FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 5, 2008
Contact:
Stephanie Hausner, (914)980-1747, secretary@yda.org, Executive Director, YDAJC

YDAJC Launches RJCWatch.org
Blog to Document the Inaccuracies and Hypocrisies of the Republican Jewish Coalition 

New York, NY – Every year, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) shows time and time again that it puts partisan interests above Jewish concerns and that they relentlessly attack anyone with whom they disagree, sometimes using only half-truths and drastically misleading statements. As Jews, we have long since known the dangers of misinformation.
Republican Jewish Coalition Watch will play the critical role of documenting the inaccuracies and hypocrisies of the RJC throughout this election and into the future. For each advertising campaign and email the RJC puts out, we will catalog both accurate statements and misleading remarks. We attempt to document these statements by referring to non-partisan neutral sources.
There is perhaps no better example than the RJC’s often conflicted relationship with Joe Lieberman. When Joe Lieberman was running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000, the RJC took out a full-page ad in the New York Times attacking him and attempting to link him to Louis Farrakhan (New York Times. October 5, 2000). Yet when Lieberman was challenged in the Connecticut primary by Ned Lamont in 2006, the RJC quickly used the opportunity to attack the Democratic Party and claim that “America and Israel  worse off” for his loss (http://www.rjchq.org/media/pics/lieberman.ad.jpg).
Republican Jewish Coalition Watch is a project of the Young Democrats of America Jewish Caucus.

###

The Young Democrats of American Jewish Caucus is an organization dedicated to building the young Democratic Jewish political community. YDAJC seeks to engage young Democrats in issues of particular Jewish concern and to invigorate young Jews to engage in politics from a progressive Democratic perspective. YDAJC accomplishes this task through a combination of education, awareness, and social interaction as well as political advocacy on issues of Jewish concern. Please visit us athttp://www.jewishcaucus.org.

(YDAJC Press Release)

An award in Memory and Honor of the Late Chairman Lantos

We have lost an incredible advocate and an amazing man and leader for not only the Jewish Community, but for all people.  Chairman Tom Lantos leaves a legacy and commitment of fighting for many important issues that include, human rights, civil rights, ending genocide in Darfur, combating anti-Semitism and Israel’s safety and security.  The news coverage, memorial service, and public statements from the past week only begin to touch upon the great legacy that he has left behind.

The Young Democrats of America Jewish Caucus has instituted the Tom P. Lantos Award to not only honor his memory, but to remind all of us what is possible and what we can do when we have great people like Chairman Lantos who dedicate their life to public service.  

The Tom P. Lantos Award will be given annually to a public figure who exemplifies Chairman Lantos’s dedication to public service and who serves as an advocate for individuals who cannot speak for themselves.

All of our blessings and deepest sympathies go out to his wife Annette, his daughters, and his grandchildren. Chairman Lantos will be dearly missed.

(Washington Post)

ONE OF Tom Lantos’s first initiatives in Congress was to reward human rights work. Back in 1981, the Hungarian-born congressman sponsored a bill to offer honorary citizenship to Raoul Wallenberg, the missing Swedish diplomat who saved more than 100,000 Jews — including Mr. Lantos himself — from Nazi extermination. Mr. Lantos’s intention was to thank and honor a human rights hero; by the time he passed away last Monday at age 80, the California Democrat had become one himself.

As chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and founder of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, Mr. Lantos worked tirelessly to promote human rights. He turned the world’s attention, and when successful its fury, to travesties across every region of Earth. His efforts to inspire — or, if necessary, shame — individuals, companies and governments into honorable behavior were exhaustive and creative; at the tender age of 78, Mr. Lantos himself was arresting for disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly while protesting the genocide in Darfur outside the Sudanese Embassy.

His genuine concern for human dignity earned the respect and admiration of leaders and human rights advocates around the world. Fellow Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, pop singer and AIDS activist Bono and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon were among the luminaries who attended Mr. Lantos’s memorial service on Thursday. Even the North Korean government — a frequent target of Lantos’s criticisms — sent its condolences.

Mr. Lantos pushed the U.S. government, and in particular congressional Democrats, on a path of leadership in human rights issues. We hope that his work will inspire further championship of the world’s downtrodden — just as Mr. Lantos took his cue from Raoul Wallenberg.

(Washington Jewish Week)

For Joanna Blotner, Tuesday’s Democratic presidential primary was unusual. Instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, she was excited to be choosing between “the better of two greats.”

“They’re both such good candidates, I want to vote for both,” the 22-year-old District resident said on Thursday evening of last week at a happy hour sponsored by the Young Democrats of America Jewish Caucus in the District’s Woodley Park.

Blotner’s inability to choose between Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) just five days before the Potomac Primary was shared by a number of her friends and others in the 150 or so person crowd.

David Turnbull, 25, of the District also said he was still undecided, because both candidates have “very strong plans” on his most important issue climate change.

“In some ways, I can’t go wrong,” he said, adding that he was leaning toward Obama, but “I still could change.”

But there were also plenty of strong supporters for each candidate among the young Jewish professionals, echoing the split among Democratic Jewish voters in general as indicated by last week’s Super Tuesday exit polls. Clinton won big among Jewish voters in New York and New Jersey on Feb. 5 and by a smaller margin in Arizona; Obama triumphed in Connecticut and Massachusetts and beat Clinton by two points in California. (More details on the exit poll numbers are in Beltway, page 13; WJW went to press before results from this week’s elections were available.)

Sarah Feuer, a 26-year-old student who recently spent time in Israel, attended the Obama rally at American University last month and found the senator inspiring.

