Now, actually...

I dont' agree with the statement at all, but I don't see anything overtly anti-semitic. I'm usually one of the first to lynch the "Zionist" whiners, but if it had been the French puppeteer I doubt anyone would have made a racial issue out of it. He's just refering to the country, wouldn't you say?

Maybe there is more out there, people who are really anti-semitic have trouble keeping their mouth shut. Would be worth looking into. If this is it, though, all I see is the same whine that the US and Israel are too close.

Wow. That's a pretty shocking statement. I went to Google to look it up -- disbelieving he could have actually said it, but he did. At a National Press Club luncheon. http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000037688

Not only that, but the transcript notes "(Applause.)" after that paragraph. Huh?

In context it looks like he was contrasting the Israeli peace movement with the Israeli war machine (the "Israeli puppeteer") and noting how only the later is given any political weight in America. He seemed to be saying D.C. insiders might feel differently in private but are afraid to speak out. (For fear of appearing anti-Semitic?)

Whatever his intent, it was poorly worded. Even in context it looks bad. (shakes head)

Yeah--everyone knows you can't go around blasting the Chosen People! Do what you will to the Muslims (like we'd care), but I'll be damned if I'm going to let more anti-Semitism go on!

Wait, wait.

What has he said about Jews? What has he said that made any sort of judgement about them racially, or anything other that the political relationship with America?

When people said that Clinton was bought off by the Chinese, was that a racial slur?

I have to admit I am not seeing this one.

What has he said about Jews? What has he said that made any sort of judgement about them racially, or anything other that the political relationship with America? . . . I have to admit I am not seeing this one.

I think it's not so much the content as the tone that can be inferred from it. It sounds like the same drivel that comes out of raving anti-Semite's mouths. It sounds like the old "Jews secretly control the world" line that has been used to justify anti-Semitic violence for centuries. Imagine the exact same line coming out of Osama Bin Laden's mouth and it would no longer seem like a mere political assessment. Rhetoric like that stirs (probably unintended) historic connotations that can't help but color the listeners interpretation.

I doubt Ralph Nader is an anti-Semite. It just strikes a wrong chord.

Granted, I can see that. No one hates all this "Zionist plot" stuff more than me... well, maybe Zionists, but you know what I mean.

I just get a little antsy when people's language is used to detect undertones of racism. Not that Perot needed any help, but the "you people" statement pretty much sealed the casket for him. You hear people make statements about ethnic neighborhoods and such that are twisted to be about the ethnicity of the residents.

Yeah, maybe a bit more sensitivity would have been in order, if anything to foil people looking for a target. I am pretty soft on Israel, but I would hate to see a climate where everything you said about them was construed as a statement on Jews. That's too much power to silence scrutiny.

I don't agree with what he said at all. I think Israel has been a balancing force in the Middle East since its birth, beneficial far beyond all the hate their presence has caused. I'd hate to see people take issue with the words though, because the anti-PC backlash would just validate everything Nadar said.

Look at some of the assumptions behind/things inferable from/implied by his comments (especially if someone's already of that bent of mind):

Jews are rich.
Jews are powerful.
Jews are a secret force that controls other countries.
Jews make war.
Jews want to use their power, money, control, to get other countries (i.e., America) to do their dirty work. (C'mon you've heard that again-and-again from Arabs since the war began.)

See, it seems to originate from the base belief system of anti-Semites.

Could you infer those things about Chinese people from the Clinton scandal? Possibly. But, unlike the Jewish people, those aren't negative racial trait charges that have been aimed at the Chinese for centuries and used to commit unspeakable violence against them. It's nothing to say, "Hey, look at that Chinese guy going into KFC. Guess they do like chicken!" Change that to a black man instead of a Chinese man and you have a possible racial slur.

Sorry, BakerStreet -- that wasn't a response to your last comment. I was finishing my thought from the previous message (left half of it off somehow). We cross posted again.

I doubt he's an anti-Semite, too. It just looked bad, especially when one paragraph is taken from a longer comment and placed into a totally different context.

I just get a little antsy when people's language is used to detect undertones of racism. Not that Perot needed any help, but the "you people" statement pretty much sealed the casket for him. You hear people make statements about ethnic neighborhoods and such that are twisted to be about the ethnicity of the residents.

I agree that the racism card is played too easily, too often, and on far too little evidence.

Nah, you don't have the same slippery slope with the Chinese. I think the slippery slope is unfair with Isreal, but like you say it is enevitable and should be planned for a bit better. I read the Chinese and Israel situations about the same, except there is more of a 'traitorous' flavor with the Clinton scandal because China is such an antagonist at times.

I concede the point, I just wish it wasn't so easy a point to make in our society.

Yeah--everyone knows you can't go around blasting the Chosen People! Do what you will to the Muslims (like we'd care), but I'll be damned if I'm going to let more anti-Semitism go on!

