APPOINTMENTS JANUARY 16, 2013
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Readers of The New York Times, including several hundred thousand subscribers in New York, woke up Tuesday to a full-page ad on page A7, paid for by the Emergency Committee for Israel, that blared: "Who is Chuck Hagel, President Obama's anti-Israel nominee for Secretary of Defense?" Below quotes from several anti-Hagel critiques—including that of the Washington Post—the ad urges readers to call New York's senators, Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, to register opposition to Hagel.
It was a powerful ad, placed at exactly the moment when all eyes were on Schumer for signals of whether he, as an ardent supporter of Israel in the state with the largest Jewish population, would be willing to back Hagel after a private meeting with him despite the nominee's well-established skepticism over U.S. policy toward Israel. And before many Times readers had even had their second cup of coffee, Schumer made a hash of the ad by declaring his support for Hagel, who, he said, "could not have been more forthcoming in sincere"—a judgment that instantly made Hagel's confirmation far more likely.
It was not the first time that a major investment went for naught for the Emergency Committee for Israel, whose board includes neocon grandee William Kristol and the Christian conservative Gary Bauer. This past campaign year, the group spent almost $150,000 on ads promoting Mitt Romney. He lost. It spent $123,000 attacking Barack Obama. He won. Most notably, it spent a whopping $823,000 attacking Wisconsin Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin, in ads that called her “extreme” and said she had “called terrorists who attacked Israel innocent victims.” She won. It spent $58,000 attacking John Tierney, a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts. He won, despite allegations of family corruption and a strong GOP challenger. It spent $61,000 attacking California Democratic congresswoman Lois Capps. She won. The group's only consolation was that its final 2012 target, Charles Barron, lost in a Democratic congressional primary in New York City. Oh, and it helped defeat Democrat David Weprin in the 2011 special election to replace Anthony Weiner, but that seat has since disappeared in redistricting.
So, if you're keeping score at home, that's 0-1 on the presidential race, 0-1 in the Senate, and, let's say, 1.5 for 3.5 in House races. Those kind of numbers get you sent to the minors in baseball. At the very least, that track record would seem likely to cause agita with the group's funders, including hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb, who has given at least $100,000 to the organization and is famously unforgiving when entities he invests in fail to perform up to expectations. So what gives? Is there a reckoning coming for the group? Has the Washington establishment—the obvious target of TV ads such as this melodramatic one attacking Hagel, which was ran only in the D.C. media market—been excessively overawed by the group's influence?
Well, it depends. The group's stats look a little better if you take into account its performance in 2010, the first election year it was in action. Targets that year included Pennsylvania Senate candidate Joe Sestak and House Democrats Glenn Nye and Mary Jo Kilroy, all of whom lost. Tierney and New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt, also targeted, survived, as did Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut.
But there is a broader argument in the group's defense, articulated by Buzzfeed's Ben Smith, among others, that its success should not be tallied simply in candidates or nominees vanquished, but in how it manages to shape the debate even in defeat. After all, as Smith notes, Hagel won Schumer's backing only after renouncing a great deal of the realist, independent-minded policy that Obama and others admire him for." Smith writes:
The bad news for Hagel's allies among "realist" foreign policy thinkers and on the foreign policy left is that the nominee appears to have gotten Schumer's support by repudiating virtually everything they liked about him. Schumer cites "several key assurances." I count about 12 points, most of them related to Israel and Iran, on which Hagel has reversed past positions or his perceived stances, points that now come across in Schumer's voice, but which he will have to presumably reiterate in his own words in televised hearings. This was always a likely endpoint of the battle over Hagel, which has been a proxy war over Israel and over a broader foreign policy philosophy, but it has come with remarkable speed and comprehensiveness. "Senator Hagel made a crystal-clear promise that he would do 'whatever it takes' to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons," Schumer asserts in his release. Hagel also guaranteed Israel both specific hardware and a broad license to "defend herself" even "when terrorist groups hide rocket launchers among civilian populations and stage attacks from there."
I got a similar reading from one leading member of the pro-Israel groups fighting Hagel: "It’s a remarkable moment, that even with a freshly re-elected Barack Obama as president, and the Democrats controlling the Senate, Chuck Hagel has repudiated pretty much everything that got his supporters excited about him in the first place. The fact that he just abandoned, however cynically, 15 years of his own foreign policy should cause Hagel's backers to question whether their views are actually prevailing."
