after reading many of the comments, I decided that I needed to bring some reality to the issue.
Perhaps people will ignore what I have to say, or decide to flame me. Whatever. I think it is a reasonable summarr. Jump down and read on.
1) both of Etty's parents were Jewish, meaning she was Jewish, which means unless she were baptized (which even were she "raised" Christian is not necessarily the case) she is still halachicly Jewish, which would mean that by birth Allen is Jewish.
2) Allen's statement that he only learned of it from the Forward article is laughable. The issue had previously been raised by Bob Gibson of Charlottesville paper, who has said that Allen called him to complain. That means Allen was at least aware of the possibility at that time, and if he didn't "know" it would have to be because he refused to explore further so that he could deny knowing. And I don't buy it.
3) He regularly makes reference to a grandfather who has a distinguised Jewish name being incarcerated by the Nazis. It is a reasonable question to ask if that gentlemen perhaps was incarcerated because of his being jewish, or even of jewish background - remember, conversion did not exempt you from the treatment received by the Jews at the hands of the Nazis.
4) for all of his complaints yesterday, Allen has never hesitated to talk about his religion when he thought it would benefit him, thus in resorting to the First Amendment only when a question of Jewish heritage was raised is laughable and hypocritical.
5) Allen's press statement says he learned of the Jewish background as a result of the Forward article. But that was published several weeks ago. In describing his mother yesterday he continued to avoid including her Jewish background -- he mentioned Italian, French and Spanish, but NOT Jewish -- thus that statement yesterday and his acknowledgement that he has known as a result of the article shows his unwillingness yesterday to acknowledge his Jewish heritage.
5) I hold no official position with the Webb campaign. I do volunteer for him. It was not in that capacity that around midnight I posted diaries at dailykos and raisingkaine that addressed this issue. I am of Jewish background, underwent bar mitzvah on my 13th birthday in May of 1959, but an a Quaker by persuasion, and thus am not Jewish religiously. Neverthless I took great offense at the way Allen used the phrase 'casting aspersions' in his reaction yesterday to the question - the only way it could be read was that to raise the issue of his (possible) Jewish background was to be casting aspersions on him. Thus any fair reader could well react that Allen thought that to have Jewish background was somehow demeaning or diminishing.
It was about this which I wrote, and which you can read at dailykos here
http://www.dailykos....
That Allen's campaign now acknowledges what he tried like all getout to deny yesterday in no way changes the damage he did himself by how he handled the issue. LIke on macaca, he has changed his story several times. Perhaps he now has his story "straight" but I believe that his handling of it will continue to raise questions about him, not because the Webb campaign is raising them (it is not), but because the Allen campaign's handling of these issues has been so inept. When John Podhoretz refers to the junior senator from Virginia as George Macacawitz, you can see the damage he has done to himself.
The Allen campaign will now try to exploit this "issue", which has become one only because Allen reacted so strangely to the Peggy Fox question. Everything is politics with Wadhams and Allen. If Allen got a zit on his nose tomorrow he'd blame Webb, and Wadhams would blame the bloggers.
Good news -- nice piece tomorrow in the Wa Po about Jim Webb, the non-political, reluctant candidate.
You know, if a decent candidate was running against Webb, and I'm positing a hypothetical candidate who simply disagreed on the issues, we would not have seen any of these racial, ethnic, religious subjects dominating the campaign.
Some segments of the right are already very unhappy with George Allen. Now he may have hurt himself with another group on the right during his outburst on Monday. Here's why.
In response to the questions, he emphasized repeatedly the importance of freedom of religion. He said that freedom of religion is the first pillar of a free and just society. He emphasized the importance of preserving our foundational values and that one of those values is freedom of religion.
And this as Rob quoted in another diary:
"To be getting into what religion my mother is, I don't think is relevant.... Why is that relevant -- my religion, Jim's religion or the religious beliefs of anyone out there?"
