Arab Americans turn to Kerry in 4 key states

Four years ago, he was frustrated with the slow pace of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and he cast his ballot for George W. Bush.

"I figured it would be good to have some new blood - and it turned out to be worse," said Mustafa, 28, a registered Democrat from Northeast Philadelphia who works in his family's supermarket business. This year, he said, his choice will be Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.).

Mustafa's personal shift illustrates a problem for President Bush, who in 2000 condemned anti-Arab profiling in a nationally televised debate, and then went on to win a healthy plurality of the Arab American vote in four of the largest battleground states, including Pennsylvania.

A recent poll suggests Arab American voters in these states have soured on the President because of the administration's unwavering support of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the invasion of Iraq, and the government's crackdown on Arab and Muslim immigrants in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Kerry led Bush 54 percent to 30 percent among the estimated 550,000 Arab American voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Florida, the March 14 Zogby International poll found. Sixty-five percent of respondents said it was time for a new president.

That's a big swing from 2000, when 46 percent of voters of Arab descent in the four states voted for Bush, versus 29 percent for then-Vice President Al Gore and 13 percent for Lebanese American consumer activist Ralph Nader, who was running as a Green Party candidate.

"I don't know what Bush does to win them back," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, which commissioned the poll from the firm run by John Zogby, his brother. "They can't afford to write off any group that has hundreds of thousands of voters in key states."

Arab Americans could be about 2.7 percent of the 19.8 million voters expected to cast ballots in the four battleground states Nov. 2, according to the pollster's projections based on turnout in 2000.

One thing seems sure: It's a far cry from Oct. 11, 2000, when candidate Bush spoke out in a debate with Gore against the use of "secret evidence" in deportation proceedings against Arab immigrants.

"It was electric," James Zogby said, and polls showed Arab American voters breaking toward Bush right after.

Mustafa was among those impressed then, but he said he would not vote to reelect Bush this year. He said civil rights for Arab Muslim immigrants had eroded since the 9/11 attacks; he also dislikes the administration's "total disengagement from the peace process" on the West Bank.

"What really did it for me was when Bush called Sharon a man of peace," said Mustafa, who has family living in a village outside Ramallah, in the West Bank. "I started screaming at the television. His own people call Sharon 'Bulldozer.' "

Sammy Zakaria, a Center City physician of Syrian descent, is a registered Republican who voted for Bush four years ago. "I am an Eagle Scout," he said, attracted to the GOP's traditional message of fiscal conservatism, low taxes, and support for faith-based values.

Now, Zakaria is concerned with the ballooning federal deficit and is angry at the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the federal government's surveillance powers. Although he calls Islamist terrorists "freaks and thugs" who must be resisted, Zakaria has many innocent friends who have been detained in airports or summoned to federal offices under a since-abandoned policy to register legal immigrants from Muslim countries.

"Actions speak louder than words," said Zakaria, 28. "They treated us like suspects."

An estimated 160,000 Arab Americans live in Pennsylvania, an increase of 25 percent from 1990, according to the Arab American Institute's analysis of census data.

Despite their concerns, Arab American voters have come a long way since 1983, when Philadelphia mayoral candidate W. Wilson Goode Sr. returned $2,725 in checks from a fund-raiser hosted by a community leader. The man was the head of an organization attacked as anti-Israel.

"They were able to do that in '83 because we weren't a force - we weren't organized," said Marwan Kreidie, a Democrat who is president of the Philadelphia Arab-American Corp., an advocacy group. "That kind of thing didn't just happen in Philadelphia; it was everywhere. There's been a dramatic change - we're involved in every race and courted by every party for money and votes."

For instance, seven Democratic presidential contenders visited a conference of Arab American leaders in Michigan last fall. The President sent top aides, and both campaigns plan to target the community.

There are less positive signs, too, including the use of a dark-skinned man - who Democrats contended looked Middle Eastern - in a recent Bush ad attacking Kerry's record on terrorism.

Still, Bush supporters say the President is not writing off Arab Americans, and point to some bright spots in the Zogby poll: Bush still enjoys majority support among Christian Arabs, as well as the Iraqi and Chaldean communities, which are large and influential in Michigan.

Besides, Kerry voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq war, too, said George R. Salem, a Republican lawyer in Washington who is chairman of the Arab American Institute.

"He is just the anti-Bush at this point," Salem said. "As the campaign progresses, people will be presented with a clear record, and they'll ask themselves whether they want a new player or a second-term president able to address their concerns... . The Arab constituency is not monolithic."

Republicans acknowledge the trend found in the Zogby poll but say it is too soon to count out Bush.

"I would take everything this early with a grain of salt," said Nasser Beydoun, executive director of the Arab American Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn, Mich. "A lot of things can happen... . We'll watch and see what the campaigns and candidates do - and what the rest of the world does. What's going to happen in the Middle East [and] with jobs? There are too many variables."

One such variable is Nader, back and running as an independent. In the Zogby poll, 20 percent of respondents said they would vote for him over Bush or Kerry.

