January 31, 2004
RATHER SWITCH THAN FIGHT:
Arab-Americans switch: Bush to Kucinich: Prominent group that backed president in 2000 says they were 'stung' (WorldNetDaily.com, January 31, 2004)
Complaining it was betrayed, a key Arab-American group that endorsed George W. Bush in the 2000 election says it will back Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich for the Democratic nomination and stand behind that party's eventual nominee.The endorsement of Kucinich was not based on who has the best chance to win, but on "principle," said Osama Siblani, head of the Arab-American Political Action Committee.
"The argument we had yesterday was should we stand by our principles or cast a vote based on electability," he said, according to the Associated Press. "But this was a group that voted for [President] Bush in 2000 and were stung by the Bush administration."
The very reasons that Arab-Americans are changing parties are those which should preclude a Democratic presidency. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 31, 2004 11:31 AM
Karl Rove must be smiling. Americans (I believe) are generally not racist but probably lean toward connecting Arabs in the middle east with terrorism. Having the Arab-Americans stand firmly behind the Dem nominee can't be good for their national defense reputation.
Posted by: AWW at January 31, 2004 2:23 PMArabs must have some propensity for choosing the losing side of any conflict. They chose to be Soviet client states in the Cold War, they chose to back the PLO against Israel. Now they choose to back the loopiest dark horse in the Democratic race.
It wouldn't surprise me if they were Red Sox fans to boot.
Posted by: Robert D at January 31, 2004 4:04 PMI am not sure how much the "Arab" endorsement would hurt a party who is already been endorsed by Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Larry Flynt...At the same time, I must scoff at the idea that the Arab vote was useful to the GOP in 2000. Bush lost Michigan, and a solid Arab-American GOP Senate candidate Spencer Abraham lost to a very weak Debbie Strabenow. (Yeah, I know about the UAW and its paid holiday on Election Day, but if this is all that they can deliver...)
Posted by: MG at January 31, 2004 4:14 PMIn the end, this election will be about the war. The vote for the democrat candidate will come from those who believe that we are either not at war at all, or that the effect of the war has been exaggerated by the republicans.
To the extent that I am right, Arab support for the democrat will not effect the rest of the votes he or she will receive from the rest of the electorate. Those who are chilled by the idea that our enemies are attempting to influence the outcome, were already going to vote republican.
Posted by: Michael Gersh at January 31, 2004 4:56 PMIt's the economy only if/when one side can make the case that the economy is falling apart. This November it is likely that the economy will not be much of an issue. And, in any case, anyone who believes that the tax and spend crowd is better for the economy is a Dean/Kerry/Clinton voter no matter what.
40% are democrat voters, and 40& are Bush voters, no matter what. The battle is for those in the middle. The war, and a candidate's plan for the war, will determine the winner. If Bush's profligate spending alienates enough conservatives that they stay home in numbers sufficient to allow a democrat win, I do not believe that that is a vote driven by the economy. But that is a judgement call. If it is, then you are right, oj. In that case, it IS the economy, stupid. In that case, Bush Jr. will have lost his job for the same reason the Bush Sr. lost his: Lack of respect for the money in the pockets of the (nominally) faithful.
Posted by: Michael Gersh at January 31, 2004 6:24 PMPresident's don't lose re-election bids with booming economies.
Posted by: oj at January 31, 2004 7:43 PMI thought "Arab-American" was an oxymoron.
Posted by: Brooks at January 31, 2004 8:54 PM