The special election in New York to replace Twitter pervert Anthony Weiner is proving interesting.  It is not surprising that in a heavily Democratic district in New York that the Jewish vote would come to play.  It may be surprising how much the Jewish vote there has turned against Obama.  In the Wall Street Journal,  9/13/11, Dan Senor writes Why Obama Is Losing the Jewish Vote.

The quick summary is that an accumulation of bad anti-Israel policies is having its effect:

Read the article to see a long list of public affronts to Israel.  Republican Robert Turner,  aided by a strong endorsement from Ed Koch,  is leading substantially in a district covering Queens and Brooklyn that Weiner easily carried,

This Rebel Yid was surprised that Obama got the strong Jewish support that he did, given his associations, but that is history.

Why is the Jewish vote so important to Obama? The Jewish influence in politics is not the result of sinister conspiracies, as many anti-Semitic theories contend.  There are three clear reasons.

1. Jews vote at twice the rate of most citizens.
2. Jews are concentrated in states with large  numbers of electoral votes.
3. Jews are engaged in politics and are more willing to work and fund their favorite candidates.

While Jews are only 2.2% of the population they are 8.4% of New York.  If they are twice as likely to vote than their fellow citizens then their impact in this state with substantial electoral votes is effectively 16%, quite a substantial block.  Jews also have above average representation in New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Florida and California; all heavily blue states.  Florida may be the largest swing state. For Jewish voters by state see The Jewish Virtual Library.

Jews in red states tend to be less monolithic Democrats but are still less likely to vote GOP than the rest of the population.

While the Christian evangelists are also sensitive to Israel they largely vote Republican anyway.  A large swing of Jewish support away from key Democratic candidates, including the president, can have a serious impact on an election.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. …  Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.  Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.  America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.  Americans deserve better.”

Senator Barack Obama  on March 20, 2006 voting against raising the debt ceiling when George Bush was presdient.  The debt ceiling was raised with 52 votes with most Democratic senators including Obama and Harry Reid voting against it.

The hard core Obamaphiles still claim he is solving a problem not of his own making, and they are largely correct.

To be sure, the mortgage meltdown did not happen on his watch. But the mortgage market was largely wrecked by Fannie Mae and the suspension of prudent lending in the service of political meddling. This process happened over decade but took a sharp turn towards disaster under the stewardship of James Johnson serving the housing policies of Bill Clinton, and somewhat continued under George Bush. Attempts to reign in Fannie Mae in 2005 after discovery of major fraudulent accounting met stiff partisan political resistance.   James Johnson at Fannie became quite adept at controlling Congress.

We cannot underestimate the damage done by Fannie and the unwillingness of Congress to reign them in, even when warned. The two biggest defenders of Fannie- Barney Frank and Chris Dodd- wrote the financial reform bill which bears their name. What a joke.  The economy will be hampered by the destruction of the housing market for years to come.

While Bush was largely blamed for the deregulation, the two most destructive changes, were signed by Bill Clinton.  The Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act undid the Glass Steagal Act from the days of FDR and the Depression which served to keep speculative activity our of the commercial banking sector. While Clinton signed it, the bill had wide support from both parties. The same is true of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which removed over-the-counter derivatives trading from the supervision of the Commodities Future Trading Commission.

It was understandable that in the face of the dot.com bust, Y2K, the Wall Street Scandals of Enron and Worldcom, and the 9/11 attacks that the Fed would ease on the money supply and that the government would spend to allay the impact of these multiple shocks.  Deficits rose sharply but were dropping, when the 2008 financial disasters hit. This recent shock caused a severe credit squeeze that further restrained the economy. We are still feeling the impact of credit liquidations.

All of this was in play when Obama took office and the excesses are difficult and painful to unwind.  As we study the causes of this record financial upheaval it becomes clear that it is way too simplistic and quite inaccurate just to blame Bush, but these factors were certainly not the fault of Obama.

But once the Democrats had control of both Houses and the White House and starting passing massive new legislation, numerous regulations, supporting unionization, overriding bankruptcy law,  and preaching class warfare from the bully pulpit they have to take some responsibility for the results.  The emergency room doctor may not have caused the car wreck that brought the mangled patient to his operating room, but from that point he is responsible for the actions that lead to either recovery or death.

Obama inherited a mess and he is making it worse.  His party, however, was deeply, though not solely, involved in the series of missteps that brought this collapse about.

I have found that the claim to intellectual brilliance may the weakest, maybe the most dangerous reason to select a political leader.

I recall Oprah Winfrey announcing that we should not vote for Obama because he is black but because he is brilliant.  It made me want to run the other way.  I hear supporters for Newt Gingrich tout his intellect, yet less than a week after his announcement he seems to be going down in flames. He thinks out loud and seems to lack any cohesive philosophy outside his own intellect.

I am not anti-intellectual.   Learning (not to be confused with education) is a very important value to me. Intelligence is the ability to hold multiple and conflicting thoughts in your head at one time. It is the ability to see relationships that others miss.  But this ability is limited by lack of experience and by emotional limitations.  The most common emotional limitation among the intelligent is the hubris often associated with the desire for public office.  This is why the most desirable leaders are often those who do not want the job.

Harry Truman may have lacked the academic credentials but he was long on experience.  He had such distaste for high public office that FDR had to berate him to get him on the ticket.

The candidates I like the most are often the once who want it the least.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie keeps denying he is seeking a presidential bid but he is still actively sought.

My biggest problem with the very intelligent is that they often believe that they do not have to abide by common rules or generally accepted principles as  a guide because they are so smart that they can just adapt to any given situation.  Unmoored from important and guiding principles they wing it because they have the confidence that often comes with intelligence to rely on their abilities.

They think they are smart enough to beat the odds. They know much but underestimate randomness. They do not know what they do not know.

This is not to say that intelligence is not important. It is.  But it is far from enough, and when intelligence is the foremost reason to pick a leader one should be cautious.  Intelligence with experience and modesty becomes wisdom.

Rarely do I hear this as a reason to select a leader, but that is what we need.

President Obama made a presidential decision, both to remain focused on the pursuit of Bin Laden and on the crucial decision to bend the rules to send Special Forces in on the ground and kill him.  He deserves credit for the success of the mission.

Such operations demonstrate the incredible ability of our elite forces, but we should not lose awareness of the riskiness of such an operation.  While so much went right there was much that could have gone wrong.  We could have had more dead US soldiers, dead civilians, and another international crisis.  It was the dramatic risk involved that made this decision presidential.

If it had gone bad the celebrations today would have been protests of presidential incompetence.  But the decision would have been just as presidential.  When Jimmy Carter decided to execute a rescue attempt in Iran that ended in humiliating failure he was deemed unfit for office.  Yet, was his decision any less presidential than Obama’s?

The harsh reality in such circumstances is that important decisions commonly entail risks of failure?  Such risks may be reduced by intelligence and experience but they are never eliminated and remain in the best of circumstances.  Many fail to understand that good decisions can yield bad results.

While this decision worked well we should understand that failure is not necessarily synonymous with a bad result.  And sometimes even a bad decision is better than no decision.   Terrible losses in such situations are less likely to come from single failures than the ultimate failure- quitting.