Diary

Inside the Lobby

Steve Urkel.

Posted to Diary on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:29:07 PM EST. RSS.

"A convention of 7,000 mostly rich people, with more than half the Congress in attendance, as well as all the major presidential candidates, the prime minister of Israel, the minority leader, the majority leader, and the speaker of the House. Yet there is precious little journalism about the spectacle in full. The reason seems obvious: the press would have to write openly about a forbidden subject, Jewish influence."

Philip Weiss attends the annual AIPAC conference.

Tags: (all tags)

This story: 29 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Re: Inside the Lobby

thefadd.

Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:34:16 PM EST

5.00 (funny, funny)

My favorite story on this subject was about a guy I sat next to on a greyhound bus outside of Denver. He said his friend had uncovered information about the gay-jewish conspiracy to control Hollywood and if I didn't hear about it being blown wide open in the next several days, then I could know that something bad had happened to his friend. I relayed this story to my gay-jewish friend in Hollywood who was like, "Conspiracy? I don't think the fact that gays and jews control Hollywood is exactly hidden!"

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

2

^ 1

Re: Inside the Lobby

Lou.

Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 03:00:04 PM EST

5.00 (astute, astute)

I'm just glad you didn't argue with him or you might have wound up like that poor bastard in Edmonton.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

4

^ 2

Take The Bus And Leave The Beheading To Us.

MayorBob.

Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 04:33:37 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

One of the early stories I read online had one of the Canadian cops saying that authorities believed the decapitator "may have been having psychological problems." I wonder where they got that idea from?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

3

^ 1

Re: Inside the Lobby

Steve Urkel.

Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 03:37:45 PM EST

none

That's funny. Though like the AIPAC influence, even though everyone knows it exists, you still get in trouble for saying so in print.

Also, like Weiss, and I imagine anyone who has never attended, despite awareness of how influential AIPAC is I was surprised by the nature of the goings on at the AIPAC convention.

15

Re: Inside the Lobby

T Slothrop.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:32:33 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

While everyone is now having a nice laugh at Gordon's expense, is it possible to look at this issue without dragging anti-semitism into it?

The US has a HUGE strategic investment in the continued existence of the state of Israel, yes? Liberal Jews and conservative Evangelicals are united on this one point, yes? Most US politicians are afraid to ignore Israel, yes? We may end up fighting a large-scale war in the region in the defense of Israel, yes?

If you agreed with some or most of these statements, then maybe it isn't too much of a stretch to say the AIPAC conference should have received just a bit more attention from the MSM than it did,

{Insert amusing quotation here}

16

^ 15

Re: Inside the Lobby

ms sue.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:36:10 AM EST

none

While everyone is now having a nice laugh at Gordon's expense, is it possible to look at this issue without dragging anti-semitism into it?

Not while poor Gordon/Urkel is here.

18

^ 16

Re: Inside the Lobby

Steve Urkel.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:14:31 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

The new anti-semitism: linking to an accurate account of the AIPAC convention written by Phillip Weiss; linking to an article about AIPAC's influence written by Jeffrey Goldberg published in the notoriuosly anti-semetic New Yorker; quoting the words of the head of AIPAC and of senators who attend the AIPAC conference who say they consult with AIPAC "everyday".

23

^ 18

Re: Inside the Lobby

ms sue.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:45:34 PM EST

none

My comment was broader than you choose to infer.

I'm not new to this, shumway, but I just rarely play -- or bite, I should say.

27

^ 23

Re: Inside the Lobby

thefadd.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:18:20 PM EST

none

No, you usually fish ;-)

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

28

^ 27

Re: Inside the Lobby

ms sue.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:46:50 PM EST

none

Since you have me blocked on that other site, I'm always surprised when I see a reply from you.  It must be tough not having that function here. :-)

29

^ 28

Re: Inside the Lobby

thefadd.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:50:19 PM EST

none

I don't know how I get by.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

17

^ 15

Re: Inside the Lobby

thefadd.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:49:46 AM EST

none

Urk's certainly got Shumway's reputation to uphold but his comments here on paper have been more nuanced and less boldly offensive than those of Gordon. If people want to see veiled prejudice behind everything he says then people will but I don't think there's anything anti-semitic about questioning.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

19

^ 15

Still, No

uncarved block.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:44:21 PM EST

none

     If the MSM was better at covering power and how it's used, then the Jewish angle- and AIPAC in general- might deserve more attention, or at least garner more in the papers. But they don't, really, outside of specialty sites like The Hill or Roll Call, and even they are more about process than politics. Without some kind of conflict, some kind of story to tell- and all the coverage indicates AIPAC lacks much dissension- I wouldn't be at all surprised that the only network to show up would be C-SPAN.* Israel is just one of many topics where the lack of conflict leads to a dearth of coverage.
     And it's not as if the same question hasn't been asked before-- less than a minute on Google found me this. Michael Kinsley also had this little nugget. If you read only one of these links, that one should be it, because he also brings up the question of hype: I mean, really, how many organizations lead with a listing of failures, reversals and missed opportunities at an annual meeting? Especially one aimed at raising money? When self promotion runs so rife, when is it a virtue to start digging into the claims of a lobby?
    Don't get me wrong-- in my ideal world, the press would have a lot more coverage of meetings like this than what actually reaches the page, and even more the screen. But when there are a host of other reasons why a powerful PAC might not get covered, bringing up "Jewish influence" first will raise a few eyebrows.

