Political Points — From Masjid to Shul

 Welcome to Political Points, where politics rise in the east, from now until Election Day.

**Joel Pollak is stuck at 30 in his own poll weeks ahead of his effort to unseat Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) from her suburban Chicago seat. Those are nigh-impossible odds.

Don’t count him out in the long run, though. I don’t know of a candidate who has made the case for Israel to a mosque on a Friday and at a synagogue on a Sunday.

His speech at Masjid Bait-Ul Jaam’e in Glen Ellyn, Ill. is gutsy: He is forthright in his robust defense of Israel, which can’t have been easy listening for his immediate audience. He is equally as forthright about his affection for the moderate strain of Islam he encountered while living in South Africa, which isn’t going to be easy listening for a hefty chunk of the Tea Party base that he has otherwise embraced.

Here’s a snippet, describing the period immediately after the Sept. 2001 attacks:

My landlady called me when she heard about the attacks. She was very, very sad and wanted me to know how sorry she was that this had happened. When I came home, my Muslim neighbors came to me and actually apologized to me, though of course nothing that happened had been their fault. They wanted me to know that they rejected what a few had done in the name of Islam.

I was quite touched, and I felt I wanted to do more to help people understand each other. I began to study Arabic with a local imam. I started getting involved in interfaith dialogue with Muslims, Christians and Jews. I studied history and even traveled to Spain to visit the old Andalusian cities where the three faiths had once co-existed. In the process, I learned how much we share–yet also that there is still much that divides us.

As a Jew, and as an American, I care deeply about the State of Israel. Observant Jews pray about the land of Israel–not just when we are at synagogue, but also every time we eat. My grandfather grew up there, after his family left Warsaw; most of those who stayed behind in Poland were murdered in the Holocaust. I have many relatives in Israel, all over the country, and I follow events in Israel very closely, as do many American Jews.

I love Israel–not just because it is my religious homeland, and not just because of my family roots there, but also because of the principle that it represents. The State of Israel stands for the idea that an oppressed people can take control of its own destiny, and build freedom and prosperity with nothing more than faith and hard work. It is the same idea that built America. That is why our two countries are so close, and will remain so.

He goes on to make what might be called the Abe Foxman argument against the Park51 Islamic center near Ground Zero: By no means illegal, but maybe not a good idea because the attackers massacred in the name of Islam, however perverse was their version of Islam.

What’s missing — what might have made this a "gutsy" home run — is any condemnation of Park51 critics and others who don’t make that distinction, between the Islamist attackers and the moderate Muslims who brought Pollak solace in the wake of the attacks.

**Don’t count out Schakowsky either. She is a classic pavement pounding pol who, 12 years into the job, still immerses herself in her constituency — so say my Chicago contacts. And even though she’s virtually guaranteed a seventh term, she has not taken Pollak for granted, and has gone toe–to-toe with him in what has emerged as a race focused on a country an ocean and a sea away in a cycle otherwise defined by the economy. (Nice New York Times looksee here.)

Most recently, on Sunday, she appeared with Pollak at KINS synagogue in West Rogers Park, Ill. Pollak has attempted to tie her to President Obama, depicting him as hostile to Israel. Instead of running away, or adopting a defensive crouch, Schakowsky embraced Obama and the Democratic Congress with well prepared talking points on enhanced security assistance for Israel, and she hit Pollak for what she said was his attempt to make Israel a partisan issue:

This is from her campaign’s account Democratic activist Steve Sheffey’s account of the debate:

The greatest succor we could give to our enemies is the impression that America is divided along partisan lines when it comes to Israel. It isn’t. Aside from Pollak’s factual errors, there was much more agreement than disagreement last night. Pollak and his supporters are doing the pro-Israel community a grave disservice by using Israel as a partisan football.

It’s risky — but often smart — politics to take the narrative the opposition peddles as taken for granted and put it out there as not normative — but absurd. Schakowsky gets that: Her first email blast, after the debate, read as follows:

I literally just walked off the stage from my last debate with Joel Pollak. This will be my toughest race yet.

During the debate he actually said: “President Obama has made it ok to hate Israel.” We can not let this extreme rhetoric slide.

Pollak was stung and followed with this:

What I said–as video of the forum will confirm–was the following:

"President Obama’s policy has made it acceptable to hate Israel openly in polite society. Helen Thomas was fired for making hateful statements about Jews, but she had vilified Israel for years, and felt comfortable expressing her views in this political climate. The Obama policy has also encouraged the world to scapegoat Israel and Jews–not just in the Middle East, but closer to home, where Manuel Zelaya of Honduras blamed Israel and Jews when he was ousted from power."

**Egregious Nazi reference part the umpteenth.

L. Brooks Patterson, a Republican who is the executive (equivalent to mayor or chairman) in Michigan’s Oakland County — an automotive industry hub that includes a chunk of the Detroit metropolitan area — blogs for the online edition of the Detroit News.

Last week, he likened incumbent Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) to Joseph Goebbels for repeating what Patterson contends is the "big lie" that GOP challenger Rocky Raczkowski was sued by business partners. 

Peters knows that is a lie. But as we learned during the Nazi era under the tutelage of the Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, "Tell a lie, tell it big, and tell it often, and people will begin to believe it."

So let’s take a closer look at Herr Peters’ campaign ad.

"Herr" Peters. Gerrit? Nyuk nyuk.

