The Lone Ortho

Marooned on a secular college campus, I created this blog for the dual purpose of venting and sharing my experiences, pleasant and otherwise. Join me as I traverse the treacherous terrains of galus; it's been a harrowing, yet worthwhile journey thus far. Feel free to partake in the smattering of snide remarks, random Paul Simon references, and utterly ridiculous CS jokes.

Sunday, October 31, 2004

JK Flip Flops

“Kerry has no convictions," he said. "His policies vary from week to week. The trend with Kerry is, 'The voters lead, and I will follow.'"

The above statement was made by a Reform Jew. The Orthodox Jews quoted in the article were all voting for Kerry. Yes, I do find this somewhat ironic.

(And since I'm 99% sure no one will notice, I will point out that the title of this post is also a CS reference)

posted by Devorah @ 1:31 AM  

18 Comments:

  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger TRW said…

    Fascinating...especially since the majority of Orthodox Jews on my block have Bush/Cheny signs on their lawns. In fact, the very small minority that have Kerry signs (and yes, my block is very politically active) are NOT Orthodox!

     

  • At 6:33 PM, Blogger Devorah said…

    Indeed, the trend you describe was the implicit assumption of my comment (hence the term *ironic*). The point of the article is that the "secular Jews lean to the left while Orthodox Jews lean to the right" trend may no longer hold true in the future.

     

  • At 7:09 PM, Blogger Natan said…

    Speaking of Kerry flip-flops, click here to listen to a radio ad about his flip-flops.

     

  • At 12:48 PM, Blogger Eli7 said…

    Hold on! I didn't read the article (too much school reading to do at the moment...) but I fail to understand why it is ironic for Orthodox Jews (or anyone for that matter) to vote for a liberal (or a Democrat as the case may be - Kerry is hardly a liberal despite what others may have you believe). The Jewish vote has traditionally gone to the Democratic candidate - even the Orthodox vote - and the reason is quite simple: our religion is based on chesed and helping others, not to mention the fact that we know what it is to be persecuted and know what it's like to be at the bottom of the ladder. Orthodox Jews vote Democratically so that they can help people! So, ironic? I think not.

     

  • At 7:15 PM, Blogger TRW said…

    Fine..I'll take the bait...One word: morals.
    Enjoy! Happy voting!

     

  • At 11:51 PM, Blogger TRW said…

    Well...a few more words-ARAFAT SUPPORTS KERRY!!! (see my blog for the link...thanks aishel!)

     

  • At 3:40 PM, Blogger Eli7 said…

    hold on, hold on! now somehow i feel like i'm the only Democrat on this site, but my point was (as i told a certain someone last night) that: Democrats are good people, ****!! (the profanity has been edited out in the interest of this being a "family site.") and no, they are not the most moral people in the world TRW, but their social and economic policies are designed to prevent people from starving. they are out there promoting reforms that will actually HELP people build better lives for themselves. That is why i'm a Democrat, you bloody Republicans, you! (and btw, since when did we really care what Arafat says??)

     

  • At 7:06 PM, Blogger Natan said…

    Eli7, because when a terrorist supports one person, he's doing it because he knows that he'll be able to get away with more things from him. I woulnd't be surprised to see Kerry invite him to the White HOuse (but hopefully he won't win). But its not just Arafat. Its also Hamas. And Osama bin laden. THey all support Kerry. Do you want to be on their side? Lets take a look at who supports Bush: R' Elyashiv, Rabbi H. Neuberger to name a few familiar names. Do you want to be on R' Elyashiv's side or Osama bin Laden's side?

    Links:
    Rav Elyashiv endorses BushOsama threatens Americans not to vote for BushThe terrorists are scared of Bush. OBL even admitted last week that Al-Queada took a big hit from Bush. He must remain in power.

     

  • At 12:23 AM, Blogger Eli7 said…

    ok, so you guys are all quoting a statement made by the man we trust least of all - Yassir Arafat - to prove that we should all vote for Bush?! Does anyone else see the absurdity of this?

    just a few quotes from john kerry's mission statement on israel (for the full text, see http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/jewish_americans/strength_security.html)
    “The people of Israel should also know that, as president, my commitment to a safe and secure Jewish state will be unwavering. For nineteen years, this is a pledge I have kept in the United States Senate – whether through my votes on economic aid, military security, or the location of the U.S. Embassy. And it is one I will continue to keep.”
    According to the Web site, Kerry supports the security fence, will not pressure Israel into doing anything that would compromise its security, and view Arafat as an unfit partner in any peace negotiations.
    Maybe Araft didn't bother to read that before he issued his statement of support. Maybe you people didn't read that before you voted and maybe the truth is that we have no clue what either candidate will do in the next 4 years BUT kerry's stance on israel (and social programs and the economy and everything else) seems just fine to me.