Sally Baraka of Philadelphia voted for Nader in 2000, considering him "refreshing" and his Lebanese heritage a plus. Now she thinks a vote for him would help Bush and is leaning toward Kerry.

More broadly, "I see the goal in this election is not just to bring in a new administration but to establish that we are a political force to be reckoned with," said Baraka, a 27-year-old lawyer who voted for Republican Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential election.

What "breathtakingly stupid actions" do you have in mind? Liberating 60 million Muslims from murderous regimes?

First of all, give this twaddle about "liberating Muslims" to the sheeple who might believe it. The role of the United States is not to "liberate" Muslims or anybody else. We do not go abroad "looking for monsters to slay" (Washington). We went to Afghanistan to wreak our RIGHTEOUS VENGEANCE on those who murdered our countrymen.

As for breathtakingly stupid actions...

1. Proposing the effective naturalization of up to 12 million (that's 12 with six zeros after it) illegal aliens. Some of whom may be Wahabbists posing as Mexican day laborers.

2. Permitting US embassies and consulates throughout the Middle East to be staffed by Wahabbists and bin-Laden sympathizers. These people control the visa process; allowing countless hateful bastards to enter the country while rejecting visa applications for normal, traditional Muslims.

3. Launching a war against a weak Stalinist thugocracy which posed no threat to the US or its neighbors-- and doing so without having the common sense to put an Arab face on it.

4. Removing the leader of said Stalinist Arab thugocracy and leaving a power vacuum for Wahabbists to fill.

5. Disbanding the Iraqi Army (not just the Baathists)down to the last private-- turning 300,000 armed men into enemies.

6. Calling this war "The War on Terror", the laughable suggestion of a war on a particular tactic rather than what it really is... War against Islamic Religious Totalitarianism. War against Wahabbism. War against Al-Qaeda.

"Terrorism" itself will always be with us. Study your history, bud. Algeria used it against the French, the Jews of Israel against the British.

7. Expanding the War on Terror to include groups involved with localized national struggles. Rather than isolating Al-Qaeda and their Wahabbist allies, we make Israel's enemies our own. Why? Like we need more enemies?

8. Creating a whole new bureaucracy (DHS)as a response to something (inter-operability within the intel and law enforcement community) that should and could be solved by discarding idiotic legislation which has castrated our ability to monitor and respond to threats.

So, to breathtakingly stupid-- let me add naive. And I say this as someone whose ancestors are from Iran and Iraq, and who knows people butchered by Saddam.

Finally, as far as the response of Muslims to terrorism in general, here's something to think about...

1. In the aftermath of 911, the media brought forward the Imams of major mosques. The major mosques are often funded by the Saudis. The Imams are mostly Wahabbis.

2. Most traditional(conservatives and liberals) Muslims in this country no longer attend most mosque services, preferring to use our homes. Why? Becuase too many mosques are Wahabbist infilitrated. Not all, but maybe 25 to 40 percent. The media doesn't know this.

3. Unfortunately, many Muslims are afraid to speak out, a characteristic acquired by living in unfree societies.

4. To spice things up, the media deliberately finds the most obtuse and psychotic Muslims they can to represent the "official" Muslim point of view. I know this from personal experience. It's the same thing they do to paint conservatives as radicals or fools, by positing the most unattractive people as "representative" of the conservative side.

Still, you're right that the traditional Muslims here have be louder and more obnoxious. Maybe then, the media will finally hear us. Unfortunately, most of us work for a living and don't have time to march and picket like the average liberal.

What "breathtakingly stupid actions" do you have in mind? Liberating 60 million Muslims from murderous regimes?
First of all, give this twaddle about "liberating Muslims" to the sheep who might believe it. The role of the United States is not to "liberate" Muslims or anybody else. We do not go abroad "looking for monsters to slay" (Washington). We went to Afghanistan to wreak our RIGHTEOUS VENGEANCE on those who murdered our countrymen.

Where to begin. Ok how about this: Liberation of Iraq is a VITAL step in the War on Terrorism. Read Bin Laden's Fatwa.

There has been a lot argument among the political class recently whether or not there was an Iraq-Al Qeda link. The argument that there is NO link is total nonsense. Bin Laden's primary justification revolves around the US lead "containment" of Iraq from bases in Saudi Arabia and the UN Sanctions "starving" the Iraqi people. You can read the original by entering Bin Laden's Fatwa in your search engine. The liberation of Iraq ALSO has the added benefit of forcing the Terrorists out of their holes to fight our TROOPS rather then hinding in sanctuaries planing additional attacks on our CIVILIANS. Bush took the initiative away from the Terrorists by forcing them to fight on their OWN ground against our STRENGTH, rather then waiting for them to attack us again.

As for breathtakingly stupid actions...

1. Proposing the effective naturalization of up to 12 million (that's 12 with six zeros after it) illegal aliens. Some of whom may be Wahabbists posing as Mexican day laborers.

