U.S. Muslims for Kerry

A new poll by Zogby and researchers at Georgetown of Muslim Americans' presidential preferences finds the "truest example of a backlash we've seen" according to pollster John Zogby.

The Wash Times summarizes:

The poll found that Muslims solidly support Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president, though they had strongly backed Mr. Bush in the 2000 election.

Because of the USA Patriot Act and concerns over civil liberties, researchers said, 76 percent of Muslims are voting for Mr. Kerry, compared with 7 percent for Mr. Bush. The 2001 survey found that 42 percent of American Muslims voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, and 31 percent voted for Vice President Al Gore.

More than a third of U.S. Muslims believe that the war on terror is really a war on Islam, sez the Times.

Curious tidbit:

The self-reports on voting in 2000 were reversed in the 2004 survey. In the more recent poll, 38 percent of respondents said they had voted for Mr. Gore, and 27 percent said they had voted for Mr. Bush.

Times story here.

Full poll results (in pdf) here.

Comments

[Bruce]

Bush spin = "See, the terrorists are *for* Kerry!"

[andy]

this isn't a war on islam, but a war on islamism.

Not that the US has been a saint, but when the "moderate" muslims don't show their disgust for what the extremists do, well, they're fair game too

[Mr. Nice Guy]

So now the Dems can have their own knuckle-head fundamentalists.

[Jim Walsh]

"...when the "moderate" muslims don't show their disgust for what the extremists do, well, they're fair game too."

In other words, if you're not for us, you're against us. Aside from the fact that many Muslims have indeed condemned events like 9/11 (though you'd never know it if you only watch Fox, listen to journeyman talk radio and read sites like - ugh - worldnetdaily), this type of smearing plays right into the hands of the bad guys by making our friends (decent, concerned American citizens who happen to be Muslims) our enemies.
Like I said, I'd expect this kind of crap from listeners of, say, "The Savage Nation," but Reason readers?!?

[Ruthless]

Is Badnarik Muslim?

[Ironchef]

Heaven forbid, Jim, if even Reason readers present a dissenting opinion. Consider it the Right to be Wrong.

[Eric II]

"Is Badnarik Muslim?"

He probably thinks Islam is a US government conspiracy, vowing to privatize it once he takes office.

[a]

"this isn't a war on islam, but a war on islamism"

may be so, but when the US invades the most anti-islamists country with a vast muslim majority you can understand why some might think otherwise.

[Fred Gillette]

Sans Ruth,

I just read his biography. No mention of religion. The closest was Scouting. I was going to make a guess as to his denomination based on that but I shouldn't expose my prejudices to such a critical group.

His biography is pretty interesting. He sounds like a guy anyone would like to have as a neighbor, and to me he sounds like a guy worthy of the Presidency.

[joe]

Cripes, 7%. He's probably getting more from black atheist lesbian schoolteachers.

OTOH, the self-reporting error makes me suspect that some Bush voters might not want to admit it.

[Gary]

Actually, Badnarik has a decently solid group of Islamic voters going to the polls for him in November. Forgot the Fox News incident already? 😉

[Ruthless]

Gary,
I think this is my point.
We need to tell our Muslim friends about Badnarik.

[David Crawford]

Who would want the support of the fucking muslims. I doubt that there is a more ignorant and backward group of people in this country.

Not having the support of the muslims is like saying you don't have the support of the majority of people on death row.

[andy]

""...when the "moderate" muslims don't show their disgust for what the extremists do, well, they're fair game too."

In other words, if you're not for us, you're against us."

No, i said if you're not against THEM (the extremists) you're against us. You don't have to be for the US to be against the terrorists, you dipshit.

[Ruthless]

I suspect Badnarik would be more desirous of the fucking Muslim vote than the regular Muslim vote.
Although I assume he's not as picky as David Crawford.

[thoreau]

OTOH, the self-reporting error makes me suspect that some Bush voters might not want to admit it.

joe, if I were a Muslim I would say loud and clear into the phone "Yes, I'm voting for George Bush. I repeat, I'm voting for George Bush. Hope you guys at Fort Meade got that!" ;->

(And before the tinfoil hat accusations come out, you might want to notice the emoticon at the end of the above sentence.)

David Crawford wrote:
Who would want the support of the fucking muslims. I doubt that there is a more ignorant and backward group of people in this country.

Yeah, nothing but a bunch of idiots! To hell with them! I say get rid of the Turkish guys doing research in my department, and the Pakistani surgeon who operated on my mother recently. Not to mention all the small businesses owned by Arab and Pakistani immigrants. And don't even get me started on all the wealthy Iranian businessmen in Los Angeles, who operate satellite TV channels to broadcast Farsii language news and Western entertainment into Iran. They're pissing off the Ayatollahs, but that just proves that Muslims in the US are striving to undermine traditional values!

