Who's Afraid of the Arab-American Institute?

Just about everyone, according to Steve Clemons who was there over the weekend:

But unlike the clamor of candidates to speak at the annual AIPAC conference or to appear at various national security forums in Israel, this important Michigan-based conference of the great and the good among Arab Americans was given a frosty shoulder by leading candidates of both parties, and I think that is outrageous. [...]

First of all, I want to applaud the fact that Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson took the time to be at this important assembly of Arab Americans.

Let me clap with just one hand the fact that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama sent videotaped greetings and had "surrogates" represent them in exchanges with the large audience. [...]

None of the Republicans other than Paul had a serious presence there. Mitt Romney had someone put out some brochures -- but neither he, nor Rudy Giuliani, nor Fred Thomspon, nor John McCain sent anyone to meet with national leaders of the premier Arab American leadership conference in the nation.

It's a bit of a sad state of affairs. Obviously, politicians shouldn't feel any particular compulsion to agree with the Arab-American Institute's policy views if they think they're wrong on the merits, but it hardly seems like too much to ask for a little engagement with this bloc of people.

Comments

I'm sure Steve Sailer will be along to explain why Republicans don't think engagement with this block is a good idea...

That pretty much sums up the political realities of this issue in modern America.

For myself, I'd love for Obama to really talk about his mixed race identity some more. But it ain't going to happen in this political climate, he's said more in his book than he ever will in public about it...

Posted by Meh | October 28, 2007 4:51 PM

That is the sad state of affairs in America today, though. Both parties spend all of their time trying to appease their base and ignoring everyone else. It just reinforces the divisions in our society rather than bringing people together.

Posted by Captain Noble | October 28, 2007 4:52 PM

The Arab American Institute
Former members of Congress Mary Rose Oakar, James Abourezk, Pat Danner, ... Ron Paul to Address Arab American Institute's National Leadership Conference ...
www.aaiusa.org/get-involved/1557/we-are-democrats

And what did former Senator James Abourezk, utter recently? 9-11 was a Zionist Conspiracy!
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1551.htm
>...James Abourezk: Well, because the Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists, actually. It was a cooperation.
>...Interviewer: So who is controlling who?

James Abourezk: The lobby is controlling the Congress.

Interviewer: But you said that the U.S. is not in need of Israel, but rather, Israel needs the U.S.

James Abourezk: Yes, that's right. But how they...

Interviewer: It's very paradoxical.

(Yup, can't make his mind between the, "ZOG, " line of the Neo-Nazi Right, "Zionist Occupied Government, " or the Chomskyite line of, "The Zionists are tools of the U.S. Imperialists.")

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP170807

Posted by Michael Pugliese | October 28, 2007 5:27 PM

Why would the Republican candidate show up when they're tripping all over themselves to court the neo-con block.

Recently Debra Cagan said "I hate all Iranians"? Now she didn't lose her job, did she?

I'm sure soon Rudy will say "I hate all Iranians, because suffering succotash, they smell worse than stinky tofu!"

Posted by Big Tent Democrat | October 28, 2007 5:47 PM

Captain Noble, the democrats, especially Hillary Clinton, but also Obama, are spending a lot of time running against the base, not pandering to it.

Posted by mad6798j | October 28, 2007 6:12 PM

"The Arab American Institute
Former members of Congress Mary Rose Oakar, James Abourezk, Pat Danner, ... Ron Paul..."

OK, apparently Abourezk is a putz. What is it that the other people said and why should the fact that there are a few idiots dissuade anyone from participating in a debate of the issues. I think that Ron Paul is nuts and I wouldn't vote for him in a million years. But maybe I can learn something valuable from listening to him.

Now, FOX news, avoiding that I can understand, why anyone would waste time with that black hole of information is beyond me...

Posted by Rihilism | October 28, 2007 6:45 PM

I'll give you Obama. It's one of the reasons I have found him so refreshing.

I don't think Hillary is running against the base so much as she seems to be running a general election campaign. She is also so careful with most of what she says that you can't hardly say she has really said anything at all. She wraps all of her statements in smoke and mirrors. Unfortunately that seems to be enough for most people.

