Did you read the question? It almost sounds as though she is trying to pin him on something. True, being Jewish (or part-Jewish) is not something to be ashamed of, but what does it have to do with this race? I think Senator Allen preferred to stick to the issues and the candidates, not heritage or religion, particularly as Senator Allen has spoken many times on the topic of the meritocracy. And this part of the question struck me as really odd: “…at which point [presumibly, Senator Allen or his family] Jewish identity might have ended?” Why would she want to know this, and how is it relevant? Seems to me that it is no one’s business why Senator Allen does not strongly identify with his heritage. What if she had asked a similar question of someone who had ancestors of African descent? No doubt, she would have been pinned as a racist; how is this different?

Posted by CR UVa on 19 September 2006 @ 12am

Well, for folks who complain that politics is boring and predictable, this unscripted moment should strike their fancy. Why Allen would react so strangely is going to be a story, a big story.

For whatever reason, Allen seems to be unraveling. Who knows where it will lead?

Posted by F.T. Rea on 19 September 2006 @ 12am

CR, I imagine it’s only relevant because Sen. Allen brought it up by raising the topic of his grandfather and the Nazis.

Pretend, for a moment, that he was asked whether he was Christian. If I thought that he would have bridled in the same manner, I’d be applauding his response. (Or, at least, I hope I’d be.) But I expect that he’d have answered the question cheerfully. Instead, asked if he’s of Jewish heritage, he bridled, accusing the questioner of “casting aspersions.” An “aspersion” is “a damaging or derogatory remark; slander.” I cannot comprehending believing that the mere question of whether one is Jewish comprises slander.

Is being Jewish bad? I can’t find any other interpretation for his “casting aspersions” complaint. Maybe I’m not properly understanding things, but given the strong conservative support for Israel, wouldn’t that be shoring up his base? Or is support for Israel a totally different issue than Jewishness as a cultural background (which is, in turn, totally different than Jewishness as a religion)?

And, more important, is “Jewishness” a word? ;)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 19 September 2006 @ 1am

If the mere suggestion of being Jewish is an aspersion, perhaps that might explain a lifelong infatuation with a certain flag and the “culture” it represents?

Posted by Dan Kachur on 19 September 2006 @ 1am

Rationally, Allen’s reaction doesn’t make any sense–who cares if he has Jewish heritage? Allen’s response though wasn’t the least bit rational. Clearly the question touched a nerve and I didn’t get the sense that it had anything to do with “the free exercise” clause of the Constitution. If the reporter had questioned Allen’s right to practice his beliefs as a Protestant, his response would have been appropriate. That wasn’t what this was about.

Is Allen afraid of the topic for political reasons? Does he think there will be some type of political fault-out if his core supporters learn that he’s Jewish? If find this a little hard to believe.

What we do know is that Allen has spent decades crafting his political persona (100% red-blooded American cowboy). The only reasonable explanation that I can find is the one that you suggested (e.g. Allen appears to be ashamed about this possibility). For whatever reason, Allen can’t seem to allow that the REAL George Allen might have Jewish heritage. Obviously this isn’t a vital campaign issue, but that doesn’t make Allen’s response any less strange.

Posted by JPTERP on 19 September 2006 @ 1am

Let’s not forget how he called a journalist and asked him to retract after he’d written an article about Allen’s Jewishness.

And yes, it is a word.

Posted by Mimi Schaeffer on 19 September 2006 @ 5am

Crazy Theory #452: Allen’s campaign is hoping that someone in the Webb campaign will pick up on Allen’s alleged “Jewishness” and go negative about it, giving the Allen campaign a little badly-needed moral high ground and martyr status…

I don’t think it will work, if it is the plan… I doubt anyone willing to work to get Allen tossed out of office really cares how Jewish or non-Jewish Allen or anyone else is. I think they care a lot more how Allen vote[sd] as a Senator and that is the real issue. Psycologists might have a field day with this possibly explaining some of his bully behavior; but politically it is non-sequiter, and (I suspect) bait to screw with the Webb campaign. If so - hopefully we can ignore it and move on.

Posted by Scott Nolan on 19 September 2006 @ 8am

The questions about Allen’s heritage continue because he lies about his knowledge of Tunisian slurs - saying most recently that he “made up” the term ‘Macaca’. And yesterday rambled on about his roots in France, Italy and Spain - curiously omitting his family’s exile to Tunisia. If George Allen would just get real all this stuff would bounce off of him. He isn’t, so it sticks. We are witness to the unraveling of a lie, and a public phoney.

Posted by Bubby on 19 September 2006 @ 9am

If you saw the video then you would understand how Allen reacted. He acted in a professional and dignified way. The one who asked the question was the one that was bizzare.

Rather than read what someone else thought of the “tirade”, I invite you to watch it yourself.

http://www.allenhq.com/2006/09/18/nobody-expects-the-religious-inquisition/

Why is Allen being chastised for having someone ask them an offensive question?

I can’t wait to see the reaction of the left when a conservative reporter asks a candidate, who happens to be Muslin, about his ancestors.

Posted by Zombie Gursha on 19 September 2006 @ 10am

If you saw the video then you would understand how Allen reacted. He acted in a professional and dignified way. The one who asked the question was the one that was bizzare.

Rather than read what someone else thought of the “tirade”, I invite you to watch it yourself.

I watched C-SPAN live and re-watched that portion twice immediately afterwards. (Blessed be TiVo.) I’m no stranger to the video clip. He reacted in anger, and there’s nothing professional about anger. Unless you’re in the…um…anger business, I guess.

I can’t wait to see the reaction of the left when a conservative reporter asks a candidate, who happens to be Muslin, about his ancestors.

You’ve lost me with your metaphor. Are you saying that Sen. Allen is Jewish? Or that the Muslim’s ancestors would be something other than Muslim like, ironically, Jewish?