“As long as I’ve been voting, I’ve been holding my nose,” Feuer said as she sipped on an Obama Rama drink (banana liqueur, vodka and cranberry juice) at Medaterra restaurant. This is the first time that’s not the case and she’s proud to support a candidate, said Feuer.

“He’s never on the attack. There’s something about him I trust him,” she said.

Feuer, like many at the happy hour, said she hadn’t heard much about an e-mail campaign falsely alleging that Obama is a Muslim. But she was initially wary of Obama’s willingness to talk to Iran’s leadership. After thinking about it further, she decided that because the current policy “hasn’t worked, if he thinks he can get something done, let’s give it a shot.”

But Obama’s vote against legislation that would have declared Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group is one reason why Heidi Zansler of the District is backing the former first lady.

The 34-year-old real estate professional noted that Clinton’s vote for the resolution demonstrates her superior preparation for the job that she recognizes Iran is a danger to Israel.

“Her experience is so extensive,” said Zansler, praising how the senator from New York can speak in extensive detail about her policies. That Clinton is a woman who has succeeded in a male-dominated society is “an added bonus.”

As for Obama, he “needs more time to prove himself,” she said. “Inspiration isn’t enough.”

Long before last week’s happy hour, young Jewish Clinton supporters have been gathering around town to work for their candidate. The “Chai for Hillary” group, for young Jewish professionals across the country, asked backers to volunteer for 18 hours and reach out to 18 friends. Last weekend, they gathered to call voters, reminding them to cast ballots for Clinton on Tuesday. These phone banks were a bit nontraditional: Callers, armed with their cell phones, met at supporters’ homes in such neighborhoods as Dupont Circle and Gallery Place to make calls.

Meanwhile, on Saturday night, more than 150 people gathered at the Stars Bistro and Bar in Dupont Circle for a Havdalah service and rally in support of Obama. Titled “Kein Annu Yecholim!” Hebrew for the Obama slogan “Yes We Can” the event featured Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) extolling the virtues of her fellow Chicagoan.

Led by Rabbi Fred Scherlinder Dobb of Adat Shalom Reconstructionist Congregation in Bethesda, who stressed he was there as a citizen and not representing his congregation, the Havdalah service was infused with Obamamania. For example, fliers distributed to participants headlined the prayer for the wine with “I can taste an Obama presidency already!” The spice box blessing was titled “Barack adds sweet spice to politics.”

Organizer Rob Levy outlined “why Jews are for Obama.” (Levy’s day job is Washington representative of the Jewish peace group Brit Tzedek V’Shalom, but he also emphasized that he was speaking for himself and not for his organization.)

First, he said that Obama backers must not allow “other Jews [to speak] for us” with the “virulent e-mail campaign” falsely claming he is Muslim. Levy called Obama a “vocal supporter of Israel” who supports its right to self-defense while also believing that “making peace is in Israel and America’s” best interests.

Obama Middle East adviser Eric Lynn also addressed the gathering, quipping that his boss was happy to be identified as “Baruch Obama” for this crowd and defending Obama’s record on Israel.

One person in the crowd suggested that Obama’s efforts to shore up his standing in the Jewish community was alienating Jewish “progressives.”

“There’s more than one Jewish voice,” and that other voice believes in “the need for a just solution [to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict], not just a peaceful solution,” Adams Morgan resident Shira Robinson said to enthusiastic cheers from the crowd.

In an interview, Robinson, a history and international affairs professor at George Washington University, said Obama has “gone out of his way” to placate the “mainstream” community while disappointing “progressives” like herself. Nonetheless, she said she and all the progressive Jews she knew were still planning on voting for the senator.

Schakowsky said she would take Robinson’s message back to the Obama campaign.

(Forward)

Seven Jewish U.S. senators wrote an open letter to the Jewish community repudiating rumors about Sen. Barack Obama’s religion.

“We find it particularly abhorrent that these attacks are apparently being sent specifically to the Jewish community,” said the letter initiated by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and also signed by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Ben. Cardin (D-Md.), Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). “Jews, who have historically been the target of such attacks, should be the first to reject these tactics.”

The letter, made public over the weekend, echoed another by the leaders of nine Jewish groups last week addressing a spate of e-mails that falsely claim Obama, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, is a secret Muslim.

There are 13 Jews in the Senate – 10 Democrats, an Independent and two Republicans. All of the seven signing the letter have yet to endorse a presidential candidate.

(The Nation – Opinion piece by Eric Alterman)

Today’s topic is the paradox–or one of them, anyway–of American Jewish political behavior. No, it’s not that hoary old cliché that they “earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans.” Rather, it’s that they think like enlightened liberals yet allow belligerent right-wingers and neocons who frequently demonize, distort and denounce their values to speak for them in the US political arena.

Don’t take my word for it. According to the American Jewish Committee’s 2007 survey of American Jewry, released December 11, a majority of Jews in this country oppose virtually every aspect of the Bush Administration/neocon agenda. Not only do they disapprove of the Administration’s handling of its “campaign against terrorism” (59-31 percent), they believe by a 67-to-27 margin that we should never have invaded Iraq. They are unimpressed by the “surge”–68 percent say it has either made no difference or made things worse, and by a 57-to-35 percent majority they oppose an attack on Iran, even if it was undertaken “to prevent [Iran] from developing nuclear weapons.”

Jews are also impressively sensible when it comes to Israel/Palestine, all things considered. Though barely more than a third think peace is likely anytime soon, and more than 80 percent believe the goal of the Muslim states is to destroy Israel, a 46-to-43 percent plurality continues to support the creation of a Palestinian state.

