† Every Bubble Bursts Eventually: “With the fallout from Obama's speech Thursday still crystallizing, Israel is likely to be a focal point of the 2012 race in ways it hasn't been in decades,” Los Angeles Times notes, adding that “[p]olitical analysts say the president can expect to capture at least 60% of the Jewish vote next year, and possibly as much as 80%”:

 

"It's a traditional liberal vote, and I just don't see this [Obama's speech] having much impact," Republican strategist Mark Corallo said. …

Polling shows that American Jews are open to compromises in the interest of Middle East peace. A survey commissioned by the American Jewish Committee last fall showed that 62% of the Jewish community believes Israel should be willing to dismantle at least some of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank as part of an accord with the Palestinians.

"There has been an understanding for years that what was to be negotiated was a treaty based on the '67 borders with [land] swaps," said Rabbi Marc Schneier, president of the New York-based Foundation for Ethnic Understanding. "So I wasn't surprised by his statement, though he is the first U.S. president to spell it out."

 

Yes, but not all American Jews see it that way:

 

"You can't unilaterally tell Israel you have to go back to '67," said Ira Silverstein, a Democratic Illinois state senator who once shared office space with Obama in the state Capitol. "He wasn't elected president of Israel. He was elected president of the United States."

 

“He has in effect sought to reduce Israel's negotiation power and I condemn him for that," former New York Mayor Ed Koch tells Reuters:

 

Koch said he might not campaign or vote for Obama if Republicans nominate a pro-Israel candidate who offers an alternative to recent austere budgetary measures backed by Republicans in Congress.

 

Koch donated $2,300 to Obama's campaign in 2008, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

 

"I believed that then-Senator Obama would be as good as John McCain based on his statements at the time and based on his support of Israel. It turns out I was wrong," he said. …

 

"I have spoken to a lot of people in the last couple of days - former supporters - who are very upset and feel alienated," billionaire real estate developer and publisher Mortimer Zuckerman said.

 

"He'll get less political support, fewer activists for his campaign, and I am sure that will extend to financial support as well."

 

Zuckerman backed Obama during his 2008 presidential run and the newspaper he owns, the New York Daily News, endorsed the president.

 

And Koch isn’t the only prominent Jewish voter who may keep his hands in his pockets when it comes time to pony up to fund the Obama campaign’s goal of raising a billion dollars, The Wall Street Journal reports:

 

Jewish donors and fund-raisers are warning the Obama re-election campaign that the president is at risk of losing financial support because of concerns about his handling of Israel. …

 

Some Jewish donors say Mr. Obama has pushed Israeli leaders too hard to halt construction of housing settlements in disputed territory, a longstanding element of U.S. policy. Some also worry that Mr. Obama is putting more pressure on the Israelis than the Palestinians to enter peace negotiations, and say they are disappointed Mr. Obama has not visited Israel yet.

 

It is difficult to assess how widespread the complaints are. Many Jews support Mr. Obama's approach to the Middle East, and his domestic agenda. But Jewish fund-raisers for Mr. Obama say they regularly hear discontent among some supporters. …

 

Robert Copeland, a Virginia Beach, Va., developer, who has given large donations to many Democrats, has already decided he won't vote for Mr. Obama in 2012. "I'm very disappointed with him," he said. "His administration has failed in Israel. They degraded the Israeli people." …

 

Malcolm I. Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said he saw potential for the discontent to affect Mr. Obama's fund raising.

 

"It's that people hold back, people don't have the enthusiasm and are not rushing forward at fund-raisers to be supportive,'' he said. "Much more what you'll see is holding back now."

 

Exit polls from the 2008 election showed that Jewish voters accounted for 2 percent of the electorate, and that 78 percent of them Obama over Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). But an opinion survey by Republican polling firm McLaughlin & Associates last year found that 46 percent American Jews said they’d consider voting for someone other than Obama in 2012.