Posted by Captain Noble | October 28, 2007 7:01 PM

I live in Michigan, and I'm not altogether sure that the Arab-American voters are that important in order for a candidate to win the Michigan primary.

If a campaign is an exercise in triage, then it makes sense that you'd ignore the constituencies that "don't matter" as much.

In MI, for Dems at least, it's the teachers union, the UAW, and the black in Detroit.

For the Republicans, it's Oakland county, and Grand Rapids/Holland (white, conservative bastions).

Posted by stm177 | October 28, 2007 7:20 PM

That is the sad state of affairs in America today, though. Both parties spend all of their time trying to appease their base and ignoring everyone else. It just reinforces the divisions in our society rather than bringing people together.
Posted by Captain Noble

There is some merit to that, but there is a real problem with special interest groups that are overtly hostile to one Party or the other, or are absolutely marginal in clout and value - pulling a hissy fit when candidates decide their time is better spent elsewhere. (The scheduling conflict excuse is sometimes a dodge simply to avoid - but most of the time, it reflects a value judgement that Obama is better off in Malibu getting money than attending the Annual Conference of Western cattle ranchers and horsemen. Or McCain is better off trying to rebuild his South Carolina organization than answering questions from a small special interest group of Arabs demanding more Visas and less Israel.

No Democrats showed up for the Fundies "Values Conference" after two decades of Religious Right demonizing them? Awww, what an outrage?

No Republicans showed up for the NAACP after the NAACP has proved itself to be a white-bashing auxilliary of the Democratic Party? The "Klan with the tan"? Shocking! As was the Republican failure to show up at the gay activist Panderfest and be denounced as the heartless bigoted monsters the Gay Agenda maintains they are on stage with the Dem candidates loving the roasting...

Certain groups get both Parties rushing to send candidates to them. AARP, American Legion, Jewish Groups, Catholics get 'em all at the Al Smith dinner. The reason is they are not seen as dead set against one Party, plus they either have the numbers (AARP) or the money (Jewish groups) that makes for true clout in 2007 America.

And all the various interest groups that have set up their various Arab, Armenian, Indian, Disabled, China Trade, Darfur, Hispanic, NoNukes, Hawaiian Reparations, "end gill net fishing" Institutes - all seem to think that if AIPAC or AARP gets the candidates rolling in, they have a similar "right".
No they don't.
It's clout and candidates selecting now who can help win their Party nomination. Not the general election.
When the general campaign starts, and Wisconsin seems that it could be a swing state, the Association of Hmong Peoples can expect visits. Not now. When the general campaign starts, you can expect hispanic media to get candidates galore, just as you can expect that Republicans will interact little with the left-leaning association of aggrieved and perpetually angry black journalists, but will meet with the Association of Black Business Owners. Just as the Democrats will meet with anti-War Christian pacifist groups but avoid Texas megachurches like the plague.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 28, 2007 7:40 PM

No Democrats showed up for the Fundies "Values Conference" after two decades of Religious Right demonizing them? Awww, what an outrage?

Chris Ford,

Could it be possible that none of the Democrats were even invited to attend the conference? Why would someone attend a conference if they were not invited in the first place.

Posted by MGJ | October 28, 2007 7:52 PM

"The Klan with the tan." So, I'm assuming that somehow this means Chris Ford secretly dresses up on hot summer nights and rides through rural Mississippi, knocking on doors dressed as the NAACP, and threatening to give people Civil Rights if they don't vote Republican?

Posted by El Cid | October 28, 2007 8:29 PM

Does anyone doubt that AIPAC was keeping track of attendance and threatening, expressly (but not publicly) or implicitly, that anyone supporting the Palestinians would pay in $$$ or otherwise.

Posted by chet | October 28, 2007 8:52 PM

No Republicans showed up for the NAACP

Not true - Tancredo had the guts to show up and speak. But I think he was the only one.