Don't bother telling me that I have been trolled, I know I have.

Nonetheless, whenever the Israelis start beheading people as a tool of diplomacy then then I will defend Muslims withthe same vigor. Until then I suggest you refer to my article on the Silent Majority. And get a user name at least!

The pro-Israel lobby is a real and powerful special interest in Washington. Nader is being consistent in his populist, isolationist, and anti-special interest viewpoint. The same thing could be said of the gun lobby, the energy lobby, the health lobby, even the hotel lobby. I would hope that Nader, the ultimate foe of 'political correctness' as a means of supressing dissent from public discourse, would be brave enough to say it like it is without the fear of 'offending' his Jewish constituents. That fearlessness, accompanied by a devotion to very basic and contained left-slanted, populist themes, is what accounts for Nader's popularity among anti-establishment constituents.

Lobby is not equal to 'puppetteer' Mediator, and you do your own cause harm by trying to say that it does. Thanks thouugh I always appreciate folks who go to the trouble to discredit themselves. If this is a "very basic and contained left-slanted, populist theme" then I am glad this guy will only be getting that 5-6% percent of the popular vote.

Are you people more offended by the insinuation that Israel is a puppeteer or that Bush is a puppet? Furthermore, had Mr. Nader been discussing the NRA or the Christian Right, would you be spewing limbaughsticly about Nader's anti-Christian or anti-gun owner positions? Do you believe that Israel has a special exemption from rhetorically scathing remarks about its influence simply because anti-semitism has manifested itself as a fear of Jewish power? This would seem inconsistent with the positions many of you have taken regarding 'political correctness' and the necessity of calling it like it is without reverence to social pressures. Not that I ever respected that position, since republicans are responsible for the greater amount of PC 'pressure' on these forums and on the airwaves.

Of course, Ralph Naders remarks are untrue in a literal sense, just as in a literal sense Bush is certainly not a strong, principled leader. However, the analogy begins to carry more weight as the number x, being the number of lobby interests that 'contribute to', or in some cases 'dictate', policies in specific policy areas, approaches 1. This is theoretical of course. In reality, there are many interests and concerns that influence America's policy towards Israel, and neither you nor I can accurately assess the flow of cash and ideas to determine just how much ideological 'oomph' the pro-Israel lobby has in Washington.

"Bush is certainly not a strong, principled leader. "

A leader that caves to polls, has no personal goals, and is motivated by no personal principles wouldn't have invaded Iraq. He has no principles, but he is villified for his religious beliefs and the idea that he believed himself detined to be President. He is not strong, but he thwarted the will of every bullying "ally" and discarded the principle of pacification and "cooperation" to do something he felt was right.

So you guys villify him for all the things he claims to have motivated him, and then call him a lier and claim he is unmotivated. You call him a religious maniac, and then you say he has no principles. You say he is a bumbling idiot, and then claim he can execute huge conspiracies and align dark forces to quell popular discontent.

Schitzo-revisionists, sheesh.

According to the textbook Politics in America by Thomas R. Dye: "Fortune magazine sponsored a survey of more than 2,000 Washington "insiders," including members of Congress, their staffs, and White House officials, asking them to rank the most powerful lobbyists in the capital. The results were as follows:
1. American Association of Retired Persons
2. American Israel Public Affairs Committee
3. AFL-CIO
4. National Federation of Independent Business
5. Association of Trial Lawyers of America
6. NRA
7. Chrisitan Coalition"
and so on down to the 25th.
These may have changed order a bit since '97... but wouldn't the AIPAC have to get siginificantly bigger in order to squash all the other lobbyists? This is in response to your second paragraph above, Mediatiator, btw. Which is in response to... Nader accusing foreign Israelis of being puppeteers? Are we getting away from the original thrust of his comments? You mention lobbyists, but he says "the head of the Israeli government... the Israeli puppeteer."

As for your specific questions: I wasn't particularly offended by either of the things you mentioned, but moreso about the Israeli = puppeteer thing. Second question: I haven't yet spewed in this thread (unless you count my above content), but I would be more inclined to mention it about the Christian RIght than the NRA, as it is a religious idealogy group, which brings it in closer parallel with the comments from Mr. Nader. I don't believe that Israel has a special exemption from rhetoric, but I do feel that Mr. Nader has overstepped some bounds of propriety. I don't recall taking such a position on political correctness; I think we should tone down some PC talk, but we still need to have some qualms about upsetting "social pressures." Which Republicans are responsible for the "PC 'pressure'" on these forums?
You're saying that Mr. Nader is as much a liar as Mr. Bush? Or was that sentence (first of second paragraph) just a vehicle for attacking with your opinion of the President? And the rest of the paragraph I managed to say something about in my first bit (albeit a bit sloppily).