Democratic Complaints About Ads Pure Hypocrisy
Like many Jewish Exponent readers, I'm getting sick and tired of reading the complaints of partisan Democrats who think it's awful that Republicans have the chutzpah to run ads in the paper criticizing their opponents (Letters: "Republicans Can Only Win By Smears and Lies," Oct. 16).
These people are horrified that the Republican Jewish Coalition has the nerve to point out Barack Obama's questionable associations or to highlight the fact that the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt is long dead.
Though Democrats claim to be as pure as the driven snow and, of course, the true advocates of democracy, they have no compunction about calling for the total suppression of ads they find disagreeable.
While I agree that some of the RJC's ads are over-the-top, are they really any worse than some of those put forward by the Jewish Democrats?
For example, the National Jewish Democratic Council's ad on "energy independence" that I saw in the Exponent on Oct. 23 is as full of innuendo, misleading assertions and false conclusions as anything the RJC has put together. Shall we now call for banning NJDC ads from the paper?
The Democrats' whining is pure hypocrisy. They don't want cleaner politics. They just want to muzzle their opponents.
GOP Campaign Continues to Sow Hatred, Violence
The Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin shows that both of the candidates are completely out of touch with the mood in America today (Cover story: "Social Issues Don't Seem to Grab Voters This Time," Oct. 16).
Earlier this month, the McCain/Palin camp gave America a week of the most heinous, hate-filled campaign speeches, which served only to sow hatred and violence. For this, they were admonished by Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike.
In fact, McCain is so out of touch with American society that he didn't act until leaders in his own party decried his latest strategies, and demanded that he stop his extremely ugly and dangerous insinuations about Barack Obama, warning that violence could erupt as a consequence.
America does not need a leader who sees nothing wrong with sowing hatred among citizens. That tactic alone should disqualify him from the presidency.
Don't Think of Color? Do So, If You Support Obama
I am a white, Jewish senior, and I fear that Sen. Barack Obama might lose the election due to others of my ilk who believe some of the rhetoric they've been hearing and so are hesitant to put an African-American in office (People & Politics: " 'Great Schlep' Seeks Out Bubby-and-Zayda Voters," Oct. 16).
I must admit that during the primaries, I was ambivalent and undecided between Sens. Clinton and Obama. However, the more I learned, the more certain I became that Obama was the better choice.
I firmly believe that Obama will protect our Social Security payments; I also believe Sen. McCain will cut them back in order to provide tax cuts to big business.
I urge Jewish seniors not to think of color when they go into the voting booth -- except to acknowledge that by voting for Obama they will not only make the right choice for our country, but then we will have a president who will be an inspiration to other African-Americans and spur them on to be the best they can be.
Maybe Those Kids Should Listen to Their Bubbies
In your article on the so-called "Great Schlep" (People & Politics: " 'Great Schlep' Seeks Out Bubby-and-Zayda Voters," Oct. 16), I am surprised that you did not mention the horror of Sarah Silverman's statement that, if Barack Obama does not win, she will blame the Jews.
Maybe the kids who travel to see their grandparents in order to convince them to vote for Obama should listen to what their elders have to say, since they have more experience and wisdom about the world.
It's not just the false rumors about Obama that their grandparents might believe, but the facts that he denies, as Matthew Brooks pointed out in an opinion piece in the same issue of the Jewish Exponent (Opinions: "It's the Truth! Advertisements Expose Facts About Obama," Oct. 16).
Elections: They're 'Advance Auctions of Stolen Property'
While I disagree with his anti-Semitic views, I still think that H.L. Mencken had the best definition of an election: "An advance auction of stolen property."
Where does the government get the money for those grants, known as earmarks, which Jonathan Tobin decries (A Matter of Opinion: "Government 'Gifts' Are Not Free," Oct. 8)?
By stealing it from the people -- or printing more (what I call "government counterfeiting"). That's how!
New York, N.Y.
Film Distorts Reality About Peaceful Muslims
While there is no single representation in the film "Obsession" that cannot be defended as factually correct in a vacuum, the juxtaposition of ideas and images chosen by the filmmaker creates false impressions about Muslims in general and, especially, about millions of loyal and law-abiding American Muslims (A Matter of Opinion: "Who's Obsessed About 'Obsession,' " Oct. 16).
The film, in its selective and antagonistic approach, might well be titled "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Saudi Arabia." A film about Jews that chose the more inflammatory comments and actions of a right-wing element of our tradition would be roundly criticized by our community. The first question we would ask is: "Why hasn't this garbage been repudiated from within the community that supports this filmmaker?"
And if the bias of the filmmaker included support for a political candidate, we would rail even louder.
Rabbi Jack Moline