I just don’t understands Allen’s anger. Imagine if the reporter had asked him if his family enjoyed eating steak and, if not, if his parents or grandparents had. The correct response would have been “Huh?” and not, in fact, a two-minute tirade about his freedom to eat whatever he wants.

Allen’s all about heritage, isn’t he? Whenever the topic of his Confederate flag comes up, he goes on and on about how important heritage and tradition and culture is to him. A question about his own heritage seems quite fitting with that oft-repeated theme of his campaign.

BTW, good on Webb for his follow-up response. He’ll want to have nothing to do with this. Not a word from him, not a word from his campaign.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 19 September 2006 @ 10am

You certainly do not need to be Jewish in order to be in a concentration camp. Homosexuals, gypsies, people with dwarfism and many others were also condemned. However, incarceration does not immediately mean he was sent to a concentration camp, or even a ghetto for that matter. He just as easily could have been a nazi or civilian criminal that was simply arrested, though contextually that seems less likely. Either way his choice of words is curious, as is the possibility that he is trying to hide his heritage to maintain his “tough cowboy” persona. What? Jews can’t be tough? Didn’t they invent Krav Maga: the art of kicking someone’s ass when they have a gun to your head and you’re unarmed? That’s pretty damn tough in my book.

Either way, I hope the Webb Campaign doesn’t take the bait on this one. It could easily backfire into an anti-Semitic mess with as much if not more mud on Webb than Allen depending on how the fan spins when the shit’s tossed.

Posted by Cory Capron on 19 September 2006 @ 10am

What is bizarre is the failure of some lefties and liberals to understand how disgraceful this sort of questioning is. It is a sign of nothing else except the left’s increasing readiness to drop the anti-Zionist figleaf and show off proudly the anti-Jew reality. By the way, to those who think incarceration by Nazis entitles anyone to ask this question, six million of the victims of the Holocaust were Jews but an equal number were not. “Senator Allen, are you now or were any of your relatives ever Jews, gypsies, or homosexuals? We’d like to know.” Eeechh! To the questioner and to those of you who now appologize for this disgrace.

Posted by Jonathan Burack on 19 September 2006 @ 10am

Either way his choice of words is curious, as is the possibility that he is trying to hide his heritage to maintain his “tough cowboy” persona. What? Jews can’t be tough?

Two words: Kinky Friedman. :)

What is bizarre is the failure of some lefties and liberals to understand how disgraceful this sort of questioning is. It is a sign of nothing else except the left’s increasing readiness to drop the anti-Zionist figleaf and show off proudly the anti-Jew reality.

It’s anti-Jew to ask somebody who touts their heritage and talks about their grandfather having been incarcerated by the Nazis whether that heritage includes Judiasm? That’s only offensive if being Jewish offends you. It doesn’t offend me. Does it offend you?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 19 September 2006 @ 10am

So I guess we still haven’t figured out what was going on yesterday. At least, there seems to be no consensus as to why he reacted in anger. If it was a bizarre question, anger doesn’t make sense. If it was a reasonable question, anger doesn’t make sense. Anger only makes sense if he thinks that being Jewish is bad, or he thinks that others might think that being Jewish is bad. Or am I misunderstanding?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 19 September 2006 @ 10am

Why does it matter whether Allen’s mother was Jewish? It what way is that at all relevant to whether or not he’s a competent senator? This question was an example of exceptionally bad journalism. If I was George Allen, I’d be angry as well. Doesn’t he have enough questions to answer about his record and issues that are actually important to the voters?

Posted by Anna on 19 September 2006 @ 11am

Jonathan Burack, take a chill pill for a second. This is not an issue I really feel is worth going after Allen over. I’m mearly mulling over all the facts. I brought up gypsies, homosexuals and people with dwarfism as a casual point that you don’t have to be jewish to be arrested by the Nazis. It is a common (though less now then in the past) misconception that only jews were oppressed by the nazis, which has been an issue of some frustration to others who survived and their families. The article was about trying to figure out what happened, and that was the point of my comments. I had more to say before I switched computers so you only got what I’d written clearly. I wasn’t done.

Asking Allen about his heritage is valid (though hardly relevent) when he seems to deny it to create an image, that could suggest anti-semite undertones. However, the final part of her question was worded like something out a a McCarthy hearing, so I’m not saying it wasn’t called for for him to be outraged to some extent. However his need to evoke freedom of religion over and over and over again gave an air of dodging the fact. Say something once, you make a point. Say it like a broken record, sounds like you’re hiding behind it because you don’t have a point.

I have to agree with bubby. So much that is brought up about Allen could bounce right off him if he simply handled it better.

Further more, listening over it a few times I’ve yet to hear the word “aspersion.” At what part did you hear this Waldo?

Posted by Cory Capron on 19 September 2006 @ 11am

“Why does it matter whether Allen’s mother was Jewish?” - because it gives George Allen his Jewish identity. And his angry indignity that we should know his heritage speaks volumes about his character. Character matters.

Posted by Bubby on 19 September 2006 @ 11am

Further chewing, if they found he had some jewish heritage on the male side of his family, then what was her point? It’s passed down on the mother’s side. She didn’t say there was evidence of his mother or grandmother being jewish that I heard.

Posted by Cory Capron on 19 September 2006 @ 11am

Further more, listening over it a few times I’ve yet to hear the word “aspersion.” At what part did you hear this Waldo?

It’s at 2:00 in this video clip. And it’s actually “making aspersions,” not “casting aspersions” — I got it wrong earlier, though the meaning is, of course, identical.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 19 September 2006 @ 11am

It may not be highly relevant, but it’s not an unreasonable followup to someone mentioning that an ancestor was in a concentration camp. Out of the blue, asking “are you Jewish” would have been “exceptionally bad journalism,” but following Allen’s statement, it isn’t. Even if you just find the question annoying, reacting with anger is not an appropriate way to convey that in a debate. Reacting angrily and calling it an aspersion conveys clearly that you think being of Jewish heritage is a negative thing, not that you think the question was irrelevant.

