From the Middle East to domestic affairs, a look at where Senator Barack Obama and Republican John McCain stand on issues of Jewish concern.
Abortion is an area of sharp disagreement between the two candidates. Obama said during the Oct. 15 presidential debate that he believes Roe v. Wade was rightly decided, although good people on both sides can disagree. He added that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers are in the best position to make this decision, and that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn’t be subject to state referendum, anymore than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum.
At the same debate, McCain called Roe v. Wade a bad decision and said that decisions on abortion should rest in the hands of the states. McCain says on his Web site that the ruling should be overturned. McCain has backed a ban on abortion except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother, and he said at a presidential forum in August that his administration will have pro-life policies.
Obama in the same debate said he is completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life. He voted against a ban in the Illinois state Senate because it did not contain such a clause.
McCain has voted to ban such procedures, and at the debate said that exceptions for the health of the mother had been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. This trend, he said, represented the extreme pro-abortion position.
Obama said at the August presidential forum sponsored by Pastor Rick Warren that the goal right now should be how do we reduce the number of abortions and talked about ways for those on both sides of the aisle to work together to reduce unwanted pregnancies. He said at the Oct. 15 debate that such efforts should include providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.
McCain says on his Web site that he will seek ways to promote adoption as a first option for women struggling with a crisis pregnancy and that government must help strengthen the armies of compassion — faith-based, community and neighborhood organizations — that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need.
The Republican nominee has criticized Obama for voting against legislation in the Illinois Senate that requires the state to provide legal protection and medical treatment to any fetus that survives an abortion. At the Oct. 15 debate, Obama said the bill in question would have “helped to undermine” Roe v. Wade and “there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.”
Obama has said that he does approve of the version of the bill that passed the Illinois Senate in 2005 — after he had gone to Capitol Hill. That legislation had a specific clause stating that nothing in the bill “shall be construed to affect existing federal or state law regarding abortion.”
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH
The Obama campaign has run an advertisement claiming that McCain has blocked embryonic stem cell research, but independent fact checkers have deemed the ad untrue. In fact, support for embryonic stem cell research is one issue on which the candidates essentially agree.
McCain and Obama later voted for legislation that would have allowed federal funding to be used for research on stem cell lines obtained from discarded human embryos originally created for fertility treatments. McCain has called his vote on the bill very agonizing and tough and said he went back and forth, back and forth on it. It finally came down to the fact that those embryos will be either discarded or kept in permanent frozen status.
Prior to the 2004 vote, the Arizona senator was one of 14 Republican members of Congress who signed a letter asking President Bush to lift federal restrictions on the research.
In response to a questionnaire from a coalition of scientists and engineers last month, McCain said, While I support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, I believe clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress.
McCain differs from both his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and the Republican Party platform on the issue. The platform, adopted at the GOP convention, calls for an expansion of funding for research into adult stem cells but a ban on the use of human embryos for research.
In response to the same questionnaire from Sciencedebate2008, Obama was more emphatic than McCain on the issue. The Democrat said he will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001 through executive order, and I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight.
Obama and McCain do disagree on the prospects for research on adult and other kinds of stem cells. McCain has expressed hope that advances in adult stem cells could make the debate over embryonic stem cells unnecessary, but Obama said embryonic stem cells are the gold standard and any research on other types of stem cells should be done in parallel.
The presidential candidates demonstrated their contrasting views on the Supreme Court in August when they were asked by Pastor Warren which of the sitting justices they would not have nominated. Obama named two justices from the court’s conservative wing, saying Clarence Thomas was not qualified at the time of his nomination and Antonin Scalia because he and I just disagree.
McCain named twice as many justices, citing the four commonly identified as the left wing of the court — Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter — because he disapproved of their legislating from the bench. But as a senator McCain voted for Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer — Stevens was nominated before he was elected to the Senate. At the Oct. 15 debate, McCain said he voted for them not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they were qualified and that elections have consequences when presidents are nominated.
Obama as a senator has voted against both Supreme Court nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. He said at the Warren forum that one of the most important jobs of the Supreme Court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the power of the other branches, and Roberts has been a little bit too willing and eager to give an administration more power than I think the Constitution originally intended.
McCain was also a member of the bipartisan Gang of 14 formed to break an impasse over judicial nominations in 2005. The Democratic senators in the group agreed not to filibuster judicial nominees except under extraordinary circumstances, while the Republicans pledged not to vote for the nuclear option — a maneuver that would have allowed a majority of the Senate to change the rules requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster. Obama declined to join the group, and said in a newspaper interview in May that he didn’t think it was a particularly good compromise because the Republicans got everything they wanted out of that.