Yeah, this country would be a better place without those damn Muslims. Definitely!

[curious]

Where did David Crawford and andy just come in from, KKK.com? Thanks for stopping by guys! Please let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Ruthless]

thoreau,
I recently had a colonoscopy from an Egyptiain doc whose name sounded very close to Mohammed Attah.
Should I refer David Crawford to him?

[John]

That will make for some interesting caucuses & conventions, with NOW leadership seated next to people that think that chadors & female circumsions are a good idea.

[gaius marius]

Who would want the support of the fucking muslims. I doubt that there is a more ignorant and backward group of people in this country.

LMAO! why do i suspect that this thought lies waiting to be vented in most iraq war supporters' heads?

No, i said if you're not against THEM (the extremists) you're against us.

the problem, imho andy, is that when you're also saying

Not that the US has been a saint, but when the "moderate" muslims don't show their disgust for what the extremists do, well, they're fair game too

... you can't be trusted to distinguish "muslim" from "extremist muslim". which (sadly) puts you in some powerful political company, fwiw.

[joe]

Just out of curiosity, how many blows to the head do you have to take to start believing that a significant portion of AMERICAN muslims "think that chadors & female circumsions are a good idea?"

[gaius marius]

lol -- do viewings of "scarborough country" count as "blows to the head"?

[andy]

Curious:
"Where did David Crawford and andy just come in from, KKK.com? Thanks for stopping by guys! Please let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

Were you to actually read my posts you might come to understand that there were no racist overtones in it, only me stating the obvious fact that if you support the terrorists (even implicitly) then, by pure logic, you have to be against the US. I did not say "if you're not with us you're against us" like some of the less intelligent members of our society might claim.

Or maybe you're dyslexic...

[joe]

Maybe, andy, it has something to do with the fact that you felt the need to put "moderate" in quotes, to indicate that such a thing doesn't actually exist. As in, "non-racist" conservatives. Or "intelligent" black people.

Get it?

[gaius marius]

me stating the obvious fact that if you support the terrorists (even implicitly) then, by pure logic, you have to be against the US.

lol -- andy, i don't even blame you for trying to spin your way to safety, but what you said was

when the "moderate" muslims don't show their disgust for what the extremists do, well, they're fair game too

and then

i said if you're not against THEM (the extremists) you're against us.

... which is not the same as saying what you just said. muslim fundamentalists can be and in the main are very peaceful people. the vast majority of them are not only not terrorists, they oppose all violence vigorously.

muslim fundamentalists feel a theocratic government and close adherence to sharia best fits the traditional muslim way of life, and they believe that the traditional way of life is valuable and must be preserved.

this is not "logically" opposed to the united states, nor is it necessarily terrorist (despite much of the propaganda some xenophobic westerners want to believe). indeed, most muslim fundamentalists only care about the existence of america to the extent that our culture infects theirs and our armies are in their homelands.

your eagerness to kill people who see value in supporting their traditions and heritage in the face of change is disturbing. many americans -- particularly on the right -- do (or believe they're doing) the same thing every day.

i personally don't think that such radical conservativism (be it christian, muslim or otherwise) has achievable goals or is even always what it claims to be (a preservation of culture). but i'm not dumb enough to imagine that cultural reactionaries are inherently violent or even more dangerous than cultural progressives -- who, let's face it, by their own admission have set out to remake the mideast in a crusade for Global Democratic Revolution with bombs and tanks.

it's important for westerners to remember that, when our buildings get planes flown into them and our trains are bombed, it is by a diminishingly small minority of muslim fundamentalists -- much less muslims -- who, whatever sympathy they feel for the cause of cultural preservation, want for peace and to be left to do as they will. moreover, that small minority exists because we -- britain, france and america -- have been meddling in the internal affairs of middle eastern peoples against their will for centuries, and some feel they have no choice but to try to drive us out by any means necessary.

we'd do far better, imo, to address and alleviate those concerns than to drive more muslims to the desperation of terrorism by invading yet again and dropping yet more bombs and missiles. but i don't imagine such reason is going to get much of a hearing in the west today.

[Comanche]

Gentlemen,

Are you really surprised by the fact that a Muslim might not like the President?

But, really, a war on Islam? If we really were at war with Islam, it would be been over already. All the armed forces of Islamic countries would be destroyed, their cities and farms laid waste, we would be defending a small perimeter around the Saudi oilfields and have 10 dollar a barrel oil.

The reality of American power right now is that, if we seriously mobilized, no one could stand against us (except those with nuclear weapons). Even when we have only partially mobilized, no one dares to challenge us.

You're living in the fourth Rome, and no candidate - neither Kang nor Kodos - is going to give up that temporal power.

Which is one reason why you haven't seen any organized attacks here in America since 2001. The enemies of the Great Satan know that another attack will cause a reaction that will make our campaign in Iraq look like an NGO relief program.