Personally, I would guess that Allen is concerned that some portion of his base would have a problem if they thought he was of Jewish ancestry, and he didn’t think on his feet well enough to dismiss the question. Or, alternatively, that his mother’s family wasn’t Jewish, but got asked that question after the war, and growing up he picked up the angry response (which I could imagine being a more common reaction in Europe than here.) But those are just guesses.

Posted by Jim E-H on 19 September 2006 @ 11am

when did your blackness end?

where did your catholism end?

If you look at the clip you can see it is clearly a stupid and offencive question. Responded to appropriately with anger.

Although he should have said “what kind of an idiot would ask that kind of qestion?”

all of you of different faiths or races in your background should be concerned about this kind of question.

Posted by pete on 19 September 2006 @ 11am

Pete -

Let’s accept as fact, for the moment, that the question is completely out of line. Ok? Let’s do that.

Just because someone is asked an inappropriate question, does that give them license to claim that being Jewish is an asperation, or an insult?

Posted by Paul on 19 September 2006 @ 12pm

Ah! There it is. Had to whip out the old iMac speakers to hear it clearly, but he does in fact say “aspersions.” Thus making this much more valid to question than if he had “as persions” as I first heard it with the shotty office speakers that seemed to push the crowd noise to the forefront.

Thanks!

Posted by Cory Capron on 19 September 2006 @ 12pm

FWIW, I’m increasingly convinced that the question was out of place. Not unfair, not necessarily inappropriate, but definitely a bit weird, whether or not Allen opened the door. But none of that explains his response, particularly his belief that asking if he’s Jewish is “making aspersions.” I still can’t comprehend his angry answer.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 19 September 2006 @ 12pm

So I’m no Allen fan, but it is apparent to me that his “making aspersions” comment is directed at the reporters assertion that Allen denies his Jewish heritage, rather than going on a tirade about being called a Jew. Basically she opens by saying that he denies his heritage even though there is proof to the contrary. She then ends her question with the following statement/question “could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews, and if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended.” So I definitely take that last little part as a barb basically accusing Allen of denying his heritage. This is probably true, but I think Allen got a little charge out of the crowd and decided that he could basically go after the question rather than address the controversy. What are the alternatives? I don’t think he wanted to answer either yes or no and frankly the question doesn’t really pass the smell test.

Posted by g. on 19 September 2006 @ 1pm

So I’m no Allen fan, but it is apparent to me that his “making aspersions” comment is directed at the reporters assertion that Allen denies his Jewish heritage, rather than going on a tirade about being called a Jew.

That’s an interesting theory — precisely the sort of thing that I’ve been fishing for when I keep professing my confusion. I certainly can’t see the reporter’s question as indicate that, but I’m hardly in Sen. Allen’s shoes.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 19 September 2006 @ 1pm

Pete–if someone asked me “So I understand your mother’s father had some French, English and possibly Catholic heritage”? My response would be: “Huh?” or maybe even “That’s what I hear.”

I wouldn’t launch into an angry irrelevant disquisition about religious freedoms.

As far as being “afraid” of the reporter’s question, I can understand that response in Nazi Germany, but not in the 21st Century U.S.A. Allen’s response was just very strange.

Posted by JPTERP on 19 September 2006 @ 1pm

Ah, g., that makes more sense. I do think that trying to claim the mantle of the concentration camps while avoiding the reason his ancestor was sent there is something Allen deserved to be called on, but I’d agree that a debate was not necessarily an appropriate forum. However, if the question doesn’t pass the smell test, then I think he could have gotten a more sympathetic response by pointing that out, but the result might still have been to attract more attention. It’s hard to judge.

Posted by Jim E-H on 19 September 2006 @ 1pm

Whoa…
“Basically she opens by saying that he denies his heritage even though there is proof to the contrary.”

How do I reconcile that statement with this?

“It’s funny, but the only time that George Allen ever wanted a correction from me in 27 years of covering his races was when I wrote about his mother’s Jewish family origins. He insisted, through a press secretary, that his mother was raised a Christian.”

Posted by Bubby on 19 September 2006 @ 2pm

How could so experienced and polished a politician as George Allen make not one but two major ‘macacca’ type blunders while looking straight at the TV cameras during the same political campaign? This guy is just self-destructing. It’s almost as if he WANTS to lose.

Allen shoots himself in the foot, limps a few steps and then goes and shoots himself in the other foot. About all he can do now is fall down. Leftist groups shouldn’t try to make hay out of this and don’t need to. Jewish special interest groups will be all over Allen with this thing like flies on sh*t.

Posted by Jack on 19 September 2006 @ 2pm

Waldo,
You need to stop shooting in the dark. You’ll shoot your foot off. Of all the Democrat bloggers, you were the last one I would expect to take this route.

The question was obviously irrelevant, and tasteless to boot.

Posted by I'm Not Emeril on 19 September 2006 @ 3pm

Take which route, Alton? Asking people to help me understand what that exchange was about? Saying that the reporter’s question was strange? It seems like a pretty reasonable line of discussion to me. What would you have me do?

I suspect that you have not read the discussion thread here. I think you’d find the discussion pretty reasonable.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 19 September 2006 @ 3pm

Allen just issued a statement. Which would have been totally acceptable and should make the whole thing go away, except that he started making shit up:

“The notion peddled by the Webb campaign that I am somehow embarrassed by my heritage is equally offensive…”

This is a total lie. The Webb campaign hasn’t had a word to say about the whole thing.

