The Dershowitz Dems

Monday, February 13, 2006
John Batchelor, blogging at Amspecblog, posits the existence of “Dershowitz Dems” whom he suggests hold the balance of power within the Democratic party.

Significance to me is that the Clintons have no room to maneuver on the right. If the Clintons aim to veer leftish for early '08 primary season in Iowa and NH and New York, then the Dershowitz Dems will holler on air and damage the trust factor for the general campaign.

Underneath this game is the profound fact on the ground that Israel is in trouble, and that any signal from a Dem candidate that Iran and its pet Syria can be dealt with, or contained, or ignored, will put Israel on a last regimen of dialysis. The Clintons cannot both please their Netrooters and maintain a coherent war fighting policy. Are there enough Dem votes left in Michigan or Iowa or New Mexico or New Hampshire or Wisconsin or Minnesota to permit the Clintons to jettison Netroots as appeasers and still hold or win the states?

This analysis seems unrealistic. Jews make up only about two percent of the American electorate, and are concentrated in states such as New York and California which are automatically in the Democratic column regardless of how Jews vote. Florida is the only “battleground state” in which the Jewish vote can act as an important factor.

The only sense in which the Democratic party is concerned about Jewish opinion is insofar as it is heavily dependant on a handful of Jews to help with its finances. George Soros, Stephen Bing and Peter Lewis are Jews whose opinions carry weight, attached as they are to scores of millions of dollars. As long as this is the case the Democratic party will never shift over into overt anti-Semitism. On the other hand, as long as these individuals are more concerned with the ouster of George W Bush than with the possibility of an Iranian attack on Israel, the Democratic party will feel free to indulge their netroots.


terrye said...


This morning on Fox I saw a rabbi [whose name I can not recall] who was talking about the need for the left to have a spiritual awakening. His contention was that the religious right is answering a societal need and that the left should do the same.

I thought that was interesting. Too bad I can't remember his name. He did not speak of Israel or national security.

I think there are some Dershowitz Dems [or Lieberman Dems] but not enough to get Hillary in there.

But that last election was close considering what a lousy candidate the Democrats ran so who knows what might happen?

I know here in Indiana the Republicans are in trouble for leasing a toll road to an Australian/Spanish Consortium and all of a sudden I am seeing "Ditch Mitch" bumper stickers all over the place. And this is a conservative state on social issues.

Two years is an eternity in politics so who knows what might happen?

Buddy Larsen said...

James Taranto has this today:

"Our Friend Al Gore"

"The man who came within a hair's breadth of the presidency in 2000 is denouncing his own government on foreign soil, the Associated Press reports:

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

There is a comical element to this, as Glenn Reynolds notes: "Only Al Gore could come up with the idea of criticizing Bush for not sucking up to the Saudis enough. Sigh."

(end quote)

Ahem...doesn't Gore represent the people who've been all over GWB for being FRIENDLY to the Saudis?

terrye said...


Do a post about that.

Buddy Larsen said...

Terrye--I don't know how--I know you probably think I can figure it out, but--I'm really dumb. You have no idea how dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb like a mud fence, like a box o' rocks. Alas.

MeaninglessHotAir said...


Write up the post. I'm not gonna hear how you can't do that because I know you're a great writer.

Send it to me. I'll post it for you.

Peter UK said...

Yeah Buddy,don't just sit there funnin' and strafing the neighbours.

Buddy Larsen said...

Very confusing--getting a Meaningless Hot Air compliment--

Buddy Larsen said...

And now Lord Cornwallis has to chime in--

Buddy Larsen said...

ok, MHA--thanks--gimme an hour or two, as i think Mr. Gore needs an illo on this one--

terrye said...


You are not dumb...I mean that. I am not a nice person so there is no way I would say something just to get along.

go to the blogger thingee in the upper left hand corner, and when that page comes up hit the yargb thingee and then the page comes up and you will see how to do it. Really.

Buddy Larsen said...

ok, I'll try, but if the computer gets down on one knee and starts singin' "Mammy" again, it's saul your fault.

terrye said...


Hey, I ain't a brain surgeon myself, if I can do it....

Just be patient with yourself.

Luther McLeod said...

Yea Buddy, just turn that bushel basket upside down and let the light shine in.. :-/,

Peter UK said...

Yes,buddy then you can go back to raking the valley with your fifty calibres.Do you want some tracers for the Fourth of July?

MeaninglessHotAir said...

Would we trust 4th of July "tracers" given to us by our erstwhile enemies?

Buddy Larsen said...

Funny coincidence, but needling Peter with "Cornwallis" raised the thought that what cost Cornwallis the Battle of Yorktown--after which loss Parliament (not the King, BTW) lost the will to keep fighting the war--was an early small-unit night bayonet attack on redoubt #10, which gain allowed washington to site cannons where they could reduce the main British line. The officer who led that charge (and insisted it be made with bayonet and unloaded weapons, for the surprise), was 24 year old Alexander Hamilton--whose much later duel with Aaron Burr was, before this past weekend, the only Vice Presidential shooting incident ever.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

I saw a rabbi [whose name I can not recall] who was talking about the need for the left to have a spiritual awakening.

Does "left" mean anything except "our side" in that statement? If there is a religious renascence, isn't that by definition on the "right"? Way too much of politics is "our side is good, your side stinks" type of thinking which doesn't get us anywhere.

Back to the topic at hand, there are too many Jews who are still tied to the Democrats just because the Democrats are "their team", even while the Democrats are busy adopting policies which are objectively anti-Israeli or even anti-Semitic. This problem applies to a lesser degree with other groups.

Buddy Larsen said...

I don't know about that 'lesser degree'--the Dems have turned away from Israel only lately, but have been subverting black people since the civil war. The only defense for that relationship--from the party side of it--is that only in the last few decades has it become so crystal-clear what nanny government does to a people.

chuck said...

OK, Buddy,

You are avoiding the issue by changing the subject and playing the smartass. Heck, anyone can figure out how to post: just click on everything and see what happens. I mean, you're going to worry about anything after your computer got down on one knee and sang "Mammy?"
Really. Snort.

PS. You don't need to be sober.

Buddy Larsen said...

Oh, sure, everything is SO easy for you teggnigley-adept Earthlings.