Is the Democratic Party Going European?

Anti-Israel fervor in America still has a long way to go to catch up with that in Europe. Popular opinion in America, for instance, remains largely sympathetic to Israel. No one would make that claim for Europe.

No mainstream American paper would publish a screed like that of Norwegian novelist Jostein Gaarder in Norway’s Aftenposten, which employed ancient anti-Semitism canards to attack Israel and deny its right to exist. Gaarder berates Israel for failing to accept Christianity’s humanitarian message and for clinging to the primitive law of “an eye for an eye.” He appears unaware that Jewish history might have given Jews some cause to doubt the sincerity of that humanitarian message, and does not know that lex talionis is not Jewish law.

Gaarder berates Israel for treating its citizens’ blood as redder than that of Lebanese – as if there were any nation in the world that does not view its first duty as the preservation of the lives of its citizens – and lays the blame on the “ridiculous” idea that Jews are G-d’s Chosen people.

While it is doubtful that any major American paper would publish an opinion piece invoking so many classic anti-Semitic stereotypes, and attacking Israel in specifically religious terminology, such views are being expressed in America. On the angry Left blog sites, which play an ever larger role in Democratic Party politics, attacks on Jews are commonplace.

After spending several months campaigning for Senator Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut, Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton, revised his lifelong view that intolerance and hate-speech are more likely to be found on the Right. In a piece in the Wall Street Journal, Davis provided a sampler of the anti-Semitic attacks on Senator Lieberman posted on some of the most widely read and influential Democratic blog sites.

Lieberman was accused of supporting the war in Iraq so that American soldiers, not Israeli ones, would die. One post on Daily Kos, the most influential Democratic blog, read, “Jews only care about the welfare of other Jews . . . Ignore all the Jewish propaganda about participating in the civil rights movement of the ‘60s.” Another Daily Kos reader described Lieberman as a “racist and religious bigot.” And a reader at Huffington Post opined that Lieberman “cannot escape the religious bond he represents. His wife’s name is Haggadah or Diaspora or something you eat at Pesach.” Yet another blogger made fun of the beard Lieberman grew during the Three Weeks, and suggested that he dye it “blood red.”

Venomous caricatures of Israel as the new Third Reich have long been standard fare in respectable papers in Europe, but the migration of such views across the Atlantic is deeply worrying, if only because America is Israel’s one absolutely indispensable ally.

A deep ambivalence towards Israel has infected the Democratic Party, which many political analysts are currently projecting to take over one or both houses of Congress in the next elections. A recent Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll comparing voter attitudes on the war in Lebanon and towards Israel shows Republicans to be far more supportive of Israel than Democrats. Though the Democratic Party is the political home of the vast majority of American Jews, 54% of Democrats advocate that the United States adopt a more neutral – i.e., less pro-Israel – stance to the Middle East, as opposed to only 29% of Republicans. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans felt the Israeli bombing in Lebanon was fully justified, as opposed to only 29% of Democrats.

Increasingly, mainstream Democrats are adopting the attitudes of the European Left. In the recent Senate hearings on John Bolton’s nomination as ambassador to the United Nations, Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic standard-bearer, repeatedly criticized Bolton for the fact that America is consistently the odd-man out at the United Nations, and stands outside the consensus of our European “allies.”

One shudders to think where Israel would be if the United States ceased to be the “odd-man-out” at the U.N. Recall that six of those so-called European allies, including France, voted in favor of a resolution of the U.N. Human Rights Commission specifically legitimizing terrorism against Israeli citizens to further Palestinian liberation. Bolton’s U.N.-skepticism is a welcome antidote to the European view that only legitimate use of force is that sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council. That is especially true given that most of the resolutions passed by that august body are condemnations of Israel, and its Secretary-General barely conceals his visceral animus for Israel, while being only to happy to be photographed together with Hassan Nasrallah.

INCREASINGLY, THE AMERICAN LEFT shares with its European counterparts a naïve Enlightenment belief that all problems can be solved by rational men around a conference table. In that view, there are no irreconcilable goals; all men are basically interested in increasing their allotment of material goods, and all conflicts can be resolved by slicing the pie slightly differently.

In this happy world, talk is always good, and military action is always bad. On a recent BBC Hardtalk program, the supercilious British interviewer kept haranguing Binyamin Netanyahu about the necessity of a ceasefire and a political solution. (Netanyahu’s restraint in not wiping the smile off his face seemed to this viewer almost superhuman.) It never occurred to the BBC interviewer that there could be circumstances in which defeating an enemy must precede talk. And he chided Netanyahu for constantly reminding him of how ruthlessly (and rightly) the Allies in World War II pursued a policy of unconditional surrender against Germany and Japan.

