Prominent senator rips Obama for his handling of Israel

posted at 9:32 pm on April 22, 2010 by Allahpundit

McCain? Jim DeMint? Lindsey Graham?

Try Chuck Schumer. Seems he’s got a crazy hunch that it’s the Palestinians who are the “problem partner” in the Quest for Peace.

I told the President, I told Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration that I thought the policy they took to try to bring about negotiations is counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk. Palestinians don’t really believe in a state of Israel, they, unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can live with a 2-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there. If the U.S. says certain things and takes certain stands the Palestinians say, “Why should we negotiate?”…

Israel apologized and when Biden left, and Biden is the best friend of Israel in the administration everything was fine. But then what happened is the next day Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it pubic through this spokesperson, a guy named Crowley. And Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations. That is terrible. That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans—Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew–would feel that…

When George Schultz wanted to sell (couldn’t hear) to Saudi Arabia? Every administration has this idea to talk tough to Israel and make nice to the Arabs and the Palestinians and that’s the way to bring about peace. It’s counter-productive, it’s actually the opposite. The only way the Palestinians will sit down and talk is if they know Israel and the United States are as close as could be. And each administration learns it. Schultz had to learn it and Reagan had to learn it. Clinton did it in the early years and later became a very good friend of Israel. George Bush the first did it and never got over it, (SEGAL laughing muffles SCHUMER). We are at a crucial moment here and I am hopeful that administration will see the right way to go. I am working on it.

He let The One off the hook a bit by not touching on his repulsive treatment of Netanyahu at the White House or his harebrained idea to propose a Palestinian state himself, but otherwise he’s on target — especially vis-a-vis the Palestinians’ willingness to adjust their demands to exploit disagreements between the U.S. and Israel. As Yossi Klein Halevi put it, “Obama is directly responsible for one of the most absurd turns in the history of Middle East negotiations. Though Palestinian leaders negotiated with Israeli governments that built extensively in the West Bank, they now refused to sit down with the first Israeli government to actually agree to a suspension of building. Obama’s demand for a building freeze in Jerusalem led to a freeze in negotiations.”

It’s not just Schumer who’s souring on Obama on this point either. According to Quinnipiac, his approval rating on the Israeli/Palestinian issue stands at a robust 35/44, with — wait for it — two-thirds of Jewish voters saying they disapprove, down from 55 percent approval last month. Good work, champ. Exit question: Is it in fact a sign of the End Times that a libertarian with the surname Paul is now issuing strong pro-Israel statements? And if not, how long can he keep that up before the Paulnut faithful start to defect?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

quick, someone check the temperature in hell….

*checks beer to see if its laced with something*

Schumer? Are you effing kidding me?

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Obama is directly responsible for one of the most absurd turns in the history of Middle East negotiations

as well as absurd turns in US domestic policy as well..

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 9:36 PM

You mean this Chuck Schumer…

Seven Percent Solution on April 22, 2010 at 9:36 PM

What a racist!

Kensington on April 22, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Laughing so hard that there are tears running down my face.

No, really.

ElectricPhase on April 22, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Don’t trust Schumer. He’s working an angle.

kurtzz3 on April 22, 2010 at 9:37 PM

According to Quinnipiac, his approval rating on the Israeli/Palestinian issue stands at a robust 35/44, with — wait for it — two-thirds of Jewish voters saying they disapprove, down from 55 percent approval last month


2/3?
you mean, like 66%? No, really.. check the temperature in hell. Now!

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 9:37 PM

OT: SEC staffers watched porn as economy crashed

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/22/sec-employees-watched-porn-economy-crashed/

andy85719 on April 22, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Schumah should shut his trap.

Spathi on April 22, 2010 at 9:38 PM

..the next day Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it pubic…

Whoa, still trying to bleach that picture from my mind!

