MAX BLUMENTHAL

Who the Righteous Gentiles Really Were
The lobbyist for Christians United for Israel, David Brog (not to be confused with my main man with the plan David Brock), has written a response to my article, "The Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism." His letter would have been unspectacular and totally forgettable were it not for his warped assertion that "Christian Zionists are the theological progeny of the religious righteous gentiles who saved Jews from the Holocaust." Luckily, Evan Derkacz of Alternet has saved me the time of having to explain to Brog who the righteous Christians of Third Reich-era Germany really were. Here is Evan's eloquent riposte to Brog:

In a response letter Brog takes issue with the portrayal of his organization as extremists, when in fact, Brog only cemented Blumenthal's point -- offending Christian/Jewish history in the process.

Blumenthal's original article only used the word "extremist" once, and that in reference to John Hagee's rhetoric. That Brog got the sense of extremism from the article is likely because the mirror he looked into reflected just that. Last month, CUFI founder, John Hagee, who has the ear of Republic National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman, demanded that:

"the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ."

Extremist is a slippery term and most extremists don't fancy themselves such. But this view, by almost any definition, would rate. Perhaps Brog felt that the face he showed Blumenthal was so moderately contructed and didn't warrant any more than the kid gloves treatment Brog expects from most media.

But what I take issue with most strongly is his revisionist history, so prevalent in right wing circles. Here's Brog's quote:

Christian Zionists are the theological progeny of the religious righteous gentiles who saved Jews from the Holocaust, and true to their creed, they are seeking to stand with the Jews against current threats to their existence.

Sounds logical... too bad it's not true.

This deeply offensive sleight of hand fits into the movement to repackage the Founding Fathers, Abolition, and the Civil Rights Movement as right wing victories. In fact, they were not. These movements all fought against right wing orthodoxy.

The religious righteous gentiles, most of whom were Lutheran Evangelicals, were not right wing Christians and indeed would hardly be recognizable as coreligionists to today's conservative Evangelicals.

I'm not contending that they were liberal or progressive Christians either; just that they were mostly intellectuals who did not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, promoted ecumenism, believed in science and the enlightenment, were for peace and against nuclear arsenals, abhorred authoritarianism and put no stock in eschatology -- or End Times mythology.

When Luther himself translated the Bible into German he was ambivalent about the Book of Revelation, eventually opting to include it only as an appendix.

The religious righteous gentiles were led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was ultimately executed for his deeply conflicted participation in an attempt to assassinate Hitler. Bonhoeffer's and Barth's and Martin Niemoeller's Confessing Church bravely opposed the Nazi regime right from the start. Their theological basis for opposing Hitler and protecting Jews was rooted in the teachings of Jesus -- something the theology of Christian Zionism is most emphatically not. Brog's and Hagee's theology is born of apocalyptic passages of the New Testament which do not concern themselves with Jesus' words or ideas.

In fact, Conservative Christian efforts to merge with the government would put it much closer to the state-sponsored Evangelical Church of the German Nation which Barth, Bonhoeffer and the rest of the Confessing Church so vigorously opposed.

What is so important about Evan's rebuke of Brog and his paymasters is that he establishes a counterpoint to the narrative that people like Hagee and Falwell spin before their supporters. Hagee, Falwell and other right-wing evangelical leaders are nationalists; they openly concede that their goal is the integration of church with state. The Confessing Church on the other hand was initially dedicated to denouncing state interference in Protestant religious affairs -- specifically, against the so-called "Aryan paragraph," which forced Protestant churches to classify on strictly racial grounds some members of their congregations as Jews -- and ultimately, as the war came home to Germany, to speaking out against the Nazis' extermination of the Jews. They were conservatives to be sure, and they agonized over their decision to oppose Hitler, but nothing about their actions was motivated by a desire for power. The Christian right exists exclusively as a political bloc. If its leadership denounces the federal government, they do so from the position of courtiers, not cassandras. They will only condemn the state to the extent that the state obstructs their will to power. And they will cast any enforcement of first amendment protection of religious freedom as "anti-Christian discrimination." As cynical as Israel is for cultivating the support of the Christian right, I doubt Falwell or Hagee or any of their lot will wind up with plaques bearing their name beside those of Niemoller and Bonhoeffer at Yad Vashem's memorial to righteous Gentiles. To Israel, evangelicals are political assets and nothing more.