     

  • At 12:29 AM, Blogger Natan said…

    You haven't responded to any of my other comments.

     

  • At 12:32 AM, Blogger Devorah said…

    As the blog admin, I’m basking in the glory of the chaos I’ve created. Looks like Eli7 has launched an offensive. Well, my fellow Conservatives, I have interrupted this debate to rally you to respond. I’d hop into the heated dialogue myself, but, well, it’s so much more fun to watch!

     

  • At 12:53 AM, Blogger Eli7 said…

    Aishel, if i understand you correctly your sole point is basically that the terrorists support kerry and rav elyashiv supports bush - so obviously bush is the right answer. BUT kerry's web site makes it very clear that he supports israel fully and that he wants nothing more than to help israel protect itself. that's a good thing. while bush has been good for israel, he has not been good for this country - starting wars when and where they don't need to be fought is not a good thing for the US or israel. lying to the american people - not good. so now just because the terrorists from their caves in afghanistan are siding with kerry, we should all go out and vote for bush? that does not make sense! rav elyashiv, i would concur, is a much more reliable source BUT unless your personal rav paskened for you that you should vote for bush, it's not a halachic issue and well, kerry's statement says he's good for israel too. so, i see no advantage to bush - wana explain to me why i should've voted for him again because i'm still not getting it.

     

  • At 1:31 AM, Blogger Natan said…

    "while bush has been good for israel, he has not been good for this country - starting wars when and where they don't need to be fought is not a good thing for the US or israel."

    My response to that is that I guess its a matter of opinion as to wether or not it needed to be fought. Sadaam Hussein needed to be gone. Besides for the fact that he gassed his own people, besides for the fact that he gave everyone every indication that he had WMD, he was responsible for so many mass graves. Just a month ago, US troops found a mass graves with little children still holding onto their baby toys! Such is the cruelty of this animal dictator. Do you really want this man still in charge? John Kerry has said over and over again that he'd do things different. BUt he has never once said what that different thing would be. So until you suggest me a good plan, I'll go with Bush's plan.

    " lying to the american people - not good."

    When did he lie? I'm assuming you're referring to WMD. But guess what? Kerry also said that Iraq had WMD, and that we should attack them. I have a blog post about this. click here for more on the several positions Kerry has taken. With all the positions he has taken, I'd say that KERRY is the liar. Not Bush.

    Let me ask you a question: In the twenty years that Kerry has been a Senator, what good things can you tell me that he has accomplished? Let's see if you can name two.

     

  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger Eli7 said…

    The last thing i need at 8 a.m. when i still haven't finished my work that's due today is a political debate, so i'll make this really brief:
    -no, i don't think hussein is a good guy. yes i might even maybe agree that the world is better of with him not being in power. HOWEVER the ends do not justify the means. this country has a long, sordid history of involving itself in wars where it ought not do so (think vietnam). america does not belong in iraq and never did belong in iraq and this country does not need a president who is going to send american troops to die in other countries in unwarranted wars. just because you're happy with the result of this war does not mean a policy of premptive, unnecessary wars is a good thing. not to mention the fact that american soldiers are still at this very moment dying in iraq. a country should never ever want to lose its citizens. ever. (though i s'pose bush would know very little about war and its devastation.)
    -if the claim that there were WMDs in iraq was just a mistake, then why can't bush just apologize and say he was mistaken. he took a lot of time and effort after it was very clear what had happened insisting that they were still there and he was still right. we don't need a president who can't admit when he's wrong.
    -i am not going to name anything kerry has accomplished in the senate for two reasons. number one, i'm not doing research at 8 in the morning, but number two (and here's the biggy) it's becuase senators don't accomplish things on their own. ever. in this campaign there's been a really strong emphasis on saying that kerry hadn't done anything in the senate and that he flip flops on all these issues and that is just not fair. it's an exploitation by the bush campaign of the fact that americans don't understand how politics and government really work. one senator never does anything single-handedly and so can never point to something specific he's done. and in terms of his vote, well you have to look at the context of the whole bill before you can make any assumption about what any of his votes mean. the senate never voted on "do we support a war in iraq?" it gets a little more complicated than that and the american people don't understand that, so bush can come oyt ahead saying well i did x, y, and z and my opinion was clear and steady, but that's the advantage to being the president and not a senator.
    -and might i add, that while you may not love kerry's love of the UN, do we really want someone who acts as unilaterally as bush? one day, the US is going to need help from other countries and we are not going to get it thatnks to the foreign policy of the current president who alienated any country who voiced any dissent to what he chose to do.

    well, so much for being brief.