Posted by Jack on 19 September 2006 @ 5pm

Some of the comments here demonstrate absurdity by being absurd.

First, I emailed the video exchange around my law firm (which is split down the line between conservatives, moderates and liberals) to see what they think. Of course its nonscientific, but in a way it does represent a nice cross section of potential Virginia voters. Unlike many people on this list, they aren’t political junkies in any way shape or form. To a man (and quite a few women) they felt that the woman came across negatively and Allen’s explanation on freedom of religion was refreshing (especially since several of the moderates feel that to be a member of the GOP you have to be a Christian Protestant).

Second, Pete hit the nail on the head on the nature and tone of the question. It would be like acting a candidate “When did your blackness end.” Allen acted with righteous indignation because of the premise of the question, not as some of the loony Lefties that posted here insinuated because he had a problem with his Jewish heritage. Hell, in my law firm the people that thought the question was most out of line were some of the Jewish attorneys in the firm. As my friend commented, a reporter would never ask someone about when their “Italian-heritage” ends or when their “Norwegian-heritage” ends. The woman’s question, by her nature, insinuated that his Jewish heritage was somehow relevant to the issue of him running for re-election to the United States Senate; it was almost like the question was asked by someone from the Aryan brotherhood. My great-grandmother was French, I doubt someone would ask when my “French-identity” ends.

Besides the crowd’s reaction was enough to show that everyone in the room thought it was a senseless and pointless question; demonstrating they have a much firmer grip on reality than many people posting on this blog.

It does seem that a good number of people posting now have super-human psychic abiltiy to ascertain the “real” meaning of Allen’s reaction. I only wish that I had their same super-human psychic ability. I mean, Allen thought a question with Anti-Semitic overtones was out of line? Well, he must REALLY harbor inner anti-semitic feelings!

Where is the same outrage against Jim Webb for writing that women at the Naval Academy was a “horny women’s dream.”? Where is the same outrage that Jim Webb spoke at the dedication of a Confederate grave memorial? Where is the same outrage that Jim Webb still doesn’t disagree that he’s never met a single women that can lead a man in combat? Or referred to women at the Naval Academy as “thunder thights”? Or thought Tailhook was a “two or three day story” at most?

If Allen had mentioned 1/5th of the blatantly sexist comments that Webb has written the posters would be filled with righteous indignation. It’s a double standard that boggles the mind.

Posted by politicalopinion on 19 September 2006 @ 5pm

I mean, Allen thought a question with Anti-Semitic overtones was out of line?

I enjoyed the rest of your comment, but I’m puzzled by this. It sounds to me like, as you wrote, you “now have super-human psychic abiltiy to ascertain the ‘real’ meaning” of Fox’s question. I detected no such undertones, to say nothing of overtones. Though Allen — and you — may have inferred such a thing, that doesn’t mean that she implied it.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 19 September 2006 @ 5pm

What is it counselor, are you, and yours infused with “super-human psychic abiltiy (sic) to ascertain the “real” meaning of Allen’s reaction” or is it the “loony Lefties”? Nice try, high and right.

Perhaps you could lower your sights to a coherent explanation of why a U.S.Senator couldn’t have said something like, “yes, my family history includes Jewish heritage, including my Grandfather Felix, and we continue to honor that tradition”. Now that would have been a classy answer. Instead we got crazy George.

Posted by Bubby on 19 September 2006 @ 5pm

I’m having trouble following the analogy about “when did your blackness end”. If someone asked me this question, I think I would be puzzled more than outraged.

If the analogy is supposed to suggest that race should be as irrelevant as religion in politics–I would agree with this statement.

I’m glad to see that Allen released a statement on the religion issue as well.

As far as the journalistic angle is concerned, Mark Plotkin, in his Washingtonpost.com chat today had an interesting explanation . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/09/14/DI2006091401186.html

“Peggy Fox sought to elicit a straight forward answer on the “macaca” issue and thought that the question about Jewish ancestry went to the core issue of Allen’s honesty. Bear with me- first she asked if he got the idea to call the gentleman of Indian descent with that name because there had been reports that the origin of the word came from French North African people, since his mother was Tunisian Fox was trying to make a connection that maybe Allen had heard while growing up, or more simply said his mother had used the expression. When Allen repeated that he didn’t know the origin of the word or why he came up with the word, I think Peggy wanted to enhance the question by quoting the “Jewish press” and ask Allen if his grandfather on his mother’s side was Jewish. Allen never answered that particular question, but once again apologized for any unintentional slur and said that both he and his mother were brought up “Christian.” Allen used the question to assail Peggy’s motivation and it got a big roar of approval from some parts of the crowd. I think Peggy was trying to get to the heart of the matter and was digging to expose any possible attempts by Allen to conceal some facet of this controversy. But instead, Peggy Fox came in for the criticism and Allen got a chance to beat up on the press. I hope this answers your question. More than anything, the inference of the question had to do with was Allen hiding or withholding information that would have led to an understanding of how he came up with this word.”

Posted by JPTERP on 19 September 2006 @ 7pm

Try again, Jack…

The Webb campaign hasn’t had a word to say about the whole thing.

Did you not see Raising Kaine today? They’re paid by Webb, so Webb doesn’t need to “say” anything himself. He’s got the folks at RK doing his dirty work for him.

Posted by Sam Reilly on 19 September 2006 @ 9pm

Sam, who is this ‘they’ you speak of from Raising Kaine? I am a regular contributor there, and I am not paid by Webb. I volunteer for Jim Webb and Al Weed, because they are the Democratic candidates for office this year.

You should stop making such broad generalizations when speaking. It makes me wonder if you are trying to be unspecific on purpose. The alterior motive of being disruptive is counterproductive and not at the level of conversation we like to have here.