Another point worth making is that Bonhoeffer and company represented a minority within the Protestant church with respect to the Jewish question. Most of their colleagues in the German church saw Hitler's ascension as a blessing from God and collaborated enthusiastically with his regime. A documentary released last year called "Theologians Under Hitler", attempted to detail the German church's regrettable relationship with the Third Reich. Although it was edited in amateurish fashion and isn't the most exciting film, it recounts an important and under-examined historical episode that should serve as a warning about the fusion of the right-wing of the American church with the Republican party.

I wasn't able to discuss any of this during my Democracy Now appearance, but I did have time to explain how the Christian right uses Israel to weaken the political influence of American Jews on issues of Constitutional rights. You can watch me, listen to me or check out a transcript here. I'm followed by John Dean, who discusses his excellent book, Conservatives Without Conscience, which examines the prevalence of the authoritarian personality in modern American conservatism. Dean does not shy away from describing the Christian right and the right in general (see Rep. JD Hayworth's praise for Henry Ford's anti-Semitic "Americanization" concept) as an authoritarian movement disguised behind the patina of banal Christo-nationalist nostalgia. The bestselling status of his book shows the increasing appeal of this critique.

Will Mr. Macaca Go Off-Broadway?
I'm not much of a fan of musicals, but there is one upcoming show I'm going to do everything in my power to see. It's called "White Noise," "a cautionary musical" starting this September in New York based on the story of the white supremacist Olsen twins-esque pop duet, Prussian Blue. If you've ever seen or heard Prussian Blue, or read their glowing profile in Teen People before it was scrubbed from the magazine's website by its embarassed editors -- Teen People promised Prussian Blue it would not use words like "supremacist" or "Nazi" in its article -- then you know what the banality of evil is all about (fun fact: the duo's little sister is named Dresden). And you know that neo-Nazi pop music sucks worse than even its distant cousin, Christian rock.

If I make it to "White Noise," I'll be looking out for Mr. Macaca, Sen. George Allen, who was just formally invited by the musical's producers. Here is a copy of their hot-off-the-presses letter:

August 17, 2006

Senator George Allen

204 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

RE: Opening Night Tickets For White Noise Musical

Dear Senator Allen:

We have been following your remarks on the campaign trail with great interest, particularly your recent use of the term “macaca.” When we heard you use this word, considered by some to be a racial slur, or even a “code” word intended for certain constituents, we knew we had found a potential audience member who could truly appreciate our show on all levels.

We are the creators of an exciting new musical called White Noise, and we would be honored if you would attend the New York opening. White Noise is about a white supremacist teen pop group—inspired by the racist twin girls who make up the band Prussian Blue, with whom we’re sure you’re familiar. It is a fun evening, full of pop songs featuring white power propaganda, and we think you’ll just love it. There’s no instance of the word “macaca” in the script as it stands, but if you were to attend, we would be delighted to work it into the dialogue, or perhaps even devote a song lyric or two to that word that’s so familiar to self-identified white supremacists. Also, we would be thrilled to make a reference to the noose and Confederate battle flag you once had hanging on display in your office. Just let us know; we’re here to accommodate you.

As of today, there are two tickets for our September 18 opening reserved under your name. If you’re unable to make the opening (we know you’re busy campaigning for your race, no pun intended), White Noise can come to you. Say the word, and we can have our cast sing some pro-white pop songs at any campaign event or fundraiser that we are available for.

Feel free to contact us, or just show up at 8 pm on Monday, September 18, 2006 at the TBG Theater on 312 W. 36th Street in New York City. We look forward to meeting you.

Kind regards,

Joe Drymala and Ryan J. Davis

Somehow I think Allen has too many pressing engagements in "America and the real world" to make it up to mongrelized Manhattan. Nevermind that he grew up in a wealthy enclave in Southern California -- Allen's a real country boy. And to prove it, he has cultivated close ties with several neo-Confederate groups over the years which don't think slavery was such a peculiar institution after all. I have obtained some new details in the history of Allen's relationship with these groups and plan to publicize them this week, so stay tuned.