     

  • At 11:15 PM, Blogger Natan said…

    ~I really don't think its fair to compare Vietnam to Iraq. Vietnam was never a winnable war because of all the jungles, which made it hard for troops to see the enemy. Iraq was an open desert. Made it winnable. Not to mention the advance in technology made us more powerful. Also, just over 1,000 troops died in Iraq, compared to the thousands of troops who died EVERY DAY in Vietnam. The troops in Iraq are defending out freedom. And if they don't want to be in the war, then why did the majority of the military vote for Bush? They know that he supports him fully.

    ~When was the last time he said that they were still there? He has said that all evidence pointed to the fact that sadaam was interested and trying to create WMD, but ever since they looked and didn't find WMD, he never said that they're still there. And just BTW, Israel had been saying for months before the US attacked Iraq that they had been shipping large amounts of suspicious material to Syria.

    ~Senator Kerry has created literally hundreds of bills that he wanted to pass. Of those hundreds of bills only FIVE of his passed ever! He writes bills that just aren't popular. And i'm not talking about anything recent such as the war on Iraq. I'm talking about his entire 20 year career. So true they don't do anything single-handedly, but you'd expect them to have bills that are popular and actually get passed.

    ~As for your claim that Bush is exploiting Kerry, what about Kerry himself? He's said numerous times that Bush wants a draft. But guess who actually created a bill that wants the draft? Answer: his fellow democrats. yet that doesn't stop Kerry from saying that Bush is doing it.

    ~As for the UN, I really think that they are irrelevant. Everyone knows that they're a joke, and everyone knows that Israel doesn't care about them. We're better off without them.

     

  • At 11:46 PM, Blogger Eli7 said…

    -i think it is completely valid to compare vietnam and iraq. true, the casualties are not nearly as high (thank God!), but it's the same concept - america interfering where it shouldn't and fighting a war it has no businees fighting to "defend freedom." umm, you're going to have to explain that one. how exactly was iraq limiting america's freedom? america had every advantage in the book over iraq and still does. iraq never had the power to take our freedom. and the fact that the war is winnable does not make it anymore valid. we could go fight tons of wars that we could win with our technological advantages, that doesn't mean we should fight them. "because we can" is not a justification. iraq may be on a much smaller scale than vietnam, but that doesn't change the fact that americans are still dying.

    -did Bush ever admit that he was wrong about the WMDs? did he ever call a press conference, get on TV and tell the american people he was sorry and that he made a mistake?

    -while kerry may not have created many bills that were passed, how many bills did he help pass into law as a US senator? bush had no federal govt experience before he ran for president. that means he enevr passed any bills.

    -the draft bill which was proposed by democrats was designed to actually promote discussion on the issue, not to actually reinstate the draft. and, might i add, we wouldn't need a draft if bush hadn't embroiled us in a war.

    -the lack of a UN contributed to WWII so i wouldn't knock the institution. we haven't had a WW since it was created and personally i'd like to keep it that way.

     

  • At 6:59 PM, Blogger TRW said…

    Since you mentioned WWII, I'm studying it now. The US was extremely isolationist and refused to enter it. Until Pearl Harbor. Since then, there has been this fear that if we don't hit the nasty guys, they'll hit us. And they did.
    As for the UN...well...have there really not been any World Wars since then? World War means a war in which most of the "civilized" world is involved. And as for their "peace-keeping" ways, well...they believe that the Palestinians are poor, oppressed, frustrated people who need to be helped. Well, that's what Chamberlain felt about Hitler and the Germans when he gave them Czechoslovakia.

     

  • At 1:08 PM, Blogger Eli7 said…

    I only brought up WWII to say how lucky we are that we haven't had another world war and that the UN is at least partly responsible for that whether you like the UN or not. Hitting the nasty guys is very different than completely ignoring their existence is completely different than doing something about them that does not involve the ultimate use of nuclear force in a miserable war. the UN gives us the option of both not being isolationist and not beiong forced to be on the offensive. that attitude, btw, of wanting to allways hit the "nasty guys" before they hit you - "the cult of the offensive" - is what made WWI the devstataing war that it was. anyhow, this isn't meant to be a history lesson, but the point is, that the UN gives us an alternative to immediate offensive action and to isolationism. call me a liberal, but i believe that we can negotiate. war should be a very last option for countries who are threatening us. that's not the way bush views war obviously and that's a bad thing. bush's attitude is they type of attitude that got us involved in vietnam. and yes, there are lessons to be learned from WWII and no, the UN is not perfect, but unilateral offensive wars on countries that didn't threaten us is never a good thing.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home