Posted on 02/25/2004 12:09:56 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON: In 2000, the Michigan-based Arab-American Political Action Committee (AAPAC), one of a handful of Arab-American PAC’s in the United States, endorsed George W. Bush for president. PACs are regulated committees that raise funds for political candidates and assist in their campaigning. Unlike many previous candidates, who had shunned or ignored Arab and Muslim voters, Bush campaigned actively for their support. He met with Arab and Muslim Americans, promised to include Arab-Americans in his administration and, in his second debate with Democratic nominee Al Gore, spoke of his opposition to the use of secret evidence, an important issue for Arab-Americans since the passing of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act pertaining to the deportation of foreigners accused of engaging in terrorist activity.
AAPAC returned the favor by campaigning for Bush in Michigan and, as promised, once elected Bush included Arab-Americans in his administration, such as former Lebanese-American Senator Spenser Abraham as energy secretary and Syrian-American Mitchell E. Daniels as director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Four years on, during the heat of the presidential primary season, AAPAC was once again endorsing a presidential candidate, but one of a far different stripe than George W. Bush: Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Undoubtedly the most liberal candidate running in the primaries, Kucinich has not been afraid to speak out on issues of concern to Arab-Americans.
“Today the Arab-American community is in a situation that is most critical,” said Osama Siblani, former AAPAC president, in explaining the PAC’s decision. “When we voted for Bush, we did not think that he was going to be like this.”
Kucinich is almost certain not to win the Democratic nomination said Siblani, but supporting him sends a clear message. “We have to tell (Democratic frontrunner) John Kerry and George Bush that … if you want our vote, you know what our issues are, and we cannot be taken for granted.”
Siblani, a Republican, expresses the sentiment of many Arab-Americans, who say they supported Bush in 2000 but now feel let down and betrayed by his administration.
According to the Washington based Arab-American Institute (AAI), Arab-Americans voted for Bush by a 45.5 percent to 38 percent plurality in the 2000 election, with 13.5 percent supporting Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, himself an Arab-American. By contrast, in January 2004, a mere 28 percent said they would support Bush if the election were held at that time.
The Bush administration, many Arab-Americans complain, has become hostage to a base of right-wing neoconservatives and Evangelical Christians, who are hostile to Islam and radically pro-Likud in their support for Israel. They list a litany of complaints about the Bush administration: the post-Sept. 11 crackdown on Arab and Muslim immigrants; the Bush administration’s perceived unflinching support for Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon, who Bush once called a “man of peace;” the invasion and occupation of Iraq; and a faltering economy in many of the manufacturing states where Arab-Americans are concentrated, such as Michigan and Ohio.
“I would say (there is) nothing this administration has done that I can be proud of,” said Siblani. “The Republicans know where they are with this community. They know what they need to do to change. My bet is that they will not do it.”
The estimated 3.5 million-strong Arab-American community has traditionally been relatively minor force in American politics. Their voting numbers are relatively small; and, in terms of campaign contributions, for every $1 donated by pro-Arab PACs to candidates in the 2002 midterm elections, roughly $100 was donated by pro-Israel PACs, according to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
But despite their numbers, Arab-American voters have grown increasingly influential in recent years. Concentrated in such crucial swing states as Michigan and Ohio and drawn together by well-organized grassroots organizations, Arab-Americans are a voting block that can no longer be ignored.
Last October, seven Democratic presidential candidates Joe Lieberman, Dennis Kucinich, Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Howard Dean, and Carol Moseley Braun, as well as Marc Racicot, chair of the Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign addressed AAI’s well-publicized National Leadership Conference in Dearborn.
As in 2000, this new political clout will be put to the test in 2004. With the country divided over the Bush administration and its policies and Democratic frontrunner Kerry strong in the polls, many political analysts expect a close election.
Hussein Ibish, communications director at the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, believes this will be a watershed moment for Arab-Americans. The community is in a unique position to communicate their concerns to the candidates and never have those concerns been more important than now.
“Individual liberty and foreign policy are more unilateral and pro-Israel (than before),” said Ibish. “These are the kinds of issues that are very much in play. If there were ever an election where Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans should join in, it would be this one.”
But while the George Bush has unquestionably lost support among Arab-Americans, it would be a mistake to think of the entire community as a monolithic block, warns James Zogby, president of AAI. Approximately one-third of Arab-American voters are registered Republicans, one-third Democrats, and one-third independents. Arab-American Republicans, said Zogby, “are committed and believe their candidate is the best … for the community.”
Some of today’s most prominent Arab-American political figures, including Abraham, New Hampshire Senator John Sununu and California Congressman Darrell Issa, are Republicans and command significant respect in the community. Many Iraqi Americans, such as Muhand Bahia, vice-president of the Washington chapter of the Iraqi-American Council, credit Bush with having liberated their country from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
“I personally feel the US did the right thing (in Iraq) for a good cause,” he said. “I think the president has put his job on the line. The question is should he get credit for it? Absolutely.”
George Salem, an attorney and AAI board member, is a Republican Party member who worked in the Reagan administration and campaigned for Bush in 2000. Salem acknowledges that some of the Bush administration’s positions particularly its Middle East policy and support for the Patriot Act have created problems for him in the Arab-American community. But, he adds, there are many actions taken by the president that deserve to be applauded, such as the endorsement of a Palestinian state and appointing more Arab-Americans to his administration than any other president.
What’s more, Salem argues that whatever the Bush administration’s faults, Kerry’s record on issues of concern to Arab-Americans leaves little room for confidence.
During Kerry’s 20 years in the Senate, he has been an ardent supporter of Israel; he supported the Patriot Act, although he now wants to amend it; and he cosponsored the Syrian Accountability Act. Last fall, when then-frontrunner Howard Dean suggested that the United States needed to be “evenhanded” in the Middle East, Kerry, along with Lieberman, were the two candidates who most fiercely attacked Dean for his comments.
During Kerry’s speech at the AAI National Leadership Conference, he voiced opposition to the barrier being built by Israel in the West Bank and said that “Israel must be prepared to meet its obligations, as outlined in the Bush administration’s ‘road map,’ and in the Mitchell plan, with respect to settlements.” But on the Kerry campaign website, the senator’s stated position on the peace process varies little from that of Bush administration, and he makes no mention of the barrier nor the settlements.
Salem argues that presidents rarely make progress on the Palestinian issue until their second terms, when the question of re-election is no longer an issue. He expects Bush to make far more progress on the peace process in an eventual second term than John Kerry would during his first term.
In the eyes of many Arab-Americans, however, such reasoning is overshadowed by a lingering bitterness toward the president’s policies during the last four years.
“I think at the end of the day, any Democrat is going to be better able to handle this process than this administration has been,” concluded Zogby, a member of the Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee.
James Zogby (l) and John Zogby (r) were the guests at Thursday's Monitor breakfast. John runs the polling firm Zogby International. James is president of the Arab American Institute. They discussed their new, 10-country poll, tracking how adults in Arab and Muslim/non-Arab countries feel about American people and culture. ANDY NELSON - STAFF April 12, 2002 - Monitor Breakfast: John and James Zogby
and just about everyone they quoted was a persian or asian
Bump!
You didn't vote for Bush, Osama, you voted against Lieberman. Now that the Democrats have learned their lesson and will never nominate a Jew to their ticket again, Arab-Americans can go back to the party they've always supported in every election other than the 2000 Presidential race. The notion that a group can switch from supporting Bush to supporting Kucinich over policy issues is farcical.
I like to see it stated up front where the Zogby family stands.
Well, finally common ground. The middle east crisis is solved.
Sometimes its better to just let the hatred "die down".
Bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.