Oldest US Voter Abroad Votes McCain

ChossidMom

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 3:23 am

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S.....Full#

If you want a sense of how elderly Jewish Americans are likely to vote this November, speak to the residents of Jerusalem's Ramat Tamir retirement community. Nestled in the city's northern hills is a collection of Jewish seniors in neat, well-maintained apartments, where most of the ambient conversational buzz is in English and American-accented Hebrew. Its American residents are people who seemingly could just as easily have retired to Florida.

One of the residents, 105-year-old Miriam Pollak, is believed to be the oldest American voter living abroad. With five generations of descendants, she "stopped counting" how many great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren she has. She is surprisingly engaged and aware, and even tech-savvy: She spends significant time on-line reading political news from America; she even "Skypes" her children and grandchildren in America daily.

She is a lifelong Democrat and votes in Del Ray Beach, Florida - and she is voting for John McCain. Barack Obama, she and her family say, is just "too much of a risk."

She is hardly alone. We visited the complex earlier this week to help with (non-partisan) absentee-ballot applications. Speaking with residents and staff, we were stunned by the dearth of support expressed by this overwhelmingly Democratic constituency for the Democratic nominee. The vast majority of this population is supporting Republican John McCain. One resident, who "votes for the man, not the party" noted that the election is a frequent topic of conversation with her peers, and she can't think of a single one voting for Obama.

Another resident, Ben Genauer - 95, with more than 100 great-grandchildren - is planning on voting for McCain, noting that he can't recall ever having previously supported a Republican presidential candidate. Genauer, for decades a pillar of Seattle's Jewish community, was personally friendly with former Democratic senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who serves as the yardstick by which Genauer measures the candidates.

Jackson, a scrupulously honest champion of human rights, was largely responsible for standing up to the Soviet Union and freeing tens of thousands of Soviet Jews and other dissidents, and arguably was the staunchest defender of Israel in Senate history. Regarding which candidate is "best for Israel," Genauer's position boils down, in essence, to: I knew Scoop Jackson. Scoop Jackson was a friend of mine. You, Sen. Obama, are no Scoop Jackson.

Meaningful? Obviously, this is all anecdotal. But the Americans here are representative of American voters overall who view the candidates' stances on issues relating to America-Israel relations, Israeli security and understanding the precariousness of Israel's existence as among the most important criteria in deciding how to vote. These residents are Americans who have closely followed - and lived - the Jewish history of the past century. Their souls are bound together with the fate of Israel, having been witness to (and now participants in) its entire tumultuous history, from the Holocaust through Israel's miraculous birth through the perennial parade of wars and existential threats. Proudly American, having lived their adult lives in the US, they now choose to fulfill personal dreams of living in a modern Jewish state in their ancient Jewish homeland - dreams nearly unimaginable when they were younger.

These voters are - or, at least, were - Democrats. They came of political age around the time of the New Deal and World War II, when the Democrats were perceived as the party more protective of immigrant Jews and more internationalist in foreign policy, especially in terms of confronting Hitler and defeating the anti-Semitic, totalitarian Nazis. Popular Jewish wisdom at the time was that one should sooner vote for a socialist than a Republican.

But times - and parties - change. Ultimately, it was the Republicans who finished the fight against the anti-Semitic, totalitarian Soviets. And, now, again, it is primarily Republicans leading the fight against anti-Semitic, totalitarian radical Islamic fascists.

While these voters remained loyal Democrats through the elections of FDR, JFK and LBJ, a palpable leftward shift was taking place within the party, as demonstrated by the nomination of George McGovern. And Jimmy Carter. And John Kerry. And now, Barack Obama. Scoop Jackson would be hopelessly out of place among the dominant wing of today's Democratic Party - a party from which even Sen. Joe Lieberman has been exiled.

Unlike Obama, Jackson was a believer in American exceptionalism, strong national defense and powerfully confronting - not appeasing - America's and Israel's common enemies. He understood that the United Nations was not a friend to Israel or the US and did not believe in outsourcing American military and foreign policies to UN diplomats.

Yet, ahead of his time, he understood that international terrorism, even when targeting Israel only, was a new form of warfare ultimately aimed at undermining all liberal democracies, and needed to be confronted through American-led multilateralism. He was a lawand-order liberal on domestic issues, but no Leftist; he was at once an outspoken voice for civil rights and a leading opponent of forced busing.

By contrast, according to the non-partisan National Journal, Barack Obama has the Senate's single-most left-wing voting record. (Close behind, his running-mate, Joe Biden, comes in third. Lieberman? A respectable 44th.) And could we even imagine Jackson associating with Obama's radical circle, including Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and "God darn America!" pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

In fact, among Democrats in Israel, Obama has not been so popular. In the Democratic primary for Americans outside the US, Obama received twice as many votes as Hillary Clinton overall; but in Israel, he was soundly defeated by Clinton. (The only other country in which Obama lost was the Philippines, another country racked by Islamic terror; Mrs. Pollak's Filipina helper confirmed that among her friends and family, Obama has little support.) Clinton was perceived by many here as being less naÃ¯ve and more knowledgeable than Obama.

