« The Myth of Reagoldwater | Main | All in the Family »

Tea Leaves

04 Mar 2007 04:03 pm

Since my primary area of interest in foreign policy, I've been facing something of a conundrum in looking at the Democratic primary candidates for the simple reason that, as best I can tell, stated foreign policy views during a presidential campaign have almost no relationship to things that happen in office. So you try to look a bit at personnel. I saw recently that Barack Obama had hired Dan Shapiro, formerly of Bill Nelson's office, to be a consultant on Middle East issues but didn't know what to make of that. Richard Silverstein, however, has a potential observation:

I would note that before joining the Obama campaign, Dan Shapiro served as Jewish outreach coordinator for Senator Bill Nelson. Nelson was one of the first U.S. senators to visit Bashar Assad in Syria and take home the message that Syria wants peace and negotiation with Israel. I don't know what role, if any, Shapiro played on that trip. But I admired the guts it took for Nelson to buck our country's declared policy of isolating Syria.

Again, though, for all we know Shapiro's role in the trip was to advise Nelson not to do it so the significance of this is less than totally obvious. This leads me to recall that nobody seems to mention this, but former Rep. David Bonior, who's gone to work for John Edwards, is not only a noted labor leader, but also quite possibly the Israel lobby's least-liked legislator in recently history.

Share This

Comments (16)

Matt, is there some central web-place people can go to find out who is working for which campaigns, and in what capacities?

Try this.

The so-called Israeli lobby doesn't like David Bonior for the very good reason that he doesn't like the State of Israel and has always supported the Arab position. I would also point out that Mr. Bonior is strongly anti-abortion so let Mr. Yglesias and Mr. Levy ponder on that.

Is SLC one of those paid trolls that liberal blogs were speculating about a few months ago? SLC, do you comment here with the support, paid or unpaid, of any organization?

Re ogged

Being a liberal Democrat my entire life and never having voted for a Republican candidate for anything, I will categorically state that I have no connection whatever with any conservative organization. I would doubt that any conservative organization would have any positive interest in someone who has labeled the current occupant of the White House a coke snorting, pot smoking, draft dodging, lying drunk

Why would it matter if he was paid or not? Does integrity--which I guess is what the $ issue gets at--somehow factor into trollishness?

Probably the opposite, what does it mean to be an American zionist?

It's the equivalent of the keyboard-warriors contribution to the war effort in Iraq. It gives them something to do and it's less dangerous than moving the family out to a trailor in Hebron.

former Rep. David Bonior, who's gone to work for John Edwards, is not only a noted labor leader, but also quite possibly the Israel lobby's least-liked legislator in recently history.

Does this mean that Bonior automatically seems to be a good choice?

Or that Edwards should be looked upon favorably for choosing Bonior, simply because of this fact?

I don't think Matt said it was automatically good. On the other hand, if the foreign policy issue that most concerns you in the near term (6 years, say) is avoiding war with Iran, having the guy despised by the group of lobbying organization most likely to push for that eventuality is arguably a good sign. Unless, like SLC, you want to claim that he's despised for a good reason somehow unrelated to actual policy. But I don't think the statement that he "takes the Arab side" with no description of what that means, whether its true, or why its bad is really very convincing.

David Bonior's political positions as a Congressman aren't mysterious. He represented a district where a significant plurality of the voters were 1) members of labor unions or very sympathetic to labor, 2) Catholic or Muslim.

He's a sharp and very capable political planner. Matt says nobody seems to mention his unpopularity with AIPAC, but it came up in an Eli Lake article in the last month or so about Clinton's and Edwards' appearances at an AIPAC event in New York (Clinton gave a speech, Edwards did a reception).

How about Mr. Boniors' anti-choice position on abortion? That should be of concern to all the pro-choicers who comment on this blog.

How about Mr. Boniors' anti-choice position on abortion? That should be of concern to all the pro-choicers who comment on this blog.

For gawd's sake, why? There is no chance that any Democratic Administration will do anything to endanger or limit a woman's right to choose.

Haaretz ranked Obama least "pro-Israel" out of all 17 presidential candidates. Among other things insufficiently "pro-Israel", he supports Feinstein-Leahy legislation against cluster bombs.

SLC is decidedly not a troll. He is just very partisan and emotional on a couple points: defending Israel from criticism and promoting an aggressive posture towards Iran, if not attacking it outright. That he's being called a troll should make him consider being more cool-headed next time he advances an argument.

SLC is decidedly not a troll. He is just very partisan and emotional on a couple points: defending Israel from criticism and promoting an aggressive posture towards Iran, if not attacking it outright.

SLC- Support Lieberman Connecticut?

"How about Mr. Boniors' anti-choice position on abortion? That should be of concern to all the pro-choicers who comment on this blog."

When Bonior ran for the Dem nominaiton for Governor of Michigan in 2002 against Jennifer Granholm and Jim Blanchard, he sounded to me to be taking the same position as Granholm, that they were personally against abortion but wouldn't try to do anything to make it illegal.


Comments closed March 18, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.