     *Indeed, C-SPAN gives the rest of the media a huge excuse to pass on all sorts of stories, and either dismiss them as "inside baseball", or simply ignore them as "boring." From the comedy show MXC: Kenny, "Really? What do you do on a date when you're dead?" Vick, "Well, you can watch C-SPAN book interviews . . . " Now I was a huge fan of Booknotes, but understand that for many it would be considered the dullest thing on television.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

20

^ 19

Re: Still, No

thefadd.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:24:40 PM EST

none

If the MSM was better at covering power and how it's used, then the Jewish angle- and AIPAC in general- might deserve more attention, or at least garner more in the papers.

I would have to agree with that. I don't think it has anything to do with Judiasm so much as it has to do with the fact that the media don't play up the obviously true angle that people with more money and influence have more money and influence in the political process. I think it has as much to do with the fact that people with money and influence would for the most part like to keep that quiet as it has to do with the fact that the media would prefer to think they own that influence as it has to do with the fact that most people just don't find it sexy programming.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

21

^ 19

Re: Still, No

Steve Urkel.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:41:41 PM EST

none

"bringing up "Jewish influence" first will raise a few eyebrows"

Which is the problem. Jews are uptight about discussing Jewish influence, and there are a lot of Jews in the media, so AIPAC's influence doesn't get discussed.

5

3 minutes I'll never get back

profwhat.

Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:04:02 AM EST

none

OK, I scanned the article, and that's 3 minutes of my life I'll never get back.  What is the point?  Where's the red meat here?  The writer attended a convention of people interested in Israel, and they talked about Israel--so?

6

^ 5

Re: 3 minutes I'll never get back

Steve Urkel.

Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:05:03 PM EST

none

"Where's the red meat here?"

What did you expect, a description of baby blood drinking?

Who the attendees were is interesting, as is the level of media coverage. If more than half the Congress, both presidential candidates, the prime minister of another country, the minority leader, the majority leader, and the speaker of the House all were in attendance at an oil or insurance lobby convention, I think that would be notable. But for some reason in AIPAC's case it's not.

And the nature of the goings on is interesting too. Like:

"Little documentaries called "Zionist Stories" play on the Jumbotron, complete with footage of Auschwitz, and then the subject of the documentary comes out on stage to thundering applause. There is breakout session after breakout session on Middle East policy and Jewish identity and anti-Semitism, with star turns by Natan Sharansky, Bill Kristol, and Leon Wieseltier."

That's bizarre and creepy. AIPAC has huge influence on our foreign policy - should we really be basing our foreign policy on that sort of emotionalism?

7

^ 6

Re: 3 minutes I'll never get back

profwhat.

Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:21:56 PM EST

none

No, it's not notable; every minority group that holds a convention in DC gets a lot of politicians to show up.  The NAACP probably had a ton of politicians, too.  The lack of press attention to this is probably due to the fact that it is so expected, and un-noteworthy.  You are right that the same turnout at an oil or insurance convention would probably be more noteworthy.

You can watch (at least some) of the "Zionist stories" videos here; they seem dull but not exactly newsworthy, or bizarre, or creepy, or emotional.

AIPAC has huge influence on our foreign policy - should we really be basing our foreign policy on that sort of emotionalism?

Missing here is (a) proof that AIPAC has a huge influence on foreign policy, (b) proof that AIPAC's views are based on emotionalism, and (c) proof that "we" are basing foreign policy on the diktats of AIPAC, rather than on the policy preferences of elected representatives.

8

^ 7

Re: 3 minutes I'll never get back

Steve Urkel.

Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:22:47 PM EST

none

Blacks are 12% of the population, Jews 2%. Did the NAACP convention draw the types of power brokers AIPAC did? No.

"The lack of press attention to this is probably due to the fact that it is so expected, and un-noteworthy."

Expected by whom? Perhaps by journalists and insiders, but not by ordinary Americans.

