Candidates. Be consistent. Use the same message to every audience, especially when we have the Internet to run down every public appearance. Case in point is the following which I received from the Republican Jewish Coalition:
Barack Obama’s Shifting Views on Jerusalem Are Reckless
Washington, D.C. (October 16, 2008) — The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) has released the latest in an ongoing series of national advertisements. These ads are part of a substantial advertising campaign undertaken by the RJC.
The new ad highlights the Sen. Barack Obama’s flip-flop on Jerusalem:
On Wednesday, Sen. Barack Obama supported an undivided Jerusalem.
On Thursday, he did not.
At the annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Sen. Obama said Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel. (Haaretz.com, June 5, 2008)
The very next day, Barack Obama changed his tune.
Facing criticism from the Palestinian Authority and Arab nations, Sen. Barack Obama said the future of Jerusalem would have to be negotiated by Israel and the Palestinians. (WashingtonPost.com, June 6, 2008)
In just twenty-four hours, Sen. Obama changed his position on this issue of critical importance to Israel and to Jews all over the world. Obama called his support for an undivided Jerusalem a “poor phrasing” of words. (Jerusalem Post, July 14, 2008)
Obama is a gifted public speaker. He knows that words matter. The Palestinians and the Arab nations are listening to Obama’s words. So must we.
Barack Obama should know Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It must remain undivided. Undivided, not just on Wednesdays, but every day.
RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, “One issue which unites the vast majority of the American Jewish community is that Jerusalem is and must remain ‘the undivided capital of Israel.’ Senator Obama is a savvy politician and a careful speaker. To use such a meaningful phrase in speaking to a Jewish audience and then backtrack on the issue casts doubt on the sincerity of his original words.”
“Not only does this flip-flop raise concern in the Jewish community about Obama’s position on Jerusalem,” said Brooks, “it raises a serious question whether, if Obama were to become president, American foreign policy would shift from day to day in a manner that would harm our security and our interests abroad. Our alliances with good friends like Israel, and our policies with regard to states that pose a threat to the U.S., would be compromised by the kind of reckless changes in position that Obama demonstrated in his remarks on Jerusalem.”
The major concerns about Obama come to down to two issues. Israel in not even on the table. He believes much as we do that the “Israli Settlements” need to be fazed out. Water shared wherever and Peace needs to be secured for all parties.
The two issues which Conservatives need to know about Obama…before he
voted in as our next President: (1) His position on the 2nd Amendment. He
belives this is a States Right issue….very much like that of McCain. Our chances of keeping our guns are the same for both candidates. (2) Three Supreme Court Appointments are up for grabs for the next President. We bring to your attention the appointment of Bork and other conservatives that failed to be appointed because of a very active Democratic minority! Procedural methods are available to either Filabuster the appointment or derail it in many
ways. McCain’s insistance that there be no Litmus Test….bothers us greatly. We would rather know…where these appointments come from and whether to fight them immediately or not!
Ron & Ann,
I must disagree on both points 1 & 2 Obama has shown he does not share our 2nd Amendment views and has a history of doing whatever he can to limit and constrain it. As an Enumerated Right it deserves incorporation under the 14th Amendment and should be getting it soon (I hope) in San Francisco, we’ll see. Obama has shown that while on the BOD of the Joyce Foundation he involved himself in an attempted hijacking of judicial process. Look it up for yourself! Google “Joyce Foundation, Barak Obama”. It verges on criminal intent! The results of which were even quoted in the Heller case by some of the dissenters.
Much more on this from me in a later post along with his ACORN involvment.
As for Point 2, it’s largely useless and has historically been proven to be. Once on SCOTUS all previous bets are off. However McCain has shown decent judgment in previous appointments that have come before him the senate.
Larry, on this one we both agree!