Well that is 4 million more then any credible source I have seen state. So what you are arguing is that it would be better to IGNORE the problem and allow a terrible gap to develop in our security the it is to TRY to establish some mechanism for getting them above ground where we can document them! Frankly Bush's approach makes a heck of alot more sense then the rabid xenophobia of the Isolationist Right. The Illegals are HERE, we have to do something about them. What's the solution? All I hear from the Isolationist Right is whining about Bush's idea rather then offering an ALTERNATIVE solution. And NO "Well deport them all" is NOT a realistic solution.

2. Permitting US embassies and consulates throughout the Middle East to be staffed by Wahabbists and bin-Laden sympathizers. These people control the visa process; allowing countless hateful bastards to enter the country while rejecting visa applications for normal, traditional Muslims.

Any SOURCE to back up this accusation? ANY?

3. Launching a war against a weak Stalinist thugocracy which posed no threat to the US or its neighbors-- and doing so without having the common sense to put an Arab face on it.

See above. Liberating Iraq makes perfect sense in the overall strategy of eliminating Terrorism. Bush is draining the swamp that produces terrorism rather then merely swatting individual terrorist flies

4. Removing the leader of said Stalinist Arab thugocracy and leaving a power vacuum for Wahabbists to fill.

Hysteric nonsense. There is so much wrong with this I do not know where to begin. You really want to argue leaving a State Sponsor of Terrorism in place in Iraq makes BETTER sense then creating a liberal stable democratic state in Iraq? Here is a link showing how wrong this idea is

http://federalist.com/news/iraq.asp

5. Disbanding the Iraqi Army (not just the Baathists)down to the last private-- turning 300,000 armed men into enemies.

HAAAAA! So you would those who supported Saddam BACK in charge????? See link above why this is wrong.

6. Calling this war "The War on Terror", the laughable suggestion of a war on a particular tactic rather than what it really is... War against Islamic Religious Totalitarianism. War against Wahabbism. War against Al-Qaeda. "Terrorism" itself will always be with us. Study your history, bud. Algeria used it against the French, the Jews of Israel against the British.

Wrong again. This whole argument is illogical. Murder will always exist so were shouldn't do anything to fight murders? Rape has always existed so we should fight rapists? This is a nonsensical "point" THIS is a war on terrorism. War on the terrorists, war on the institutions and states that support terrorism and those who view terrorism as a legitimate tool of politics. Terrorism exists because it is allowed to exist. Bush is in the process of educating the Muslim world that terrorism as a tactic is a losing proposition.

7. Expanding the War on Terror to include groups involved with localized national struggles.

Such as?????? Care to name some names???? IF they are engaging in Terrorism they are terrorists. To say, well these are "good terrorists" because they do not attack the US is stupid. If they engage in terrorism, they ARE the enemies of our values and should be opposed.

Rather than isolating Al-Qaeda and their Wahabbist allies, we make Israel's enemies our own. Why? Like we need more enemies?

They have always been our enemies. To pretend they aren't is to hide your head in the sand and ignore reality. Simple rule, the Friends of my enemy are NOT my Friends. Bush is confronting that fact. The whole reason Islamic Whabbists have become so dangerous is because they have been tolerated by Muslim rulers. Bush is telling those ruler, "YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! You cannot play footsie with the Terrorists and be a Friend to the USA.

8. Creating a whole new bureaucracy (DHS)as a response to something (inter-operability within the intel and law enforcement community) that should and could be solved by discarding idiotic legislation which has castrated our ability to monitor and respond to threats.

NONESENSE. One of the reasons 9-11 happened was because no one had over all oversite over all the various Government agencies. Rather then having the Federal Government wiggling it's various counter terrorists fingers around individually, DHS gathers it all into one clenched fist.
2. Most traditional(conservatives and liberals) Muslims in this country no longer attend most mosque services, preferring to use our homes. Why? Becuase too many mosques are Wahabbist infilitrated. Not all, but maybe 25 to 40 percent. The media doesn't know this.

3. Unfortunately, many Muslims are afraid to speak out, a characteristic acquired by living in unfree societies.

4. To spice things up, the media deliberately finds the most obtuse and psychotic Muslims they can to represent the "official" Muslim point of view. I know this from personal experience. It's the same thing they do to paint conservatives as radicals or fools, by positing the most unattractive people as "representative" of the conservative side.

Still, you're right that the traditional Muslims here have be louder and more obnoxious. Maybe then, the media will finally hear us. Unfortunately, most of us work for a living and don't have time to march and picket like the average liberal.

Ok, you are right. I guess I shouldn't blame the silent Muslim majority when I see daily how the "NEWS MEDIA" ignores the positive to hype the negative. It is easy to demand extraordinary courage from Muslims, who have no idea which of their neighbors may be a Whabbist fanatic, when I myself do not have to share their risk. But I still think the Muslim Leaders must step up to the plate. There can be no peace between the West's ideals of Democracy and those who think suicide bombing is an acceptable political tactic.

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.