Rabbi Marc Gellman, writing in Newsweek, expresses puzzlement about why Joe Lieberman did so poorly among Connecticut’s Jews. Here’s part of it:
Joe Lieberman did not lose the Democratic primary because of his support for the war in Iraq. He lost because of his lack of support from Jews. Joe got the support of black Baptists (except of course for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who stood so conspicuously behind challenger Ned Lamont on election night). He got the support of Catholic Union guys. He got the support of all the Connecticut papers, and he got the support of most Jews, but not at all an overwhelming number of Jews and that is why he lost. He lost because Barbra Streisand’s highly publicized contribution to Lamont and because of the number of Jews who hated Bush and the war more than they loved Joe. That’s why he lost, and I don’t get it.
Please understand, this is not a political rant. Yes, I support the war and yes I support and admire President George W. Bush, but I understand and respect those who have come to another conclusion about how best to fight the war on terror. My disappointment is with my people. I simply do not understand why so many Jews bailed on Joe. I cannot understand why Joe’s percentage of the Jewish vote was not in the high 90s instead of the 54-57 percent range (according to Lieberman’s campaign). I have opinions on way too many things I don’t know nearly enough about, but I know about Jews. I am a professional Jew, and yet if you asked me to explain why Jews did not vote for Joe the way blacks voted for Barack Obama or Catholics voted for John F. Kennedy I would not know what to tell you.
In truth I am also bewildered about why Jews do not support President Bush more than the pathetic 22-26 percent (depending on which exit poll you look at) he received in 2004. Bush would win a landslide in Israel, and never once invited Yasir Arafat to the White House, but that is a bewilderment best left for another day. What has frozen me is the lack of support for Joe by Jews. Joe voted the Democratic line 90 percent of the time. Twenty-nine other Democrats also voted for the war and none of them was targeted (yet). Joe is the most famous Jewish politician of all time (unless you count former New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia whose mother was Jewish). He is an observant Jew and obviously he was on the presidential ticket in 2000. He is modest and self effacing. He is moral and faithful. He is principled and intelligent … and he is one of us! What more do you want of the guy?
There’s a lot more in his impassioned and thoughtful essay but perhaps the answer is a bit simple:
Few groups are totally monolithic anymore. Just because people are Jewish doesn’t mean they’re going to be more inclined to vote for him if other factors are there — or NOT there.
Perhaps one of the factors in this whole Lieberman saga that is being forgotten is this: Joe Lieberman has not shown the kind of political skills in recent years that you would expect of a longtime Senator.
Reagan was the Teflon candidate; Lieberman became the Velcro candidate. Some news stories noted how he was scrambling to press the flesh back home once he saw he was in serious trouble with the Lamont challenge.
As I’ve written here, I am originally from Connecticut (but was voting in California when in 1988 Lieberman defeated Lowell Weicker — a politician I greatly admired for his courage in pressing the Watergate issue early on despite anger from his own party for doing so). Lieberman carried New Haven (my home town), where he has long had his law practice. In fact, a relative of mine met him before he was Senator several times. This relative — who is obviously Jewish — was notably unimpressed with him personally, to this day calling him a “cold fish” and “a sourpuss.” He still got the person’s vote, mostly because he was a well-known local.
Perhaps, too, Lieberman’s lecturing style has not worn well with Jewish voters (he almost sounds like a stereotypical Jewish mother at times). And then there’s the other aspect of how he has operated politically in recent months. His statement right after the foiled airlines plot came to light trying to tie it in with the now-Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont won’t play well with many voters:
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut seized on the reports of a terror plot yesterday to attack Ned Lamont, his Democratic opponent for re-election, saying that Mr. Lamont’s goal of withdrawing American troops from Iraq by a fixed date would constitute a “victory� for extremists.
“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,� Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.�
Even someone who is NOT a Lamont supporter could be offended by that comment.
And it could lose Lieberman even more support from Jewish voters. I know many Jewish voters who are vehemently against anything that even slightly hints of McCarthyite tactics. It scares them. Lieberman may truly believe this about Lamont — and the case could be argued that, yes, extremists could see the victory of anti-war candidates as a sign that some policies might change — but when faced with a choice between allowing unfettered, free political speech and backing those who define opponents who question policies as enablers of enemies of the state, some Jewish voters will balk.
Those who think all Jewish voters are liberals are wrong. And those who think the bulk are conservatives are wrong, too. It isn’t a monolithic group.
Lieberman is not entitled to the vote of Jewish voters because he’s an Orthodox Jew — just as Ralph Reed found out that many Christian voters wouldn’t give him their vote just because of his religion.
So it’s no surprise. ALSO: there are signs the Connecticut GOP may try and field a stronger candidate. That could further complicate the task of Lieberman — who kissed off a whole segment of his political party when he said Lamont’s victory would be welcomed by extremists.
Is what he said partly true? Again, someone could argue the case yes (as others will angrily argue the case no). But a GOOD POLITICIAN would not use that verbal atomic bomb. Especially this EARLY in the campaign.
Lieberman isn’t getting as many Jewish votes as the Rabbi would think because the real truth is: his political skills are rusty.
Lieberman is not entitled to anyone’s vote just because he shares their religion or even if he shares a lot of their views. He has to execise political skills that successful politicians who took controversial or even downright hated stands have for years. He has to earn it.
He didn’t work hard or effectively enough in recent years — so he didn’t earn it on Tuesday and he isn’t earning it among many Jewish voters.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.