Please be more specific about whom you are talking and tell us who is being paid by whom at RK. We’ll see if you are right or not. I am betting not.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 19 September 2006 @ 11pm

Peggy Fox’s Jewish Question, Wes Clark, and George Allen’s Anger “Issues” by: Lowell, (Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign. The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.)

By all accounts, “Lowell” runs that site. He posts his own blog entries on the main page and he promotes diaries written by others by putting them on the main page. He is paid by the Webb campaign. The disclaimer doesn’t make sense, because he part of the the staff. Besides, any disclaimer is moot anyway. He’s paid by Webb and runs a Webb campaign blog. RK is one very vocal arm of the Webb public relations effort.

I can’t tell by your post what my “alterior” (whatever that means) motive was supposed to be. I was right that RK is paid for by Webb, and that because RK does the nasty stuff there’s no need for Webb to say anything nasty himself - which was the only point I made in answering Jack.

Posted by Sam Reilly on 20 September 2006 @ 6am

Waldo touches on a good point. Let’s see what Obamama does when some reporter asks: “now there are rumors that you have muzzie blood. Is this true, and have you renounced this abberative faith?

Posted by Hugh Jardohn on 20 September 2006 @ 8am

When george “Macaca” allen loses this election, he is sure to make it in the comedy circuit. Pure comedy, this guy is a tool.

Posted by Marcus on 20 September 2006 @ 11am

I agree that the question is irrelevant, but I would have liked the reporter to ask what she *really* wanted to know, as opposed to asking what she presumably already knew. “Senator Allen, you’ve been very forthcoming about your Christian faith. Why is it that you seem to deny your Jewish roots?” etc. etc. Asked in that manner, I think that the question is more than relevant because it relates to the macaca incident as well as his seemingly racist tendencies. The question of his inherent “Jewishness,” as it were, I do not believe to be relevant as an isolated factor.

Posted by rockcb on 20 September 2006 @ 12pm

George Allen: Jew, Not a Jew?…

One thing his campaign may want to do to help Allen truly embrace his Jewishness is play “Jew, Not a Jew” with him….

Posted by Jon Swift on 20 September 2006 @ 2pm

This is truly getting tedious, responding to silly statements like those by Sam. For the ten BILLIONTH time, Raising Kaine is a GROUP BLOG and a COMMUNITY BLOG. If that’s too difficult to understand, rocket science that it is, let me explain it verrrrrrrry sloooooooowly. 1) A “GROUP” blog means that there are multiple main page contributors. 2) In RK’s case, that number is about a dozen. 3) RK is a a “COMMUNITY” blog, which means that anyone - even Dick Wad(hams) if he wants - can post a diary there, that everyone can rate comments and recommend diaries, etc. 4) My name is really Lowell, so no need to put it in quotes. 5) I don’t know what you mean with your “by all accounts” comment. The RK state PAC has two names on it, Brian Patton’s (treasurer) and mine. I suppose you could say we “run” the blog, but that’s not really true given points #1 and #2.

As far as who “pays” for RK, that’s been discussed about a BILLION times as well, including false, possibly slanderous comments by Jim Riley that RK was violating FEC law (see Brian Patton’s slam of that malarky). The RK state PAC pays for blog hosting services. The Webb campaign does NOT pay one penny to Raising Kaine (also, I would point out that RK existed way before Jim Webb came along, given that it was set up in December 2004). What the Webb campaign DOES do is compensate two contributing members of Raising Kaine, Josh Chernila and myself, for our time working FOR THE CAMPAIGN - Josh as volunteer coordinator and myself as netroots/online fundraising coordinator. I know, this is all very simple, but I figured I would just spell it out once again, since obviously some people are a bit slow.

Posted by Lowell on 20 September 2006 @ 3pm

Its getting to look like Hillary is the only Senator sans jewish roots.

As far as the Senator from Virginia is concerned regardless of his [un]claimed roots he has to lose those goat eyes if he expects to be voted back into the senate by all those Virginian macacas.

Posted by yknot on 20 September 2006 @ 5pm

I don’t usually post comments on political blogs, but I’ve got to on this one. I’m Bi-racial and proud of it and don’t mind being asked about my “blackness” or “whiteness” although it doesn’t reflect well on the questioner,in my opinion, if they’re more interested in my race then me as an individual, but I accept that some folks are just “over curious” as my Grandmother would say.

However the context makes all the difference.Imagine if in a job interveiw some asked the perspective employee something like “so, are you or are you not a Black man?”

I am indeed Black, but I look “white”, so it may seem like a reasonable question, but it isn’t. It implies that the questioner puts some importance on my ethnicity in evaluating my abilities. In the worng context, it’s extreamely offensive to have someone stop a conversation, about politics or religion or what have you, and say “Are you Black?”. I say this from experience.

When this has happened, I too reacted like Allen, with what white people cliam is a bizarre over reaction and I call indignation. I get what Allen was mad about, maybe more than some others here.

And if I were to assume you were all white, you’d be equally offended.

Posted by Rob Taylor on 20 September 2006 @ 6pm

Poor A-Team is treading water on this yet again. Like macaca, they can’t explain why Allen said it (let alone why so many different contradictory explanations were floated) so they try to focus on other things and change the subject. Here, they can’t explain why Allen tried to get a “correction” about his Jewish heritage, seemed bizarrely disinterested in why his grandfather was persecuted by the Nazis, and bristled when someone else picked up on it.

Given that Allen tried to correct TNR when they said his heritage included a Jewish side, that gives the reporters confused accusation a little more context. Here is a guy who insists that his granparents weren’t Jews, and then brings their persecution in the Holocaust up in a debate. To any informed person, that was bizarre behavior demanding of a follow up question.

Posted by plunge on 20 September 2006 @ 8pm

Given that Allen tried to correct TNR when they said his heritage included a Jewish side, that gives the reporters confused accusation a little more context.