 

Obama doubled down on last week’s speech when he addressed the pro-Israel lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) yesterday (The New York Times characterized his remarks as having “struck back” at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) while mouthing all the expected assurances about his administration being steadfast in its “opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the state of Israel,’’ but Key Jewish donors are not mollified, The Washington Times reports:

 

Steve Rosen, a former director of foreign policy for AIPAC, said, "the president's decision to confront Israel's prime minister in this visit is going to deepen the feeling that Obama will continue to put the U.S.-Israeli relationship in peril. Pro-Israel donors who have been on hold until now will accelerate the search for an alternative to Obama."

 

Two such donors who asked not to be named said the president's speech failed to ease concerns about the lack of trust between the governments of Israel and the United States.

 

"The speech presented a wonderful opportunity to correct attitudes the White House and supporters of the president believe are misperceptions," another Jewish community leader told The Washington Times.

 

"The ball came right over the home plate. He swung hard, but it lined out foul," said the donor, a prominent Jewish community leader. …

 

"People are concerned that the Obama administration's unbalanced approach demands too many concessions from Israel which puts its security at risk, and that could certainly have domestic political consequences," said Brad Dayspring, the communications director for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican.

 

† Early Republican Field Is Like “The Hunger Games”: Former MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) threw his hat into the ring via a video, “A Time for Truth,” meant to deliver “a somber message” in these troubled times, The Washington Post reports:

 

“The truth is, our country’s in big trouble, We have far too much debt, too much government spending, and too few jobs. We need a president who understands that our problems are deep and has the courage to face them. President Obama doesn’t; I do.” 
 

Curiously, the entire video is in color, except when Pawlenty is directly addressing voters to make his pitch for their support. Showing him in B&W visually reinforces the perception that he is colorless - bloodless, even. In an unintentional (The Stiletto assumes) editorial comment, Pawlenty’s hometown paper, The Pioneer Press, juxtaposed his campaign's launch with the obit page – the front page was devoted to coverage of the tornado that wreaked death and destruction in its wake, Mediaite reports:

 

Meanwhile, in a development that was regarded by some pundits to boost Pawlenty’s chances, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) declined to seek the Republican presidential nomination because he didn’t want to put his family through the rigors of a national campaign. Considering that Obama operatives are already trying to dig up dirt on Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) in case he changes his mind about running, can anyone blame Daniels?

 

Editorial Note: Pawlenty did not wait for NBC’s Matt Lauer to ask him what kind of car he’d be if he were a car, but volunteered this:

 

“We’re not going to be the money champion in the race to start with though my friend Mitt Romney will be the front-runner in that regard. But we’re going to have enough money to run a competitive and successful campaign. It may not be the BMW or Mercedes campaign, but it will be a good solid Buick and maybe even trending towards a Cadillac and that will be enough for us to be competitive and win.”

 

† Does The U.S. Need An Election Monitor? (second item): Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC) signed a bill into law requiring every voter to show a photo ID before being allowed to vote in elections, and liberals predictably complained that minorities would somehow be disenfranchised (second item), Human Events reports:

 

“If you have to show a picture ID to buy Sudafed, if you have to show a picture ID to get on an airplane, you should show a picture ID when you vote,” Haley said. “This was another example of legislators having a good idea and the people carrying it forward saying we want it to happen and we want it to happen this year and you see the product of it.”

 

Haley also said that when South Carolinians go to vote, “nobody else can steal your id. No one else can vote for you. You are going to be able to vote by proving that. It maintains the integrity of the process.” …

 

Republican South Carolina House Speaker Bobby Harrell said “since the United State’s Supreme Court has held Voter ID as constitutional ... I hope the Department of Justice will move swiftly in granting our state’s secure election law the same pre-clearance they gave to Georgia’s Voter ID law last year.” Harrell was referring to the Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, which states that some states that had previously discriminated against blacks must get approval from the Department of Justice when they make any changes in how elections are conducted. …

 

More state legislatures may look to pass such laws as reports of fraud on the voter rolls come to light, and it may be an issue discussed during the campaign cycle.

