lobbied people in the european union, those that had congressional contacts. the obama administration successfully lobbied to the point where they could not get in the security council a sufficient majority so we had to veto it. a big victory for israel. xun pe unexpected one. one of the few issy has been able to do in the u.n. and i will close with this. and the fact credibility was ind he was critical of some elements of the settlement policy. the notion you are a friend of israel if you agree with everything the israeli power does at the time, it is not just wrong but counterproductive. but many of my friends on right, who now think you can never criticize the israeli government. i remember people attacking begin over camp david and other things. it was because obama articulated the position he did there was a problem with the settlements there were too many. it was a mistake in phraseology, on 67, i believe he corrected

it. i believe his separation from the government, israeli government, was one of the things that added to the credibility. so his administration was able to deliver one of the few diplomatic successes at the u.n. >> barney, thank you. we now, provide you, bill an opportunity to respond. >> yeah, it is revealing barney has to attack the george h.w. bush administration on israel. the big story, barney presents to the republican party is moving to the right. the big story is republican party has become a reagan republican party with respect to israel and not bush/baker republican party. i served in the first administration, i was dan quayle's chief of staff, and argued with president bush he shouldn't be as tough. end of the day bush did the right thing in the gulf which helped israel. wasn't for the purpose of israel. the first gulf war, helped rise yal's security a lot. some people were opposed to that war and they weren't republicans. i would argue objectively having bush in the white house was actually a better thing than

having michael dukakis s in the white house. and nixon didn't get a lot of jewish votes. an awful lot of jews were happy that nixon was president and not mcgovern. the current republican party to barney's distress is not the bush/baker, moderate, republican party, and close to oil interests. the current republican party is pro israel party. barney's problem with it is too pro israel. they don't give the benefit of the doubt. they don't complain when they build an apartment building in north jerusalem that it is a cross the green line that exists in '67 and in an area that will be part of israel under any conceivable settlement including bill clinton settlements when there is a peace dual. no, the obama administration had to make a big deal about at apartment building. i am happy to defend the republican party and say mitt romney will be a more reliable friend of israel than president

obama. >> response. >> well, i, it is not a reagan/republican party, to the right of reagan, on issue after issue. ronald reagan asked congress to raise the debt limit several times that was rational economic policy. these people that are running the house republican party attack them. and mitt romney willing to accommodate the right-wing, actually attacked rick santorum because he voted to raise the debt limit at the request of ronald reagan. this is not a center right party. as to israel. we differ about what is the most effective way to defend israel. i have been going to college campuses, and berkeley, california, been to brown, i have been to, georgetown, yale. to defend israel the i do it from the left. i do it in part. one of the things i want to give credit to the netanyahu government. in the history of the united

states, three government leaders have said pro gay rights things, bill clinton, barack obama and benjamin netanyahu, made a pro-gay statement. one of the few times that the republicans did not stand up to mra applaud him. scandalous sly. if your position is you are going to defend whatever the israeli government does. your credibility as a worldwide defender of israel is weakened. i do not think it is possible, and the administration hasn't done tight say it is israel's responsibility to get peace. what israel needs to do in their own interest ties make it clear if there is not a two state solution for security for israel it is not israel's fault. there are clearly political pressures within the democracy of israel that i believe pull them away from what is the most s effective international advocacy. i am pleased to do countering. in the end, it is israeli

government. the obama administration has taken no negative actions against the israeli government, unlike the bush administration. what we have though is i think a much more effective way of defending them and the results are very clear. >> that's good. i want to point out for the record. it is wonderful to have barney frank defending yitzhak shamir, benjamin netanyahu and rick santorum. i applaud that. >> i was amraapplauding -- >> both of us prefer benjamin netanyahu to rick santorum. >> bill, let me begin the formal questioning with you. each election we hear that this -- this is the year that jews are going to shift their traditional democratic loyalty to the republican party. in, in ajcs just released survey of american jewish opinion, if