Hear Me
I'll be discussing Christian Zionism and the war in/on Lebanon on Air America today, first on the Rachel Maddow show, at 7:30 AM ET; then on the Majority Report with Sam Seder at 8PM. And I'll be on Democracy Now tomorrow morning (Tuesday) around 8 AM ET.

Gritty Marine...

...or Chickenhawk?


More from American Family Radio's hilarious interview with Lou Dobbs' favorite congressman, Tom Tancredo. AFR takes Tancredo's uncanny resemblance to John Wayne a little too far. Don't they know that if Tancredo hadn't dodged the draft, he might not have been able to defend our borders and the American way of life?

[13:30]
FEMALE CO-HOST: Our guest to me is like visiting with
John Wayne. He is the epitome of the American guy. He
is it... what I appreciate about Congressman Tancredo
is the fact that he does stand for...like John Wayne
in the movies, he's got that cowboy mentality that i
just love.

CO-HOST MARVIN SANDERS: In the back of my mind is this
thought that you were a Marine. Am I right about that?

TANCREDO: No sir, I did not serve. I could not serve,
but I certainly wish that I had that opportunity.

FEMALE CO-HOST: He's serving now. That's a fact.

SANDERS: You're like a Marine in the House of
Representatives.

TANCREDO: Well, that's true. We take a lot of flak. I
know that.

SANDERS: I was so engrossed in the [Tancredo's latest] book.
That only adds to that John Wayne image.

[28:00]
SANDERS: I think the Marine image I had in my head was
the Marines played by John Wayne. He [Tancredo] reminds
me so much of John Wayne.

Israel, the US, and the Christian Right: The Menage a Trois from Hell
As I reported for the Nation in my most recent article, "The Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism," the White House has convened a series of meetings over the past few months with leaders of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a newly formed political organization that tells its members that supporting Israel's expansionist policies is "a biblical imperative." CUFI's Washington lobbyist, David Brog, told me that during the meetings, CUFI representatives pressed White House officials to adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand as it ramped up its military conflict with Hezbollah.

The White House instructed Brog not to reveal the names of officials he met with, Brog said.

Brog, the former chief-of-staff to Arlen Specter, is now the first full-time lobbyist for the Christian Zionism movement. He claims that CUFI's lobbying efforts, including organizing 3500 evangelical activists to visit congressional offices as Israel and Hezbollah exchanged their first salvoes of missiles, are having an impact. "There is an ongoing debate in Washington over how long to let Israel continue the campaign against Hezbollah--how long will we let Israel fight its war on terror as we fight our own war on terror?" Brog told me. "And I think the arrival in Washington at that juncture of thousands of Christians who came for one issue and one issue only, to support Israel, sent a very important message to the Administration and the Congress, and I think helped persuade people that they should allow Israel some more time."

But CUFI has more on its agenda than simply "supporting Israel." Its founder and president, Pastor John Hagee, is determined to see America and Israel adopt his Armageddon-based worldview as their foreign policy. Consider what Hagee wrote this year in Charisma magazine: ""The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty. Israel and America must confront Iran's nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide."

Hagee's desire to doom the now-dormant Israeli-Palestinian peace process is equally disturbing. As I detailed in the Nation, in his book, The Beginning of the End, Hagee celebrated the murder of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy and glorified his assassin, Yigal Amir. More recently, Hagee's allies, like nationally syndicated evangelical radio host Janet Parshall, became ecstatic at the outbreak of violence in Lebanon and Israel. "These are the times we've been waiting for," Parshall told her audience on July 21. "This is straight out of a Sunday school lesson."

Time and again, Christian Zionists have delighted in events that most Israelis considered grave tragedies. And yet, Israel continually expends more energy cultivating their support than it does on earning much-needed international goodwill. Case in point: after calling Ariel Sharon's descent into a comatose state God's punishment for the "dividing the land," Pat Robertson was granted a personal meeting yesterday with Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert. Afterwards, Robertson told his 700 Club viewership that the Lebanese people were "sheltering a terrorist group" and urged them to pray for an Israeli military victory.

Even as Israel alienates the international community by pursuing extreme militaristic solutions to its problems, it can count on unflagging support from America's evangelicals. It has recycled a strategy employed during the Cold War by authoritarian, anti-communist governments waging purportedly existential battles against dark-skinned barbarian hordes. For these regimes, the Bible Belt provided a natural constituency.

