Any ideas on how to eliminate the Jewish lobby in 2008?

less dramatic, like, "Any idea how to reduce the influence of AIPAC . . . "

Eliminate can be and will be taken out of context, trust me.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

fight with AIPAC. I'm all for it. But why give them the first chance to change the subject to anti-semitism. They will.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

Chairmen try to tighten screws on Iran

By Ian Swanson
March 14, 2007

Iran divestment appears poised to take off as a political issue, as former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has campaigned in the U.S. for the idea and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has written to New York’s comptroller to have its state pension funds divest from companies invested in Iran.

The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is lobbying for divestment amid a climate of growing concern that pressure should be intensified because of Iran’s threat to Israel. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not mention divestment in an address to AIPAC’s annual meeting yesterday, but did say Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and endorsed a second bill increasing Iran sanctions.

A Republican committee aide said state pension funds would be treated the same way as private pension funds.
Business groups oppose the legislation and say it would make U.S. diplomatic efforts against Iran more difficult. One business lobbyist noted that the $20 million investment threshold would likely target companies in France, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Russia and possibly China, which are precisely the countries the administration needs to convince to put pressure on Iran.

“It doesn’t make sense to me that if we’re trying to make people come around to our point of view, to take out a two-by-four and beat them over the head,” said Todd Malan of the Organization for International Investment (OFII).
Business groups also oppose the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 introduced by Lantos last week. It would prevent the president from using waiver authority in existing Iran-sanctions law to avoid sanctioning foreign companies invested in Iran. If approved, business sources predicted it would hamper U.S. efforts to win partners for its Iran policy, and could also lead to World Trade Organization challenges.

that I have yet heard is the efforts of Jewish-Americans to launch a counter-AIPAC. Big kudos for that effort.

Gotcha! eom

that the Democrats (by which I mean the actual party machine, not necessarily the voters) are pretty much fine with Iraq. Oh, sure, they hate how its been mishandled and will make tons of noise about the waste of lives and money, but the actual notion of waging an aggressive, unprovoked war sits pretty well with them. With respect to engaging in a Wilsonian foreign policy of war motivated by ideology and aimed toward economic ends, they are virtually identical to the Republicans. The only main difference is that the contemporary Democrats tend to be less nakedly aggressive--and that's more a difference in style than in substance.

There is a genuinely progressive anti-war wing of the Dems, but they still don't have much power. Its possible for them to take over the party in '08, but I have no idea how probable it is.

Are there any 3rd parties waiting in the wings?