the election was held today the jewish vote would split. about 61% for president obama. 28% for governor romney. remainder undecided. what do you make of the numbers? is, 2012, finally the year of the republicans? >> no. i think if you do the 61-28, allocate undecided, 8-4, 68-32, 69-31. i have been saying 70-30. there will be progress over '08. jews eventually learn from reality it takes them quite a while sometimes. and i think younger jews and more affiliated jews will be voting more republican. a long, and slow process s for jews to, what i regard, to shed some old-fashioned views about the bush/republican party and the republican party of the 30s and 40s. i am not going to, i don't tell people how to vote and tell people to vote on religion,

people should vote for the candidate they thing will do the best job as president. i will point out one thing in the poll, as jason knows, for the jews, the jewish americans whom the poll surveys. 80% of american jews asked for the most important issues, 80% of jews cite the economy. of those who cite national security and u.s. rise yal relations, 42% of those would vote for obama. 44%, 45% will vote for romney. so if jews are -- you know, are liberals they will vote for president obama as they should. because president obama is a lot more liberal than president romney will be. for those jews, they are breaking slightly for romney. i think that is significant. >> first of all, the year we are waiting for as already come. bill may know the figures. but '76, what was, ford/carter

breakdown was clearly -- >> '80 was the best year. reagan got 40% of the jewish. >> that's true. it took four years. >> and jimmy carter. >> and eroded. yeah, we have been, below that. but i think the answer is -- and i, those numbers are very interesting. i think that, that there has been a miss pperception of the obama record. yes he was more critical of the settlements. i have been critical of the settlements. i believe it makes me a more effective advocate for israel. i go to a conference and told by young people they get beat up when they speak for israel. i volunteer to travel. i have been to, california, berkeley, not a right-wing bastion. i talk about israel's domestic liberalism. compared to its -- its repressive neighbors. in every area. but i also -- make it clear that i think the settlement policy is

mistaken and in fact, weakens israel. that's what obama said. i think, as i said. i want to go back to this again. i would ask anybody to tell me. the last time israel scored as well in the u.n. as the it did when we kept them from getting a majority in security council. i think this is enhanced by the difference. so this notion that romney would be a better friend of israel -- for now -- as i say when we talk romney. there are no guarantees. no warranty on any romney position. but probably he would stuck with it. but the point is that i cannot think of a suingle policy actio where obama has not done what was in israel's clear interest. >> the ajc survey found that on domestic matters, jews remain where they have been for decades. as we have been discussing. firmly inside the democratic party's camp. you're frounwning, i know. >> just resigned to it.

>> don't resign from it. we still want you. >> is it sustainable. a majority of jews favor democrats, on issues, what can republicans offer to turn them in a different direction, bill? >> look, this is not about talk and magic words. people aren't stupid. people have to make up their minds whether the policies work. has president obama advanced an in graduation agenda, put his political capital on the line as president bush and senator mccain did in '06 and '07. but it is labor that is now the barrier to reform more than elements of the republican party. there are elements of the republican party that are bad. do you think obama's economic policies are working terrifically well? should the government have 25% of gdp? will tax hikes be good or bad? those are legitimate policy questions. you're all adults. you can make up your own mind. i would ask people take a fresh look. make up their own minds. mitt romney. one time governor of barney

frank's state, massachusetts. a some what new face, running for president for a while. but he is not like a bob dole or a george h.w. bush who has been around for a long time. take a look at romney. take a look at his vp pick. take a look at the younger republican governor, congressmen, scott walker, mitch daniels, you descide if these people have reasonable policies and doing better for their constituents in the case of the governors than the equivalents in the democratic party. >> please, barney. >>le well, first to be accused by bill, speaking on behalf of the republicans, of insufficient commitment to rational immigration policy is like being called silly by the three stooges. and i mean that with no disrespect. because -- no, to the three stooges. shemp howard born horowitz was