Fishoutofwater on April 22, 2010 at 9:38 PM

So what does Chuck U Schumer want? He’s a politician, therefore his motives are suspect.

conservative pilgrim on April 22, 2010 at 9:39 PM

a guy named Crowley

That would be PJ Crowley:

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Clinton told Netanyahu the announcement was a “deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship … and had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process.”

“The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security,” Crowley said.

All of that about new settlements.

amerpundit on April 22, 2010 at 9:39 PM

As long as Schumer is on board to ram through every Obama administration policy, then he’s got as much leverage as the Obami does over Iran. Which is nothing. Keep being a loyal pawn Schumer, that’ll teach Obama a lesson or two.

Lance Murdock on April 22, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Don’t trust Schumer. He’s working an angle.

kurtzz3 on April 22, 2010 at 9:37 PM

His angle is that he represents New York and would like to keep his job this November, which might be difficult without Jewish backing.

amerpundit on April 22, 2010 at 9:41 PM

You think Schumer would be thanking him.

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM

schumer is a real schmuck. nice move blaming Hillary for this crxp like Obama hasnt been balanced against Israel from the get go. Instapundit has the linky to Roger calling for the LATimes to release that dinner for Khalidi where O gave the toast..
Chuckie CHeese is letting all the capital flow leave NYS as O redirects the Derivative trades to the CME and London takes the rest
h is a POS
I used to vote for this guy as a NY Dem, Gawd forgive me.

ginaswo on April 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Schumer?

For a second I would say maybe he’s listening to his Jewish constituency, which is considerable in New York…but given their voting tendencies, I’m not sure a majority of them give two s**ts about Israel.

What is his angle?

MadisonConservative on April 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Ask O what Rev. Wright thinks about the Jooooooooooos.

misterspork on April 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Don’t trust Schumer. He’s working an angle.

It’s funny. He doesn’t look like a politician.

Drained Brain on April 22, 2010 at 9:44 PM

But then what happened is the next day Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it pubic through this spokesperson

Not a way to win friends… having Hillary (Her Thighness) making things pubic. *shutters*

(oh, guess Bily Jeff isn’t the only horn dog in the fam)

red winger on April 22, 2010 at 9:44 PM

So what does Chuck U Schumer want? He’s a politician, therefore his motives are suspect.

conservative pilgrim on April 22, 2010 at 9:39 PM

There must have been plenty of TV cameras around…

How do we get off of this sickening ride..this nightmare that is obama and his clown possee

lukespapa on April 22, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Exit question: Is it in fact a sign of the End Times that a libertarian with the surname Paul is now issuing strong pro-Israel statements? And if not, how long can he keep that up before the Paulnut faithful start to defect?

Like Schumer, Rand Paul is a politician (yes, I’m cynical with most politicians). Is this position genuine or just last minute pandering?

Even if Rand Paul loses the Paulnuts, doesn’t he pick up enough of others to win? Is the number of Paulnuts that significant?

conservative pilgrim on April 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

and PS since that Halperin book exposed Chuck as one ofthe back stabbing frakkers who helped urge O to run against HRC, he is finished with the Clintons so he feels free to throw Hill under the bus to gloss over how he, Chuckie with his Okissin BS, betrayed NYC, NYS and the people he claims to represent plus the Jewish vote..

POS I say

ginaswo on April 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Some kind of cover going on here to ease the fears of Jewish voters and donors, no way this is legit.

Bishop on April 22, 2010 at 9:46 PM

this is the WH throwing State unda da bus now that Bibi called O’s bluff on settlements

chuck is the messenger
POS

ginaswo on April 22, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Amazing that the same man can be so lucid on this subject, yet completely obtuse about most everything else he says (Obamacare, airline bag rules …). I used to believe Chuckie’s was stupid, now I know he’s just demogogic.

mdenis39 on April 22, 2010 at 9:48 PM

But I thought it was OK to go after the ‘Jews’…?

/

Seven Percent Solution on April 22, 2010 at 9:48 PM

two-thirds of Jewish voters saying they disapprove, down from 55 percent approval last month.