 

Meanwhile, KS secretary of state Kris Kobach – who co-authored AZ’s SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law - reports in this Wall Street Journal op-ed that on the heels of his state passing a voter ID law a few weeks back, the WI legislature has sent similar legislation to Gov. Scott Walker's (R) desk – and more states will soon follow suit, because “[e]vidence of voter fraud is present in all 50 states, and public confidence in the integrity of elections is at an all-time low.” Notably, Kobach tackles the canard that minority voters do not have – and cannot get – picture IDs and will somehow be disenfranchised by any effort to end voter fraud:

 

According to the 2010 census, there are 2,126,179 Kansans of voting age. According to the Kansas Department of Motor Vehicles, 2,156,446 Kansans already have a driver's license or a non-driver ID. In other words, there are more photo IDs in circulation than there are eligible voters. The notion that there are hundreds of thousands of voters in Kansas (or any other state) without photo IDs is a myth.

 

Carrying a photo ID has become a part of American life. You can't cash a check, board a plane, or even buy full-strength Sudafed over the counter without one. That's why it's not unreasonable to require one in order to protect our most important privilege of citizenship. But just in case any person lacks a photo ID, Kansas's law provides a free state ID to anyone who needs one. Other states have included similar provisions in their photo-ID laws.

 

Some opponents of election security laws also declare that they are part of a sinister plot to depress voter registration and turnout, especially among minority voters who are more likely to vote Democrat. Here too the facts do not support the claim. Georgia's photo ID requirement was in place for both the 2008 and 2010 elections, when turnout among minority voters was higher than average. Likewise, Arizona's proof-of-citizenship requirement for registration has not impeded minority voters from registering.

 

† Living In These Mad, Mad, Madoff Times: Only about half of college graduates are finding jobs that require a college degree – when can they find work at all – which is depressing employment opportunities for less educated workers from finding employment, The New York Times reports:

 

Employment rates for new college graduates have fallen sharply in the last two years, as have starting salaries for those who can find work. What’s more, only half of the jobs landed by these new graduates even require a college degree, reviving debates about whether higher education is “worth it” after all. …

 

The median starting salary for students graduating from four-year colleges in 2009 and 2010 was $27,000, down from $30,000 for those who entered the work force in 2006 to 2008, according to a study released on Wednesday by the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University. That is a decline of 10 percent, even before taking inflation into account.

 

Of course, these are the lucky ones - the graduates who found a job. Among the members of the class of 2010, just 56 percent had held at least one job by this spring, when the survey was conducted. That compares with 90 percent of graduates from the classes of 2006 and 2007. …

 

Meanwhile, college graduates are having trouble paying off student loan debt, which is at a median of $20,000 for graduates of classes 2006 to 2010.

 

† Nationalized Healthcare Always Leads To Rationing: Wait times for treatment in England are supposed to be no longer than 18 weeks – that’s 4.5 months, which the NHS considers acceptable – but 43 percent of patients are forced to wait longer than six months because there aren’t enough doctors, medications and hospital beds, The Guardian of London reports:

 

The British Medical Association said the longer waits and fewer treatments were inevitable: "Given the massive financial pressures on the NHS, it was always likely that hospital activity would decrease and waiting times would increase," said a spokesperson.

 

"The capacity of hospitals has been limited by staffing freezes, and commissioners of care are under pressure to ration surgical procedures considered to be of low value. As well as the personal impact on individual patients, there is a potential long-term consequence for NHS hospitals, which are at risk of being financially destabilised as they lose income." …

 

Katherine Murphy, the director of the Patients Association, said it had heard from people whose hip or knee replacement had been postponed once or twice without them being offered a new date, leaving them in pain and with their independence compromised.