Final judgment on that score will come if and when Hagel is installed at the Pentagon. For now, all we know is that Tammy Baldwin's a United States Senator and Chuck Hagel is a big step closer to being secretary of defense, despite heavy spending against them by a group that saw them as part of the "emergency" facing the nation of Israel.
Follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
25 comments
Maybe it is the melodrama thing. I remember seeing one of their ads at a bus stop in DC recently, very high dungeon with a sort mustachioed villains tying damsels to train tracks mentally to it. It was covered with graffiti mocking it for just that. The content wasn't even noticed, whatever it was they were advocating was lost. It was just being mocked for being a silly ridiculous ad.
- WandreyCer
January 16, 2013 at 11:13am
I actually think that this is blowback by Jewish Democrats against Sheldon Adelson, Bernie Marcus and their ilk. The fact that certain uber-wealthy Jewish businessmen made such a big, splashy production of their antipathy for Obama during the last election has made the vast majority of Jewish Democrats automatically suspect that any criticism of the Obama Administration and its policies on Israel is just a partisan Republican front. Which, in the case of the Emergency Committee for Israel, happens to be true.
- wildboy
January 16, 2013 at 12:32pm
The identification of Israel with right wing causes is potentially disastrous for Eretz Israel but also for Jews around the world, including here. There's plenty of nascent antisemitism involving banks, big bucks and so forth and elements of the proPalestinian movement have been somewhat successful in equating Israel with the Nazis as it is. The emergence of people like Adelson, throwing huge and ostentatious piles of money at political candidates actively working against the 99%, in favor of oppressive rules aimed at women, at diversity, insulting less wealthy people and in favor of guns and against labor is really bad news. So on Hagel, many on the Left will reflexively ignore or scoff at ads like this. The fact that Hagel is, from what I can tell, a right winger himself is less important than the perception that a) he may be somewhat anti-Israel and b) powerful Jews are identified with Iraq, with Wall Street and with Romney & Co. Note: assuming that Eretz Israel and/or American Jews are collectively responsible for Wolfie and Adelson is antisemitic on its face. But, antisemitism is real and does afflict many on the Left including elements of the Democratic "big tent."
- Sophia
January 16, 2013 at 12:56pm
"... made the vast majority of Jewish Democrats automatically suspect that any criticism of the Obama Administration and its policies on Israel is just a partisan Republican front. Which, in the case of the Emergency Committee for Israel, happens to be true." I read it as ... made the vast majority of Jewish Democrats automatically suspect that any criticism of the Obama Administration and its policies on Israel IS GOING TO BE PERCEIVED AS just a partisan Republican front, a perception that Jewish democrats are terribly afraid to be caught by. What? Criticize Obama? ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL?? Too much to lose (or whatever). Jews remember well how easy it was for McCarthy to persecute Jews for being communists. Or how easy it is still to be accused of dual loyalty. It makes one really have a lot of respect for Democrat Jews, their self-confidence, their independent thinking, their pursuit of justice, etc etc. I mean, if all they care about is putting as much distance between themselves as voluble Jewish Republicans who support Israel, they really don't leave themselves too many options, do they? Anyway, this blog speaks to this issue, from an irreverent Israeli POV: http://simplyjews.blogspot.ca/2013/01/chuck-hagel-controversy-and-beyond.html
- Noga
January 16, 2013 at 1:00pm
As someone who thinks Hagel is an excellent choice for Secretary of Defense, I feel grateful to Senator Schumer for giving him a chance to disenthrall him of all the negative stuff that's been thrown at his nomination. Schumer's support will also provide valuable and much needed cover for other Democratic senators. It would represent a devastating defeat for the President if Hagel were to be rejected by the Senate.
- JackR
January 16, 2013 at 1:15pm
The Senate confirmation testimony from the nominee for secretary of defense about construction of new aircraft carriers, fighter bombers, futuristic laser guided missiles, etc. will determine whether he is confirmed. The views of the nominee towards Israel are not extreme. It's unimaginable that any nominee for the job would have politically offensive attitudes towards Israel.