The automatic rejection of the use of force explains the obsession of the Europeans and The New York Times with body counts in any conflict – whoever kills the most is automatically the bad guy, regardless of who started the war. It was left to Netanyahu to point out to another BBC interviewer that Germany suffered more casualties in World War II than America and Britain combined, without its superior moral position being thereby established.

Terms like good and evil, when applied to nations, fill liberals with disgust because they suggest that there are nations that seek more than incremental goals – like imposition of Sharia on infidels around the world, for instance. The liberal worldview cannot comprehend why a nuclear Iran would be any less deterred than the FSU by mutual assured destruction. Liberals simply cannot credit the impeccable religious logic of the late Ayatollah Khomeini (quoted in Iranian textbooks) – either we will annihilate the infidel powers and become free or we will die trying, and go to the greater freedom of martyrdom – as being serious. And the mindset of a young British-born Muslim couple who planned to blow up a passenger plane by igniting their infant’s baby formula is beyond them.

This sterile vision of all men as pursuing limited goals as rational game-players leads to consistently downplaying the importance of will in affairs of state. In 1938, Europe chose to believe that Hitler, ym”Sh, would be satisfied with the Sudetenland, and failed to recognize that he was testing the will of the West before embarking upon his plan for world conquest. Similarly, Nasrallah tested Israel five months after the 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon with the kidnapping of three soldiers, and was astounded by the meekness of the response. That weak response proved to be disastrous for Israel.

Those who assume that all grievances can be assuaged will inevitably fail to comprehend the jihadists’ all-consuming rage or to recognize that they terrorize the West, not because they have some demands that can be negotiated, but because terror is the only thing that they do well and that provides them with a sense of power. Westerners would prefer to believe that if only the Israeli “occupation” ended – or in the worst case, the mistake of Israel’s creation reversed – that Islamic rage would disappear, just as they once hoped that Hitler would stop with Czechoslovakia.

People who believe such things are a long-range danger to themselves. But they are an immediate danger to Israel. Let us pray that the American Left does not follow its European counterparts in that direction.

Originally appeared in Yated Ne’eman, August 23 and a shorter version in Ma’ariv, August 29.

You may also like...

27 Responses

  1. Henry Frisch says:

    This is pro-Republican propaganda. No one seriously involved in the Democratic Party (I obviously don’t regard the defeated Cynthia McKinnon as a serious political figure)has the slightest whiff of anti-semitism/anti-Israelism about him/her.

    The “achievements” in Iraq have been bad for Israel. Pointing out that the foolish Bush/Rumsfeld policy involved in fighting in Iraq so as to succeed merely in creating an Iranian satellite there to join in the Shiite menace to Israel is not acting against Israel. Iraq was a milchemes reshus that needed major effort beyond the use of smart bombs. The list of errors by the Bush administration needs dealing with by everyone.

    What happens in Europe stays in Europe.Let’s not add to the problems of Israel and the U.S. by creating non-sensical straw enemies.

  2. Bob Miller says:

    Jonathan Rosenblum wrote,
    “INCREASINGLY, THE AMERICAN LEFT shares with its European counterparts a naïve Enlightenment belief that all problems can be solved by rational men around a conference table.”

    It’s hard for me to put naive and European in the same sentence. In general, they are played out, worn out, and defeatist, and are looking to salvage (and profit from!) the best possible deal with anyone they see as the winning side. Today, to them, that’s the radical Muslim side. Yesterday, it was the Fascists and Nazis. Since they’re selling out anyhow, it’s a short leap to building a political/philosophical basis for selling out.

    Anyone can see powerful factions in today’s Democratic Party and American academia moving in this same direction. I guess people can still debate whether these factions have already taken over or not.

  3. Trevor Smith says:

    Please try to distinguish between critism of Isreal and anti semitism

  4. Aaron says:

    I look at the writings of the under-50 GOP versus Democrat publications (National Review vs The Nation) and they only confirm what drove me to be the first ex-Democrat in generations of my family in 1980. I would feel safer with my family among Free Republic readers than Daily Kos’ and were I forced to send my kids to public schools, I’d choose a red-state rural versus a blue-state urban in a heartbeat.