When international opinion turned against South Africa's apartheid regime in the 1980's, it presented itself to evangelicals as a final redoubt of Christian civilization in a sea of Afro-militant communism. Robertson responded with repeated denounciations of Mandela and the ANC on the 700 Club. Similarly, when evangelical Guatemalan dictator Efrain Rios-Montt initiated a scorched-earth campaign (with Israeli military assistance) to exterminate his country's Mayan population, he called on Robertson for PR help. Robertson leapt to aid his friend, hosting a telethon for Guatemala's military. He even funded the construction of "model villages" (read: concentration camps) for the Mayans who survived the massacres. Israel has clearly applied the lessons of the past.

But it would be simplistic to expect Israel to continue down the dead-end road paved by regimes like those of P.W. Botha and Rios-Montt. For all its flaws, Israel has one of the most resilient and politically sophisticated societies in the world. When the dust clears in Lebanon, Israelis will realize that their problems can only be solved through politics. And someday, they will have to deal with the Palestinians again. But then what?

What if a future Israeli government decides, as Yitzhak Rabin did, that Israel can live in the world and survive -- and even thrive? And what if a future American government backs Israel by mobilizing international allies behind a new land-for-peace effort? Most Americans would probably support this as they did in the past. American Jews would back a peace process if convinced there was a viable partner. And polls consistently show Israeli opinion in favor of the establishment of a Palestinian state. But in such a scenario, so-called Christian Zionists would reveal themselves as one of Israel's worst enemies. They have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with peace.

My latest is up. In it, I reveal several meetings between Christian Zionist activists and the White House regarding US policy in the Middle East:

Over the past months, the White House has convened a series of off-the-record meetings about its policies in the Middle East with leaders of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a newly formed political organization that tells its members that supporting Israel's expansionist policies is "a biblical imperative." CUFI's Washington lobbyist, David Brog, told me that during the meetings, CUFI representatives pressed White House officials to adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand as it ramped up its military conflict with Hezbollah.

The White House instructed Brog not to reveal the names of officials he met with, Brog said.

Now read the rest.

Joementum!
In case it isn't already completely obvious, Lieberman is toast. I hear from several people close to the campaign in Connecticut that Lieberman has already declared his intention to compete in the general election and has given up last-ditch get-out-the-vote efforts. Meanwhile, turnout is 80% in Lamont strongholds. I'm actually glad Joe's running in the general. That way, I can watch him lose twice.

Tom Tancredo's Catholic Problem


Without a doubt, white nationalism is one of the most powerful currents guiding the anti-immigration movement. But there is another, less understood factor in their motivations, particular among the movement's base in the Southern Baptist-dominated South: anti-Catholic resentment.

During a July 19th appearance on American Family Radio, anti-immigration movement figurehead and potential 2008 GOP presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo of Littleton, Colorado, made his anti-Catholic sentiments explicit. Responding to a caller's suggestion that Catholics have a surreptitious plan to cultivate political hegemony in the US by ushering in waves of Catholic immigrants across open borders, Tancredo lays into Catholics and concluded that the caller "does have a point." The key segment is as follows:

[43:30]
CALLER, "LORETTA FROM TENNESSEE": First off, there's a church that says to its judges, if you have to choose between the church and the Constitution, choose the church. Secondly, there is a document, it must be available because I got it. I think was written by Pope Leo the Twelfth, the Fifteenth. I can never get those roman numerals right. And the document is entitled 'Making America Catholic.' There is another thing, this is the first time in US history that we have had a majority of Catholics on the Supreme Court. And I think the immigration issue may be more of getting immigrants into this country to present a bloc of voters that are voting one way from that standpoint. It's just a thought.

(...)

TANCREDO: The caller does bring up an interesting point in terms of the enormous power and prestige of the Catholic Church in this debate. They are very, very heavily involved in the open borders movement.

FEMALE CO-HOST: Really?

TANCREDO: Oh, yes m'am. The National Council of Bishops have written extensively on this. They have certainly attacked me and a lot of others who want to secure the borders. A lot of motives have been ascribed to them. I can't speak to it. I was raised a Catholic, spent 12 years in Catholic schools. I'm an evangelical Presbyterian today. So i can't really speak to the motivation of the church. But the lady does have a point about the church's involvement. Also, the Mormon Church is heavily involved in the issue. Heavily, heavily supportive of open borders.