Posted by bbartlog | October 28, 2007 11:10 PM

Bush, under the direction of Rove and Norquist, put on a big push for the Arab-American vote in 2000, calling for eliminating two anti-terrorist policies (the use of secret evidence from informants and ethnic profiling at airports) in his second debate with Gore on 10/11/2000. He still lost Michigan anyway, and subsequent events of 9/11/2001 made Bush's anti-anti-terrorist stance of 2000 appear to be a losing proposition at the polls.

All that said, the AAI is a respectable ethnic lobby, run by well-assimilated Arab-Americans like the Zogbys. It's not at all like some of the more sinister Muslim lobbies.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 29, 2007 12:40 AM

It's not at all like some of the more sinister Muslim lobbies.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 29, 2007 12:40 AM

>>>>>

We have sinister Muslim Lobbies? Which ones would they be?

Posted by Renfro | October 29, 2007 12:54 AM

Oh, like the one Grover Norquist and Karl Rove put together:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/rove_means.htm

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/norquist.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 29, 2007 1:12 AM

Why would the Republican candidates give this conference a second thought? The only votes they're going to get are from people who would want them to *bomb* such a conference, not attend it.

Why, if any of them were caught on tape being friendly and accommodating to a person of Arab descent, their primary chances would vanish overnight.

Posted by a1 | October 29, 2007 2:30 AM

"I live in Michigan, and I'm not altogether sure that the Arab-American voters are that important in order for a candidate to win the Michigan primary."

They probably aren't, but when a candidate addresses the AIPAC convention, or the NAACP convention, or the student body at Bob Jones University, the candidate is doing more than simply trying to win the votes of the people in the audience. The candidate is also sending a message to the rest of the electorate about where the candidate stands. I'm not an Arab-American, but I don't want our country to be plagued by anti-Arab bigotry, so I am more likely to vote for a candidate who can demonstrate that he is comfortable meeting with Arab Americans and discussing their problems.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | October 29, 2007 4:13 AM

Democratic candidates were traditionally biased against Arab-Americans. The NYT reported in 1996 that

"... Walter F. Mondale returned donations made by Arab-Americans to his 1984 Presidential campaign or when Michael S. Dukakis told a group of Arab-Americans in 1988 that he did not want their Presidential endorsement. ''I wouldn't say we are considered a critical group yet,'' said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. ''But they're starting to view us as a legitimate vote group to pay attention to.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E3D81239F933A05753C1A960958260

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 29, 2007 4:59 AM

So the Republicans have been successful at demonizing the Arab-Americans to the point where even Democrats find them radioactive. Really sad.

Posted by bob h | October 29, 2007 7:44 AM

Some fodder for Steve Sailer. BTW, great conspiranoid piece by Counterpunch loon Dave Lindorff
in the latest issue of The American Conservative on the Minot AFB "missing nukes" story.
http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/2007/06/27/islamisation-of-david-keene-american-conservative-union/'

June 27, 2007 by Christine | 910 Group | 20:28:12 | |

David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union (ACU), has been moving, along with several other paleo-conservatives like Dinesh D’Souza, towards a partnership with Saudi-funded, pro-Hamas institutions. A forewarning was the appointment of Grover Norquist to the ACU board.(SNIP)
Towards a United Front of the ACU with the Progressive Left!

Posted by Michael Pugliese | October 29, 2007 9:33 AM

I think the Democrats get a (partial) pass on this, simply because the state of Michigan and the DNC are having a fight over primary dates.

The big three Dems have all agreed not to campaign in state, and several of them (I know Obama, not sure about the others) have removed their names from the primary ballot.

The DNC gave them all a "free pass" to attend this conference, but without a meaningful campaign in the state, most of them felt their time would be better spent elsewhere.

The Republicans are pandering to a nasty strain of prejudice in their base. The candidates are not necessarily anti-Arab themselves (Tancredo aside), but it's pretty clear that being in the same room as the A-AI is a vote loser in he GOP primaries. Distasteful, but true.

It's painful not to see major candidates there, but intra-party conflict is a better explanation for the Dems than hostility. As for the GOP, uggh.

Posted by heedless | October 29, 2007 9:47 AM

I have a simpler explanation: Americans can't go to bed at night without at least one group to sh*t on.

Name a time when that wasn't true?

Posted by Matthew | October 29, 2007 2:17 PM