- Doug12
January 16, 2013 at 1:31pm
Everyone is entitled to advocate for whatever they see fit - there are probably right and left wing segments of all societies. I just think these expensive media campaigns - and even individuals dumping tons of money in to the election - seem to be a waste of money so far if it *isn't used thoughtfully*. It's been amazing to watch. I assumed America was doomed because it was becoming apparent that money could buy anything, but that just isn't so. Money alone won't do it. We're either getting smarter or pickier as to how we as citizens prefer to be asked for our support/vote. Very interesting. As far as Hagel, if he made it past Schumer - who seemed sincerely pleased with him - then I'm ok. I'm also one of those people who trusts Obama's judgement (not blindly), but I still look forward to the hearings. Hagel has said some really dumb things in his day. But I also like the side of him described as "an enemy of cant" in the words of The Economist. I
- WandreyCer
January 16, 2013 at 1:38pm
Noga is back, incoherent as always. Shalom, we missed you out here on Planet Earth.
- wildboy
January 16, 2013 at 1:46pm
Since when did Bill Kristol have to get things right to stay in business? [And that's what he's in -- business. I've no doubt he truly believes in his causes, but I've noticed that his causes also line his pockets.] Google "Bill Kristol predictions" or something along those lines. He's less accurate than a broken clock. That's the great thing about being a prominent right-wing media type in this country. You can make scads of dough and stay "relevant" forever and you never have to be correct about anything. It's the best gig in the world. At least until Uncle Rupert croaks. Who knows what happens then? His kids seem less committed to the cause.
- DC Spence
January 16, 2013 at 3:03pm
Is the Emergency Committee for Israel on a Losing Streak? I hope so. What is it with ex-Trotskyites and their offspring? Everything is an in your face, life or death fight between darkness and light and good and evil. Moderation is in neither their vocabulary or ideology. Good riddance when it is gone. It is an embarrassment to the tribe.
- SFergessen
January 16, 2013 at 3:21pm
“For now, all we know is that Tammy Baldwin's a United States Senator and Chuck Hagel is a big step closer to being secretary of defense, despite heavy spending against them by a group that saw them as part of the "emergency" facing the nation of Israel.” Not “in spite of” but because of. That is the whole problem with this incident: those Jewish conservative groups made it impossible to challenge Hagel on other grounds. It’s become all about Israel, as if there were no other qualification needed. I would have preferred a secretary of Defense who was a lifelong Democrat. I don’t agree that Hagel was the only or even the best qualified person for the job. Besides given his right wing bias on women’s issues and on gays this should have been enough to sink his nomination. I have been keeping a different score card with which to judge the pro-Israel conservatives, Jewish or non-Jewish. They screwed up on Iraq and as a consequence they helped create an Iran that is the most powerful State in the region. They supported the Bush administration’s clamor for democratization in the middle East and as a consequence they helped bring Hamas to power in Gaza. And later on (since once the US was committed to bringing “democracy” to a region that has never had it it was hard t change course) helped create the Islamic Spring in that region. What’s the score so far? I lost count. These folk get everything wrong. The evidence that Hagel was an antisemite boiled down to “Hagel” has a “friend who is a notorious anti-Israel if not anti-Semite.” This reminds me off their claims that Obama is anti-Israel if not antisemitic because he had a friend who….(fill in the blank). This “he has a friend shtick has gotten old. Used to be “are you now or have you ever been….” Now it’s “do you have a friend who is now or ever was….” And they are just cynical enough to think that people will swallow their manure. Well, they got what they deserve, I hope they go out of business and soon.
- arnon1
January 16, 2013 at 4:34pm
"Noga is back, incoherent as always. Shalom, we missed you out here on Planet Earth." wildboy: And here I thought you liked me. I'm quite crushed.
- Noga
January 16, 2013 at 4:44pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/01/16/from-obamas-lips-no-respect-for-israel/?wprss=rss_right-turn "The problem is not settlements. The problem is a U.S. president so hostile to the state of Israel that he has encouraged its foes and demonstrated no downside to bullying the Jewish state. His nomination of Chuck Hagel is part and parcel of this. By selecting a secretary of defense with a pronounced record of disrespect for the Israel- U.S. relationship he sends the message: The United States doesn’t have Israel’s back. I wonder what Sen. Chuck Chumer (D-N.Y.) thinks of the president’s comments. He can ask Hagel at the confirmation "
- Noga
January 16, 2013 at 5:56pm
Noga should first tell J. Rubin that its Chuck Schumer not Chumer.