The local ADL office did what local ADL offices do and asked him to stop, please. Per the AP: 

A Jewish civil rights group says it’s "deeply disappointed" that Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson made a Nazi reference in a blog entry he wrote about Michigan’s 9th District congressional race.

Anti-Defamation League regional director Betsy Kellman said Wednesday the Holocaust analogy used by Patterson does "not contribute to legitimate debate." 

This is where a local pol usually pretends that nothing is amiss, move along please, let’s get out the next blog post, lalalalala, I cannot hear a word you say.

But Patterson won’t let it go. He followed up with the shocking revelation that Kellman had twice in 15 years donated $250 to Democrats!

Now why would Ms. Kellman so egregiously misquote my blog? Why insert the word "Holocaust" when she knows that despicable chapter in history is an emotional hot button?

Well, it took me only a few minutes on my computer to find out why. On May 12, 1996, Ms. Kellman donated $250 to the Democratic National Committee. More recently on November 28, 2005, Ms. Kellman donated another $250, this time to the Senator Debbie Stabenow campaign. Clearly, she is a card-carrying Democrat coming to the defense of fellow Democrat Gary Peters.

Because, you know, comparing someone to a notorious Nazi war criminal is not at all a hot button.

The DCCC, the campaign body for the Democratic House campaign, couldn’t resist this one, and couldn’t resist one more jab at Rich Iott, the hapless Ohio GOP candidate who still won’t say it’s a bad idea to spend weekends dressing up in SS duds. From the DCCC vice-chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

The fact that Mr. Raczkowskis campaign is comparing its political opponents to Nazis is disgraceful. He should condemn this disgusting use of Nazi imagery and apologize, and national Republicans should repudiate these tactics as well. The disturbing trend of national Republicans refusing to condemn the increasing use of Nazi imagery, comparing people to Nazis, or even dressing as Nazis, has to stop.

**More from Michigan: David Leyton, the prosecutor in Genesee County (county seat: Flint) is running for the state’s attorney-general spot. He’s a Democrat. The campaign of his opponent, Republican Bill Schuette, is depicting him as soft on crime in what is turning into a rough race. (Is there a race this year that hasn’t turned rough?)

One of Schuette’s proxies is Debbie McIntosh, whose son, Adam, 25, was shot to death in 2006. His killer, Horatio Brown, is serving 22 years for manslaughter. McIntosh said her family only agreed to a plea deal if Leyton would agree to charge two others in the case. He and the police captain said there was not enough evidence.

McIntosh, apparently, is also ADAMSMOM, who comments on the Flint Journal website. She claims the paper has not contacted her in its coverage of the election; the reporter involved, David Harris, says he has.

At one point in this back and forth, ADAMSMOM posted this comment:

how dare the FLINT URINAL not show me the respect to get my side of the story, instead of ONE SIDE,,,oh A JEWISH OWNED PAPER,,,,and lEYTON IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE JEWISH FEDERATION,,,,FLINT JOURNAL you should be ashamed of youself,

Leyton was a board member of the Flint federation. Flint is a Newhouse paper; Samuel Newhouse, founder of the Newhouse chain, was Jewish. I’m not sure how his son, Si Newhouse, self-identifies, but we’re getting into beside-the-point territory here.

Now, the AP reports, Leyton’s campaign wants Schuette to stop using McIntosh as a proxy. Schuette’s campaign accuses Leyton of further victimizing her (although no one denies that she is ADAMSMOM).

Meantime, ADAMSMOM has followed up with this comment:

sorry, but this was not a racist comment, my Jewish friends pointed it out to me, and said I should say something, because the journal did not call me, I have several Jewish friends and I find this to be very dirty of them to do this to me, and I hope the public sees them for the evil they are…I love my Jewish family of friends and they know this, and they are the ones who gave me this information,,,,sorry if this offended anyone. Again, see how the journal did not call me for my side of the story on this story, see why I am upset? Why does doe the flint journal do this?

Harris, a couple of comments below, notes his efforts to get in touch with McIntosh.

**So Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) gave her speech to the New Policy political action committee, and she was forcefully pro-two states to a group that is equivocal on the issue. 

From her speech Saturday night, reported by Adam Kredo at the Washington Jewish Week:

Let me begin by saying that I am a long- time, dedicated advocate of a two-state solution and supporter of an engaged peace process in the Middle East. I am committed fully to a peaceful and secure democratic state of Israel that is a home for the Jewish people that exists in harmony and security with an independent and autonomous state which is a secure home for the Palestinian people. I have been involved in issues of Israel/Palestine and peace in the Middle East for over fifteen years. My position in support of a two-state solution is clear and has always been so; to say or imply otherwise is simply incorrect.

She also said this position would not keep her from speaking to groups like New Policy:

It is disturbing to me that my clearly defined position regarding a two-state solution was questioned so quickly and intensely simply because I agreed to speak before a group of my constituents about these issues, not all of whom share the entirety of my views, nor I theirs. These allegations ensued even before I had spoken a single word to all of you, perhaps in an effort to chill my thoughts, perhaps to censor my words, or perhaps to even discourage me from speaking to you at all.

This is something of a straw man. J Street, the presumed target of these remarks, simply made it clear that if she wanted the group’s continued support, she make her support for its core issue clear before a group that does not embrace two states as a core value.

Keep ye olde tips (and ye newe ones) rolling in to rkampeas@jta.org