Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Reading Tea Leaves in the Adelson Primary

Billionaire Republican mega donor Sheldon Adelson’s media properties have come out strongly in support of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).

LobeLog

What Republican contender will Sheldon Adelson, and potentially his tens of millions of dollars, end up backing this election cycle? So far, the GOP megadonor has avoided revealing his top choice, but the hints have slowly poured in.

It was revealed the week of his Iowa victory that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)  recently received the maximum personal donations of $2,700 each from Adelson and his wife, Miriam. Cruz, who is said to be the preference of Miriam Adelson, seems like a natural ally for Sheldon Adelson, too: they’re both überhawks with a soft-spot for carpet-bombing everything in the Middle East. That said, Cruz has had a sometimes-rocky relationship with neoconservative ideologues—a cohort that Adelson funds to the tune of millions of dollars. Just last week, we took stock of Cruz’s attacks against neocons and, subsequently, their baffling forgiveness of him.

However, as we recently notedSen. Marco Rubio’s strong third-place finish in Iowa put him in attractive territory for Adelson. While the Republican establishment reviles Cruz, Rubio has long been the establishment’s best hope. The strong showing in Iowa reinforced the notion that Rubio could be the most electorally viable of an extremely hawkish Republican field. Yes, Cruz won the caucuses, but Iowa was well suited to his evangelical bluster. Rubio could attract wider appeal as well as the backing of key elites within the party.

What Happens in Vegas

This week, there are signs that Adelson’s network of associates and media properties is coming around strongly for Rubio. He received the endorsement of one such media property, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which Adelson purchased for $140 million in December under somewhat mysterious circumstances (at first, no one was able to pinpoint the paper’s buyer). The Review-Journal, which did some of the best reporting on the controversies around its own sale, noted in its mid-December coverage that Adelson’s son-in-law, Patrick Dumont, who runs the Adelson family’s finances, had orchestrated the buy.

Dumont, for his part, has been busy giving political donations: according to the latest releases, on November 18 he contributed $2,700 to Rubio and $2,700 to Cruz. He also sent $10,200 to Rubio’s joint fundraising committee on December 24, 2014.

In its endorsement the Review-Journal added, rather defensively, that the Adelsons had nothing to do with the decision. The endorsement itself shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. The paper is known to lean libertarian, but it also harbors a streak that might be best categorized as establishment conservative.

What’s more, there are reasons to doubt the editorial board’s complete independence from Adelson’s agenda. Just last month, the Review-Journal published another editorial that took up a pet cause pushed by Adelson and his Las Vegas Sands Corporation: building a new stadium in Las Vegas. What’s more, the paper specifically promoted Sands’ role in and guidance on the project. Sure, this is an important matter for the city, and Sands is an indisputable player in the affair. But the repeated quotations of Sands’ government affairs official, Andy Abboud, smacked of the editorial board giving direct voice to Adelson in this affair. (Abboud, in turn, promoted the editorial on Twitter.) Adelson might not be part of the Review-Journal’s endorsement procedures, but he certainly seems to be a force in the editorial board’s decision-making.

Meanwhile in Israel

The Review-Journal isn’t Adelson’s only media property. The distinction for most notorious Adelson newspaper goes to his free Israeli daily, called Israel Hayom, which serves as a mouthpiece for the Israeli right, most notably in its unmitigated boosterism of the Adelson-backed Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Columnists at Israel Hayom, for their part, have been positively gushing about Rubio’s third place finish in Iowa. The campaign could not have wished for better media coverage, except perhaps that it would come in the American media. (There’s another connection here worth mentioning: Patrick Dumont, who runs Adelson’s finances, is married to Sivan Ochshorn Dumont, the daughter of Adelson’s wife, Miriam, from a previous marriage. Ochshorn Dumont runs Israel Hayom.)

Other signs, too, point to Adelson’s tilt toward Rubio. J. Philip Rosen, a former chairman of American friends of Likud (Netanyahu’s rightist party), endorsed Rubio. Rosen, whose Twitter feed is dominated by putdowns of Obama (e.g. claiming Obama feels “entitled to screw Israel”) and praise for Rubio, also sits on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), a neoconservative outfit where Adelson also holds a seat on the board and has been described as a “major funder.”

And not only has the de facto press organ of the Likud Party—Israel Hayom—come out for Rubio, but party officials have themselves been speaking out, albeit on background:

When asked whether Rosen and Adelson’s pro-Rubio signals mean anything for the Likud in Israel, a senior party official who asked to remain anonymous said no, but expressed strong support for the Florida senator.

“Of course we prefer Republicans over Democrats,” the Likud official said in the Knesset last week. “The Likud and the Republicans have a lot in common, ideologically.”

The official said he would prefer Rubio, but that Cruz would be a good choice, too.

Adelson doesn’t dictate the positions of either the RJC or the Likud. But it seems unlikely that officials from either organization would come out so strongly without at least giving a thought to where the billionaire was likely to land. After all, they know where they get their bread buttered.

The Adelson primary seems to be boiling down to Cruz or Rubio, and leaning strongly in Rubio’s favor. Watching the upcoming Republican primaries will probably offer more hints, specifically about which candidate will make it to the convention or be more electable in the general. (Not that Adelson is above throwing a little money at lost causes; remember Newt Gingrich?) This much seems clear already: between Cruz and Rubio, Adelson has two candidates, two shots at getting someone out of the primaries who will share his right-wing, super-hawkish, and revanchist pro-Israel views. Either candidate would be a natural fit for his millions come the general election. Adelson, in other words, has two birds in the hand, and they seem to be worth more than one Bush.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share