And Marius, your namesake didn't look for ways to alleviate Jugurtha's concerns.

C5

[thoreau]

joe-

I think we could get a significant number of American Muslims (especially teenagers) wear chadors simply by passing a law against chadors.

[andy]

joe,

I put "moderate" in quotes because i don't consider those who would condone something like 9/11 to be moderate at all.

And Gaius,

Your absurd anti-americanism seems to be quite blinding, so allow me to clarify some things for you

"i said if you're not against THEM (the extremists) you're against us."

"... which is not the same as saying what you just said. muslim fundamentalists can be and in the main are very peaceful people. the vast majority of them are not only not terrorists, they oppose all violence vigorously."

What I meant was "those islamist extremists who will stop at nothing to kill every non-muslim on the earth" not "anyone who sincerely believes and lives the Koran". Why you would assume that I meant the second is beyond me. I dont have an issue with people "preserving their traditions", i have an issue with people trying to kill me because they don't like mine.

"most muslim fundamentalists only care about the existence of america to the extent that our culture infects theirs and our armies are in their homelands."

How do we "infect" their culture? Culture isn't imposed by gunpoint, it's purchased and savored. If nobody wanted to buy our shit, they wouldn't.

But that's enough. You're a walking contradiction. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to argue your baseless points.

[gaius marius]

And Marius, your namesake didn't look for ways to alleviate Jugurtha's concerns.

lol -- mr comanche, i chose the name ironically. 🙂

if we seriously mobilized

while unopposably powerful in some ways, america is bound as gulliver in others -- and this is one. we can't afford to fight the war you're talking about. america can't put its entire military on mobilization for very long at all without doing serious economic damage to the country. the expense of a low-casualty, state-of-the-technology armed forces is a very effective constraint -- or should be, if you want to avoid painfully bankrupting the empire as so many have before us.

fwiw, the entire american fiscal condition is rather sorry these days. can a consumer culture already steeped in debt afford even to democratize the middle east?

[gaius marius]

Why you would assume

i didn't. i simply pointed out that you used "terrorist" and "extremist" interchangably in your postings, when they are not interchangable -- and that muslim "extremists" are not, by definition, "against US", except insofar as we place our armed forces in their homelands.

How do we "infect" their culture?

well, andy, i'd say that "infect" is rather apt word choice, actually, and i don't mean it to have a negative connotation. fundamentalists are idealists, imo, and tradition (as they see it) purity -- i think they view inroads of american culture as tainting their culture. and my point in posting is to try to represent, in some fashion, how THEY see it so that we might understand the problems we face.

if you'd rather i be jingoistic, i can do that -- but i think you've already got that ground covered, given that i've apparently succumbed to absurd anti-americanism. sorry that my love for my country and home isn't up to your standards.

could you, by the way, cite for me what EXACTLY in my post is "anti-american"? so that you might "clarify some things" for me? because i wouldn't want to be anything less than 110% patriotic, even at the expense of helpful analysis.

"those islamist extremists who will stop at nothing to kill every non-muslim on the earth"

... do you really think that *this* is what we're up against?

[comanche]

Ave Marius (sorry but I don't know how to form the vocative),

As for the precarious financial situation, I agree but as for how expensive a war would be it would be inexpensive when compared to the amount spent on transfer payments. We have more than enough weapons so we would only need lots of relatively inexpensive ammunition, spare parts and lots and lots of infantry. It wouldn't be a good idea, it isn't politcally possible (barring another attack here at home), but it is eminently possible, especially if you don't plan on an occupation.

I suppose it is just that I find it tiresome when those who claim oppression by the imperialists can think of nothing better than murdering the defenseless as a way of liberating themselves. Hence I have no personal hatred of those attacking our soldiers in Iraq but the kidnappers and beheaders must, and I think will, be beheaded.

[gaius marius]

especially if you don't plan on an occupation

lol -- well said, mr comanche. niall ferguson made a similar point, using comparative expenses as a pct of GDP to british imperial actions -- and essentially accused us of frequently failing on account of cheapness and impatience. of course, the victorians didn't have to pay for social security (as he notes, calling social security our achilles heel).

i shouldn't say it *couldn't* be done -- only that, in light of our situation, it would present (yet another) considerable risk. america is, i think, testing the sandpile effect with its debt; eventually, we will add the grain of sand (or bond tranche) that causes the pile to collapse to a new equilibrium. which grain that will be no one can say, but the size of the pile has a limit.

Hence I have no personal hatred of those attacking our soldiers in Iraq but the kidnappers and beheaders must, and I think will, be beheaded

agreed. the former i can see as wholly understandable; the latter merely criminal. i know that their perception of what is ethical is different from ours -- and yet, few can condone such barbarism, regardless of the motivation.