The Inside Job Theory Goes Mainstream
The prevalence of conspiratorial thinking on the 9/11 attacks is much more widespread than previously thought. Typically public paranoia increases when a government discredits itself. What is unique about the Bush adminstration is that while it has eroded its credibility through a never-ending stream of wild justifications for everything it does, it has worked on a parallel track with its right-wing movement allies to discredit the American public's faith in government. This is the inevitable result of the White House's recklessness:

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appear to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The House Hebrews are stepping up their boy Mel. Apparently it's all Michael Moore's fault now.

Mel's Defenders
I have some ideas for Mel that will help him earn the love and respect of Jews everywhere. Okay, maybe not, but if he listens to me, he might get himself elected as governor of California. But that will have to come later. I'm kind of pressed for time so for now, I thought I would highlight the arguments of some of Mel's apologists. If you don't have the time to read them, here is a summary of their logic: #1 Jews are evil. #2 Anti-semitism is wrong, but so is that Jew-controlled, anti-Christian Gomorrah known as Hollywood that produced Mel. Here is an example of Mel defense #1, courtesy of "paleoconservative" icon Thomas Fleming, who makes Pat Buchanan look like :

Liking or disliking the Jews one meets—or even liking or disliking them generally—is a matter of taste, preference, and upbringing. Most serious Christians, as a matter of preference and conviction, would rather spend time with other Christians....

Many Jews are fine and admirable people even if they reject my God, and many anti-Semites, Christian as well as pagan, are perfectly good people even if they allow their prejudices to overcome their religion. For me, the best argument in favor of anti-Semitism is the ridiculous attention paid to poor Mel’s little gaffe. The world is filled with violence and inhumanity much of it caused by religious and ethnic intolerance, but a good deal is the result of ideology, greed, ambition, or just pure meanness. Isn’t what people do more important than the silly ideas they picked up, without thinking?

And now, from a more "mainstream" current of the conservative movement comes Mel defense #2, courtesy of moral monger Cal Thomas (I love how Jewish World Review published this):

Also absent from the discussion about Gibson is his membership in a profession that has a long history of bigotry against certain faiths, political persuasions and individuals who go against the political tide of most in the Hollywood film community. Jewish writers like Michael Medved and Donald Feder have chronicled numerous instances of anti-Christian bias and bigotry in Hollywood. "The Da Vinci Code," "Saved" and "Priest" are only three contemporary examples.

I'm still waiting to hear from Medved and Feder. What do the House Hebrews have to say about Mel now? So far, zilch.

The White House Gets Rapture Ready
The Post's Dan Froomkin reports on the White House's open door policy to the cheerleaders of Armageddon:

Joel C. Rosenberg, who writes Christian apocalyptic fiction, told me in an interview this week that he was invited to a White House Bible study group last year to talk about current events and biblical prophecy.

Rosenberg said that on February 10, 2005, he came to speak to a "couple dozen" White House aides in the Old Executive Office Building -- and has stayed in touch with several of them since.

Media Matters has more on Rosenberg. Here's a quote from the prophecy author I picked up for them:

"Even the G8 issued a statement defending Israel's right to exist. But the Scriptures are clear, Israel will be totally alone when Russia and Iran attack."

I have been working all week on a story touching on this theme and have confirmed other, more recent meetings of a certain rapture-ready group with the White House to discuss the Middle East. Stay posted.

A Ticking Times Bomb?
I don't know who the hell has been leaking to FishbowlDC, but there it is. They have pretty accurate preview of a story of mine scheduled to run in the Nation this September. See my main Moon man John Gorenfeld for more.