married to my cousin, babe frank. >> now that's impressive. >> we never met. >> but the point is -- yes, we have taught immigration and it has been the republicans demagoguing it including mitt romney who has moved far to the right on this. but as to the broader issues, no, i think, again there was extremism, not the republicans. if you look at the house of representatives, if you look at wait they vote on issues they have gone far to the right. and -- the -- the key issue i would have is this. one of the definitionize have, with some of my republican friends, we differ with some conservatives, democrats, as to how much we should continue to maintain an active policy of america having this worldwide role et cetera. here is the problem. i am -- disappointed when people continue the great mistake that president bush made in 2001 and 2002. believe me it was important to be aggressive in the world and

go into war in two places and maintain military forces else s where and cut taxes at the same time. it is an entirely legitimate debate about being more involved militarily. to do that and cut taxes at the same time is irresponsible. it means this. we have a difference about military spending. the republicans have been critical. let me quote "the wall street journal." i will end with this. "the wall street journal" praised paul ryan because he was maintaining the military and resisting military spending and instead cutting medicare and medicaid. that's not me. "the wall street journal" thanking him. that's the kind of debate i want to have. i believe we are overspending on the military. time for western europeans to do a little on their own. the tradeoff. when you talk more of an aggressive military posture and oppose tax increases on anybody. you are forcing as "the wall street journal" acknowledges cheering him on. cuts in the quality of life programs, medicare/medicaid. >> bill, do you want to respond to that?

>> yeah, ryan's budget does not cut medicare or medicaid it reduces the rate of growth, unsustainable growth. the current deficit, each deficit of the each four years of the obama administration, $1.2 or 1.3 trillion. the military budget all in with both wars, i supported them both. and proud to support president obama's surge in afghanistan. barney is for something like 25%, 30% cut in the defense budget. i think that would be dangerous. getting out of afghanistan, i think what beould be dangerous. total military, all in, all wars, cia, $600 billion, $700 billion. that's high. it is coming down. it is coming down. half the deficit. you can't solve the debt problem by cutting the military. it xiz fris risky in the world. i have strong foreign aid budget. strong refoufrm of the state department. i think if we don't lead in the

world it will be a much more dangerous world. it is a legitimate debate. nothing hypocritical or wrong about paul ryan saying we need to sustain military spending at low percentage of gdp, 4, 4.5%. we need to reform medicare/medicaid. and, otherwise we giwill go off cliff. >> the military budget $700 billion. if you throw in other things. bigger than the medicare budget. you can't solve it from the military. i don't think you can solve it by exempting the military. again, when i say the ryan budget, increases military spending over what president obama has proposed, over what congress temporarily agreed to last year and takes, makes up in medicare, medicaid. i am quoting "the wall street journal." from a month ago. an editorial there. yes, bill says they're not cutting medicare and medicaid they're cutting the rate of growth. that's right. if you say given there are going

to be more old people and medicaid eligible people, and cost of medical care may go up we will give them the same amount of money as we are giving them today not a technical cut if you want to define it that way it is a real cut. that is a very big difference between the parties. it is a republican insistence that military spending allotment. yes, wars cost money. we'll bring you some of that back. and we continue to have the full set of thermonuclear weapons to defeat the soviet union in a war, continue to be defending western europe against i am not sure what, maybe another moorish invasion. not coming militarily this time, coming socially. the fact is that the average european nation, western european allies, spend less than half a percent of gdp on the military. i think the time has come. i want us to be the strongest nation in the world by far. but we have an excess. we are doing other people's business. again "the wall street journal," protect the military from further cuts and make up,

medica medicare, medicaid. their description of the ryan budget, which ryan accepts. >> we are spending almost nothing on defending europe. we have 75,000 troops down from 300,000 in the cold war mostly paid for by host countries. europe is costing us nothing. nuclears are costing us very little. those are not the drivers. you have to decide do you want the ability to deal with iran. want ability to use troops if we have to use them whether in the balkans or middle east, or afghanistan. if you think that's necessary. i think you end up with, the current military budget. >> i don't want to use troops in the balkans. you haven't listened to the western europeans. nato was a great move by harry truman and republican senators, bipartisan. we continue, nato is a mechanism for keeping europeans military budgets low. we have a major presence in europe. and the planning is still there. in terms of the balkans, yeah, let the europeans take the lead