I wonder that if this disapproval continues will it lead to Jewish votes for Republican candidates?

farright on April 22, 2010 at 9:48 PM

According to Quinnipiac, his approval rating on the Israeli/Palestinian issue stands at a robust 35/44, with — wait for it — two-thirds of Jewish voters saying they disapprove, down from 55 percent approval last month. Good work, champ.

Yeah, well, good work liberal Jewish community – you were so busy ridiculing Sarah Palin and evangelical Christians that you forgot to read something other than the NY Times.

Obama’s treatment of Israel should come as a surprise to no one.

CarolynM on April 22, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Andy Levy sez:

You can read all about it in my new pamphlet: How the Joos turned even a liberal like Schumer into a neocon Zionist

MadisonConservative on April 22, 2010 at 9:49 PM

the

rip….

because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk.

the

slam

the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there. If the U.S. says certain things and takes certain stands the Palestinians say, “Why should we negotiate?”…

the disembowelment and evisceration…./stewart

That is terrible. That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans—Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew–would feel that…

word fun

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 9:50 PM

2/3 of Jews in America disapprove of Obama on the Israel/Palistinian Issue, but they still like Obama. As Jennifer Rubin points in the Commentary Magazine blog, most American Jews are libs, and they care more about socializing medicine and killing the unborn than they do about Israel.

BCrago66 on April 22, 2010 at 9:51 PM

I’m not sure Democrats are observant enough to understand that Obama hates Israel.

He could read it from his teleprompter and they still wouldn’t get it.

scotash on April 22, 2010 at 9:54 PM

What’s wrong with neutrality? That’s what George Washington wanted.

The Dean on April 22, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Chuck Schumer is high on my “Wish He Weren’t Jewish” list. He’s right here, of course, but as someone said, he’s working on an angle.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 22, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Yeah, like Schumer will ever do anything about it. He knows who butters his bread. It isn’t Israel. Not enough trial-lawyer action there.

AUINSC on April 22, 2010 at 9:57 PM

So what does Chuck U Schumer want? He’s a politician, therefore his motives are suspect.

conservative pilgrim on April 22, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Exactamundo! Upchuck Schmuck has the fear of the electorate, just like all the other Libs out there who are slowly coming to the realization that they are in real danger of losing their asses in the next election cycle. His motives are to simply side with the Jews in order to curry their favor to his own selfish benefit.

Now having said that, I do agree with his points. The problem is I simply don’t trust him.

glennbo on April 22, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Bibi should demand that we stop building ‘settlements’ in Washington, DC.

What a clown Baracky boy is.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 22, 2010 at 9:58 PM

For reference:

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.

-Washington

The Dean on April 22, 2010 at 9:59 PM

“He let The One off the hook a bit..”

..one day — and it’s coming soon, I feel it — people will stop letting this clown off the hook, more and more see him for what he is, and will cause his numbers to be driven below the 40% approval mark, will stop putting up with this Bravo Sierra. There will also be a day when this PantLoad gets his bony ass tossed out in the street.

And, when that happens, I predict that the steaming brown tide of soul-baring, kiss-and-tell-documentaries will reach flood stage and we will all be treated to an inside view of what was America’s most terrible presidency ever.

One prays for it to come, Nixonesque-like, with a resignation over some sordid aspect of his vapid tenure, and he departs into exile forever — well in advance of the 2012 election.

The War Planner on April 22, 2010 at 9:59 PM

What’s wrong with neutrality? That’s what George Washington wanted.

The Dean on April 22, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Because neutrality doesn’t work when you’re the world’s superpower and you actually have interests in maintaining allies in certain regions.

And let’s keep in mind we wouldn’t have been a nation had the world run on neutrality. We had a couple of foreign friends who helped kick Britain’s ass.

amerpundit on April 22, 2010 at 10:01 PM

What’s wrong with neutrality? That’s what George Washington wanted.