    Carter was the eager midwife of fundamentalist Islamic radicalism. Clinton met with Arafat more than any other “leader” and personally sent James Carville to help with the ouster of Netanyahu. The Democrats are bereft of the likes of Scoop Jackson, Sam Nunn and Patrick Moynihan. And Joseph Lieberman. Who is left??? Kerry? Kennedy? Obama? When Ed Koch argues that the Democrats can’t be trusted with foreign policy, that speaks a lot for NOT being a party man. Foreign policy is FAR more important than the latest incremental domestic policy issue.

    Do I drink the W kool-aid? Hardly. I’m furious over his border policy and for not having Condi take the State Department out to the shed to beat the Saudi-pensioned appeasers (elite university “English majors” as Victor Davis Hanson describes them) out of that organization.

    One need only look at campuses, the voting records of professors and the uncriticized venomous leftist protests seen in San Francisco versus the absense of any equivalent on the right in this country.

  5. Aaron says:

    Insert a link to

    The “Stop the U.S.-Israeli War” rally — San Francisco, August 12, 2006

    “Stop the Killing of Palestinian Children” rally — Berkeley, June 20, 2006

    The zombie Hall of Shame — a compilation of the most shocking photos and sought-after images from the zombie collection.

    I wish we’d stop acting as if the Klan or Aryan Nations have been anywhere near a Jewish community in the last half century.

  6. Daniel Weltman says:

    I agree with most of this post, but the following part bothers me greatly:

    but the migration of such views across the Atlantic is deeply worrying, if only because America is Israel’s one absolutely indispensable ally.

    Mr Rosenblum should exercise caution in calling any nation Israel’s indispensable ally. In fact, relying on the US may actually be a cause for her downfall, as in Ezek. 29:6. There the prophet states that part of the reason for Egypt’s downfall is that they acted as a super power ally for Israel to rely on, to the exclusion of G-d. See Ibn Ezra there.

    Israel, and indeed, each individual Jew, must internalize that we only have one address to look to for help: G-d. Anyone else’s help is appreciated, but is not required, and may certainly not replace G-d in our discussion of ‘indispensable’ allies. Only through steadfast faith in our G-d can we hope to survive. Israel does itself and the US great disservice in relying on the US the way it does.

  7. Henry Frisch says:

    To AAron-

    “Saudi-pensioned appeasers”=G Bush senior is number one till now and will probably remain so till the spot is taken by GWB and Dick Cheney when they leave office. Midwife to fundamentalist Islam? I suppose it wasn’t Reagan who cut and ran from Lebanon giving Hizbollah its first shot in the arm.Which real Democrats join rallies against Israel? Sounds like Koolade to me.

    Daily Kos is not part of the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton was a great supporter of Israel.Carter doesn’t even get invited to any Democratic Party events and should be given the same respect as Cynthia. Ed Koch is not really a Democrat and allowed New York to rot when he was Mayor there. Perhaps the W Koolade causes you to denigrate Kerry, who has a strong pro-Israel record. The immigration “issue” should embarrass any Jew who is not a Native American or at least a Mayflower descendant.

  8. David N. Friedman says:

    The answer to the question about the Democratic party going Euro is “yes.” This is plainly obvious and Ruth Ginsberg’s appeal to European legal precedent and John Kerry’s constant quips are only two examples.

    Aaron has it exactly right.

    For Henry Frisch who asks which real Democrat supports anti-Israel stuff, sadly there are many and the supporters of Ned Lamont are not alone. Moran here in VA has put his foot in his mouth more than once, many even “mainstream” black leaders harbor anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiments (yes, the two are related)–in short, even if most Dems are not anti-Jewish almost all who are anti-Israel are Dems and the leaders do not shout them down.

    And I cannot disagree more with Daniel Weltman. With the US–the world’s superppwer, Israel would be horribly isolated and alone in the world. It would simply be a very different world for Israel if America was an extension of Belgium. Please do not believe that Israel would be better off without a stong ally of America and would be better off alone with God. America’s support of Israel is a sure indication of commonality and we are linked culturally, religiously and economically. America saw itself, at its founding, as a new Israel. Now, America naturally supports Israel and if that supports ever becomes forced or strained, that would be a disaster since it would mean that either our similar national destinies had changed or America had elected a poor leader.

  9. Henry Frisch says:

    The supporters of Ned Lamont cannot be called “anti-Israel” by anyone honest because Ned Lamont is not anti-Israel. Were he like that he would not have won the primary and would not be equal to Lieberman today in the polls. Lieberman’s mistakes, including his Schiavo conduct and his lack of perception about the Iraq mess, have caused Lamont to derail him.