there. we have wealthy nations in europe, with a large population, that, leave it all to the united states. and it is true. no one thing costs a lot of money. well, let me go back on, the weapons. as the price of the, ratification in the senate, of the nuclear weapons treaty last year, the republicans, to keep it from getting the 2/3 vote or give it the 2/3 vote insisted on spending tens of billions more over the years on enhancing the nuclear arsenal in ways the military doesn't think is necessary. tens of billions. >> there are cards on your chairs. fill out the cards. they'll be collected. we'll start feeding them into the debate. back to israel. the survey shows the obama administration's middle east policy has gained ground among jewish voters. with 58% approving. and 40% disapproving the

president's handling of u.s. israel relations. while just last fall the results were that 40% approving. 53% das proisapproving. is this a referendum on the president's approach to israel. bill. >> improving, yeah. now, 58-40. which is bad. we have seen compared to general approval from jews. there is a reason. his first year he picked more fights with israel. voters rationally, or citizens, disapproved a little more of his policy since he has been sort of mugged by reality and decided he is not going to pressure the government and not building an apartment building in jerusalem. not going to negotiate with the palestinian state. while hamas controls gaza. and the various other, sort of, attempts to pressure -- rise yal. lo -- israel. why was that introduced at the u.n.? they would not think of introducing that, the p.a., under bush or clinton.

they knew it was a nonstarter. because of president obama's elevation of the palestinian issue and criticism of the, israeli government and seeming to side with the europeans that made the palestinians think they might get some where in the u.n. the obama administration, did a good job then of pivoting and sort of, solving, partly solving the problems they had partly created but they don't deserve that much credit for that. a little belter than they were two years ago. that's nice. important for israel. some on the outside will continue to pressure them to do the right thing both for the u.s. and in terms of the u.s./israel relationship. >> barney. >> first isn't a referendum on israeli policy, 22%, it's, particularly that. i would say that the problem the president started with was to some extent was his own making. the speech. a badly worded, badly drafted speech. to their credit they kind of understood that and pulled back. the rhetoric is important. but the public policy is also

important. what you have is increasing recognition that there has not been a single policy action that has been less than fully supportive of israel. i disagree with bill's notion that it was because -- president obama elevated the notion of a palestinian state that they decided to file the resolution. the palestinian state has been a strong aspect of every president, for as long as i can remember, not, not going back to -- the first president bush and then bill clinton and then the second president bush. that just is an hiss s torele ctorele -- that just is historical. i understand the president caused himself some of the problems by a badly worded speech. i do believe however, that and i think this is a case where you don't always just say to your friend, wonderful. good for you. some times the best act of friendship is say i think you may be making a mistake that harms your interest. i believe the settlement policy

into which netanyahu has been pushed by the nature of israeli politics harder to be a democracy than arab dictatorship, i understand that. has negative aspects for israel. in terms of world opinion. i believe it is important to advise in that. i would repeat, i think bill is denigrating a great diplomatic accomplishment. we rnurge people, look act the media reports months before the vote. the assumption is they will win. i believe it was the enhanced credibility of the administration they can stop it. what you see effects of a badly worded speech are wearing off. >> let me turn to another foreign policy issue. which is iran. no bigger priority for ajc preventing iran from obtaining nuclear weapons availability, how do you judge the president's record on this matter and how would a republican approach differ? let me start with you, bill.

>> last word is always better. >> you are being so nice. >> a question of friends. i think there has been a great deal of continuity here. with regard to -- the iranian and north korean situations. it is very frustrating. and you know, one of the things that we, one of great frustrations to me is that -- we tend to be self-critical in america, we should be, and the unwillingness of russia and china to be more supportive of efforts to block nuclear weapons. i don't fully understand it. if i was russia living next door to iran the notion of some of these craze xwrem havipeople ha nuclear weapons would make me more nervous. that is a frustration. and constraint on our approximately see that we have to deal with. given that, i believe that what we have been doing is, is, the best that can be done. i will tell you when the