- arnon1
January 16, 2013 at 6:23pm
"The problem is not settlements. The problem is a U.S. president so hostile to the state of Israel..." If this is so then why take it out on Hagel his Defense Secretary nominee? The logic of Ms. Rubin and her ilk escapes me.
- arnon1
January 16, 2013 at 6:49pm
After Bibi's clip art bomb, drama has run its course. Time to grow up and stop the tantrums.
- smabry03
January 16, 2013 at 7:29pm
" tantrums.""?? You mean, Israel has nothing whatsoever to fear from a nuclear Iran?
- Noga
January 16, 2013 at 7:35pm
This piece isn't about Israel. It's about whether the Committee is a success or a failure. On pure numbers, it hasn't done so well this time round, though it did pretty well in 2010. I like the point MacGillis makes about shaping, better, actually, to say help shape, the debate. It seems it did help given Hagel's repudiation of so many past positions, as MacGillis notes. It would be hard, mind you, to tell where WAPO stopped and the Committee started in that shaping. I'd give a strong edge to the former as reflecting and reinforcing an important slice of mainstream doubt about Hagel far beyond his positions on Israel. Of all the comments on this thread I'd say Arnon's and Wandreycer's are the most balanced and reasonable. (BTW, Those who think Jennifer Rubin has a point about Obama's endemic hostility to Israel need check in with their travel agent, to pick up on a previous trope: time for the return tickets from Mars.)
- basman
January 16, 2013 at 7:35pm
Any pro-GOP group would have a good record in 2010. Bill Kristol could have decided which Republican candidates to back by consulting a oujia board and posted a winning record that year.
- DC Spence
January 16, 2013 at 8:44pm
Aside from it having no basis of knowing anything about the nature of reality, I am not sure what else should be said against religious belief. Except that the Middle East -- perhaps the most religious part of the world -- both throughout istory and continuing to this day -- has a serious claim for being the most violent, intolerant, and dangerous despite the serous competition from elsewhere. As smabry said, "Time to grow up and stop the tantrums." Humans --religious and secular -- are very unstable and dangerous -- but religionists have blundered wickedly for THOUSANDS of years. Secularists, for all our flaws, show more signs of growing up than religionists, so perhaps we (secularists) should breaak dislomatic andeconomic relations with all the religionsts of the world. Even if they (including the Jews) throw tantrums.
- skahn
January 16, 2013 at 11:18pm
Many if not most of the issues facing the US in the middle east have little to do with Israel: "Americans among hostages after militants seize Algerian gas field" http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-algeria-hostages-20130117,0,7280192.story
- arnon1
January 16, 2013 at 11:55pm
If you think about it, human beings have played a species-wide game of Russian Roulette with ourselves throughout human history, raising the stakes each generation. Now we play with nuclear weapons, intentional viruses, etc. etc. That gun is going to go off one of these days. We WAY overdue.
- skahn
January 17, 2013 at 12:18am
Stop playing Russian roulette, kahn, and you want have to worry about anyone else playing it. Above all stop feeling sorry for yourself. Your shtick has gotten old.
- arnon1
January 17, 2013 at 12:32am
What does it mean "you want have to worry about "?? Did you mean "won't"??
- Noga
January 17, 2013 at 6:35am
Alec MacGillis, usually perceptive, gets it all wrong in suggesting Chuck Hagel surrendered to Chuck Schumer in order to receive Senator Schumer's blessing. Context matters. Kristol--yes MacGillis is right, Kristol and his ilk are on a losing streak-- but Hagel's comments all come at the time of a reckless Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld policy on Iraq, Iran and so many other places. Hagel was appointed because he is with the Obama policy. The Bush recklessness is hopefully gone. Hagel will be a strong voice for a strong Iran policy, with nothing off the table, and be a frank and valued advisor to Obama. Schumer, a Likud fellow traveller, will undoubtedly keep pushing for more of a military tilt on Iran and keep no space between him and Netanyahu. That's fair game as much as I disagree with Schumer. Schumer, with large leadership ambitions, could abandon being a serious Senator (which he is) or turn into a Dov Hifkind and dissipate his seriousness. David Cohen, Washington, DC
- mogen
January 18, 2013 at 9:03am