This wholesale rejection of the Bush/neocon agenda, moreover, is consistent with the way American Jews describe their overall political identity. Jews are more liberal than conservative (43-25 percent) and far more Democratic than Republican (58-15 percent). This preference, significantly, extends to national security issues, often considered a Republican trump card. By a massive 61-to-21 percent margin, Jews say Democrats, not Republicans, are “more likely to make the right decision about the war in Iraq.” Regarding terrorism, Democrats win 53-to-30 percent.

As a Jew who shares most of these beliefs, I am tempted to trumpet these numbers as big news, but it’s news only if you haven’t been paying attention. An examination of past AJC surveys as well as a number of other polls of American Jews demonstrates that Jews have remained remarkably faithful to the values of liberal humanism. These views, however, have been obscured in our political discourse by an unholy alliance between conservative-dominated professional Jewish organizations and neoconservative Jewish pundits, aided by pliant and frequently clueless mainstream media that empower these right-wingers to speak for a people with values diametrically opposed to theirs.

Take a look at the agendas of some of the most influential Jewish organizations, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Organization of America and the American Jewish Committee itself; each has historically associated itself with the hawkish side of the debate–and some have done so even when Israel took the more dovish side (the Jewish equivalent of being holier than the Pope). Forget for a moment the argument over whether what some call “the Lobby” is good or bad for America. My point is that it’s bad for the Jews.

In large part the trouble lies with the antidemocratic structures of these organizations and the apathy of most Jews with regard to organized Jewish life. Major Jewish groups respond to the demands of their top funders and best-organized constituencies. Most American Jews, however, have little or nothing to do with these groups. According to the AJC survey, while 90 percent of Jews say being Jewish is either “very important” (61 percent) or “fairly important” (29 percent) in their lives, exactly half say they belong to a synagogue or temple. A fraction of this number belong to Jewish political organizations, and the number of major funders is but a tiny percentage of that. As with so much of American life, the far-right minority is better funded and better disciplined than the liberal majority.

Fault can also be found with lazy editors, reporters, producers and the like who invite neocon and other unrepresentative people to speak for Jews and Jewish values. Consider the most prominent Jewish voices in the punditocracy who regularly sound off on Israel, Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, etc. My list includes Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Seth Lipsky, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Richard Cohen, Mortimer Zuckerman, Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Goldberg, Lawrence Kaplan, Charles Krauthammer, David Horowitz, Jonah Goldberg, David Gelernter, Ruth Wisse, David Brooks and David Frum. Most are Bush apologists, most supported the invasion of Iraq and most are sympathetic to the idea of an invasion of Iran. Not infrequently, leading Jewish pundits mock and ridicule the majority Jewish views. Irving Kristol, writing in Azure, attacks the “political stupidity” of American Jews. Gelernter, writing in The Weekly Standard, complains of Jewish political behavior as “a lesson in self-destructive nihilism.”

Given the scare tactics the neocons routinely employ–from their frequent deployment of the intellectually vacuous term “Islamofascism,” to Perle and Frum’s warning that the nation’s only choice is “victory or holocaust”–it is a remarkable tribute to the good sense of American Jewry that it remains a bastion of liberal humanism despite such naked attempts to manipulate longstanding fears and insecurities.

These pundits have every right to put forth their views, of course. It’s long past time, however, for the mainstream media to recognize just how out of touch they are with the values of the American Jewish mainstream.

If not now, when?

(New York Jewish Week) On the eve of the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses this week, strategists in both major political parties now believe Jewish voters could play a critical role in wide-open nomination battles this year — and possibly in a November general election that some experts say could be another squeaker.

“Usually the Jewish vote isn’t something Republican candidates compete for in the primaries,” said a key Jewish supporter of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, one of the candidates with the most to gain from a strong Jewish tally. “But this is a very different climate, with the front-loaded primaries.

“The Jewish community is very important in states that have been put on center stage,” said Giuliani supporter, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak.

That goes for the Democratic primaries, as well, although the political dynamics of the much bigger Jewish vote on that side of the political divide are very different.

In addition to the Iowa caucuses on Thursday and the Jan. 8 New Hampshire primary, the front-loaded primary schedule includes the controversial Jan. 29 vote in Florida and the “Super Tuesday” marathon on Feb. 5, with votes in New York and New Jersey, among others — states with big, politically active Jewish communities.

On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have cranked up their Jewish campaigns as the polls show a tightening race. Sen. John Edwards, according to Democratic Party officials, may be doing the same as he pulls even in the Iowa polls.

Several Republican contenders have more at stake in the hunt for Jewish votes. Giuliani, who seems to have bet everything on the second round of primaries, faces a make-or-break test in Florida, where his popularity among Jewish retirees with New York connections could prove decisive.

Political observers generally agree that there is more “swing” in the relatively small Jewish Republican vote, while Jewish Democrats appear more likely to have chosen their favorites.

“A tremendous amount of the Jewish Republican vote is sitting on the sidelines,” said Fred Zeidman, a Texas businessman and leading supporter of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). “They will support whoever is the party’s nominee. On the other side, I see most Jewish Democrats have taken sides already.”

Looking to November, predictions about the Jewish impact on the electoral outcome come with the usual caveat: it depends on the tickets and how close the final tally is.

“Are there any Jews in Ohio and Florida? Oh, right — a million,” quipped Steve Rabinowitz, a Democratic media consultant. “Literally. All are swing targets.”

If this presidential election is as close as the last two, he said, every Jewish vote in a handful of key states could count big.