"Missing here is (a) proof that AIPAC has a huge influence on foreign policy"

According to AIPAC it has a lot of influence:

"aipac's leaders can be immoderately frank about the group's influence. At dinner that night with Steven Rosen, I mentioned a controversy that had enveloped aipac in 1992. David Steiner, a New Jersey real-estate developer who was then serving as aipac's president, was caught on tape boasting that he had "cut a deal" with the Administration of George H. W. Bush to provide more aid to Israel. Steiner also said that he was "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton Administration over the appointment of a pro-Israel Secretary of State. "We have a dozen people in his"--Clinton's--"headquarters . . . and they are all going to get big jobs," Steiner said."

AIPAC is routinely ranked by other lobbyists as one of the most influential lobbies. As Jeffrey Goldberg notes in the article linked above, "aipac is a leviathan among lobbies, as influential in its sphere as the National Rifle Association and the American Association of Retired Persons are in theirs, although it is, by comparison, much smaller. (aipac has about a hundred thousand members, the N.R.A. more than four million.)"

10

^ 8

Re: 3 minutes I'll never get back

profwhat.

Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:43:10 PM EST

4.50 (funny, interesting)

"We have a dozen people in his"--Clinton's--"headquarters . . . and they are all going to get big jobs,"

Holy crap, I remember people like that in 1992.  Everyone thought they had it in with Clinton.  Clinton had that ability, I guess; he kept everyone thinking he was on their side until it was too late to realize that he was on no one's side but his own.  So how many "big jobs" did AIPAC people get in the Clinton administration?  Do you really think Warren Christopher was their first choice?

13

^ 10

Re: 3 minutes I'll never get back

Steve Urkel.

Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:43:15 PM EST

5.00 (interesting)

Your comment caused me to think more about this, and the more I look at it the more I realize I've underestimated AIPAC influence.

It's obviously difficult to tell about indirect connections - for example ordinary citizens would have no way to know about Larry Franklins connection to AIPAC,  until after he was indicted for spying.

I don't know if Christopher was AIPAC's first pick or not, but he's on the board of AIPAC spin-off group WINEP.

Former AIPAC employees in or connected to the Clinton administration that I discovered by casual googling:

Mickey Kantor, former AIPAC board member, was a Clinton-Gore campaign chair in 1992, appointed United States Trade Representative, also served for a time as United States Secretary of Commerce.

Martin Indyk, special assistant to U.S. President Bill Clinton and as senior director of Near East and South Asian Affairs at the United States National Security Council.

Longtime Clinton confidante Susan Thomases.

Informal Gore advisor Steve Grossman.

Gore fundraiser/informal consultant David Steiner, the AIPAC guy mentioned above who bragged about his influence on the Clintons.

Former AIPAC employees in the DNC:

David Steiner, after resigning from AIPAC after those comments above were made public, he later became an official with the DNC.

In 1997 former head of AIPAC Steve Grossman was named head of the DNC.

Those are just overt connections to the democrats. You find the same thing with Republicans.

On AIPAC influence:

"I don't sit behind my desk and come up with this stuff," Coleman said, stressing that he often consulted AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr for policy advice. Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat from Maryland, said that she, too, often spoke to Kohr and others in the AIPAC leadership. "They're like daily phone calls," she said, as other Democratic and Republican members of Congress onstage nodded in agreement."  

14

^ 13

I'm convinced Steve.

MayorBob.

Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:48:06 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

I'm personally standing watch looking out for the black helicopters with the Star of David on them.  Did you ever consider that the Jews are actually descended from ancient astronauts on a mission to infect the Cosmos with gefilte fish and klezmer music?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

22

^ 13

Meanwhile, back at headquarters

Lou.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:40:47 PM EST

none

Christ (a jew) on a crutch Gordon, do you have a dedicated staff who can bring you facts (if they are facts) with a snap of a finger?  Or is writing up stuff like this your full time job?  Hey...wait a minute...are you Cal Thomas?  (He used to have a mustache, you know)

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

24

^ 22

Re: Meanwhile, back at headquarters

Steve Urkel.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:46:44 PM EST

none

When I do my morning pilates I watch the Al-Jazeera network.

25

^ 24

Re: Meanwhile, back at headquarters

Lou.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:48:55 PM EST

none

Did you meant say Pilates?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

26

^ 25

Re: Meanwhile, back at headquarters

thefadd.

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:17:18 PM EST

none

He meant to say Pirates.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

11

^ 10

Re: 3 minutes I'll never get back

Steve Urkel.

Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:14:54 PM EST

none

I don't know, journalists weren't interested in asking for the names of these dozens of people AIPAC had in the upper reaches of the Clinton campaign.

 

12

^ 11

Re: 3 minutes I'll never get back

Lou.

Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:26:54 PM EST

none

Damn Gurkle!  You right...I smell cover up!

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

9

^ 8

Re: 3 minutes I'll never get back

thefadd.

Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:31:45 PM EST

none

McCain's and Bush's presence at July's annual NAACP convention were well covered by the press.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

This story: 29 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment