Despite the Jewish vote in Florida and elsewhere that never
existed in reality, despite the Evangelical vote that never manifested itself
now or ever, and despite the protestations of Karl Rove to the effect that the
vote was not all in, incumbent Barack Obama was re-elected President of the
United States of America on November 6, 2012, Mitt Romney has conceded, Barack
Obama took his victory lap with a rousing speech and the confetti came down
like rain from above.
And a delighted world took note of all this but the real
story turned out to be a rumor that may or may not be true; that may or may
never be proven. It was a story to the effect that Sheldon Adelson who
bankrolled Romney's campaign was going to appear with his recipient on the
podium to share in the victory lap. It is that both were so confident of
victory, Romney had written only a victory speech and not the customary two
speeches – one to be given in case he wins the election, and one to be given in
case he loses. Well, he lost and he gave a short impromptu concession speech.
And so, it was delightful to learn of the irony that the
gambling mogul was hiding somewhere at the back of the stage brooding over the
defeat instead of celebrating the anticipated victory. And it was delightful to
know that he witnessed the going in smoke of the tens of millions of dollars he
bet on this demonic venture. Yes, Mitt Romney was not the one to say that the
Palestinians were an invented people; it was Newt Gingrich who did so. But Newt
the neut – as he is referred to – was not the one to invent that expression
despite the fact that he likes to call himself a man of ideas.
The truth is that the expression was invented by none other
than Sheldon Adelson who stuffed it in the mouth of the neut inasmuch as he
invented a false notion about the Palestinians and stuffed it in the mouth of
Mitt Romney. This was a notion to the effect that the parasitic habit of Jews
by which they accumulate wealth created by others is superior to the habit of
the Palestinians who create the wealth in the first place.
To be sure, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were the two
candidates that Adelson created originally to help him take control of America
and make it work for the benefit of Israel and all the Jews everywhere in the
world. As it happened, however, they both lost when Romney defeated Gingrich in
the Republican primary, and was himself defeated by Barack Obama in the general
election.
The delightful part of this story stems from the fact that
Adelson showed signs of regret at the approach he took when he sensed that the
gamble he made was not going to pay off. This is displayed clearly in the
article he published on November 5, 2012 in the Wall Street Journal under the
title: “I Didn't Leave the Democrats. They Left Me” and the subtitle: “There is
an anti-Israel movement among the rank and file, and the party no longer
appears to value self-reliance, charity and accountability.” As everyone knows,
to say I did not leave them, they left me is to say I am sorry we parted.
But why did he and the Democrats part in the first place? He
says they did because there is an anti-Israel movement among the rank and file
of the Party. He then added a few more reasons to the list that caused the parting
but did so only to soften the image he acquired for being the rabid supporter
of the horror that Israel has come to represent. In fact, he admits that he
grew up to be what he is because he was shaped by views that hark back to the
“Jews of Boston in the 1930s and '40s.” This is when the Democrats were
supportive of Jewish causes, he says, something that happened at a time when
the Republicans would not accept Jews in their fancy country clubs.
The cause of Jews in the America of the '30s and that of today's
Israel being interchangeable in his mind, he gives an example of why the
Democratic Party no longer suits him: “A sobering Gallup poll … asked: 'Are
your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?'” And the
answer given by the poll was that barely 53% of Democrats chose Israel, he
says. He then contrasts this figure with the Republicans who chose Israel by an
“overwhelming” 78%.
And this was not lost on the people who followed the
electoral campaign from the start. These people saw a remarkable resemblance
between the attitude of an Adelson who rejects 53% of one community in favor of
78% of another community – and between the attitude of a Romney who rejects 47%
of society in favor of the remaining 53%. And all this happened at a time when
Romney was voicing the intent to favor the 1% of society that is super rich
over the remaining 99% of it that is not. He promised that if elected
President, he would do just that by rewriting the tax code and implement such
ideas.
But now that this Adelson-Romney adventure has crashed, the
time has come for everyone involved in American politics to understand that
they cannot please one constituency by hurting another. America got away with
this kind of behavior for a while but the cost is becoming so high, the country
can no longer afford it.
The thing that a candidate must do when a Jew or a Cuban
American or a Taiwanese American promise to make a donation in return for an
act that will hurt an Arab nation or the Island of Cuba or the Chinese
superpower – is to say NEVER AGAIN will you come and talk to me like this. Get
off my face and stay away.