It is in selected primaries in a redrawn calendar that Jewish voters could play their biggest role in 2008. “The key to understanding the Jewish vote is that it’s a significant bloc in a very few states,” said Colby College political scientist L. Sandy Maisel. “So that vote becomes important only when those states are in play.”

But that is what may be happening as 2008 arrives.

“In previous years, when many heavily Jewish states were relegated to the back end of the primary process, a lot of campaigns focused on outreach to the Jewish community from a financial perspective,” said Matt Brooks, director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, a partisan group. “Now, with the ‘Tsunami Tuesday’ scenario, with places like New York, Florida and California in play, you’re seeing campaigns on both sides of the aisle actually reaching out to the Jewish grass roots.”

Brooks said Giuliani, McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are running the most active Jewish campaigns among the Republicans, although other Republicans said Romney’s effort is much smaller.

Giuliani has staked his whole campaign on Florida and the Super Tuesday states — including his home state of New York and neighboring New Jersey, as well as Connecticut and Delaware. His campaign also hopes to pick up significant numbers of delegates in Illinois and California — also states with sizeable, active Jewish populations, where his big-city associations will not be a political liability.

Giuliani has spent considerable time in Florida in recent days; when Iowans are caucusing on Thursday, the ex-mayor will be campaigning in Miami. A leading supporter said Giuliani is taking advantage of his relative popularity with Jews in New York to sway others in Florida.

“There is a great word-of-mouth network that centers in New York,” said this source, who was not authorized to speak on the record. “There are lots of people who have known and supported the mayor for years — who have relatives and ties across the country, and especially in Florida.”

Although all the major GOP candidates have enlisted some top Jewish Republicans to their cause, party insiders agree that Giuliani, with his New York associations and hawkish Mideast views — and also his former image of moderation on some social issues — has a clear edge in the early going.

“Giuliani has to win convincingly in states with high numbers of Jewish voters on Feb. 5, otherwise the campaign is over,” said Kean University political scientist Gilbert Kahn.

But there’s a wild card in that mix, Kahn said: McCain, the erstwhile frontrunner whose campaign seemed to implode last year, and his newest high profile supporter, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

If McCain does well in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada, he “could be an attractive alternative” for many Jewish Republicans and some Jewish swing voters on Super Tuesday, Kahn said.

The endorsement by Lieberman, who remains a popular figure especially among older Jewish voters, could add to his allure, especially in Florida, Kahn said.

Both McCain and Giuliani could appeal to Jewish swing voters in these states, not just committed Republicans – increasing the size of the Jewish GOP vote and boosting the two Republican hopefuls in the contest against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Democratic ‘Early Deciders’

The primary situation is somewhat different for the Democratic contenders since Jewish involvement in Democratic primaries is huge.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both enjoy strong bases of Jewish support; Edwards, who has bet on an upset in Iowa, also has significant backing. Party insiders say there may not be a lot of swing potential among Jewish Democrats.

Jewish Democrats are “disproportionately early deciders,” said Democratic media consultant Rabinowitz.

And all three are heavily focused on Iowa and New Hampshire; a knockout blow by Clinton, in particular, could diminish the role of the Feb. 5 primaries.

“But if the results are somewhat inconclusive in the earliest votes — with each having something to brag about — then we could see major Jewish efforts mounted in states where the Jewish vote really does matter, including Florida, New York and New Jersey,” said Steve Grossman, a former Democratic National Committee chair who now supports Clinton’s presidential bid.

Ditto California, where Democratic activists predict Jews could comprise 10 percent of the Democratic turnout.

“You have to divide the Jewish [Democratic] vote into parts,” Grossman said. “The portion that is older, more single-mindedly focused on Israel’s safety and security as an issue, is more likely to support Clinton’s candidacy. That shows up in the polling data and informal surveys.”

That means a potential boost for Clinton’s candidacy in states like Florida and New Jersey, he said, as well as New York, where she — like Giuliani — enjoys the home-field advantage.

But a second group of Jewish voters “for whom the war in Iraq is the defining issue, who are somewhat more anti-war, more liberal, may be more inclined to support Obama,” Grossman said. “That could be a factor in Massachusetts, which is also a February 5 state.”

Both, he said, are running strong with Jewish donors – the earliest measure of electoral prospects.

But other Jewish Democrats say there could be a shift to Edwards if he pulls off a major upset in Iowa, where some polls now show a dead heat.

The Jewish vote calculus becomes even more complicated for the general election.

Most independent observers say whoever the nominees are, the Democratic candidate will get the overwhelming majority of Jewish votes. But a shift of ten percent to the Republicans – not out of the question, especially if Giuliani or McCain is the nominee – could prove critical in a close contest.

“Jews are located very strategically, concentrated in the big states that dominate the Electoral College,” said University of Florida political scientist Ken Wald. “That makes them a lot more valuable than Mormons, who tend to be concentrated in very small states, or in places that are reliably Democratic like California. And Jews are extremely active in terms of both high levels of voter registration and turnout, not to mention volunteer activity and campaign contributions.”

In his book “The Politics of Cultural Differences,” Wald and his colleagues found that Jewish voters have a “much more significant” impact than some larger groups, including African Americans — who comprise about 13 percent of the electorate.