Stop there. For most people, those comments are not negative and little attention has been given them. But this is not what many people the religious right want to hear. Not at all. And freedom of religion is absolutely NOT what adherents of the Christian nation movement want to hear. As a matter of fact, these comments are an anathema to theocrats, just short of Allen advocating for - horrors - separation of church and state.
Perhaps Allen realized this when he then he mumbled something about her being Spanish, French and a little bit of Italian. But not Jewish. And the reason for that is to many on the religious right, being a Jew is a predominantly religious construct, and Allen knows it. And its meaning is decidedly not - or even anti - Christian.
So after just proclaiming that religion is private, he attempts to recover by announcing ethnic mixture, as a way of being open and appear less secretive.
And some on the right see this relevance matter very differently; they may parse it as Allen's reluctance or unwillingness to affirm to his Christianity in a venue of his Fairfax (read Washington) friends. The relevance argument he made may be viewed as secretive. But what secret?
In that outburst Allen potentially damaged himself with a component of his Pat Robertson/ Jerry Falwell base in two ways.
1. By carrying on about freedom of religion, he hurt himself with those who yearn for a theocracy, a Christian nation, formally and informally. This is not such a small faction, the reach is extensive and they are well-integrated into the Republican party. See Bennett Kelley for just a start.
2. By claiming that religion is irrelevant under the shadow of a potential Jewish heritage without proclaiming his own Christianity, his own faith was open to being called into question. Religion trumps ethnicity any day of the week.
Hence Allen's damage control announcement yesterday. In that announcement while embracing his heritage for wider consumption, he first explicitly states that he is a Christian as is his mother so he directly addresses point (2). If his mother's religion was so private and irrelevant the day before, why does he mention it now? Cynical of me, I know, but since this statement was intended to appease the right, it is possible that he chose to mention his mother's Christianity to eliminate the specter of excessive Jewish influence. Then he immediately takes pride in his "Lumbroso family line’s Jewish heritage," thereby emphasizing that his undeniable Jewishness is a matter of ethnicity and ethnicity only (lines?).
We don't really know what's going on behind the scenes, i.e., what sort of pressure is being brought on Allen by the right privately. Jerry Falwell's strange grading of "A-" for Jim Webb was a surprisingly strong signal that they are not pleased with him.
Maybe Allen's unusual behavior was related to a frantic and poor effort to maintain balance on a a difficult tightrope. With increased transparency he is not able to leverage the idea of not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing.
Even the press release statement represents contradiction on several levels.
At the debate he said religion was off topic, now he talks about his mother's religion, rather than merely acknowledging the Jewish heritage
Even after the reaction to the question in the debate, he made a point about his mother's Spanish, Italian and French heritage, but ignored the question of the Jewish heritage that he now acknowledges knowing about since at last late August when the Forward article appeared.
And even that acknowledgement is patently false, given that ob Gibson of the Daily Progress has reported that the only time in the 27 years Gibson has covered Allen that the Senator has demanded a retraction was wehn some time ago Gibson had written aout Allen's jewish background. For Allen to claim now that he did not "know" before the Forward article he must assert that he willfully chose not to know and to challenge any information presented to him that indicated that background -- that would be to acknowledge a mindset not very becoming to a public official, a willingness to ignore information that does not comport with your predetermined positions.
As I said, my diary was intended to be my final response. I do not think the story has yet died, and I think that his side's handling of the issue has not put it to sleep,a nd may well have hurt him with some of the more racist elements -- but then some of them would vote for Lieberman as long as he supports their guy Bush, so what the heck.
Then-Governor Allen endorsed the CCC in 1996, and the CCC endorsed him, as detailed in the recent "Nation" article and photo (see here).
I'd like some reporters to ask the CCC if they still endorse George Allen, and if they are supporting him this year in the Senate race. And, does Allen now disavow his 1996 endorsement of the anti-Semitic CCC?
Kathy, you're absolutely right to ask how Allen's latest affirmations will be received by some of his supporters.