 

BTW, in England, “low value” treatments are those that relieve pain and suffering to improve quality of life (second item).

 

† Media Irrelevancy – A Self-Inflicted Wound: In a Suffolk University poll that asked 1070 voters to choose from a list of political reporters the one “you trust the most,” more respondents said “don’t know” (21 percent) or “none” (15 percent) than made a choice. Amongst the choices given, Mediaite reports:

 

So who did the rate well in the poll? Fox’s Bill O’Reilly led named newsers with 9%, followed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper (6%), Fox’s Mike Huckabee (4%) and NBC’s Brian Williams (4%). Yep, Huckabee got more votes as a trusted political reporter than BriWi did.

 

On a related note, when George Soros-funded Media Matters tried to get Orbitz to join its “Drop Fox” boycott, its effort backfired when the online travel company refused to participate in what it called a “smear effort,” Mediaite reports:

 

Orbitz is one of seven key advertisers targeted, including Best Western, Priceline, Delta Airlines, Ocean Spray, Netflix and Southwest Airlines. …

 

But Orbitz shot back, describing Media Matters as “a political organization that has been funded pretty extensively to go after one network, and we aren’t going to engage in that fight,” Orbitz spokesman Brian Hoyt told The Hollywood Reporter: “We have a strict policy of tolerance and non-discrimination, and that means we don’t favor one political side over another. Tolerance is a two-way street. We’re going to advertise on conservative TV stations, liberal TV stations and - if there are any out there - unbiased news broadcasts.”

 

Snap!

 

† The Tell-Tale Tatt: Gangbanger Anthony Garcia, 25, whose tattoo memorializing the murder of rival gang member John Juarez helped crack the cold case, was sentenced to 65 years to life in prison, Reuters reports:

 

During the sentencing hearing Michelle Sotelo, the mother of the victim's daughter, told Garcia that he should blame only himself.

 

"You were stupid enough to get the tattoo that convicted you," Sotelo said. "I'm not going to say I forgive you because I don't. It's going to take me a long time to think about forgiving you."

 

† The Day Newt Gingrich’s Candidacy Died: At the risk of mixing metaphors, we should think of Newt Gingrich as the canary in the coal mine. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza warns that “[f]or Republicans running for president in 2012, there’s a new political reality: Support Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan - or else”:

 

“One candidate’s shakedown leaves the party shook up,” said Tucker Eskew, a longtime party strategist. “The reckoning was coming anyway, but this episode starkly reminds campaigns that entitlements are on the chopping block.”

 

If Gingrich’s experience is any indication, it’s now clear that, for many Republicans, criticizing what Ryan laid out - and the House approved - amounts to apostasy. …

 

Said Gentry Collins, a former political director at the Republican National Committee: “The only way I can see around Ryan’s plan is to have one of your own that is every bit as serious. I don’t see most campaigns wanting to do that, which I actually think is an error in this environment, and therefore see them as having to be responsive to the Ryan plan.”

 

While Gingrich's miscalculation was the result of a mouth that often moves faster than his brain,  Cillizza notes that former MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty has made a calculated effort to "be bold":

 

He called for a phasing out - albeit gradual - of federal ethanol subsidies, a move long considered a political death wish in a state with such a large agricultural community.

 

But, Pawlenty didn’t stop there. In his speech he detailed how he will travel this week to Florida - one of the oldest (by age) states in the country - to call for fundamental reform of Medicare and Social Security, to Washington to take on alleged largess in the federal government and to New York to make clear the era of bailouts of the financial industry is over.

 

“Conventional wisdom says you can’t talk about ethanol in Iowa or Social Security in Florida or financial reform on Wall Street,” Pawlenty said. “But someone has to say it. Someone has to finally stand up and level with the American people.” …

 

Pawlenty appears to be gambling that while no single one of his proposals will be popular in the state at which they are aimed, he will get credit from the Republican primary electorate for addressing them in a serious way.