  10. hp says:

    “No one seriously involved in the Democratic Party ….has the slightest whiff of anti-semitism/anti-Israelism about him/her.”

    This must have been written in great haste. One doesn’t have to be a member of any particular party to acknowledge that their is anti-semitism in all arenas, including the Demorcratic Party. It is important not to exaggerate for the sake of maintaining credibility.

  11. Steve Brizel says:

    There is no doubt that the party that American Jews recall as the home of FDR, HST, Adlai Stevenson, JFk, LBJ, RFK, HHH, Scoop Jackson and Daniel Moynihan was transformed by the little known but highly influential McGovern Commission’s so-called “reforms” into a different party. It is becoming apparent that the far left liberal chattering classes of Boston, NY, DC and their financial backers in Hollywood together with agitators such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Michael Moore are the mainstream of this party. In addition, the party panders to radical feminists and gay activists as well. This is the reason why the liberal bloggers and the NY Times conducted a McCarthy style campaign against Lieberman-who violated the party’s reigning views on appeasement and national security.

  12. Henry Frisch says:


    Depends on what you mean by “seriously involved”. I have already dismissed McKinnon and Carter as non-factors. The burden is on those tarring the Democrats with the accusation of anti-Semitism to justify calling particular leaders (I think it should be obvious rank and filers of any movement are capable of anything) guilty of such a charge. Jews are entitled to support whom they please. The constant attack of the shrill anti-Democrats against the party to try to convince Jews that they are siding with enemies of the Jews and of Israel by voting Democratic is reprehensible.

  13. Aaron says:

    Let’s recall that Kerry’s first choices for negotiating peace in the region were James “* the Jews” Baker, Dhimmi Carter and “Colossal Failure” Clinton.

    The arguments that Koch isn’t a Democrat smell of the “wasn’t really a Christian” apologetics for 20 centuries of antisemitism.

    JFK and RFK were both pro-Joseph McCarthy, along with Nixon. McCarthy was godfather to Bobby’s first child. I guess they weren’t real Democrats, either.

  14. Aaron says:

    Weltman may also want to look at last week’s Haftorah.

    Isaiah 55:5: “Behold! A nation that you did not know will you call, and a nation that knew you not will run to you, for the sake of Hashem, your G-d, the Holy One of Israel, for He has glorified you!”

    What nation could we possibly NOT know? Our mesorah is that there are 70, all known during the time of the Temples.

    My theory is that the US might be the “nation that you did not know”. It is unlike any other nation. None of us could become French, or German or Japanese or Congolese by a simple declaration as could citizens of any of those nations could become part of the “Artzot HaBrit” almost immediately. In fact, I’ve been puzzled for years by the recent invention of “Artzot HaBrit” for the USA when a direct translation should be “Artzot HaMeychadot”. I’ve asked scholars at the Wiesenthal Center and the term goes back to the early-mid-1800’s, but there is no record of why it seems to have been accepted without debate across the Jewish political and religious spectrum.

    On the other hand, King Saul lost his monarchy by kindness to Agag and the US might very well lose its privilege as the most blessed nation (“those who bless you will be blessed and those who curse you will be cursed”) by allowing the leftist and rightist kowtowing to the Religion of Peace, which has morphed into a child-sacrificing Religion of Molech.

    If the US doesn’t wake up, Mark Twain’s famous saying will need to be updated to include the empires of the Anglosphere as we end up somewhere else in our golus journeys.

    “The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then . . . passed away. The Greek and the Roman followed. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts. … All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”

  15. mycroft says:

    Throughot the modern era-there has been as much anti-semitism from the right as from the left.
    Right Nazis-Left Stalin
    Republicans have had such ohavei Yisrael as Pat Buchanan.
    BTW Kerrey had an excellent record on Israel. Re terrorism he was the one who chaired and pushed the hearings on BCCI-the rogue bank in the 90’s that funded terrorism.
    One can argue just as easily that the Democratic Party has been as good forJews as the Republican party has been.
    It is interesting that sometimes Rabbi Rosenblum refers to them as Democratic and sometimes as Democrats-they call themselves Democratic. The first Bush would refer to them politely as Democratic-the 2nd Bush follows the Limbaugh,Hannity world and slurs them as Democrats.
    Yahadus is neither Limbaugh,Hannity or Franken and Randi Rhodes. Yahadus can be found in Halacha, Hashkafa etc not in politics.