The Dean on April 22, 2010 at 9:56 PM

What’s wrong with the Jews? Care to share that with us?

MadisonConservative on April 22, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Sorry, Chuckles. Ya gotta dance with The One that brought you.

Rational Thought on April 22, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Chuck-U
saying stuff
to get money ?

macncheez on April 22, 2010 at 10:08 PM

sure sure and yet he votes for everything Obama wants. Damnation with faint damnation

unseen on April 22, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Foreign policy isn’t a constant like unalienable rights. It has to adapt to the times, which I’m sure Washington — who had just fought a war with the help of foreign powers — would understand.

We weren’t a superpower in the 18th or early 19th centuries. We were a small nation hoping to survive until next week. We needed to, for the most part, keep our heads down in geopolitics.

That’s simply not the case anymore. Times have changed. Needs have changed. Foreign policy has to change.

amerpundit on April 22, 2010 at 10:09 PM

The War Planner on April 22, 2010 at 9:59 PM

G3, good G2. I like how you analyze. Your shiite briefs well.

ted c on April 22, 2010 at 10:09 PM

What’s wrong with neutrality? That’s what George Washington wanted.

The Dean on April 22, 2010 at 9:56 PM

hmmmm WW1 WW2 among other things.

neutrality has been proven to not work in the world. what part of history is hard for you to grasp?

unseen on April 22, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Hm. Sounds like Schumer’s read the polls and is anticipating November.

Good Lt on April 22, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Well, we know you are a whore Chuck…

… now we are just negotiating the price.

Seven Percent Solution on April 22, 2010 at 10:12 PM

One prays for it to come, Nixonesque-like, with a resignation over some sordid aspect of his vapid tenure, and he departs into exile forever — well in advance of the 2012 election.

The War Planner on April 22, 2010 at 9:59 PM

nope because Obama is the jackie Robinson of politics. Jackie was the test case. If he would have been an idiot, clueless, no good baseball player there is a good possiblity that sports would be totally different than it is today.

the multiculture cultists do not/can not judge Obama on his record. For if they do they fear a massive backlash from the majority of all americans but esp white america and a downfall( or at least a set back ) to their multiethic drive to reform the country.

To the multicultuists Obama simply can not fail. To admit so would be to admit their entire worldview is wrong and that it is not the color of a man’s skin but the person’s character, experiences, and integerity that determins a true man’s worth.

unseen on April 22, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Well, we know you are a whore Chuck…

… now we are just negotiating the price.

Seven Percent Solution on April 22, 2010 at 10:12 PM

This is uber-petty on my part…but I think the quote is more like, “We have established your profession, now we have only the price to negotiate.”

Chewy the Lab on April 22, 2010 at 10:24 PM

I recall visiting the official Obama presidential campaign website back in 2008. I viewed a virulent anti-Semitic/anti-Israeli webpage for Socialists for Obama there, the day before it disappeared. One would think that someone on Senator Schumer’s staff would have clued the Honorable Senator Schumer in?
.
Not only that but Obama buddy and mentor, Rashid Khalidi, is the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University, and director of the Middle East Institute of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs. You’d think that Senator Schumer would heard of Khalidi, an Palestinian terrorist.
.
Will Senator Schumer’s concern mature into panic when:
A) Pres. Obama blocks Israeli military action against Iran’s nuclear sites
B) Pres. Obama imposes a pro-Palestinian “peace” settlement on Israel, and/or
3) when the Iranian Twelvers test their first nuclear weapon?

Mike OMalley on April 22, 2010 at 10:25 PM

I would never want the US to go against Israel. They will never cease to be God’s chosen people. Go against the sons of Jacob at your own peril.

Mojave Mark on April 22, 2010 at 10:25 PM

I have never been a fan of Schumer, but you have to give him credit for seeing this issue with clarity. The American people see the Israel/Arab issue clearer than the Obama administration does. I have to give Rand another look. He is definitely not a Daddy’s boy.

