New J Street Endorsements

Back on Friday, Jamie Kirchick wrote a kind of unhinged tirade against myself, other liberal Jewish writers such as Eric Alterman, and J Street, the new progressive pro-Israel pro-peace PAC that was, honestly, too long to read on a Friday. It was suggested to me, however, that in light of today's announcement of six more J Street endorsements of House candidates that I might want to check it out especially the part where he "guarantees" that Robert Wexler wouldn't accept a J Street endorsement.

Needless to say, today's list of endorsees includes Rep. Wexler along with Rep. Lois Capps and Rep. Susan Davis plus wannabe congresspeople Sam Bennett, Ashwin Madia, and Tom Perriello.

Comments

Jamie Kirchik is the one on the fringe.
Google results for searching his name in quotations: 13,500
Same thing for Matt: 169,000
Conclusion? Fuck Jamie Kirchik. Can't believe Sullivan let that slimeball write for him...

Posted by Two | July 28, 2008 3:10 PM

Jamie Kirchick is not a very smart writer.

Posted by fnook | July 28, 2008 3:10 PM

Why does anyone pay any attention to the New Republic? That worthless paper should have gone under back in the 90s.

Posted by IvanG | July 28, 2008 3:13 PM

Jamie Kirchik is the one on the fringe.
Google results for searching his name in quotations: 13,500
Same thing for Matt: 169,000
Conclusion? Fuck Jamie Kirchik. Can't believe Sullivan let that slimeball write for him...

Posted by Two | July 28, 2008 3:13 PM

I take it that the Atlantic style guide won't allow you to entitle the post "How do you like me now, motherfucker?"

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 28, 2008 3:14 PM

Allow myself to introduce...myself.

Kirchick unleashed an unhinged tirade against ME, et al. Sorry, pet peeve.

Posted by Austin Powers | July 28, 2008 3:14 PM

I think it'd have to be: "How do you like myself now, motherfucker?"

Posted by Philly | July 28, 2008 3:23 PM

You screwed the line up Austin Powers, it's:
Please allow me, to introduce myself,
I'm a dick of way bad taste,
I've been an ass for a long, long year
Stole a paper's soul and faith,
And I was round when Jon Chait,
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pertez,
Washed his hands and sealed his fate.
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But whats puzzling you
Is the nature of my game.

Seriously, why does he write? Is it some kind of therapy for douchebaggery?

Posted by The Devil | July 28, 2008 3:25 PM

"Myself" should only be used reflexively, that is, when the subject and object are both you. Matt is only the objcct in the lead sentence here, and should thus be "me," not "myself."

But I was a science major, not a Harvard liberal arts guy, so maybe Matt knows some kind of New Grammar I don't.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 28, 2008 3:31 PM

Breaking news! Kirchick uninteresting, uninformed, predictable writer!

Speaking only for myself, I'd ignore him. If I want to get worked up about a predictable ideologue at TNR, I'll save it for Peretz.

Posted by Kevin | July 28, 2008 3:37 PM

Kirchik is another in the seemingly endless lists of writers who make their living getting things wrong on a practically daily basis. You would think that some sense of shame or perhaps pride would prevent them from making the sort of bold pronouncements of stuff they know for sure only to have their incredible ignorance exposed time and time again. But here we are.

Posted by brent | July 28, 2008 3:40 PM

Also note that Kirchik seems to have traduced, and possibly libeled, Alterman.

If Yglesias could be bothered to read the whole thing, Yglesias might find that he has been similarly wronged.

Posted by Warren Terra | July 28, 2008 3:41 PM

He lost me at compr(om)ises.

Posted by goethean | July 28, 2008 3:43 PM

"I haven't read Kenneth Pollack's A Path Out of the Desert..."

"Jamie Kirchick wrote a kind of unhinged tirade... that was, honestly, too long to read on a Friday."

Wow. Back-to-back posts where you admit you haven't done the most basic of research on the subject on which you're commenting. Just what the Hell do you DO all day long... play Solitaire?

Posted by David | July 28, 2008 3:46 PM

"I haven't read Kenneth Pollack's A Path Out of the Desert..."

"Jamie Kirchick wrote a kind of unhinged tirade... that was, honestly, too long to read on a Friday."

Wow. Back-to-back posts where you admit you haven't done the most basic of research on the subject on which you're commenting. Just what the Hell do you DO all day long... play Solitaire?

Posted by David | July 28, 2008 3:50 PM

Actually, David, he said it was too long to read on a FRIDAY. Since he then quotes Kirchick's last paragraph, presumably he has read it now.

But speaking of not reading carefully...

Posted by JoshA | July 28, 2008 3:59 PM

The attempt by people like Ben-Ami, Alterman, Yglesias, Klein et.al. to portray their advocacy of unconditional Israeli negotiations with Iran and Hamas, unconditional Israeli territorial concessions, the Palestinian "right of return," (among other extreme positions) as having any truck within the mainstream of Jewish, American or Israeli opinion, while also having the gall to allege that anyone remotely to their right is an extremist, is something that psychologists call "projection."