On his Web site, McCain says that he will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat. He also stresses the importance of federalism and separation of powers in his judicial philosophy.
At the Oct. 15 debate, McCain said he believed that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test on abortion, although he added that I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade would be part of those qualifications.
Obama has said that qualifications for the high court go beyond academic and professional accomplishment.
What makes a great Supreme Court justice, he said in a November 2007 primary debate, is not just the particular issue but it’s their conception of the court. And part of the role of the court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority and those who don’t have a lot of clout.
Sometimes, he added, we’re only looking at academics or people who’ve been in the [lower] court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.
More recent, during the Oct. 15 debate, Obama said he would look for judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through. The Democrat also rejected a strict litmus test on the abortion issue.
FAITH-BASED SOCIAL SERVICES
Obama and McCain both want to continue President Bush’s faith-based initiative providing federal money to religious groups to perform social services. But they differ on one key point: Obama has said he would not allow religious groups receiving government funds to discriminate in hiring, while McCain has concurred with Bush in saying he would.
In a July interview with The New York Times, McCain said, Obviously it’s very complicated because if this is an organization that says we want people in our organization that are Baptists or vegetarians or whatever it is, they should not be required to hire someone that they don’t want to hire in my view.
And in a response to an American Jewish Committee questionnaire, McCain said, I would permit faith-based organizations to improve their volunteerism numbers by allowing them to hire consistent with the views of the respective organizations without risking federal funding.”
Obama in a July speech laid out a vision for his Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that would include an allocation of $500 million a year specifically for faith- and community-based efforts to bolster summer learning programs for 1 million children. He said in the speech that Bush’s version of the faith-based initiative never fulfilled its promise.
A summary of the Obama plan released by his campaign states that recipients of federal funds cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs and must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Obama also said he would undertake a pre-inauguration review of all executive orders related to the faith-based initiative, especially those having to do with hiring. He also said he would consider elevating the director of the initiative to a Cabinet-level post.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Both candidates have expressed support for the principle of the separation of church and state. But McCain sparked controversy in a September 2007 interview with Beliefnet in which he said, I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. He quickly added that all religions are welcomed, but when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.
A spokeswoman later said that McCain believes people of all faiths are entitled to all the rights protected by the Constitution, including the right to practice their religion freely, but that the values protected by the Constitution are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. That is all he intended to say to the question, America is a Christian nation, and it is hardly a controversial claim.
In response to an American Jewish Committee questionnaire, Obama called the separation of church and state critical and said it has caused our democracy and religious practices to thrive. On the same questionnaire, McCain said, choosing one’s faith is the most personal of choices, a matter of individual conscience. That is why we cherish it as part of our Bill of Rights. He added that all people must be free to worship as they please, or not to worship at all. It is a simple truth: There is no freedom without the freedom of religion.
Obama told a Christian Broadcasting Network interviewer in July 2007 that whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation and a nation of nonbelievers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we’re formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.
Asked by the AJC whether they would back legislation directed at strengthening the obligation of employers to provide a reasonable accommodation of an employee’s religious practice, both candidates expressed support.
I believe firmly that employers have an obligation to reasonably accommodate their employees’ religious practices, Obama said. I would support carefully drafted legislation that strengthens Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to further protect religious freedom in the workplace.
I am committed to ensuring that no Americans are discriminated against in employment because of their religious beliefs. I will support any legislation that improves our commitment to a pluralistic society, both inside and outside the workplace.
As to vouchers for private and parochial schools, Obama said he is against them because he believes we need to invest in our public schools and strengthen them, not drain their fiscal support.
McCain supports voucher plans, arguing that it’s time to give middle- and lower-income parents the same right wealthier families have — to send their child to the school that best meets their needs.
Obama and McCain both back isolating Iran to bring an end to its suspected nuclear weapons program and have said that the military option should remain on the table. This summer, senior surrogates from both campaigns signed onto a position paper from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy advocating intensified U.S.-Israel dialogue aimed at preventing an Israeli attack on Iran.
The campaigns differ on how to isolate Iran and the degree of engagement with the Iranian government such an effort would prohibit. McCain has criticized Obama for suggesting hed be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In response, Obama has compared McCain to Bush, accusing both of hurting Americas standing in the world by turning their backs on diplomacy.