Is Bibi Back?
The neocon crazies -- you know, the guys who helped Bibi Netanyahu author his "Clean Break" manifesto -- really don't give a shit if Ehud Olmert and Kadima collapse under the weight of their ill-conceived shock and awe campaign in Lebanon. That's because their boy Bibi's lurking, doing lots of press, grimacing and saying 'no comment' to questions about what he'd do differently, and just generally waiting in the wings. Just a year ago, it looked like Netanyahu and Likud were permanently marginalized. Now Sharon is doing his best Terri Schiavo imitation (by the way, I highly doubt Sharon would have committed to a war plan this hapless -- he may have been ruthless but he wasn't stupid) and Olmert has been steamrolled by the IDF's senior command like LBJ during Vietnam -- "a quiet putsch." So Jonathan Freedland has it right: the disgrace of Olmert could represent a recussitation of Bibi's career:

If Olmert is discredited he will not be succeeded by a peacenik, ready to do what the region and the world so desperately needs - sit down and thrash out a comprehensive peace between Israel, the Palestinians and its neighbours. No, he will be replaced by Likud and the likes of Binyamin Netanyahu. The great, perverse truth is that those who care about the fate of the Palestinians need Olmert to emerge from this dreadful, dark episode respected, not rejected, by his own people.

I can just imagine Richard Perle in some French restaurant on M Street spilling Vichyssoise all over his chin and laughing to himself, knowing that thousands of miles away, Olmert is sputtering out of control.

Next to Olmert, the ultra-right Netanyahu looks graceful, according to left-of-center Israeli columnist Ze'ev Sternhell:

The architect of this unsuccessful campaign has outdone himself: In order to cover up his failures, he delivered a poor man's pseudo-Churchillian speech, and promised us more "pain, tears and blood." There really is no limit to shamelessness. It must be said in favor of the government spokesmen who are in greatest demand on the foreign stations, from the Israel Defense Forces Spokesman to Tourism Minister Isaac Herzog and former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- that none of them has stooped to propaganda of this kind.

Since I mentioned A Clean Break (I think I've discussed it here before), I thought I'd excerpt one of its more chilling sections, which reads like a blueprint for Israel's current offensive:

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which "American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by...

-- paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.


-- striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper."

When Netanyahu was PM, Clinton kept him under control and actually managed to create political space for Ehud Barak to come into power. But just imagine for a moment if Netanyahu and Bush were simultaneously in power with right-wing domination of Congress and the Knesset. Israel would be doing a whole lot of "paralleling of Syria's behavior" then.

Joementum!
Sorry for the delay. Here's the Quinnipac poll I mentioned on Monday. My prediction, or the prediction of my sources, was laughed at by a few people who thought the Clinton visit to Lieberman's camp would shift momentum, or should I say, Joementum, Lieberman's way. Looks like I wasn't so far off. Here's the key part of the poll:

LAMONT LEADS LIEBERMAN 54 – 41 IN DEM PRIMARY,
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY CONNECTICUT POLL FINDS;


Momentum for Ned Lamont, the anti-war Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate, increases as he rolls to a 54 - 41 percent lead over incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman among likely Democratic primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 51 - 47 percent Lamont lead among likely Democratic primary voters in a July 20 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

In this latest survey, 5 percent of likely Democratic primary voters remain undecided, but 85 percent of voters say their mind is made up.

Among Lamont supporters, 65 percent say their vote is mainly against Lieberman.

Lieberman’s support for the war in Iraq is the main reason they are voting for the challenger, 44 percent of Lamont voters say, with 50 percent who say the war is one of the reasons.

“Sen. Lieberman’s campaign bus seems to be stuck in reverse. Despite visits from former President Bill Clinton and other big name Democrats, Lieberman has not been able to stem the tide to Lamont,” said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D.

“The incumbent has just five days to turn this race around, but never count out a veteran with his experience.”


“Three months ago, Lamont was virtually unheard of, except perhaps on the blogs. As Democrats get to know Lamont better, they like what they see. Lamont has established himself as a credible alternative to Lieberman,” Dr. Schwartz added.

Connecticut likely Democratic primary voters give Lamont a 46 – 14 percent favorability rating, with 20 percent mixed and 19 percent who say they don’t know enough to form an opinion.

Sen. Lieberman gets a split 37 – 34 percent favorability among Democrats, with 26 percent mixed.

Israel's case that it is engaged in a war for its very survival has been reduced to this logic, which rests upon the theology of ultra-Orthodox fanatics. From Frogkill (a heretofore unknown but top-notch blog on the war in Lebanon):

One IDF press briefer today linked the Tisha b'av fast, which is today in the Hebrew calendar and commemorates the destruction of the two temples in Jerusalem, with Iran president Ahmadinejad's renewed call for the disappearance of Israel and to the current war. The timing he claims proves that Israel is fighting a war of survival.