It's certainly true that those who advocate or enable of a Israeli or US war with Iran, or advocate or enable attempts by Israel to permanently hold on to any (ANY) settlers imposed on the land Israel seized in 1967, are advocating and enabling extremist positions. It's also true that one of the special features of TNR in contemporary US politics is to sort of launder these sorts of extreme positions into wider respectability.

But as far as I read MY and/or Alterman, it's not so much that they directly confront the extremism of these positions, indeed they are rarely so forthright or adopt any definitive position, but rather they write straightforwardly and calmly about the overall politics of these issues in such a way that the extreme nature of current US or Israeli approaches, contemporary and historic, appears more or less naturally.

Posted by otto | July 28, 2008 4:16 PM

I think he was being charitable when he described the post as "too long to read on a friday". I think a more accurate description would be, a steaming pile of incoherent invective barely worth acknowledging, let alone beginning to attempt to correct.

Who still reads TNR, anyways?

The New Republic Average Monthly Paid Circulation Year Avg Paid Circ % Change
2000[13] 101,651
2001[13] 88,409 -13.0
2002[14] 85,069 -3.8
2003[15] 63,139 -25.8
2004[16] 61,675 -2.3
2005[17] 61,771 0.2
2006[18] 61,024 -1.2
2007[19] 59,779 -2.0

In 2007 The New Republic was bought by CanWest. CanWest implemented major changes to the magazine in order to increase circulation. One of the changes was to file to remove itself from the Audit Bureau of Circulations. The New Republic presently uses the alternative circulations auditor BPA Worldwide to count its circulation. BPA allows publications to count free copies sent out as "qualified circulation" if they are in the market served by the publication. This means 6,000 free copies of The New Republic sent to Capitol Hill now qualify.[20] For comparison purposes, these unpaid copies are not included in the above chart of average paid circulation.

They also send it out half as often these days.

Posted by HAL | July 28, 2008 4:29 PM

Jesus Christ - the first "self-hating Jew."

If someone like Kirchick - an advocate for the accelerated genocide of the Palestinians feels comfortable taunting Klein, Alterman, MY, etc. for being "out of the mainstream" - there's something seriously wrong with the collective Jewish conscience. The community that needs to be awakened as to the true face of Israel is um, the Gentiles. Kirchick is right - J Street is a joke.

Posted by Trevor | July 28, 2008 4:34 PM

I like New Republic writers Michelle Cottle and John Chait, among others.

Kirchick is wrong though, AIPAC is verry right wing and irrendentist. I think Juan Cole and Kirchick deserve each other, they're mirror images.

When Obama spoke of walls in Berlin, the wall I thought of is the one in Israel.

Posted by Peter K. | July 28, 2008 4:40 PM

Trevor:

This makes no sense: "If someone like Kirchick - an advocate for the accelerated genocide of the Palestinians feels comfortable taunting Klein, Alterman, MY, etc. for being "out of the mainstream" - there's something seriously wrong with the collective Jewish conscience."

Why do you take "the collective Jewish conscience" to be coterminous with James Kirchick?

Posted by rickm | July 28, 2008 4:43 PM

Jesus Christ - the first "self-hating Jew." - Trevor

Actually, by the standards of Kirchick and his ilk, the Prophets were self-hating Jews too. The Prophets were always criticizing Judah and Israel ... going on and on about how the inhabitants of Israel were acting unjustly, performing all the sacrificial rituals but treating everyone like dirt ... and that such actions would bring down God's wrath. The Prophets also said not to turn to hegemonic powers like Egypt for assistance against external threats and to rely not by might and not by power but by God's spirit.

I wonder what the Prophets would have made of AIPAC?

Posted by DAS | July 28, 2008 4:46 PM

rickm:

'Mr. Olmert-- Tear Down This Wall!'

Obama's speech in Berlin was the worst one I've ever seen him give. Bland, lifeless, with barely a memorable moment. I guess we're going to see a lot more speeches like this till the Inauguration. Apparently Obama has to do foto ops to show us he's capable of being a Commander in Chief, and at the same time not be so overweening as to try and upstage JFK and Reagan. Having won me and my progressive friends with his inspiring oratory, he's now dropped it to try and capture the torpid center. He won't take a risk between now and November. (By the way: I don't understand why McCain doesn't concede now. He's about to get steamrolled by history. As Hillary was.)

The speech had one great moment, when Obama talked about all the walls falling around the world. I loved that. "The walls between Jews and Muslims," he said in there. This man is a secret universalist. A patchwork himself, he's going to lift us past tribe. His walls line had a specific and obvious resonance to the hateful separation wall that jogs through Palestine. What other wall is there right now? That's the one. Some day, I pray, Obama will give that speech.