  16. Aaron says:

    Pat Buchanan hasn’t been a Republican or allowed on a republican ticket in years yet Conyers, McKinney, Waters, Lee don’t get a word of criticism. In fact, is there anything too left?

    There are more murders annually in Kerry/Kennedy’s Massachusetts prisons than in Abu Ghraib since the US took over.

    Kerry’s having a perfect record on Israel is a Democratic “Big Lie”. His wife refused to disclose her finances during the campaign. That’s unprecedented and her financial links to radical left causes are well-documented. (Yes, I think we need to look at the spouses of leaders like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Ehud Olmert and others to get a sense of where their real political “comfort zone” is.)

    I’ve voted for both parties in Presidential elections. I’m a registered Independent. Slavish fealty to the Democratic party hasn’t served us well since JFK. Since then, it’s been a steep slope all downhill. I’m furious with Dubya on the borders and on energy policy, but I also know that the alternative is far worse.

    Let’s also look at the more “modern era”. I was born in 1962. Since then, has there been more antisemitism from the right or left?

    There been more ideological hazing by the left in universities and the entertainment industry by many orders of magnitude than the worst of the brief McCarthy era.

    If you want to cite Hitler and Stalin, I’ll go back a little farther to note that the Democratic party was the party of slavery in this country and the GOP was the party of anti-slavery.

    Let’s keep the debate on what the parties ARE TODAY to a more recent time slice, OK?

    Yahadus can be found in looking at those who openly note and try to aspire to “those who bless you will be blessed” and I see that far more often with the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Hewitts than their counterparts.

  17. Henry Frisch says:

    The latest news is that the U.S. is investigating Israeli use of American made cluster bombs.

  18. Steve Brizel says:

    Of course, Yahadus is neither Democratic nor Republican. However, we ignore the political process on a national level at our own risk and peril. The fact that Joseph Kennedy was an anti Semite or that RFK might have had ties with Joe McCarthy really is irrelevant to the issue. JFK sent Hawk missiles to Israel in the early 1960s.LBJ could not help Israel prior to the Six Day War because of Vietnam and other factors.Jackson or Humphrey would have made great Presidents and friends of Israel.

    OTOH, Carter’s hostility to Israel,influence in Europe,as a Nobel winner and Arafat speechwriter cannot be denied. Clinton’s most frequent White House guest was Arafat, Ymach Shmo vZicro. Kerry views the war on terror as one rooted in law enforcement as opposed to the rise of Islamic fascism. These facts are all well documented as well as the shift in the control of the party to the groups that I mentioned in my last post.

    OTOH, James Baker was not a friend of Israel.AFAIK, Pat Buchanan is still welcome at Republican national events.OTOH, one can state that McCain and Giulani are definitely friends of Israel. Those being some of the facts ,the question is which party today can best be described as supporting Israel, projecting US sovereignty or resisting anti American and anti Israel moves by the UN or EU.

  19. Jacob Haller says:


    If I may attempt to deconstruct your argument and accusations of hypocrisy regarding Jews and immigration (post # 7). You’re saying that since Jews are obviously not indigenous to America or among her early settlers, and have benefitted from immigration there’s no legitimate basis to level criticism or question policies concerning immigration.

    However, are you saying that it’s illegitimate or disingenous for Jews to criticize ANY policy (or lately LACK of one) on immigration NO MATTER WHAT?

    That sounds like something delivered in haste and greatly lacking in nuance or detail. To associate the security concerns of open borders and unaccountable millions with xenophobic nativism is quite disingenuous in itself.

    To compare previous and current policies which have allowed Jews (plus many other groups of course) into America, with the anrchistic free-for-all on America’s southern frontier is way too stark and IMO raises the question if the two examples could both be categorized as “immigration”.

    Getting caught up in bureaucratic maelstroms whether in the department of motor vehicles or the IRS is never pleasant, but unfortunately some level of bureaucracy is necessary to keep a proper accounting and balance of society. When Jews checked into Ellis Island and gave the names of sponsors this proper accounting took place.

    Some have – with hyperactive hyperbole in my opinion – decided to compare the ideas of immigration reform with the years 1920 through 1945 when Jews were effectively shut out of the USA only to meet their doom in Europe. This argument is a fallacy as much as it is baseless. For one thing, the political players in this reform are not moving to abolish Mexican immigration. They just want it legal, accountable, and to address legitimate security concerns which unfortunately are realities we have to live with.