Southernblogger on April 22, 2010 at 10:30 PM

This is uber-petty on my part…but I think the quote is more like, “We have established your profession, now we have only the price to negotiate.”

Chewy the Lab on April 22, 2010 at 10:24 PM

You said it….

thomasaur on April 22, 2010 at 10:31 PM

WTH is going on in D.C.? Another moment of clarity by a dem?

Mirimichi on April 22, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Chuck has a rogue guest at the party problem. Obama is wandering around the party insulting all of the guests. Chuck doesn’t care if the list of the insulted includes the country’s traditional friends or various political targets who must be brow beat.

The problem is Obama is insulting Chuck’s inner circle consisting of the financial industry and a large Jewish contingency.

Chuck can apologize for buffoonish behavior for only so long before people decide to leave the party.

R Square on April 22, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Calculated. Don’t be taken. Schumer doing what he is told.

Obama prays/hopes for the war that “necessarily” skyrockets gas prices and destroys the economy, dissolving the foundation he wants to rebuild.

Doesn’t matter if its NoKO, China, Russia, Iran, Israel. Doesn’t matter. He’s all but invited any one of them to attack without fear of repercussions. (Dalai Lama and the backdoor garbage—- calculated—intended).

He has one huge problem.

He didn’t take away the guns first. :)

Socmodfiscon on April 22, 2010 at 10:39 PM

He didn’t take away the guns first. :)

Socmodfiscon on April 22, 2010 at 10:39 PM

They.

Socmodfiscon on April 22, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Hm. No answer from The Dean on my question. Not even a “nothing”.

MadisonConservative on April 22, 2010 at 10:42 PM

I have never been a fan of Schumer, but you have to give him credit for seeing this issue with clarity. The American people see the Israel/Arab issue clearer than the Obama administration does. I have to give Rand another look. He is definitely not a Daddy’s boy.

Southernblogger on April 22, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Dumb. No integrity. Calculated to save the seat.

Socmodfiscon on April 22, 2010 at 10:42 PM

It’s all good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkxdXj7PxRU

nwpammy on April 22, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Hm. No answer from The Dean on my question. Not even a “nothing”.

MadisonConservative on April 22, 2010 at 10:42 PM

He is off consulting the elders of zion.

Inanemergencydial on April 22, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Let’s face it, the Palestinians are LOSERS! They are content with their “leaders” who’ve done nothing but rip them off for the last 60 years. They ENJOY wallowing in mud, filth and misery! Victim-hood is in their DNA. Until that changes, nothing in the middle east is likely to change. As long as they have a “What can YOU do FOR me”, they should be left alone.

GarandFan on April 22, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Next time Obama’s minions kick Israel around while ignoring the Palestinian record of corruption incompetence and intransigence, I half expect that Obama will tell Netanyahu that he should be thanking him for slapping him around.

KW64 on April 22, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Dumb. No integrity. Calculated to save the seat.

Socmodfiscon on April 22, 2010 at 10:42 PM

I am sorry, but I missed something. Do you mean Schumer trying to save himself? I believe he is pretty much a given.

Southernblogger on April 22, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Exit question: Is it in fact a sign of the End Times that a libertarian with the surname Paul is now issuing strong pro-Israel statements? And if not, how long can he keep that up before the Paulnut faithful start to defect?

You need to bone up on your End Times prophecy, Sport. The sign of the End Times is O’Bozo turning against Israel.

Jaibones on April 22, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Exit question: Is it in fact a sign of the End Times that a libertarian with the surname Paul is now issuing strong pro-Israel statements?

No. The sign is of other things which I will not go into at this moment of action.

