On January 20, 2001, George W. Bush was sworn-in as the country's 43 president. In one America’s closest elections, Muslim Americans were optimistic for the future. For the first-time ever, they had organized a coalition of major political and civic organizations, and based on Pres. Bush’s supportive position on a series of domestic and international issues important to the Muslim community, Muslim Americans offered a unified endorsement of the former Texas governor.

Then-Governor Bush readily met with Muslim American leaders, actively sought Muslim American support, and was the first presidential candidate to invite a Muslim to open a session of a national convention with a prayer. And in the second presidential debate, in response to a question regarding racial profiling by law enforcement, he sought out the opportunity to further condemn the Clinton administration's use of "secret evidence” against individuals suspected of supporting terrorism.

Estimates vary, but between 75 and 80 percent of Muslim American voters supported Bush. Indeed, in Florida alone, an estimated 30,000 Muslims voted Republican. After his inauguration, President Bush met with prominent Muslim American leaders such as Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, Shaikh Hamza Yusuf, and Imam Warith Deen Muhammad and was the first president since President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, to visit an American mosque when, just days after 9/11, he visited a mosque in Washington, DC and warned Americans against anti-Muslim bigotry and violence. And throughout his term, President Bush has appointed several Muslim Americans to senior positions in his administration.

A seat at the American political table - For me, the Democratic Party was a natural fit. For me the core values of my faith are belief in God, and to treat others as I would want to be treated. For me, the Democratic Party most closely embraces those values: A desire to help the poor through social programs. A desire to work in a more multilateral manner in the international community. (Read more...)

Muslim Americans have come a long way. Just fourteen years before, a nascent group of Arab and Muslim political activists had organized a coalition and offered to endorse then Democratic Presidential candidate Walter Mondale. Shunning the group's support, Mondale added insult to injury by encouraging Arab and Muslim Americans to vote Republican.

That was 1984; now its 2007, and another generation of Muslim Americans are faced with a host of candidates from both sides of the partisan aisle, not to mention the many third-party, vanity and fringe candidates. Not having lived under a rock the past several years, I'm fully aware of the anger and frustration many Americans, including Muslim Americans, feel toward our elected leaders in Washington. The war in Iraq, excessive spending, the rising cost of healthcare, and the urgent need for improvements in infrastructure in places such New Orleans and Minneapolis, to name a few, have caused many to shake their fist at the powers-that-be.

But if President Bush's approval ratings are in the basement; the Democrat-controlled Congress, under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are exploring even deeper subterranean depths still. Exploiting voters' frustrations into narrow victories in 2006, Democrats have done little to propose any solutions to our current challenges, whether foreign or domestic. If anything, they've embraced Reagan's humorous yet fitting description of Democrats and their love of government: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. Just days after assuming control of congress, Democrats immediately set about proposing record increases in taxes on working Americans, increased economic and regulatory burdens on small businesses, and have utterly failed to propose any solutions to our challenges in Iraq, on healthcare, or for that matter, anything else.

And this brings us to the next election in 2008. Hillary Clinton supported and voted to go to war in Iraq, as did former candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and John Edwards. All are attempting to tap-dance around the fact now that the war has become unpopular. Regardless of how you felt about going in to Iraq, none of the Democratic candidates are providing an honest solution to the ongoing conflict.

Having missed the chance to vote on the war in Iraq, Barack Obama recently attempted to show his mettle claiming he's open to bombing Pakistan. The remaining Democratic candidates — including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — favor significant increases in our taxes, government spending and power, strangling regulations and legal liabilities on small businesses and medical practices, a more secular anti-religious society, and limits on personal liberty and free trade.

For example, in a Democratic debate hosted by a gay, lesbian and transgender association in August, Edwards advocated mandating that public schools teach students that same-sex relationships are a healthy alternative to "traditional" marriage. Regardless of your position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, most agree that this issue is better handled by parents according to their own personal moral and religious values, and not unknown public school administrators.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul stand for more individual freedom and opportunity. The Republican candidates support lower taxes, including preserving the Bush tax cuts, abolishing the death tax, keeping the capital gains tax at 15 percent or lower, and reducing the regulatory burden on all of us. The Republicans support reforming the tort laws so trial lawyers (like John Edwards) don't threaten to bankrupt every doctor and small business owner in America. They stand for individual choice and freedom in healthcare, parental choice in education, religious freedom of expression, free trade, limited government and reduced government spending. In facing today's many challenges, the Republican candidates look to empowering individuals and families, and not expanding the power and reach of the federal government.

For example, as Governor of Massachusetts, Republican candidate Mitt Romney successfully introduced a program providing universal healthcare for Massachusetts residents that provided a level of choice and quality that no single-payer socialized system could ever provide. Republican candidate Ron Paul has called for a less-intrusive foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, and John McCain has taken on the wasteful government spending including earmarks (a friend once remarked, "earmarks are the entry 'drug' for harder spending addiction"), corruption, and has fought against those calling for the use of torture.