Actually, that was Bob Gibson of the Daily Progress — TNR just reported on it. But, yes, that was a strange thing.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 September 2006 @ 8pm

Rob Taylor, you aren’t making any sense. The first place this came up was when Allen’s background was brought up in a _biographical_ piece, which of course discussed his background. Is that untoward and insulting?

Then, you are fogetting that ALLEN brought up the issue of his heritage, not anyone else. And the way he brought it up was more than a little confusing given his prior behavior in getting angry at a biography.

In context, the reporters question makes perfect sense. Where Allen learned the word “macaca” is valid story. His background is relevant to that story. He brought up that background again, himself, and did so in ways that implied the media was illegitimate. So he got plumbed some more as to why he was being confusing and coy about it. Makes sense to anyone trying to have it not make sense, as far as I can see.

Posted by plunge on 20 September 2006 @ 8pm

Where he learned the term Macaca is indeed valid, but remember, the question was whether or not his Grandfather was Jewish, and if so when the Jewishness of his family ended, these things wouldn’t explain why he blurted out a racial slur, unless your making the arguement that macaca is a slur only Jewish people use.

My point is that her question could only be seen as not being racist by people who haven’t had that same experience. I have and I completely understand his reaction then and there. I’m not an Allen suporter myself, but I do know predjudice when I see it.

Your missing my more important point, if I went to a job interveiw (and that’s what a political debate is) and someone said “Your Grandparents and Mother are Black, are you Black and if not when did you stop being Black”, it would in fact be untoward and insulting.

Untoward because it’s a tactless and uncouth attempt get me to either try to deny my blackness or say that I am black and thus deny my white ancestory. It is a ploy that renders any answer unacceptable. This is what happened to Allen.

Insulting because it implies my race is in some way a measure of my acceptability for whatever the position is, it denies my individual worth. In this case trying to tack “the jewish question” on to a political debate, or as you say a debate on whether or not Allen’s a bigot, is unseemly to say the least. Why not simply ask where he heard the term macaca, which from what I understand is a french term, not one having to do with Saphardic Jews who I undertood came from Spain (I think) and speak a spanish/hebrew dialect.

And c’mon, didn’t she sound to you just a little racist, be honest.

Posted by Rob Taylor on 20 September 2006 @ 9pm

Rob, I do think it’s important to keep in mind that George Allen has historically been quite happy to talk about his faith, and Lord knows the man can’t stop talking about “heritage.” So while the timing, phrasing, etc. of the question was certainly odd, there was no element of it that he hasn’t proudly waved about in the public arena before.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 September 2006 @ 9pm

My Comparative Religion degree talking but Judaism is both a faith and culture; adherents also consider it an ethnicity. I’m not familiar with everything Allen’s said, but I assume that his “heritage” is his “southern pride”, which in fact some folks from my own family often speak of. But his Grandfather being Jewish doesn’t negate the Christianity Allen holds so precious, nor does it mean he shouldn’t love where he’s from, people whose ancestors were Jewish can be both proud Christians and Southerners.

Were I Allen, would I have handled it differently? Maybe. Would I have been as appalled that my Grandfather being Jewish was made into some sort of issue? You better believe it.

You seem to be equating Allen’s supposed religiosity with his family history, which doesn’t seem fair. Many of my African ancestors were likely animists, I am not, should that be an issue if I were to run for office? If, when running for office, I made some sort of anti-Irish or Italian remark, would it be appropriate to delve into whether or not any of my family practiced Voudon or Santeria in a televised debate?

Or would the cause of “getting to the bottom” of my seeming racism simply provide a convenient smoke screen to sneer at my family history?

I think maybe Allen’s anger was because he felt that the latter was going on. In his place I would feel the same, and in fact have in the past felt the same and reacted with as much anger as he did.

I have proudly waved my diverse ethnic heritage for many, many years, but that doesn’t give whites, or anyone else, license to make some sort of political or philosophical point using my background. After all, I’m not an issue to be discussed; I’m a person who can be offended. I’m a person whose seen first hand that many whites, liberal or not, are racists and I may be, in others estimation “too sensitive”, but I still have a right to be suspicious of anyone who wants to question me about my race.

Maybe Allen feels the same. Maybe his family, fleeing Europe decided to “pass” and not advertise their Jewish roots, maybe they passed down from generation to generation a fear of those for whom their Jewish heritage would be important. Maybe after all the problems with anti-Semitic speech on the internet these days, with many supposedly liberal sites being flooded with racist bile from their own supporters, maybe, just maybe, Allen gets anxious when someone says “Are you a Jew?”

I’m not saying anyone should or shouldn’t vote for Allen, I’m not defending anything he’s said or done prior to this, but I am defending his anger at having to explain his ethnicity to people during a political debate.

I know that people who haven’t been through that experience, of feeling attacked by someone who’s seemingly a racist, will continue to believe (or frankly pretend to believe) that this wasn’t fuelled by the rising acceptability of anti-Semitism, but to the rest of us, to people who’ve felt the sting of prejudice when we least expected it, this whole scenario was all too familiar, just as the shock and pain that was displayed by Allen was.

What’s important, in my opinion, to keep in mind is that like his politics or that the man’s a human being who deserves respect; that racist thought can appear where we least expect it; and that those of us who are of mixed backgrounds, Allen included, cannot rely on the goodwill and decency of society at large, we must stand together and today I’ll stand with George Allen.

Posted by Rob Taylor on 20 September 2006 @ 11pm

“Where he learned the term Macaca is indeed valid, but remember, the question was whether or not his Grandfather was Jewish, and if so when the Jewishness of his family ended, these things wouldn’t explain why he blurted out a racial slur, unless your making the arguement that macaca is a slur only Jewish people use.”