(JCPA Blog) So I was thinking this morning about what to write as my blog entry today…but Eric Alterman already wrote it.  So I decided to save myself some time and energy, and probably a hefty plagiarism lawsuit and merely suggest that you read his recent article in The Nation – not because it’s called “Bad for the Jews”, and not because it comments on the American Jewish Committee’s 2007 Survey of American Jewry, but because Alterman touches on an issue that institutional restraints – and fear — prevent those of us who work for Jewish non-profit organizations from addressing.  How in touch are our communal organizations with the people we claim to represent?  Alterman’s focus is the media – that the people the media turn to “speak for Jews and Jewish values,” such as Charles Krauthammer and David Horowitz, are not at all representative of the Jewish mainstream, based on what the AJC survey found.

In the Jewish communal organizational world, we wrestle with this issue.  Who is it that decides what is “good for the Jews?”  Is our leadership in touch with the sentiments of American Jewry?  The JCPA, which as an umbrella organization claims to represent that spectrum of American Jewry represented by our member organizations — 14 national Jewish organizations and 125 local Jewish communities, genuinely does reflect the consensus of that spectrum.  And if you look back through our policies over the last 60+ years, you’ll find that they typically reflect that which the AJC survey shows – that American Jews, as a group, fall left of center.

Yet we are frequently criticized – dare I say threatened – by Jewish communal leadership who disagree with our policies or who, while claiming to agree with the specifics of our policy, accuse us of spending Jewish resources on things that are not “Jewish issues.”  And the fact is, they get to have their say because they provide the funding.  If not for that leadership, our organizations would not exist.  And therein lies the rub.  If we irritate the major donors, we can’t do the work.  But if the work is compromised by the opinions of a few elite, how good is the work?

A few years ago the JCPA wrestled with this exact question.  Our board took a position that a major donor to the Jewish Federation system (our primary funder) was opposed to, and he threatened to have our funding pulled.  So our executive committee asked themselves the following question:  do we change our position to remove the threat?  And if we do, what does that say about us?  Is that the kind of organization we want to be?

Thankfully, in my opinion, their answer was no.  We’re not going to change our position.  Our board represents our constituency and made their decision.  And we don’t want to be the organization that changes its position because one donor doesn’t like it.  So how, you may ask, did we stay in business?  We still have the position on the books, but we don’t turn to that page very often.

The United States has a strong bilateral alliance with the state of Israel, and also has played a historic role as a leader in the peace process. This dual role raises a series of questions. How would you characterize the U.S.-Israel alliance, and what role should that friendship play in U.S. Middle East policy? What role should the United States play in the peace process? What should be the role of other international leaders in the Middle East peace process? How could other states in the region help promote peace and fight terrorism? How should the U.S. balance Israeli security in an atmosphere of increasing pressure for concessions to the Palestinians? Should the United States continue its commitment to maintaining Israel’s ability to deter and defend against foreseeable combinations of threats, and maintain its qualitative military edge? What role should the United States play if Israel comes under attack and, in a worst-case-scenario, is unable to defend itself successfully?

The peace process today stands on the brink of either great promise or great peril. Israel and the Palestinian Authority could achieve more in the coming years than they ever have before, but they could also slide back to the past. Nobody can play a greater role in this process than the United States, and we must stand by Israel and prevent the backsliding by the Palestinian Authority that has prevented progress in the past. Progress will require a steady and firm hand in putting the region back on the roadmap to peace authored by the U.S., the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations. Time and time again, the Israelis have demonstrated their desire for peace and a future where two states can live side-by-side in peace. The U.S. must work with moderate Palestinians who renounce violence, recognize Israel, and are committed to past agreements like the Roadmap.

As president, I will see to it that the United States is engaged in the Middle East. The U.S. must do everything it can, through diplomatic, economic, and military aid, to maintain Israel’s qualitative edge and keep Israel strong and safe in a dangerous region so that there is no “worst case” scenario. America must stand by Israel—our ally and partner—to ensure its security, while doing everything in our power to achieve peace and stability in this vital part of the world.

Visions of a final status agreement—including those expressed by Presidents Clinton and Bush—provide for a two-state solution, with the Jewish state of Israel living side-by-side in peace and security with a Palestinian state. These proposed solutions often include adjustments to Israel’s pre-1967 borders to allow for secure and defensible borders, and to take into account major Jewish communities in the West Bank. What, if any, adjustments in the pre-1967 borders would you expect? How do you see the likely final status of Jerusalem? Within the structure of a peace process, what assurances would you expect of Palestinian leaders in fighting terrorism, dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, and ending incitement against Israel? What, if any, actions would you expect of Israel before the Palestinians fulfill these expectations? How do you envision the Palestinian refugee problem will be effectively dealt with in final status agreements? In the shorter term, what are your views on the security fence that Israel is building to protect its citizens against terrorist attacks from the West Bank?

I applaud the past and present leadership of Israel for the steps they have taken in the name of a secure peace for Israel, including the framework for a two-state solution established at Camp David in 2000, which guides the roadmap today As Israel prepares to discuss the final status of East Jerusalem, it is time for the Palestinians and the Arab League as a whole to make similar compromises. This means more than merely denouncing terrorism. It means meaningfully shutting down terrorist elements. The money that comes into the region should be used to support education, health care, and the economy rather than palaces, bombs and hideouts. Iran must stop supporting Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Both sides have refugee claims, as many people on both sides have been displaced after nearly a century of conflict. We should work with all parties in the region to seek a viable solution to this issue. I will work with Israel to maintain its status as a vibrant Jewish democracy that celebrates what it has accomplished in its 60-year history.