MB4 on April 22, 2010 at 11:32 PM

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/04/senator-hedge-fund.html

Chuck U. Screwmer wants to run the senate now that Harry is toast but he’s got problems. New Yorkers are pissed that Dr. Utopia and Holder want to hold the terror trials there, Bloomberg is pissed that tax revenues are down because senator Hedge Fund’s party keeps dissing Wall Street, Hillary supporters, the PUMA’s, are pissed that he screwed their champ, and now the Jews are acting up.

Forget about running the senate Screwmer. If Michael Steele has a backbone this is the perfect storm to provide you with your walking papers, dirtbag. Even your poll numbers are down. Pandering for votes, I’d say.

Jayrae on April 22, 2010 at 11:43 PM

Did you notice how Schumer mentioned every president’s administration “getting it” [learning to be value a close relationship with Israel] except George W. Bush. The most recent ex-president demonstrated he was a staunch ally of Israel over 8 years. Schumer couldn’t bring himself to say one word giving George W. Bush some credit. Pathetic.

Jill1066 on April 23, 2010 at 12:15 AM

Slimball Schumer??? Why should I trust anything he says as being anything more that a scheming lie?

docdave on April 23, 2010 at 12:27 AM

Hate to do it but I’ll give F. Chuck Schumer some credit. He knows who keeps him in his Senate seat. Chuck realizes if a decent republican gets the cajones to run against him this year, he’ll have a fight on his hands if he doesn’t clearly support the jewish community.

phreshone on April 23, 2010 at 12:30 AM

Hm. No answer from The Dean on my question. Not even a “nothing”.

MadisonConservative on April 22, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Hm. No answer from The Dean on my question. Not even a “nothing”.

MadisonConservative on April 22, 2010 at 10:42 PM

I logged out. But sure, my answer is nothingand look, you can call the Founders, Robert Taft, and Eisenhower anti-Semites all you want for speaking against the MIC. But anyway.

My problem with this is that Rand Paul is only hurting his popularity by associating with Sarah Palin (who 70% don’t want to see as President) and hardline views on Israel. If Rand somehow loses a close election (which I don’t think will happen) then it will be because of these factors. All he had to do was be proud of Ron Paul’s message and carry that to an overwhelming majority like Ron gets in his Congressional district. It’s not by kissing up to Palin or Israel hardliners or who knows what. That’s why Ron is inspiring millions.

The Dean on April 23, 2010 at 12:35 AM

What’s Schumer’s angle? Follow the money. Jewish contributors are unhappy and letting him know it. Thank God for that, at least.

chris999 on April 23, 2010 at 12:52 AM

It’s not just Schumer who’s souring on Obama

Snicker. Schumer is worried about his own a$$.

Connie on April 23, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Schumer is a crook and one of the worst of the crooks.

Connie on April 23, 2010 at 1:00 AM

Obama is perilous for the U.S., the world, and Israel. History will write much about this era, not much good.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2010 at 1:11 AM

I think Schumer did exactly what he aimed to do – he railed against the treatment of Israel to pacify those Jews who vote for him and contribute money to him, but he deflected any criticism of the administration away from Obama and on to Hillary Clinton. Surely you don’t think his omission of Obama’s treatment of Netanyahu was an “accident”, do you? I’m sure this little outburst had the seal of approval from Obama’s Chicago gang, deflection is a huge part of their playbook.

oldoldbabs on April 23, 2010 at 1:28 AM

I think Schumer did exactly what he aimed to do – he railed against the treatment of Israel to pacify those Jews who vote for him and contribute money to him, but he deflected any criticism of the administration away from Obama and on to Hillary Clinton. Surely you don’t think his omission of Obama’s treatment of Netanyahu was an “accident”, do you? I’m sure this little outburst had the seal of approval from Obama’s Chicago gang, deflection is a huge part of their playbook.

oldoldbabs on April 23, 2010 at 1:28 AM

Yes ,it’s ridiculous that he blames Hillary for doing Obama’s wishes.

the_nile on April 23, 2010 at 6:00 AM

My problem with this is that Rand Paul is only hurting his popularity by associating with Sarah Palin (who 70% don’t want to see as President) and hardline views on Israel. If Rand somehow loses a close election (which I don’t think will happen) then it will be because of these factors. All he had to do was be proud of Ron Paul’s message and carry that to an overwhelming majority like Ron gets in his Congressional district. It’s not by kissing up to Palin or Israel hardliners or who knows what. That’s why Ron is inspiring millions.