 

In that, Pawlenty is attempting to channel the political appeal of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan - all three of whom have gained national renown for a willingness to take on the so-called sacred political cows.

 

Cillizza reminds us what happened when Sen. John McCain opposed ethanol subsidies in his 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns (“In Iowa, it didn’t sell. McCain basically skipped Iowa in each of his presidential races - finishing fifth in 2000 and fourth in 2008)” but the political calculus is different in 2012. If entitlement reform is on the table, then everything is on the table. Still, Cillizza notes that Pawlenty has “rolled the dice” and “[w]e won’t know whether the gamble will pay off until early next year.”

 

† Updates To Previous Posts (fifth item, Life Imitates “A Law Abiding Citizen”): With Justice Anthony Kennedy casting his vote with the liberal wing, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court order that could free nearly 40,000 prisoners from overcrowded CA jails that are “incompatible with the concept of human dignity” and violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, The Washington Post reports:

 

“The release of prisoners in large numbers - assuming the state finds no other way to comply with the order - is a matter of undoubted, grave concern,” Kennedy wrote. “Yet so too is the continuing injury and harm resulting from these serious constitutional violations.”

 

He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

Justice Antonin Scalia signaled the extent of his disagreement with the decision by reading his dissent from the bench.

 

He said the justices were affirming “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history” and warned of “terrible things sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order.” He was joined in his biting dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas.

 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. also dissented. They gave different reasons for disagreeing with the majority but arrived at the same conclusion about what the ruling portended.

 

“The majority is gambling with the safety of the people of California,” Alito wrote. “I fear that today’s decision, like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims. I hope that I am wrong.” …

 

Kennedy said reducing the prison population could be accomplished in a number of ways besides simply releasing inmates. Some could be transferred to local jails or to prisons outside the state, something California already is doing. Expanding the use of “good-time” credits would allow the release of those least likely to reoffend; so would excusing prisoners now incarcerated for technical violations of parole.

 

“Diverting low-risk offenders to community programs such as drug treatment, day reporting centers, and electronic monitoring would likewise lower the prison population without releasing violent convicts,” he wrote.

 

† Updates To Previous Posts (Is This One Of Those Jobs That “Americans Won’t Do?”: Part XVI): Center for Immigration Studies reports that when 40 illegals employed at a Washington, D.C. Chipotle were terminated when the identity documents submitted were found to be fraudulent, they held two rallies to assert their "rights”:

 

[A]n employment attorney named Emily Tulli grabbed the bullhorn to deliver a list of the workers' "demands." Among them were: a public apology from Chipotle for "the way they were treated," two weeks of severance pay, and a letter explaining why they were fired.

 

I can see Chipotle paying the workers for hours already worked, but given the fact that their fraud could have cost the company a fortune in fines, are they really entitled to an apology and severance pay? What sort of "public apology" did the workers expect from Chipotle? "We're very sorry for following the law?" And the request for the letters of explanation might be the oddest request. I mean, seriously, if they're still unclear on why they were fired, I'm not sure I'd trust them to give me the black beans rather than the pinto beans in my burrito. …

 

Chris Arnold, a spokesperson for Chipotle … stated that all of the employees received all the compensation they were owed, even prior to the two rallies. "Everyone has been paid everything they're owed, including wages, vacation, sick leave, everything," he said. "We provided each worker with the contact information for a human resources representative, they could call if they felt they weren't fully compensated and only 1 of the workers called, and after speaking to HR, he left satisfied." Arnold went on to clarify that the 40 employees, from 2-3 different Chipotle locations in D.C., all provided new employment verification documents, on their own volition, not at the request of the company, within days of each other. "All of the names and/or Social Security numbers they provided were different from what they had originally provided at the time of hire, and all of them proved to be fraudulent," he said. Arnold noted that the company hired 40 new workers to replace those terminated, and all of the new employees were able to verify that they had the legal right to work in the country.