The Iranian regime continues to push forward in its quest for nuclear arms capability, which would give it cover to pursue even more aggressively the goals of expanding its power and version of Islam throughout the region and beyond. Further, Iran refuses to comply with UN and IAEA demands to suspend its nuclear drive, threatening regional and world peace and security— especially with the defiant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the presidency. World leaders, including French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and leaders of both political parties in our country, have declared that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. Do you agree? What steps would you take to ensure that the world remains protected against the threat of a nuclear Iran? Do you think that it is possible to deter the Iranian regime should it come into the possession of nuclear weapons?

We should take Iran very seriously. I have proposed a new strategy for dealing with Iran that keeps America strong while keeping the peace. It is the right way to force President Ahmadinejad, the Ayatollah Khameini, and the mullahs to understand that any nuclear ambitions and support of terrorism will put the Iran on a fast track to isolation. And it is the right way to restore America’s historic role as a leader of the world community, through a combination of strength, vision, and reengagement with the world. My plan for Iran has five principles:

First and foremost, we need to ensure that the preventive war doctrine goes where it belongs – the trash-heap of history. I believe every candidate owes it to the American people to be very clear about where he or she stands on this question. As commander-in- chief, my national security policy will be based on deterrent strength and always protecting Americans – in short, the use of force as a last resort.

As a part of this strategy, I will ask my National Security Advisor to remove President Bush’s explicit endorsement of a preventive war doctrine from my National Security Strategies. And I will ask our Joint Chiefs of Staff to form military plans in accordance with proven national security strategies that we know can keep us and our allies safe – not discredited and dangerous ideological fancies. This strategy will keep America and our allies safe – while showing the world we are once again a strong country that can always win war, but that prefers peace over war. Most importantly, it will restore our legitimacy in the eyes of the world. Everyone knows we’re powerful. The question is what we use our power for – and whether the rest of the world will once again see us as a force for good, rather than the bully we’ve become under President Bush.

The second principle is to use bolder and more targeted economic sanctions to force Iran’s leaders to understand that they cannot continue to buck the will of the international community without destroying their ability to be the modern, advanced nation they so desperately want to become. We should pursue smarter sanctions that will force Iran’s leaders to realize that any future pursuit of nuclear weapons will shut down their economy, further isolate them from the world community, and make them a rogue nation for generations. We must fully enforce the Iran Sanctions Act, a law Congress passed to let the president punish companies who do business with Iran’s extremist regime. We must work multilaterally – most importantly, with our Western European allies – to strengthen economic sanctions on Iran. And we should shut down Iranian access to the American financial system. The Bush Administration recently banned two Iranian banks from accessing our system. However, Iranians can still do business through third parties and through other banks. This must stop.

The third principle of my plan is to use “carrots” – diplomatic measures to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and re-join the world community. We should draw Iran into compliance through incentives including increased refinery capacity and a regional fuel bank that Iran could use for peaceful purposes. And we need to use the possibility of bringing Iran into multilateral economic organizations, including the WTO, as a carrot for change.

The fourth principle of my policy is to reengage with Iran. We should begin building a new course of diplomatic relations with Iran by expanding low-level talks between government officials on both sides in a neutral country. The goal of these talks should be to find a path out of the log-jam created by the Bush Administration and, ultimately, to achieve full diplomatic relations between the two countries.

But we must always negotiate from a position of strength. Unlike President Bush, I believe we do need to meet with Iran. But any higher-level meeting should only happen if we verify that the meetings would promote America’s national security interests and would not be used for propaganda or other improper purposes.

And the fifth and final principle is to reengage with other major nations on the challenge of Iran. We must work with China and Russia on the problem of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Both nations have economic relationships with Iran on trade and energy. But both nations also have a strong interest in stability in the Middle East. And neither nation wants the nuclear club to expand. In the first year of my administration, I will convene a conference with my Secretary of State and representatives from the “E.U. 3″ – Great Britain, France, and Germany – Russia, China and Iran, to discuss a way out of the stalemate of the Bush Administration.

The situation in the Darfur region of Western Sudan has markedly deteriorated since President Bush labeled it a genocide a few short years ago. Despite international action to authorize a hybrid United Nations-African Union force, the crisis continues, with at least 200,000 dead and another 2.5 million displaced from their homes. If elected, what steps would you take to help end this pressing humanitarian crisis? What role should the United States play in ensuring that peacekeeping troops are able to enter the country? What steps should the United States take to lead the international community towards taking swift action to pressure Sudan?

At the dawn of a new century and on the brink of a new presidency, the United States needs to reclaim the moral high ground that defined our foreign policy for much of the last century. To lead the world in addressing the challenges of our century, America must restore its moral authority. Restoring our moral authority means leading by example, and making clear that hard challenges don’t frighten us, but call us to action.

Few areas deserve the United States’ moral leadership more urgently than Sudan. I have called for urgent, decisive action by the United States government on Sudan, the site of the most critical humanitarian crises in the world today. I believe we must act on this crisis together – and we must act now.

The African Union peacekeeping troops stationed in Darfur have acted bravely in a difficult situation. But these troops have been unable to protect civilians or enforce a 2004 cease-fire, and security has deteriorated dramatically. I believe President Bush should convene an emergency meeting of NATO’s leadership to provide assistance to a UN deployment of 3,000 troops, backed by logistical, operational, and financial support. NATO must also establish a no-fly zone over the region to cut off supplies to the brutal Janjaweed militias and end the Sudanese government’s bombing of civilians in Darfur. NATO member states should also impose a new round of multilateral sanctions on the Sudanese government and freeze the foreign assets of individuals complicit in the genocide.

I also believe that the United States must make a decisive new commitment to employ the extraordinary assets of the U.S. military — our airlift capabilities, logistical support, and intelligence systems — to assist UN and African Union peacekeeping efforts in Darfur. And we must continue to pressure other countries with influence in the region, such as China, to meet their own responsibilities to help end this conflict.