The Obama campaign has committed itself to the full list of sanctions currently advocated by Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, including targeting Iran’s central bank, getting the five major players in the re-insurance industry to boycott Iran and stopping the export of refined petroleum to Iran. The McCain campaign expresses generic support for sanctions but has resisted sharing details. In the Senate, Republicans have blocked sanctions legislation without explaining why. The Bush administration opposes the AIPAC/Israel list in part because, the White House claims, the list would upset sensitive efforts to bring the Europeans, Russia and China on board with the effort to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran.
Obama campaign officials say that after rallying international support for tighter sanctions — a top priority that would take place as soon as February, they say — they would start reaching out to Iranian officials with “carrots.” These incentives would be aimed at getting the Iranians to end uranium enrichment. No one says so out loud, but the implication is that one such carrot would be to recognize Iran’s preeminence as a regional power, giving it veto power over military decisions in the region. Other incentives would include expanded trade.
McCain’s campaign does not speak of such incentives; rather, it emphasizes isolation and sanctions as the means to bring Iran around. It also favors isolating Iran through a “league of democracies.” That formula would exclude China and Russia, undercutting a key element to Israel’s strategy on Iran, which is to cultivate Russia and China. Overall, McCain’s strategy suggests confrontation with Russia, particularly over the expansion of NATO.
Last year, Obama opposed a non-binding amendment that would have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist entity. Obama was not present at the vote, but 76 senators favored the amendment, sponsored by Sens. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), including top Democrats. The amendment was also backed by AIPAC.
McCain favored the amendment, and his campaign has accused Obama of pandering to the Democratic base, noting that his primaries rival Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) voted for the amendment and suffered the consequences.
Obama said that he backed similar language in different legislation but opposed the amendment because it tied Iran to attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq — language that he said could be used by the Bush administration as a pretext to launch an attack on Iran. Obama has said he supported Bush’s subsequent issuance of the executive order declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist entity and subject to relevant U.S. sanctions.
Both campaigns have endorsed a two-state solution, voiced strong support for Israel, called for U.S. backing of Palestinian Authority leader Mahoud Abbas and signed on to the policy of boycotting Hamas. They have also counseled caution and exuberance when it comes to the Bush administrations late-term push for peace.
In the Obama campaign, Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, favors intensified involvement in the peace process, and has advocated — in the context of his own writing, not as a campaign spokesman — open pressure on Israel and the Palestinians. Dennis Ross, a former top Middle East negotiator and the Obama campaigns top adviser on Israel, says that an Obama administration would be fully engaged in brokering Israeli-Palestinian talks. But, he adds, it would avoid setting any artificial timelines for a deal. Ross says that Palestinian statehood would be impossible as long as Hamas terrorists control the Gaza Strip.
Two top McCain advisers, historian Max Boot and diplomat Rich Williamson, have expressed the same concerns as Ross, but they say the Israeli-Palestinian track will not be a top priority. The GOP running mate, however, has sounded a different note: Gov. Sarah Palin said a McCain government would sustain the Bush administration effort launched by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and said that reaching a two-state solution was a top priority. McCain himself has promised to be the chief negotiator.
Both candidates back an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, while leaving the city’s final status to Palestinian and Israeli negotiators.
Obama stumbled when he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in May that he would strive to keep the city undivided and Israel’s capital. Palestinians, and Arabs in general, were infuriated by Obamas remark, leading to clarifications from Obama’s campaign claiming the candidate “misspoke.”
What Obama meant, the campaign and the candidate said, was that while Obama doesnt want to see Jerusalem divided, the city may well be shared one day by Palestinians and Israelis and that Jerusalems final status should be left up to negotiators. McCains backers used the clarification to portray Obamas remarks as inconsistent. On substance, however, the campaigns’ positions are identical.
McCain, however, has pledged to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem right away; Obama has not. Many candidates-turned-presidents have made such pledges in the past; none have delivered.
Syria is an issue where there are clear differences between the candidates.
Some in the McCain campaign, like the Bush administration, have made clear McCain would discourage the Israeli-Syrian negotiations currently taking place under Turkish auspices. The thinking is that the negotiations allow Syria to maintain some degree of hegemony in Lebanon, which the United States opposes.
The Obama campaign says this opposition to Israeli-Syrian talks preempts Israel in its ambitions for peace. However, Kurtzer, in a private capacity, has warned Syrian officials that they should not expect deep U.S. involvement until the talks truly are at an advanced stage. That would consist of Syria showing a serious effort toward meeting the key Israeli demand that it peel itself away from Iranian influence.