No, but at that point, everyone was sick of getting a run around about what his heritage was, and this was another point where he seemed bizarrely coy about it. So she probed a little farther. God knows Allen has not been quiet about his heritage and his religion until now. It was fair game because HE RAISED THE ISSUE HIMSELF.

“My point is that her question could only be seen as not being racist by people who haven’t had that same experience. I have and I completely understand his reaction then and there. I’m not an Allen suporter myself, but I do know predjudice when I see it.”

I have my doubts, but even if you are not, you seem to be projecting awful hard, at the same time trying to strip all the context away that makes it make any sense other than racism.

“Your missing my more important point, if I went to a job interveiw (and that’s what a political debate is) and someone said “Your Grandparents and Mother are Black, are you Black and if not when did you stop being Black”, it would in fact be untoward and insulting.”

Being Jewish isn’t like being Black, sorry. It’s not just an ethnicity: it’s also traditional heritage AND also a religion, all at once.

“Untoward because it’s a tactless and uncouth attempt get me to either try to deny my blackness or say that I am black and thus deny my white ancestory. It is a ploy that renders any answer unacceptable. This is what happened to Allen.”

Bull. All Allen had to say was that “sure, that’s part of my ancestry.” No crazy denial of anything. I suspect it’s only because HE believes it would be a negative that he’s been so coy about it. I mean, he was just quoted as saying “just an interesting nuance to my background.” That’s a perfectly sensible answer that would have deflected the question without any problems. But of course, being George Allen, he also went on to say: “I still had a ham sandwich for lunch. And my mother made great pork chops.”

Can you see yourself making a similar comment about your race, using the same flat out sterotypes to define yourself against that heritage?

“In this case trying to tack “the jewish question” on to a political debate, or as you say a debate on whether or not Allen’s a bigot, is unseemly to say the least.”

It’s not unseemly when he’s bizarrely tried to deny it and play it down, when he’s spent a lot of time playing up his other lines of heritage. Lots of politicians play on their family backgrounds to define who they are, and George Allen is no different. But in his case, he’s played up the fact that he’s Irish, and played down, to the point of demanding that biographies hush it up, his French and Jewish roots. THAT doesn’t sound bizarre to you?

The question is: why is Allen doing that?

“Why not simply ask where he heard the term macaca, which from what I understand is a french term, not one having to do with Saphardic Jews who I undertood came from Spain (I think) and speak a spanish/hebrew dialect.”

You know, he WAS asked, and he and his staff gave like, five different contradictory answers. We’re not getting a straight answer on that one. You’re also confusing his mother (who grew up in French Tunesia where the term was common slang) with his grandparents. Not the same thing.

“And c’mon, didn’t she sound to you just a little racist, be honest. ”

Racist? Good grief, you really are stretching.

Posted by plunge on 21 September 2006 @ 2pm

More detail on the issue: according to Allen’s mother, the reason for all the secrecy was that it was, in fact, considered a dirty family secret that those in the know were sworn to secrecy about because one half of the family would not have approved of it.

Posted by plunge on 21 September 2006 @ 2pm

At 7:00 on CNN, Senator Allen will be sitting down for an “emotional interview” with Wolf Blitzer, in which he will “break his silence on a decades old secret.” I sure hope Wolf knows not to ask him anything about a possible Jewish heritage, because Allen might just storm off the set. I mean, religion and ethnicity has no place in the political discourse, and Wolf should (I hope) know that. I applaud Senator Allen in advance for standing by his principles and refusing to discuss his religious heritage on a nationally broadcast “news” show, which is I’m sure what will happen. :-)

Posted by Kaveh Sadeghzadeh on 21 September 2006 @ 7pm

“More detail on the issue: according to Allen’s mother, the reason for all the secrecy was that it was, in fact, considered a dirty family secret that those in the know were sworn to secrecy about because one half of the family would not have approved of it.”

That’s not at all what she said, the Washing Post article says she was afraid of her children facing persecution and she and her husband decided she’d try to pass. In fact the quote your skewing is:
“At the table in Palos Verdes, Calif., Allen’s mother, who is 83, said she told her son the truth: That she had been raised as a Jew in Tunisia before moving to the United States. She said that she and the senator’s father, famed former Redskins coach George Allen, had wanted to protect their children from living with the fear that she had experienced during World War II. Her father, Felix Lumbroso, was imprisoned by the Nazis during the German occupation of Tunis.”

You might think she’s covering for her son, but at least let’s not put words in her mouth.

“everyone was sick of getting a run around about what his heritage was” This illustrates my point of the idea of whites having the “right” to demand to know others ethnic background. If Allen were “passing” why would you be so offended?

“I have my doubts, but even if you are not…”
Yes, yes Plunge, you caught me. Karl Rove called me and told me to come post on this board to sway the clearly undecided group here to vote republican.

“…you seem to be projecting awful hard, at the same time trying to strip all the context away that makes it make any sense other than racism.”
I am “projecting”; I’m projecting myself in this guys place. The context is what? That Allen blurted what was likely a racial slur he picked up from his mother, so the fact his Grandfather was Jewish would prove that his unconvincing denials of the meaning of this word were false? Had he answered the affirmative, negative or with indignation the question of why he thought yelping out such a phrase was appropriate.

Unless of course your argument is that his Jewish ancestry proved he was a racist.

“Being Jewish isn’t like being Black, sorry. It’s not just an ethnicity: it’s also traditional heritage AND also a religion, all at once.”
Sorry but being black is also a heritage, and it was I who pointed out the multifaceted part of Jewish identity in an earlier post. And just for edification purposes, Judaism is made up of multiple ethnicities.

As to Allen’s Pork references; 1) I’ve often joked about not eating chitlins and grits 2) My argument isn’t about Allen keeping kosher 3) I don’t know the context of the quote, but it seems like he was making a bad joke.