The Dean on April 23, 2010 at 12:35 AM

Dont you think Rand has analyzed the effect of her endorsement in his state before running the ad?

the_nile on April 23, 2010 at 6:05 AM

You just have to wonder who Shumer thought Obama really was. Anyone who looked at his history could get a pretty good idea whose side he is on in this debate. Really.

Terrye on April 23, 2010 at 6:56 AM

The Dean on April 23, 2010 at 12:35 AM

I usually agree with Palin, but I think it might have been a mistake for her to endorse anyone whose last name is Paul..it is also might have something to do with the fact that Greyson said something less than glowing about her. Some of these races need to remain local. And from what I hear most of Paul’s money is coming from elsewhere.

Terrye on April 23, 2010 at 6:59 AM

What’s wrong with neutrality? That’s what George Washington wanted.

The Dean on April 22, 2010 at 9:56 PM

.
What’s wrong with neutrality is that in no few situations it doesn’t work. Take Washington’s handling of the Jihadists pirates off the North African Coast. Washington’s neutrality kept US commerce beyond the protection of European alliance and Washington’s payment of Jizya was marginally effective. It was only by way of Pres. Jefferson’s direct military action against the Jihadists that adequate protection of American commerce was achieved.

Mike OMalley on April 23, 2010 at 7:07 AM

All he had to do was be proud of Ron Paul’s message and carry that to an overwhelming majority like Ron gets in his Congressional district. It’s not by kissing up to Palin or Israel hardliners or who knows what. That’s why Ron is inspiring millions.

The Dean on April 23, 2010 at 12:35 AM

.
… it never strikes you that Pappa Paul is just a tad loony?
.
Some how I doubt Pappa Paul’s South Texas district is adequately representative of the rest of the USA to support such a conjecture.
.
Tell us Dean when, where and how often does Pappa Paul speak out against Saudi and Wahhabist hardliners? And tell us which troubles you more: Israeli hardliners (who want to hold and keep Summaria and Judiah) or Saudi hardliners (who want to impose Shaaria within a global Umma)? Explain for us the reasons for your choice.

Mike OMalley on April 23, 2010 at 7:29 AM

Isn’t Schumer Jewish? Why hasn’t he spoken out sooner? Where is all the support for our friend, Israel? Especially Jewish Americans/leaders? This Administration & Congress is absolutely disgusting.

kitkat-n.c. on April 23, 2010 at 7:41 AM

The polls may show the Jews disapproving of Obama and Israel, but when it comes to voting they will still vote Democrat.

The other effect that the Obama is having in the middle east is that Muslims are wondering if Obama would just look the other way if Israel was attacked.
For example, when the press is reporting the question of “Will the US shoot down Israeli planes attacking Iran?” then this makes the Muslims feel they have a (msulim) friend in the White House against Israel.

albill on April 23, 2010 at 8:12 AM

Our President King has spoken: ‘The Trinity of Marx, Lenin and Alinsky show us the true path towards enlightenment. We’ve always been at war with Israel and their illegal usurpation of ancient Palestinian lands.’

SeniorD on April 23, 2010 at 8:33 AM

I’m not sure that Schumer deflected the criticism from Obama to Hillary…or, if he was trying to, that he succeeded. The visit to the WH was solely Obama’s and there’s no way to gloss it over. I am surprised though that NY Jewish voters may have started to look at the realities of this administration. I had begun to wonder if they bothered to be informed at all.

jeanie on April 23, 2010 at 9:40 AM