At the urging of President Bush, the United States Senate recently considered comprehensive immigration reform. While the Senate’s attempt at reform ultimately failed, it highlighted the severe problems plaguing our nation’s immigration system, particularly the 10-12 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. If elected, how would you determine the fate of these 10-12 million people? What types of changes would you support to U.S. immigration policy on the whole? What safeguards would you take to ensure that those fleeing persecution will continue to be granted safe haven within our nation’s borders?

Immigration is central to the story of America, but today our immigration system needs a fundamental overhaul. Our security is threatened by borders we cannot control. Our economy is harmed by an underground economy with a large and unprotected labor force. And our values are violated when over 12 million people live in the shadows of our society, vulnerable to abuse and fearful of deportation.

The first step in overhauling the immigration system is to secure our borders and stop illegal trafficking. We need to increase the number of border patrol agents and invest in surveillance technology to police the borders. We also need to crack down on employers that employ undocumented immigrants and, in some cases, abuse their workers.

It is unrealistic to think that we can deport more than 12 million people. People who are already here should have the opportunity to earn American citizenship if they do not have a criminal record, pay a fine in recognition that they came here illegally, and learn English–the surest path to success in this country.

What role should the government play in addressing poverty and hunger?  Should social welfare programs targeting the poor be expanded, kept about the same, or shifted to private forms of assistance?

– Senator Edwards did not respond to our question on poverty and hunger –

What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the ability to have an abortion?  Should laws be put in place requiring parental notification when minors request an abortion?

– Senator Edwards did not respond to our question about reproductive choice –

Ensuring that the government does not establish a religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right. At the same time, the constitution also protects the rights of individuals to practice their religion free from state influence or coercion. How do you think the government can simultaneously protect these two fundamental rights? Do you support federal money being allocated to religious institutions for provision of social services or to parochial schools? What restrictions, if any, would you put on these funds, whether provided by grants or vouchers? On another religious liberty matter, do you support legislation directed at strengthening the obligation of employers to provide a reasonable accommodation of an employee’s religious practice?

In the last few years, I have been all over the country going to community action centers, faith-based local organizations that are providing help to the poor because of my work on the issue of poverty. In many places, there would be no support for the poor if there were no faith-based groups.

In a manner consistent with the First Amendment, faith-based charities should be able to participate in delivering services. But they should also meet the same anti-discrimination standards as other charities receiving government support.

Honesty requires me to be direct and say that I do not support vouchers for private schools. Vouchers often use tax dollars to fund religious activities and training and drain our public schools of much-needed funds.

Title I provides for the equitable participation of parochial school students in federal funding for the education of low-income students. Funds are available for non-religious educational products and services like math text books, lab equipment, and transportation services. As president, I would invest more in this type of educational support for needy parochial school children. Government can support the choice of working parents to place their children in parochial schools. The line between state and religion must be strongly defended, but freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion. Children who attend religious institutions deserve access to the secular resources necessary to succeed in our 21st century economy.

I strongly support protecting religious freedom in the workplace, including respect for religious holidays and wearing religious clothing. I will also strengthen enforcement at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

What conditions do you see as necessary for fostering peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

At its most basic level, the conditions necessary for fostering peace between the Israelis and Palestinians will require Israelis to feel safe, secure, and welcome in the region, and for the Palestinians to have a coherent homeland where they can build a strong economy.

What role should the United States play in building Israeli- Palestinian peace?

George Bush has failed miserably to lead on Middle East peace – and by failing to keep things moving forward we have sunk backwards.  I’m going to appoint a high level envoy and I’m going to get personally involved.  I am going end the stubborn refusal of this administration to talk to parties like Syria.  We need a two-state solution which protects the security of Israel. This can only be accomplished through energetic American engagement in strengthening moderates and pushing both sides to make difficult but necessary compromises.   The borders inevitably will have to be some modification of the pre-1967 borders, modified by negotiated swaps acceptable to both sides.  All parties on the Arab side must recognize the right of Israel to exist.  We need a President will devote the energy and experience to getting this done – true Arab-Israel peace would be a boon to American security and it will take a real diplomat with significant experience to get this done.

In your view, what kind of a threat does Iran pose to the United States and to our allies?  What should we be doing about it?

In dealing with difficult regimes like Iran, we must remember that no nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons – but that many nations have been convinced to renounce them.  If we unite the world behind the right carrots and sticks, and provide the Iranians with face-saving ways to step back from the nuclear brink, we will prevail.  We need to unite the world to impose tough sanctions on Iran if they persist in their nuclear enrichment program. Their economy is fragile, and these sanctions hurt.  But we also must let the Iranians know that if they desist from nuclear enrichment, they can expect secure supplies of reactor fuel and meaningful security guarantees.   And furthermore, if they refrain from provocative statements and actions, and stop all support for international terrorist groups, we should be willing to improve our trade and economic relations.

Peace comes to those who have the courage to learn from their own errors.  We should recognize that U.S. support for the Shah’s repressive regime, and then for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s—and our silence when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran—were wrong.  The seizure of American hostages by Iran was wrong.  The path to a better relationship with Iran will require that both nations acknowledge our difficult shared history, and we need to work to get beyond it.

The road to peace is hard: it is difficult to forgive past injustices and outrages. But for the good of America and for the good of Iran—and for the sake of peace—both nations must focus not on the past, but on the future.

What would your administration do about the situation in Darfur?

