Dav -- I agree that this is an issue over which it is worth a fight. Two things, though: 1) many liberal and middle-of-the-road Jews either will not get animated or downright disagree with us; 2) my comment was to point out that AIPAC's mission is not furthered by publicly getting in the middle of these kinds of fights. Hagel is an idiot, to be sure. He has shown himself as unqualified for the post. He is not a friend of Israel and that will not change. But this does not end well for AIPAC or the cause of Israel-US relations if AIPAC is public or too strident in expressing that view.

As for Bitburg, Reagan stepped in it and was called on it before he went. He went anyway (for less than 10 minutes), for reasons more to do with Helmut Kohl. But Reagan also visited Bergen-Belsen. I am not sure that AIPAC's speaking out on Hagel will end as benignly (Obama likes revenge; Reagan rarely was ever petulant).

At the risk of sounding like an apologist for some of the groups who have stayed out of the fray, at least publicly, just what is it that the truly non- or bi-partisan lobbying organizations -- principally AIPAC -- supposed to do? The liberal groups will acquiesce because they see eye-to-eye with Obama; the conservative groups already have spoken out, but given that the Dems hold the Senate and the White House, no one is going to pay them any attention. AIPAC's aim is to strengthen the Israel-US relationship through bi-partisan lobbying, education and outreach. As uncomfortable as it is to watch as a partisan and an individual who cares deeply about the things AIPAC promotes, the Hagel nomination fight is not an issue for it to pick a fight.

I could have sworn I read a similar expose in The Wall Street Journal a few months back in connection with its coverage of the murder of the British "diplomat/spy".

"But on the one past statement that was the smoking gun about his attitudes toward Israel—his rant about the “Jewish lobby” and its intimidation of Congress—his answers did little to dispel the notion that his views have changed."

Don't you mean that his answers did little to "show' or "prove" that his views have changed?

Last night's show and Hillary's charade of an appearance at last week's Senate hearings were nothing more than the beginning of the 2016 campaign. Hillary "officially" took the mantle as Obama's political heir. The Obama-compliant media will be equally as compliant for Hillary.

Let's face it, only a very small slice of the electorate gives a damn about what happens outside our borders unless and until we are attacked directly (9/11; Pearl Harbor). Only a precious few of those who pay attention actually will have foreign affairs impact their votes in a meaningful way, and that does not count the many of my co-religionists who are swayed by simple platitudes from the Democrat candidate of the moment about our shared values with Israel.

Obama and Clinton know this and know, therefore, that they can call in one of their media lapdogs, lie through their teeth, and worry not at all about the consequences.

"What difference does it make" indeed.

This is meaningless unless the big states do it. Absent CA, NY, PA and IL doing this, it would be GOP foolishness to do it in TX and the purple OH, FL, and VA.

And here we go with the GOP's quadrennial internecine warfare, which seemingly inevitably leads to the moderates getting their milquetoast candidate nominated, then blaming the conservatives for losing to the Dem leftist.

Heaven forbid the party actually try another conservative able to articulate an agenda based on freedom, liberty, and a federal government (nominally) staying within its constitutionally-mandated limits. After all, it's not like we'd ever win a Reagan landslide or two that way.

Not to minimize the importance of the granular, voter-by-voter database at the heart of Obama's GOTV, but we cannot overlook the importance of the hundreds of millions of dollars that Obama spent solely in the swing states over the summer while Romney was unable to respond because of the campaign laws prohibiting the candidate from spending general campaign funds until his nomination was official, Obama not being subject to the same rules because he was officially unopposed within his party.

Much to our disbelieving eyes, the polls did not move much, if at all, once the ad blitz set in. As fantastic as the Obama team analytics were, the ad money had its desired effect.

What I liked best in this news was Boehner's comment that the House was going to proceed with matters "in regular order." If he and the GOP are able to stick to this -- pass budgets, spending bills, and consider other legislation in the Constitutionally-prescribed manner in accordance with the normal procedures the House has used for more than 200 years -- they have a ready answer, simple answer to complaints of obstrutionism: We did our job; let the Senate do its job. At the same time, it would be a good idea if the Senate Republicans keep repeating that they want these matters heard in the Senate and pledge not to filibuster them.

Certainly, Obama, Reid and their media sycophants will continue to blame the GOP, but Boehner and the other faces of the GOP will be able to stand in front of the cameras and say, "Hey, we did x, y and z the way we are supposed to. It's the Democrat Senate's turn."

I am not naive enough to believe that this will yield substantive results with which conservatives will be happy. It will, though, provide a renewed basis of party unity and message that will be critical in 2014 and beyond.

To equate Obama's Arab/Palestinian ties and his corresponding animus toward Israel with Rand Paul's libertarian/isolationist orientation is to view one's enemies the same as those who are neither side's allies. In my humble view, Mr. Tobin stated his own solution -- allow the pro-Israel community and Rand to use Israel's and the U.S.'s love of freedom and liberty to be the foundation of an alliance and mutual support.

This is vastly different than what the pro-Israel liberals/Democrats did with Obama. In that case, Obama used their common liberal/progressive causes (too many to cite) and their star-struck idol-worship, together with an occasional rhetorical bone (virtually always retracted immediately thereafter), to get them to ignore his fundamental opposition to Israel, both in Israel's alliance with the United States and in Israel's eternal war for its survival against its Arab, Palestinian, and Islamist foes.

Rand Paul's views on foreign policy in general, and foreign aid in particular, while not those mainstream supporters of Israel, need not be the basis of antagonism or opposition. There is a basis for friendship and alliance.

I never have viewed that to be the case with Obama, all the way back to 2004, when I heard him speak to a Jewish political group less than a week after his Republican opponent for the U.S. Senate withdrew from the race, effectively ceding that election to Obama. All Obama had to do was state a few things clearly, like that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and Israel has the right to safe and secure mutually-agreed borders, then stand back and smile. He could not do it then anymore than he has done it as President.