what type of aircraft (and the number) that you see there.
blink on May 17, 2013 at 2:41 PM
Regarding the Rush caller near the end of his program just now wondering why all the focus on the coverup of the Benghazi matter and not the cause of it: it’s because if you look at the factors that led to the attack you’ll find McCain, Rubio and Graham were promoters and the GOP establishment would prefer people only focus on the aftermath and Democrat coverup rather than the bi-partisan cause.
FloatingRock on May 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Their best defense: We’re horribly incompetent and shouldn’t be allowed to run a hamburger stand. But we still don’t think our incompetence caused anyone to die.”
And even there, we can point to 4 people who died, and many more that would have died if 2 of those 4 hadn’t responded without waiting for orders and staged a rescue action.
So it’s not really, “incompetence that didn’t cost any lives.” It’s “incompetence that cost 4 lives.
And this is their best defense. Which almost certainly means they’re lying, and there really was deliberate malice and/or neglect behind it.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM
Here’s a crazy thought. Earlier in the day, the Cairo embassy had been besieged. Why not put fast-response forces on standby THEN?
Basically the U.S. response on 9/11/12 was the same as a rabbit when it notices a nearby wolf. Hold very still and hope the threat passes by.
hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM
That’s definitely a non-zero number of aircraft. For that matter, I hear there are aircraft all over the world. I’m thinking if the US REALLY wants to get somewhere, we can probably pay enough to charter a flight/commandeer a helicopter, etc.
Too bad we don’t have any naval capabilities available in the Middle East. Or an air base in the Middle East. Or a friendly well-prepared regional ally who could send in some forces on our behalf.
hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Is that going to be Hillary’s campaign slogan?
Hillary 2016: “I’m Not Corrupt, Just Incompetent!”
AZCoyote on May 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM
“I can’t answer the god*!mn 3am phone call…cause I’m too drunk to find the f*#kin’ phone…@#$%&*$#@!!…” – Hillary Clinton
workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 4:18 PM
The GOP should use that quote in every political ad against Dems from here on out.
Of course they won’t…they don’t want to “alienate moderates” or something limp-wristed akin to that.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Who gave the ‘stand down’ order…?
Seven Percent Solution on May 17, 2013 at 4:33 PM
Weapons To Syria.
Libyan weapons to Syria, Mali and Gaza Strip – US Security Council Report.
We were in Benghazi for the weapons.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM
“US” – Should be UN Security Council
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM
Syrians squabble over Libyan weapons – Sept. 15, 2012.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:45 PM
So it seems that the real clusterfark of idiocy is that no accounting was made for how to deal with Libyan weaponry and we have essentially armed a whole region of
terroristsmilitias and rebels.oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM
Stevens was probably in Benghazi to review weapons “applications” from different bidders. As long as you didn’t have anything like “Tea Party” in your militias name, you could buy sell or trade weapons.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM
If I remember the logic puzzle correctly, the right question to ask would be something like “If I asked you yesterday whether you were an idiot or a liar, which would you have answered?”. Idiot still says “idiot”, liar would have said “idiot” yesterday, but must now lie about that so must say “liar”.
WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.
bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM
WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.
bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM
Oops.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM
When incompetence merges with complete corruption you have a perfect storm.
MaiDee on May 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM
Those maps are old, but ok, One sec…
Ok I did that. There are a number of jets on the tarmac. I knew there would be.
That was my point. Any adult would know this. There is no excuse for letting those men die.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:27 PM
We can either charter one or if necessary we have people that can borrow one.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM
I think “lying idiots” pretty well covers it!
Another Drew on May 17, 2013 at 6:35 PM
I keep going back to Hillary’s 3:00 A.M. Phone Call ad. It seems that everybody in the administration failed that test. They’ve sunken below even my lowest expectations, and I don’t see anyone in the GOP bullpen likely to rise above ideological squabbles and lead us out of this.
flataffect on May 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM
The challenge was issued above by an obvious Obama apologist, to look at a Google map of Sigonella and report whether any aircraft were seen there.
The question would be, “why not”. Actually, if there are no aircraft there now, there soon will be because the Italian government has just reported that 200 U.S. Marines plus two aircraft are being based at the joint U.S. Italian base at Sigonella, Sicily. (Just across a short stretch of water from Benghazi.) “Quick, the horse is galloping down the lane, close the barn door.”
Oldflyer on May 17, 2013 at 7:48 PM
This is why I do not believe it was stupidity. I believe whoever left the ambassador isolated, wanted to make sure he was not covered
I am a minority, but I believe there was to be an event to lead to a glorious hostage exchange – but it was foiled by the brave men who refused to stand down. Whoever started the evil chess game was left hanging and they had to run with the video fast, precisely because no one, no one, would be able to explain withholding cover from the victims. If I am right, I will never be vindicated, because the scandal will be too great so they have to fall back on stupidity
IMHO stupidity in such a case implies a total contempt for the lives of the victims. This is why we need an IRS scandal.
In any case, there is no way Obama can justify flying off the next day to a fund raiser. That in itself demands an IRS scandal. Since the Whistleblowers were coming, the guilty ones had to start a chicken dance, fast.
AP scandal was the one and only way to get the MSM willing to beat up on Obama’s IRS
entagor on May 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM
My vote goes to: you are lying idiots.
ghostwalker1 on May 17, 2013 at 11:18 PM
This is a theory that makes all the pieces fit. It’s true they’re incompetent, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t also up to no good.
Cara C on May 18, 2013 at 1:05 AM
Wonderful article by Sharyl A. The administration appears to be conceding they have lost the debate and are plea bargaining for the lesser charge of idiocy over malice. This won’t do. In the entire piece, no explanation was given for the arrival of the video onto the scene.
Don’t fall for that hangdog expression, Repubs. Those watery eyes are shifting about.
MaxMBJ on May 18, 2013 at 3:30 AM
There were people in Tripoli, who could have gotten to Benghazi. All of that came out in direct testimony from a variety of sources.
dogsoldier on May 18, 2013 at 10:26 AM
You are correct, but it’s malice when you deliberately leave someone in a precarious position ( I mean 9/11 really? ) and ignore their pleas for help<<<<< And then HE.WENT.TO.BED.
That is the most malicious thing ever. Oh wait! Then HE.LIED.ABOUT.IT
Then he got everyone around him to lie about it. And go on five shows to lie about it and he made a lying ass commercial about it and had some poor slob who made a youtube video locked up and lied about it.
Geez he's STILL lying about it.
dogsoldier on May 18, 2013 at 10:31 AM
I’m surprised that the Regime is claiming the “idiot defense”. I thought Team Obama were the smartest guys in the room. The MSM has told us Obama is the best thing since sliced white bread. What happened to his 2008 campaign slogan “Judgement To Lead”? But I guess in their minds, claiming to be idiots is better that self identifying as marxist enemies of America.
SpiderMike on May 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2