|
Newhouse News Service – July 27, 2004
Kerry can't take Muslim vote for granted
BY CHUCK McCUTCHEON
BOSTON -- Muslim voters appear less inclined to support President Bush in November than they did in 2000, but that doesn't mean they automatically back Democrat John Kerry.
Several of the roughly 40 Muslim delegates attending this week's Democratic National Convention said they are waiting for the Kerry campaign to show its concern for Muslim voters and acknowledge they can make a difference at the polls, especially in such key states as Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
"My sense is that 75 percent of the Muslim leadership is behind Kerry; however, the public is not," said Asad Zaman, a school principal and convention delegate from Inver Grove, Minn., whose family is from Bangladesh. "They have to do their homework. He needs to visit mosques the way he visits synagogues."
Spokesmen for the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee say they are ramping up their efforts to reach Muslims during and after the convention. "We will continue building bridges to the Muslim community around the country," said Mona Mohib, a Muslim of Indian descent who serves as vice chair of the DNC's Asian-Pacific Island caucus.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., recently hosted a gathering of national Muslim groups, calling it "only the first in an ongoing dialogue between congressional Democrats and Muslim Americans."
Estimates vary on how many Muslims are registered to vote. Agha Saeed, founder and national chairman of the American Muslim Alliance, puts the figure at more than 4 million, a total that includes African-American Muslims, Muslims with Arab roots and Muslims with South Asian roots.
Islamic organizations rallied strongly behind Bush in 2000, buoyed by his stance against detaining Muslims without informing them of evidence against them. But many have become incensed by the USA Patriot Act, the controversial anti-terrorism law, and the administration's treatment of Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington Islamic civil rights group, asked subscribers to its e-mail list last month about their political preferences. Among the more than 1,100 responses, 54 percent backed Kerry, 26 percent Ralph Nader, 2 percent Bush, 2 percent "other"; 14 percent were undecided and 1 percent didn't answer that question…..
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/mccutcheon072704.html
The Seattle Times - July 27, 2004
To earn my vote, Kerry must protect my civil rights
By Parvez Ahmed
Millions of Americans will tune in as John Kerry accepts his nomination to be the Democratic Party's candidate for president. It will be the most anticipated speech of his lifetime, a life with a remarkable record of courage, patriotism and service. Kerry the person has earned my respect. Will Kerry the candidate earn my vote, too?
As we tune in, each one of us will like to hear about something that is most dear to our hearts. For many voters like me it will be civil rights. Early on during the Democratic primaries, Kerry voiced his displeasure about the Patriot Act. However, since being the presumptive nominee, his silence on this issue has been deafening.
Preserving our liberal democracy is perhaps the single-most-important issue facing Americans this election, although polls suggest otherwise. Public silence confirms an uncomfortable truth that since 9-11, the civil rights of some Americans have been compromised while the majority remains oblivious to the dangers that lurk around the corner.
Fighting terrorism is important. But this fight cannot take place at the expense of civil liberties. At the end of the day, if we cannot protect the very fabric that unites us as a nation, then what is it that we are fighting for?
Right after the ill-fated day of Sept. 11, 2001, a majority of Americans, despite the historical admonition of Ben Franklin to not do so, were willing to give up a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security. A vigorous debate on this issue might have yielded some answers as to exactly which rights Americans were willing to give up to be a little bit more secure. This did not happen and the Patriot Act was rushed through Congress in record legislative time.
American-Muslims now live with the dread of a knock at the door often at wee hours of the night or early morning. Many are coping with the reality of racial profiling at airports, discrimination at places of work, verbal abuse in public and hate crimes at places of worship. A recent poll showed nearly 88 percent of Muslims saying that they knew of at least one person who suffered anti-Muslim bias or discrimination.
Some have argued that war justifies treating foreign nationals differently than citizens. In this paradigm, citizens are presumptively more loyal. After all, 19 foreigners attacked us on 9-11. Unfortunately, we are quick to forget that prior to 9-11, the single biggest terrorist attack on American soil was conducted by a homegrown terrorist in Oklahoma.
David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University, in his book "Enemy Aliens," posits that the seemingly reasonable argument that justifies treating foreigners differently is fraught with four fallacies: It is illusory in the long run; it is likely to prove counterproductive as a security matter; it is regrettably an oft-repeated pattern of government overreaction in times of crisis; and most importantly, it is constitutionally and morally wrong.
What often starts as a preventative measure and only appears to curb the rights of the aliens soon gets muddied into restricting the rights of citizens. Most Americans would be justifiably alarmed if they knew that a draft of an anti-terrorism bill went as far as advocating native-born citizens being stripped of their citizenship. Government exists to serve citizens and not the other way around.
Among a U.S. president's first public promises is "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." I eagerly await to hear how the candidates plan to uphold this oath were the American public to give Kerry a chance or offer President Bush a second chance.
Parvez Ahmed is a board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001988904_ahmed27.html
Winnipeg Free Press – July 27, 2004
Jewish, Arab voters watching Kerry
Samuel Segev
WITH the expected formal nomination on Thursday, of four-term Senator John Forbes Kerry as the Democratic candidate in the November presidential elections, the four million registered Arab and Muslim American voters are facing a real dilemma.
Up until two months ago, such a dilemma didn't exist. President George W. Bush's written commitments to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon regarding the final settlement with the Palestinians did not leave them many choices. Many of them appeared to be determined to help unseat Bush and bring back the Democrats to the White House.
Since then, however, many things have changed. In an effort to win the "Jewish vote," Kerry defined his positions in terms almost identical with those of Bush. Democrats in both houses of Congress, have coalesced with their Republican colleagues and have endorsed Bush's commitments to Sharon, thus making them binding on any future administration...
Those pro-Israel Kerry statements have confused the Arab-American electorate. In a survey published on June 30, by the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR), some 54 per cent of eligible Arab and Islamic voters said that they will still vote for Kerry, while 26 per cent said they will vote for Ralph Nader, who is an American of Lebanese descent.
Nevertheless, the picture is not so clear. Nihad Awad, the executive director of CAIR, maintains that Arab and Muslim voters could become the "swing vote" in such states as Ohio, Michigan and Florida. Although in the 2000 elections, many Arab Americans voted for Bush, there has not been in the past -- and there doesn't appear to be now -- a "bloc vote" by Arab and Muslim Americans. Hence, in the next elections in November, Arab Americans who are traditionally more conservative, will have to decide what comes
first: their traditional positions on such hot topics as abortion and same sex marriages; or their sympathies for the Palestinians.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/
|
