Stuart Rothenberg on Rabbi Dennis Shulman, running for Congress against GOP Rep. Scott Garrett in New Jersey:
Finally, at times, the rabbi seems very un-rabbi-like. He is quoted as using the “s” word very matter-of-factly in Toobin’s piece and using the “b.s.” word in Time. I expect a lot of folks in the district may wonder about that.
And Shulman’s rhetoric seems more like a Democratic insider than a man of the cloth, such as his comment that Garrett is “in the pocket of Big Oil” and that the runup in energy prices “is the direct result of Big Oil and their cronies like Scott Garrett blocking sound energy policy for years.”
This is as ugly as it is wrong. In his column, Rothenberg criticizes a New Yorker profile of Shulman by Jeff Toobin, saying that the author’s “forte is simply not politics.” Yet when did Rothenberg appoint himself an expert on religion?
Indeed, reform Judaism – the sort practiced by Shulman – embraces a diverse body of beliefs, styles and personal choices. It is Shulman’s congregants – not Beltway blowhards – who determine what standards their clergymen ought to meet, and whether they meet them. As a practicing Jew myself, the thought of a smug DC pundit who isn’t even a member of my synagogue proclaiming my rabbi spiritually unfit offends me to no end – especially when the “sin” in question is a violation of some ossified standard of bipartisan gentility that never actually existed in the first place.
In fact, in pluralistic America, I’d expect all those who respect the rights of others to observe their religion as they see fit to be displeased about remarks like this. They have no place in our politics or our houses of worship. And as I say, this kind of statement isn’t just offensive, it doesn’t even pass muster as good political analysis. Case in point: While I’m sure some Catholics didn’t think Fr. Robert Drinan – who beat a 28-year incumbent on an anti-Vietnam War platform and supported abortion rights throughout his career – “acted like a priest,” that didn’t stop him from winning five terms as a Congressman in Massachusetts. He only stepped down because the Pope – not his constituents – forced him to.
If Rothenberg wants to critique Shulman on the merits, fine. But leave religion out of it. Period.
It’s hard to imagine how Shulman could even run as a Democratic candidate if he weren’t allowed to say say critical things about his opponent or Big Oil. What would be the point of his “candidacy”?
I’m curious, how much respect did we have for this guy before this election cycle?
Also, as much as I don’t like noticing this, Rothenberg’s last name seems to suggest that he may be Jewish, so he may have some basis upon which to speak about this. But then again, I’m definitely not Jewish, and know very little about Judaism, so I shouldn’t be making any conclusions about this.
Has SSP ever tried meeting Stu Rothenberg in person or having a conversation with him? I’m not saying your opinion would magically change after such a meeting, but it might help you gain some insight as to the inner workings of this man’s mind.
This constant drubbing of Rothenberg’s analysis is kinda cool in my view. It always warms my heart to see a typical elitist D.C pundit get his words shoved right back down his throat. I’m just concern that Rothenberg isn’t even aware this criticism of him exists, because any REAL blogger would have responded on their own blogs in kind. Oh, poor Stu…
And since you mentioned Jeff Toobin in your piece, I just want to point out I’ve lost some regard for him since last night when he lambasted Joe Biden’s acceptance speech as boring. I thought Joe demonstrated a passion that was lacking in Obama’s candidacy for a long time, so I have no idea what Toobin was basing his opinion of it on.
there ain’t no two ways about it.
Is saying “bullshit” really likely to cause Shulman trouble with his prospective constituents in New Jersey?
I’d say the rabbi’s vocabulary is dead-on in describing Rothenberg’s comments.
Stu has been making me nuts this cycle with his pomposity but generally I find his work superior to Nathan Gonzales who has a penchant – make that a passion – for ignoring facts that don’t fit his opinion.
Hopefully Dennis Shulman can spin this publicity and get some more funding against an extremist like Garrett. The guy is to the right of most conservative Republicans in the Congress. He holds 18th century views on the Constitution and would be a number one target if that district wasn’t so historically Republican.