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/07/mr-olmert---tear-down-this-wall.html

Posted by otto | July 28, 2008 5:48 PM

Jeez, DAS, are you back butchering the Scripture again?? For crying out loud man, read them in the Hebrew, and then bone up a bit on the various commentators. Bottom line, a very strong case can be made that the Prophets (Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos, Elijah, Ezekiel, etc etc) would have called for Olmert and his corrupt crew to be tossed out on their butts, railed against sexual immorality and materialism, demanded more meaningful (and rigorous) religious observance, and, most importantly for this discussion, an immediate end to negotiations with the "Palestinians" and the reassertion of Jewish soverignty throughout Israel and Judah - i.e., Judea and Samaria and the rest of modern Israel. There is nothing at all anywhere in the Bible suggesting Israel should negotiate with Hamas or allow the right of return, and - assuming a modicum of intellectual honesty -- you really do not want to be put in the position of trying to use scripture to justify anti-Israel policies. In fact, the very first Rashi on Genesis asks why does the Torah - which is a book of laws - begins with G-d's creation of the world? Rashi answers that the Torah begins with G-d's creation of the universe so that when the nations of the world object to the Jewish state, the Jews will be able to respond that G-d created the world, and G-d had the right to give a portion to Israel.

As the books of Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah make clear, however, politics and religion generally operate in different spheres, and any overlap should be carefully scrutinized (the Jews are among the first people in recorded history to set up a polity that made a split between church and state).

Trevor obviously has serious supercessionism issues. DAS - when you end up on the same side of the fence with folks like him, you might really think about reexamining the fundamental soundness of your position.

Posted by Eagle613 | July 28, 2008 6:24 PM

Jeez, DAS, are you back butchering the Scripture again?? For crying out loud man, read them in the Hebrew, and then bone up a bit on the various commentators. Bottom line, a very strong case can be made that the Prophets (Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos, Elijah, Ezekiel, etc etc) would have called for Olmert and his corrupt crew to be tossed out on their butts, railed against sexual immorality and materialism, demanded more meaningful (and rigorous) religious observance, and, most importantly for this discussion, an immediate end to negotiations with the "Palestinians" and the reassertion of Jewish soverignty throughout Israel and Judah - i.e., Judea and Samaria and the rest of modern Israel. There is nothing at all anywhere in the Bible suggesting Israel should negotiate with Hamas or allow the right of return, and - assuming a modicum of intellectual honesty -- you really do not want to be put in the position of trying to use scripture to justify anti-Israel policies. In fact, the very first Rashi on Genesis asks why does the Torah - which is a book of laws - begins with G-d's creation of the world? Rashi answers that the Torah begins with G-d's creation of the universe so that when the nations of the world object to the Jewish state, the Jews will be able to respond that G-d created the world, and G-d had the right to give a portion to Israel.

As the books of Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah make clear, however, politics and religion generally operate in different spheres, and any overlap should be carefully scrutinized (the Jews are among the first people in recorded history to set up a polity that made a split between church and state).

Trevor obviously has serious supercessionism issues. DAS - when you end up on the same side of the fence with folks like him, you might really think about reexamining the fundamental soundness of your position.

Posted by Eagle613 | July 28, 2008 6:28 PM

Kirchik is seedy, reactionary, and a terrible writer. I predict he will have a very lucrative future in D.C. If he isn't pressed into the stable of the Washington Post's frequent op ed writers, I'd be surprised. He is connected; he is, at least, to the left of truly crazy people like Hagee, Lieberman, and Krauthammer. And he loves the black n white narrative - there are only villains to be assailed and heroes of freedom. That he believes a liberal Jewish organization, for no apparent motive except pure evil, wants to see a one state solution in Israel - which, of course, seems contradicted by what they say they want - is part of the seediness (plus, he isn't a very bright guy), since it depends on a child's gotcha reading of the fact that they want to "utilize" a plan by an arabic organization to start a dialogue. Obviously, starting a dialogue, in Kirchik's opinion, is synonymous with the way he talks to his boss Marty - "right, sir, right away, sir, you are the best, sir, and may I say you are looking especially handsome today." I suppose that Reagan, utilizing the offer from Gorbachev to start disarmament talks, was endorsing Stalin's Ukraine policy. And away we go on an idiot wind!

How can somebody like that - of low cunning, a brownnoser of country club reactionaries, an attack dog who skates near the libelous - fail? The world is his oyster. It is funny that he doesn't see it - his pathetic envy of the kool kids is, well, almost humanizing. Not for him an invite to cook with Megan McArdle and put it all on Blogging heads. They don't let him have a seat at the coffee shop or anything! It's so not fair!

It is fun to see what the Bush era is producing the next generation of rightwing intellectuals - Jonah Goldberg, Jamie Kirchik, and the sit at home hawks, examining copies of Obama's birth certificate, at various rightwing blogs.

Posted by roger | July 28, 2008 7:06 PM

Re otto the Kraut

Well, if Mr. otto the Kraut doesn't like Senator Osama, the latter can't be all bad.

Posted by SLC | July 28, 2008 7:24 PM

Wait. I thought Matt was Hispanic not Jewish. Can someone clear this up for me?

Posted by JJ | July 28, 2008 8:07 PM

He's both.

Posted by mad6798 | July 28, 2008 9:14 PM