Of course, kosher laws aren’t a “stereotype”; they’re an important part of Jewish tradition. Perhaps your letting you dislike of the man color everything he says as sinister.

His hiding of his background, the meat of your post, is important, and says something about not just him but how he views others; as intolerant folks who’ll persecute him at the drop of a hat. Hey what do you know, he was kind’ right.

But seriously, I was born in the 70’s and there have been times, for my safety outrageously enough, that I’ve had to not advertise my mixed heritage. There have been mother’s who would let there kids play with me, people, black and white, who’ve physically attacked me, and in college a “liberal” asked me how it was I spoke so well. Allen, who’s older than me, has good reason to be fearful of the consequences of being open with strangers.

I know you don’t believe I’m some Allen supporter, but I’m really not trying to tell you to vote for him or like him, etc. I’m pointing out that there are plenty of people in this country who’d react the same, including me. If your point was that his reaction shows him to lack statesmanship, that’s totally valid. If you don’t like that he uses racist terminology for other, and thus won’t vote for him, then you’d be right.

But if your point were that his Grandfather’s “Jewishness” would in some way prove he’s a racist, your being bigoted yourself. And if you think it’s a stretch for me to say this sounds racist:

“It has been reported your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews and, if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?”

Well, your either being disingenuous, or a little bit insensitive.

Posted by Rob Taylor on 22 September 2006 @ 3am

This was certainly a juicy brouhaha.

I learned:

George Allen certainly knew of the concequences of being Identified as Jewish-his political career depended on nondisclosure for he, sadly to say, would never have been elected as Governor in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The identification of and the playing up of his redneckess? was to molify those constituents who would not have voted for him-”Welcome to the ‘real’ Virginia-my macaca”

His mother maintaining that she wanted to spare the children the persecution that her father experienced for being Jewish does not wash with me. I cannot remember the last Jewish Polgrom that occured in the United States or for that matter in California.

He was identified as a “Bully” when growing up and in more recent times-his politics-the whispering campaign that his opponent-Mary Sue Terry was a ‘Lesbian” that occured during his gubertorial run and soon after winning the seat;stating that we should “knock out the soft teeth of Democrats down their whinning throats”

Denying that he did not know what Macaca meant, the identification to and pandering to the “redneck”segment and the plausible denial of his Jewish roots leads me to feel that George Felix Allen Jr would be an excellent US Senator and deserves to be re-elected.

Posted by Patrick on 22 September 2006 @ 11am

So I’m no Allen fan, but it is apparent to me that his “making aspersions” comment is directed at the reporters assertion that Allen denies his Jewish heritage, rather than going on a tirade about being called a Jew.

I disagree. Allen’s full quote was “one of [our] values is freedom of religion, and not making aspersions about people because of their religious beliefs.”

Posted by matthew on 22 September 2006 @ 12pm

“But if your point were that his Grandfather’s “Jewishness” would in some way prove he’s a racist, your being bigoted yourself.”

That doesn’t even make sense, but that’s par for the course I guess.

“And if you think it’s a stretch for me to say this sounds racist:”

Again, you simply ignore all the context in which this question was asked. It wasn’t some fishing expidition out of the blue. Allen was the one who raised the issue of his grandfather AFTER having spent time denying mentions of his heritage elsewhere. Allen was the one who for some reason zealously demanded that papers retract anything about his Jewish heritage, which they mentioned in passing, not out of some witchhunt motive. Allen is the one who made a big deal, selectively as it turns out, of his religion and heritage. And it seems like there is growing evidence that he is outright lying about not knowing until now.

None of this really reflects much on anything more than Allen’s bizarre behavior and raging, paranoid temper.

Posted by plunge on 23 September 2006 @ 2am

well, I am coming to this thread very late, so I doubt very many people will read this. But people need to go back and look at the entire exchange between Peggy Fox and Allen. In attempting to deflect the question about how he might have learned the term “macaca” Allen not only defended his mother but once again invoked the grandfather arrested by the Nazis. That by itself to me legitimizes asking about the Jewish heritage, since there was absolutely no doubt that Felix Lumbroso was at least Jewish by birth, coming from an eminent Jewish family. As we now know, Etty was also Jewish, as her mother was also jewish, which of course was a legitimate assumption even before.

Allen’s response is what caused him problems. And again — his use of “casting aspersions” cannot in my mind be attributed to anything other than his asserting that to accuse him of having Jewish heritage was somehow to demean him, and thus bespeaks a mindset that was not at the time the remark was made particularly accepting of the idea that he might have Jewish blood, or that having Jewish blood was not a bad thing.

Posted by teacherken on 23 September 2006 @ 7pm

Wow… how much simpler this would have all been if George had responded to Fox’s question with:

“Excuse me, I don’t think I understood the point of your question.”

or

“I haven’t really given it much thought, but some people think that is so.”

I doubt any of this would even have been remembered.

Fox was digging at something else entirely (testing Allen’s integrity on the M-word issue), and probably phrased question poorly. George’s reaction is what confused and baffled pretty much everyone I know. My Jewish friends are offended that he’d be so offended. They’d have probably considered George Allen in a positive light for a moment if he was proud of his Jewish heritage - but he clearly was not proud at all.

Essentially, he’s right in the text of his response - we don’t care what his heritage is. The problem is the way he said it. It shoes a deep resentment over that heritage and could possibly explain his bully demeanor (people ashamed of who they are often lash out at others to keep attention off themselves).

It’s a baffling exchange to be sure, and that theory is only one possible. Waldo’s theory on a more recent thread is far more compassionate and forgiving. Bottom line: I am voting for any challenger because I cannot stand Senator Allen’s voting record. He has voted against my interests just about every possible chance to vote.

Posted by Scott Nolan on 25 September 2006 @ 6pm