    Also, regarding the Daily Kos blog and their supposed periphery to the Democratic party. Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Post (06/11/06) in article about the DailyKos convention in Las Vegas and the participation of not-so-peripheral figures such as Wesley Clark and Mark Warner governor of VA

    “Clark and Warner threw fancy receptions for the participants. And when Warner spoke at lunch on Saturday, the chairs in the hall were draped with T-shirts bearing his likeness and commemorating the conference. Although a centrist in ideology, Warner has already attracted attention within the blogging community and has been trying to build relationships around the country.”

  20. Bob Miller says:

    Turning now to Mrs. Clinton (aw, do I have to?):

    If promoted from Senator from New York to President, would she still have a pragmatic reason to say nice things about Israel or even do something positive, or would she revert to type?

  21. Henry Frisch says:

    First Mr. Haller, read my name right. Sloppy reading and sloppy thought lead to faulty conclusions.

    The people coming here now to work are doing jobs no one else wants to do at the pay scale offered and are in the tradition of immigrants who have always come here. The hullabaloo about immigration conflates a concern about local terrorism (which may, may just be an overdone concern) with a racist hostility many “real Americans” have to the new people. Read what Henry James thought about the Jews who were polluting his language when he returned from his life-long sojourn in England for a vist to the old home at the turn of the last century. The reason the U.S. doesn’t have the problems the Europeans have is surely because America welcomes and assimilates its immigrants. The second generation in this country invariably learns English without government mandates to do so. I for one was glad that most of my students during my teaching career were immigrants. Only if you are a waiter or cleaner or street orange salesman could the immigrants hurt you by depressing your wages. Treat the stranger well; you (and yours) too were a stranger numerous times in the past. Yes, it behooves Jews not to be on the racist side of this issue.

  22. David N. Friedman says:

    Regarding immigration, Europe is being affected negatively by the Muslim immigrants while the US is suffering an invasion from Mexico that is dramatically changing the nation.

    For Henry Frisch, you might wish to understand the issue before speaking. There is nothing similar about a tiny number of Jews entering this nation by its laws 80 and 100 years ago and becoming a huge asset for the nation in contrast to Mexico dumping tens of millions of its countrymen over the border into our country and causing numerous negative problems.

    The Dems need the immigrants as voters since they have lost so much of their electorate through abortions they have forced on the nation.

  23. Henry Frisch says:

    Mr. Friedman-

    What is “the dramatic change”? Why won’t current immigrants be a “huge asset” to the nation as the years pass? Your comment about Democrats losing their electorate to abortions they have forced is too silly for any response.

  1. October 24, 2006

    […] A few analysts have seen the continuing evolution of anti-Israel attitudes within the Democratic Party and have noted how it is increasingly taking on the characteristics of the anti-Israel bias that is pervasive in Europe.  A few noted liberal Democrats have expressed dismay about the increasing signs of anti-Semitism within the party. These include long time liberals such as Lanny Davis (President Clinton’s counsel) and Martin Peretz (publisher of the liberal magazine The New Republic, nicknamed the in-flight magazine of Air Force One during the Clinton era) who have expressed their concern regarding the increased anti-Semitism being voiced at the grassroots level. […]

  2. October 24, 2006

    […] A few analysts have seen the continuing evolution of anti-Israel attitudes within the Democratic Party and have noted how it is increasingly taking on the characteristics of the anti-Israel bias that is pervasive in Europe.  A few noted liberal Democrats have expressed dismay about the increasing signs of anti-Semitism within the party. These include long time liberals such as Lanny Davis (President Clinton’s counsel) and Martin Peretz (publisher of the liberal magazine The New Republic, nicknamed the in-flight magazine of Air Force One during the Clinton era) who have expressed their concern regarding the increased anti-Semitism being voiced at the grassroots level. […]

  3. October 25, 2006

    Potentially dire implications……

    A good piece in American Thinker, The Europeanization of the Democratic Party… Ronald Reagan famous declaration that he “did not leave the Democratic Party. It left me” can be made more contemporary. The Democratic Party has not only lef…

  4. August 31, 2006

    Is The Democratic Party Going European? — Cont’d…

    The following item from James Taranto’s Opinion Journal column on Tuesday cites more evidence that openly anti-Semitic comments are no longer beyond the pale for the left-wing of the Democratic Party.

    The item also brings more evidence that St…

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This