As President I will push for enough U.N. peacekeepers to make a difference and for tough sanctions against Sudan.  I’ve met with the Sudanese leaders and I know that they will respond to sanctions with teeth.  China has the Olympics coming up in 2008, which gives us leverage over them as well – and they, in turn, have leverage over Sudan.  I was the first candidate to call for boycotting those Olympics if China doesn’t start using its influence over Khartoum to stop the violence.  Some disagree with that decision, but I believe that genocide is more important than sports.

I do not believe we should intervene militarily in Darfur; we don’t need another military involvement right now.  But there’s a lot more we can do to support the international humanitarian commitment to this crisis, including providing diplomatic and logistics support to the hybrid AU-UN force that is currently being put together.

I’ve spent a lot of time in Darfur and Sudan, and I know the region well.  In 1996 I negotiated the release of a New Mexican Red Cross worker and two of his colleagues.  Last fall I negotiated the release of three other hostages.  In January I went to Darfur with the Save Darfur Coalition and worked to secure a fragile cease-fire.  The cease-fire was intended to provide a setting for dialogue so all sides could negotiate a political solution—there is no military solution.

I said at the time that while we had agreement on a cease-fire, it would be up to the UN and African Union to continue the process and keep the pressure on all sides to actually lay down their weapons.  I spoke directly with the UN Envoy to Sudan and to the African Union, but unfortunately the cease-fire we negotiated did not hold.  Leadership from the White House could have helped make that happen.

However, our delegation’s efforts did result in improved conditions for humanitarian workers in Darfur, and a streamlined process to get them into and out of the country.  Although improving humanitarian relief-access will not address the root causes, it will improve the responses and alleviate some of the suffering.

On what basis should the United States formulate its immigration policy (i.e. who should be let in for what reasons)?  What do you plan to do with those who have migrated to this country illegally?

I am committed to both enforcing our borders and pushing for immigration reform.  Despite what some critics allege, these goals are not mutually exclusive.  We need tough, effective border control—and building a fence will not increase security; only more border patrol manpower will.  I believe in realistic immigration reform that requires undocumented workers to earn their legal status.  If they are to remain in our country, they must pay fines for illegally crossing the border, learn English, pay taxes, and obey our laws.

As President, I will secure the border by hiring and training enough patrol guards to cover the entire border.  We need to more than double the number of guards at the border and provide them with the best surveillance technology available.

We must establish a realistic path to legalization for those who are already here.  This is not amnesty, but an effort that draws out those already here by offering legal status in exchange for good behavior, learning English, payment of back taxes, and fines for illegal entry.  Applicants would also pay an application fee and undergo a medical examination and background check.  Those who break the law will be immediately and permanently deported. The number of guest workers allowed at any one time must be based upon the needs of the U.S. economy. The goal must be to meet demand for jobs that go unfilled by American citizens, and no more.

We also must crack down on immigration fraud and illegal workers, and I also believe we must work in partnership with the Mexican government and other nations.  We must develop border infrastructure to move goods through the free-trade zones along the border, revitalizing communities on both sides of the border and creating much-needed jobs. We will also work with the Secretary of the Organization of American States on Latin American initiatives that focus on economic development and immigration. We need to demonstrate to OAS member states that they have an equal responsibility to solve the immigration problem.

What role should the government play in addressing poverty and hunger?  Should social welfare programs targeting the poor be expanded, kept about the same, or shifted to private forms of assistance?

I believe that the best anti-poverty plan is job creation and education, and I absolutely believe that the federal government has a large role to play in these areas.

Beyond that, however, I also believe in other strong anti-poverty tools, such as a strong commitment to workforce development, an expanded and simplified Earned Income Tax Credit, Transitional Jobs, and career training programs, especially in conjunction with nascent Green-Collar technology jobs, such as retrofitting homes and businesses to meet newer environmental standards.

Of course, universal health care must also be an essential part of this plan, and as I stated previously, I have a sensible plan that gets us there, without creating new bureaucracies or raising new taxes.

Additionally, America’s small, rural towns are not getting the attention they deserve from Washington.  That’s why I’m proposing a tax credit for jobs created in rural parts of the country.

In the richest country in the world, it is a disgrace that there is still so much poverty.  We simply must be doing more to combat it.

What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the ability to have an abortion?  Should laws be put in place requiring parental notification when minors request an abortion?

I am pro-choice, I support Roe v. Wade, and I do not support laws requiring parental notification when minors request an abortion.  As President, I will continue to support abortion rights and medical privacy for women, and I will support full law enforcement against domestic terrorists who bomb abortion facilities.

Moreover, I have gone on record saying that I will ask any potential nominees to the Supreme Court whether they consider Roe v. Wade settled law.  If they say ‘yes,’ they have a good chance of being chosen.  If they say ‘no,’ I will not choose them.  It’s as simple as that, and I encourage the other presidential candidates to make the same commitment.  A woman’s right to choose is under attack in this country, and we can’t afford to be shy about saying where we stand on the issue, loud and clear.

How would you characterize the role of the Faith-Based Initiatives program?  How would it change, if at all, in your administration?

I support certain elements of faith-based initiatives, but there must be very strong firewalls against proselytizing, discrimination in hiring, and other potential civil rights violations.

Are you in favor of or opposed to a voucher program that would subsidize public school students to attend private and/or parochial schools?  In what circumstances would this be acceptable/unacceptable?

I oppose private school tuition vouchers, especially when funds for vouchers compete with funds for overall improvements in America’s public schools.  I will, however, support and expand the number of public charter schools, and will insist that they have the same standards of accountability and access as other public schools.