We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, February 9. 2010
Tom Campbell Positions On Israel
I asked Tom Campbell pointed questions about his stance toward
Tom Campbell, who leads in the Republican primary to unseat unhinged Barbara Boxer as US Senator from California, has come in for criticism of his support for Israel being inadequate, if not even hostile.
For example, Jennifer Rubin today wrote:
Several weeks ago, concerned about Campbell's stance toward Israel, I contacted someone within the
Tom Campbell is known for not being sheepish about his views. In my questions, below, I asked for unequivocal answers, and Tom Campbell did personally reply without equivocation. Every politician should be asked the same direct questions for direct replies. See below:
1. Would Campbell have voted for, against, or abstained in the Senate vote on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (S. 2799)?
Yes, I would have voted in favor. Note that I'm already on record to support Israeli military action, if it comes to that, directed at destroying
2. Would Campbell vote in favor, against, or abstain in the vote on the full $3-billion security assistance aid to Israel in President Obama's proposed budget?
I have always voted for the military aid portion of assistance to
3. Would Campbell vote in favor, against, or abstain in the repeated votes in favor of the US recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving the US Embassy there?
I always favored the United States paying Israel the respect we pay other nations, of recognizing the capital city of their own choosing, and placing our embassy there.
The War Powers Act is triggered only by the presence of US troops in "hostilities." Nothing in sending arms and supplies to
4.B. Would Campbell vote in favor, against, or abstain in his vote for such an act of Congress?
I would vote in favor. My vote in favor of going to war when Saddam Hussein invaded
5. Does Campbell support, criticize, or have no public position about the Goldstone Report?
I have not read the Goldstone Report, and would need to do so before offering an informed opinion.
6. Does Campbell believe, not believe, or undecided on whether the "
All Americans have the right to petition Congress and the President, and those Americans who wish to do so on behalf of a stronger American-Israeli relationship should not be criticized for doing so. The influence of those Americans is not "excess influence."
OK, politicians are politicians, and often say what they think the electorate wants to hear.
Posted by Bruce Kesler at 18:00 | Comments (9) | Trackbacks (2)
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
#5: Having not read the report, he offers no opinion on it? I could vote for him almost on that basis alone. I have no idea what's in the Goldstone report, but utter ignorance hasn't stopped a lot of members of Congress from voting "stupid".
Tom sounds like the complete scumbag. He fits the California model politician to a slime on the test tube.
Goldstone report.....what a shit.
"In 1990, Campbell was one of just 34 House members to vote against a resolution expressing support for Jerusalem as Israel’s capital." T or F?
If T, how does that 1990 vote comport with "I always favored the United States paying Israel the respect we pay other nations, of recognizing the capital city of their own choosing, and placing our embassy there."?
Bruce ... Sometimes I think that the Israelis are probably the gretest warriors, in the classic sense, left in this world. But then ... they have to be, to survive at all.
Ahmadinijad should be pretty worried right now.
A member of Tom Campbell's campaign, several weeks ago, commented to me that some presentations of Campbell's record on Israel while in Congress in the '90s are misrepresented, specifically going into detail about Campbell's effort to redirect economic aid from Israel back to sub-Saharan Africa, the subcommittee for which Campbell served on. I, further, looked into what to me was troubling, Campbell's adherence to the 1973 War Powers Act. I presented both matters in the post.
I haven't read the many pages of the Congressional Record regarding the details of other specific votes by Campbell. Some commentors raise questions about seeming contradictions between what Campbell answered to my pointed questions and how his '90s votes fit, or not, with that.
The purpose of my questions was to put Campbell on the record for his current views, even though they may differ from previous. Tom Campbell, commendably, answered immediately and directly. Whether the presentation of his prior views is accurate, or not, is not the issue so much as that all would desire for politicians to learn and improve their views, and their current stance is more important than their previous.
Still, in campaigns, a politician's prior views and actions are a legitimate item for discussion. A politician would not want to get mired in old views that have changed. But, a politician whose views have changed should, at least, go on record with full explanation, and then move on to the current. Those who do, are admired. Those who don't, less so.
My questions to Campbell were not meant to delve into changes, in the brief space available. The current is more important.
Still, as the member of his campaign initiated the discussion and clarification of some of the charges raised by Campbell opponents, it is not acceptable to me for Campbell to not continue to clarify, if they be, the other charges made against him, for the record in this site, for completeness.
A member of the Campbell campaign wrote me yesterday, "Thanks very much for writing the post. Very straightforward and to-the-point."
It, IMHO, is smart to finish the points at issue. Then, move on.
I will probably vote for another in the Rep primary, who is closer to my views, but I dislike needless or false mud-slinging, and I like issues, including about Israel, to be honestly discussed, with facts, and not be misrepresented or twisted. Misrepresented or twisted presentations harm the speaker and the audience's ability to deal sanely with issues.
I've invited the member of Campbell's campaign to further speak to what may or may not be changes or may or not be misrepresentations.
Campbell is a republican throw back.
Removing Boxer and puttin' in a stinkin' carp ain't no improvement.
Certainly, California can send forward a Republican with some smarts.
Runnin' this boy would be, like runnin' Palin in 2012, just stinkin' awful.
It's a symbol of Jewish control of this country and our media that the only loyalty a candidate for American public office is required to proclaim is his loyalty to a foreign country...the Jewish State of Israel.
Would it be too much to ask if candidates for American public office were judged on their loyalty to the American people rather than to wealthy powerful foreign Jews?
Rather, support of Israel is a symbol, indeed more than a symbol, a necessity, of backing a strong ally in the treacherous and hostile MidEast. Similarly, it goes hand-in-hand with revealing those in the US and abroad who support and aid our own enemies.
Candidates for office are correctly judged by whether they see these realities and act upon them.
Our security is tied to Israel on the front-line, protecting both our countries, and both our countries' common values.
Tracked: Feb 09, 18:43
Campbell is leading the Republican race to face Barbara Boxer for US Senate in California. His positions on Israel as a Congressman has made him controversial. See Daniel Halper's post at The Weekly Standard, for instance: Tom Campbell's Israel Problem...
Tracked: Feb 09, 20:24
Tracked: Feb 25, 18:21
California Republican Senate primary contenders Tom Campbell, Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore had an hour radio debate today, their first, slated to focus on national security issues. I listened closely to the first 43-minutes, leaving to play 1-on-1
Tracked: Mar 06, 12:02
Tracked: Mar 13, 05:27
Tracked: Mar 13, 05:27
Aside from waiting, and waiting, for Barbara Boxer – a usual friend of Israel – to speak out in its defense, I’ve been waiting for the Republican contenders for the US Senate seat. They and their surrogates and supporters have spoken and spoken
Tracked: Mar 16, 17:54