KERRY Events

Letter to the Jewish Exponent from subscriber Dr. Daniel E. Loeb

Dear Sir,

I am writing about the editorial "Game Over?" which appeared in the August 26, 2004 issue of the Jewish Exponent. ()

You set up a straw man in order to tear him down. The article is in response to the recent poll of Jewish voters performed by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for the National Jewish Democratic Council and The Solomon Project. However, instead of summarizing the poll findings fairly or directing them to the NJDC website for details, you construe the Democratic spin in two misleading words:

"For them, the meaning ... could be summed up in two words: game over" upon which you then attack the Democrats in general for taking the Jewish vote for granted, and the Jews for putting their domestic agenda ahead of their concern for the state of Israel.

Regardless of Kerry's lead among Jews, every additional vote for Kerry will make a big difference, especially in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. The Democrats recognize this and are seeking out Jewish votes by sending out field representatives, advertising, and organizing volunteers including here in the Philadelphia. The NJDC points out the strength of Kerry's support for Israel (See for example, "John Kerry and Israel -- The Record"), and failures of Bush to adequately support Israel (See for example "George Bush and Israel -- The Record: 'Far From Perfect'" ).

I remain convinced that even for Jewish Democrats for whom Israel is the "decisive issue", Kerry is the right choice.

You say "Game Over?" I say "It ain't over until the Secretary of State sings."

Reply from Editor Jonathan Tobin

I am afraid that you are the one setting up the straw man.

I wrote not a word attacking the poll, though in truth, many have questioned its timing and methodology. In fact, I accepted the results at face value and agreed that most Jews would support Kerry.

As for accusing the Democrats of taking the Jews for granted, I never wrote that.

As for downplaying the poll or not giving more details, in your devotion to reading my column I guess you missed the front page story on it with the accompanying graphic.

You are certainly entitled to believe that Kerry is better on Israel than Bush but my point was that there are still some votes out there that can be won on the issue of Israel. My advice to both parties is that they are worth the effort to compete for them.

Thanks for writing and for sharing your views.

My rejoinder

> I wrote not a word attacking the poll, though in truth, many have questioned
> its timing and methodology.

I accused you not of distorting the poll but of portraying the Democrats of thinking "game over" when nothing is further from the truth. If that isn't accusing the Democrats of taking the Jews for granted, then please tell me when you mean by the title of your article? And who does "them" refer to in your second paragraph?

I have no idea if the poll is accurate, but it really doesn't matter. Whether the Jews were split 90-10 for Kerry or 90-10 for Bush, as long as the overall vote in Pennsylvania is as tight as I believe it is likely to be, both sides should view the Jewish electorate as potentially containing enough swing vote to turn the tide.

> As for downplaying the poll or not giving more details, in your devotion to
> reading my column I guess you missed the front page story on it with the
> accompanying graphic.

After getting your email, I pulled out my copy of the Exponent to see if I overlooked anything. On the front page there are two stories, "Even at Placid Summer Games Ghost of Munich Hovers" and "My Heart's at the Shore". Which of the two articles is the one which gives more details on the NJDC poll?

> You are certainly entitled to believe that Kerry is better on Israel

Thanks. But when you say "though reasonable Democrats can't deny that Bush is a good friend of Israel, fewer Jewish voters consider that issue to be the determining factor" you are overlooking voters like me, and giving a decidedly one sided view of this election.

I am participating in a debate at the Suburban JCC B'nai Aaron where I will be arguing that Bush is not as good a friend of Israel as Kerry. I have sent you an e-vite to the event. I sincerely hope you attend so that I get a chance to argue this important point in detail.

Tobin strikes back

What does "game over" mean? The Democratic spin of their poll was that all the Republican efforts to gain Jewish votes are futile and that that game was over. Why you would complain about that, I have no idea. It was the Republicans who didn't like that characterization, not the Democrats.

As for your other question, all columns can and do stand on their own but if you are looking for details and background (or, like you, grinding your own very obvious partisan ax), then obviously no one piece can provide all of that in every instance. And when a detailed, lengthy front page story has run on a subject there is no reason for any subsequent piece to reinvent that wheel.

My response

What does "game over" mean? The Democratic spin of their poll was that all
the Republican efforts to gain Jewish votes are futile and that that game
was over. Why you would complain about that, I have no idea. It was the
Republicans who didn't like that characterization, not the Democrats.

I'm complaining about it because you have not produced a quote showing this is the Democratic spin of this poll. On the contrary, it seems to be your spin of their spin of their poll. I'm complaining about it because it is misleading. I would characterize the Democratic response to the poll as:

proud of the current polling numbers,
vigilant to defend against Republican attacks, and
eager to make additional progress

especially in key states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

Return to Family Tree
Return to My Kerry Page on LoebTree.com
Go to My Kerry Page on the Kerry website

Daniel E. LOEB, eMail: daniel.loeb at verizon.net