StrongIma

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 5:23 am

cute!

after so much back and forth deliberations between the 2 candidates, I'm slowly feeling that it almost doesn't make a difference. The world is going to pot either way. But I'm definitely not going to vote for a black with Muslim leanings, so that doesn't leave me much choice.

Seraph

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 5:41 am

what I want to know is how these really old folk are with it enough and not too senile to know the ins and outs of the political scene...

mummy-bh

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 5:53 am

Seraph, are you proposing that there should be a maximum voting age as well as a minimum one?

ora_43

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 5:59 am

ima10 wrote:

But I'm definitely not going to vote for a black with Muslim leanings, so that doesn't leave me much choice.

Would a white with Muslim leanings be OK?

(Not that I agree with "Muslim leanings," but there's no point in getting into that whole mess again.)

baba

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 6:04 am

mummy-bh wrote:

Seraph, are you proposing that there should be a maximum voting age as well as a minimum one?

while we're at it, maybe throw in an iq minimum as well...

Seraph

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 6:06 am

mummy-bh wrote:

Seraph, are you proposing that there should be a maximum voting age as well as a minimum one?

no. unless you're gonna say that there should be a sanity test/psychological test for everyone before they vote. because there are insane and senile 20, 40, and 85 year olds.

I'm just saying that an article saying "the oldest us voter abroad thinks like this" doesnt mean much to me, because I'm suprised someone that age is with it enough to have an opinion on the topic. (My grandma was senile at 65, so add another 40 years and I'd have a hard time beleiving these people are totally with it.)

Clarissa

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 7:21 am

ima10 wrote:

=But I'm definitely not going to vote for a black with Muslim leanings, so that doesn't leave me much choice.

Thanks for the clarification.

grin

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 7:36 am

senility is very variable. Yes, there are elderly who are quite high-functioning. Its' a big bracha.

Clarissa

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 7:44 am

Seraph wrote:

mummy-bh wrote:

Seraph, are you proposing that there should be a maximum voting age as well as a minimum one?

I agree that most centenarians are probably not with it, but how many of them are out there and how many are voting? Do we think they're a huge influence on the election? Maybe there could be some screening process for people that go to vote in booths (a few questions to determine if they're mentally competent), but how would it work for absentee ballots?

HindaRochel

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 8:49 am

The only screening process should be that they are themselves voting. Outside that it isn't anyone else's business.

HindaRochel

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 8:52 am

I would vote for someone who was black (hoping Dr. Frances Rice runs) vote for a woman, vote for a Muslim or even a Pagan. Won't vote for Obama since I think he is bad for the country (USA, not Israel. G-d has jurisdiction over Israel and what happens to her depends on us.)

ChossidMom

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 8:57 am

HindaRochel wrote:

You would vote for a Muslim? Someone who's Holy book calls for Jihad?

HindaRochel

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 9:02 am

ChossidMom wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

You would vote for a Muslim? Someone who's Holy book calls for Jihad?

Yes, depending on their philosophy and leanings. Not every Muslim is full of hate. Character counts; so anyone who has had the kill everyone not Muslim doesn't get my vote, but yes, a more moderate Muslim, yes.

It is what they do with their religion, not their religion per se that counts.
There are Muslims who are pro-Israel, and I don't mind herd us into Israel so they can kill us. They believe that we have a right to Israel and that they should live in peace with Jews. Of course they might have a different version of end of times than we do, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Numbers might not be very great, and I personally don't know of any right now who I could vote for, but I wouldn't be scared of the religion.

Now if they were a member of a racist/anti-Semitic mosque, they would not get my vote.

Kinneret

Fri, Sep 19 2008, 10:29 am

ima10 wrote:

But I'm definitely not going to vote for a black with Muslim leanings, so that doesn't leave me much choice.

Obama doesn't have Muslim leanings, so you do have an option. Why object to voting for someone black?

StrongIma

Sat, Sep 20 2008, 2:52 pm

Kinneret wrote:

ima10 wrote:

But I'm definitely not going to vote for a black with Muslim leanings, so that doesn't leave me much choice.

Obama doesn't have Muslim leanings, so you do have an option. Why object to voting for someone black?

that remains debatable.

Clarissa

Sat, Sep 20 2008, 8:06 pm

ima10, you can't have missed the comments about the fact that you seemed to pointedly remark on his color, right?

kesher

Sat, Sep 20 2008, 9:34 pm

I have had the zechus to meet both of these amazing senior citizens personally and I assure you they are VERY "with it". We should all be so blessed. To imply without ever having met them that their faculties are impaired seems odd to me. Do you think the press would have bothered writing about them if they were senile?