israeli, when the obama administration took over. i was approached by, officials of the israeli administration, government. asking that i intervene to make sure that stewart levee was continued to beep the head of the sanctions, division at treasury, the bush apin thee. he did a great job. i did that. he was kept on. i believe we are doing, as much as can be done. keeping the military threat -- on the table. and i, i, cannot, again i would stress if you look at the bush administration policy, and the, the obama administration policy, i think they are very similar because they're dictated by the realities. >> i agree the best aspects of the obama policy towards iran are those where he continued the bush administration policy. that is true in general. his best policies are when he has given up on his campaign promises and followed bush policy. and, keeping stewart was part of that. but look, i think obama has changed a lot on iran. look at the cairo speech, summer 2009, and general attitude

towards the mideast and muslim world what he said about iran there. look what he did or didn't do disastrously in june, with the revolution, erupted, took to the streets in iran with no support from us. look at his speech a couple month as go where he said basically what some have been saying a long time. you cannot contain, cannot reliably contain or deter this regime with nuclear weapons, this ii iranian regime, they have to be prevented. the u.s. policy prevention, not deterring or containment. then it becomes a question whether sanctions will prevent, afraid they won't, they're weakening iran in certain ways, diplomacy i don't think will prevent. it may be necessary to use force. i think the administration should spend more time thinking that through and preparing for that and less time sort of creating obstacles to israel if they feel they have to do that. obama moved on iran. hope he finishes the job,

preventing iran for the foreseeable future from getting nuclear weapons. what is striking, his initial instincts when he came in, his true view of the world embodied in the cairo speech and failure to support the froesoprotestorse streets of tehran summer '09. >> there is nothing to suggest, bill throw as way, i wish the administration would spend more time thinking about the military effects of iran. that's unfair to the people of the pentagon. they're dealing with that. you are suggesting they're doing anything less than their duty. i don't think you meant that. >> the people at the pentagon are think ak bout ing about it. >> two simple things. you are evading one. there is some question of restraint about israel. coming by major israeli military figures as well. a thriving debate in israel. the suggestion, you said more time planning the military, looking at the military possibilities less on israel. i think the first is simply

inaccurate. secondly, in terms of, the change, i think people overinterpreted some of the language. the policies have always been consistent. i guess that is a kind of grudging acceptance of the fact that the current policies are okay or at least acceptable. you have to criticize the fact that they weren't always his policies. again i would have to go back to a kind of, you know -- for the advocate of mitt romney to be attacking anybody for changing positions or impugning them is i think a reach. >> let me pick up a question that, we have received from a member of the audience. to, starting with bill. bill, please talk about your support for the emergency committee for israel. which has placed advertisements in newspapers. and, why you think it's -- how you relate to its importance to turn, in some sense, israel into a partisan political issue. what do you hop to gain? this is a question from the audience? >> the emergency commission on

israel. a small organization, i am chairman of. we formed in early, late 2009, late 2010 when it did seem really the obama administration and parts of both political parties, but especially, unfortunately, the democratic party in the united states were not strong supporters of traditional u.s./israel relationship. we put ads in newspapers. did some appropriate, you know, legal interventions and political campaigns. we strongly criticized some democrats in the house and the senate and some republicans. incidentally who, were, many fewer republicans in this camp honestly who had gone, j street, peter barnard, all diplomacy. they spend more time criticizing netanyahu government, or much less time, seemingly, criticizing the netanyahu government as criticizing let's say abbas and the palestinian authority. for the impasse, and the peace process, and they spend a lot of time trying to prevent actually, military option on the table

with respect to iran. so i make, i am please that the we have had a little bit of impact with the emergency committee on israel. i think we may intervene in one or two, democratic races an interesting one in new jersey, between rothman/pascrel, a strong pro israel democrat and a j street democrat. you will see it on behalf of a good democrat. we aren't partisan. it happens. it is a fact. buchanan paul wing has been marginalized. a lot of us have fought hard. barney and others have fought hard to marginalize the anti-israel wing of the democratic party. it is just bigger, impyricly, a fact. and it is more of a problem there for, for the left. and i hope liberals, you know, marginalize those elements of their own party as we have tried to do in our party. >> barney. >> the fact is that you are talking about -- min