Regardless of your party-registration or which candidate you support, its imperative that Muslim Americans remain engaged in the political process. Like our fellow-Americans, we deserve a seat at the table, but we must earn that seat through hard work, intelligent dialogue, and constructive engagement. In registering to vote, organizing strategic coalitions, and sustained political discourse, we will not only preserve and protect our cherished rights and freedoms, but we will contribute to our country and freedom-loving people everywhere.

Isn't an expansion of the power and reach of the government exactly what Republicans did?

I hope a lesson has been learned from the train-wreck of the last 7 years of Republican rule.

If Muslims of America vote for Republicans (whose Agenda is to destroy Middle East), than they are the enemies of the Ummah and can't be seen as part of it and its friends.

this could have been written by a christian right republican.

to ignore the fact that we are entering a recession, are a trillion dollars in debt to foreign powers, our civil liberties have been trashed by the patriot act- the 'excessive spending' charge lays squarely on the republican congress and presidency- the rising helath care costs lay on the republicans rolling over to support insurance and drug company lobbies-

bush has vowed to (and acted upon) veto every bill that passes his desk drafted by the democratic (barely) majority congress.

just because the republicans batted an eye at a neglected block of muslim voters desparate for attention in 2000 doesnt mean that they were served.

the same people who are drawn to the fear mongering message of the republicans are the same fundamnetalities that allowed themselves to be dragged into a never ending occupation of iraq-

i ssume the author also is in a tax bracket comfortable enough to shield himself from the realities that haunt the average american.

to try and scare future muslims into voting republican again means you must believe most muslims are FOB, have no real idea how this government actually functions, and can be alarmed into voting republican because secularists and homosexuals are invading our schools and corrupting our children.

democrats are a great deal more than 'tax and spend'.

and the voodoo economics of reagan simply DID NOT WORK-
giving tax breaks to the wealthiest didnt encourage them to invest in america- and let the rest of us lap up the crumbs of the trickle down benefits-
it allowed them to outsource jobs and production-

weve had 8 years of paranoia, islamophobia masquerading as patriotism, tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of the population.
flagrant disregard for the anti-trust laws that are supposed to protect us from big corporations- (look at the efforts of the fcc to allow 3 or 4 big corporations to buy up every radio station, newspaper and television station)
look at the miliary commissions act of 2006- the presidential directive of the homeland security #51 that gives the president dictatorial powers in the case of (his own definition) emergency- which allows him to supercede congressional action-
the republican admin which has given us enron- haliburton and blackwater-

3rd part, vanity and fringe? would that include the incorruptible ralph nader whose watcdog consumer advocacy and safety standards have been silently protecting americans since the 70s?

frankly, most muslims in the mosques seem basically unaware of the politics in america, and are waiting for someone who seems to know what theyre talking about to tell them what to do-

and many now recognize how they were misled by upper middle class advocates of the republicans in 2000.

i personally find these politics of fear repellent and irresponsible.

america is a secular country-

to complain about secualarism in america is to be unaware of the country you are living in.

moist americans are waking up from th fog of war that has consumed public discourse and distracted us for 7 years-

domestic issues are increasingly at the forefront of the american consciousness-
(the demise of rudy (911) guliani proves this)

the republicans are scrambling for an issue to latch onto- have no cohesion- are disorganized without the galvanizing issues of 'terror' to exploit the american voter.

as for the votes of the dems- joe biden has been offering a full and infomred program of action in iraq since the inception of the war- predicted exactly what would happen there-
and like the other dems- voted for the funding of the war-

there are so many betrayals of the republicans to the average american they cannot be enumerated.

and this author is trying to use the same stale tricks that got us into this debacle that is the past admin-

not everyone is so easily frightened, or distracted by the mention of the bogeyman "homosexual" to run for the GOPs.

NO- MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR THE "CONSERVATIVES"

>> america is a secular country-
to complain about secualarism in america is to be unaware of the country you are living in. <<<

Secular country. Phtt. Really. Oh yeah! And I am the King of Israel.

>>moist americans are waking up from th fog of war that has consumed public discourse and distracted us for 7 years-<<

moist Americans? You mean drunks? What about dry Americans? They seem to me to be equally intoxicated with their power.

well i guess its all things to all people then hajibaba-

too religious for you and too secular for the author-

it's SUPPOSED to be a secular country-
but anyway-

my keys stick- i often have to go back over my posts and redo them-
but after iposted this inoticed the mosistness also-

clealry i meant it to be most- since i used the phrase seriously-
but now, im thinking its kind of poetic-

the dampened spirits of the moist americans as they emerge from the foggy obscurant mists of war-

yup- i like it better

yours for rhyme and reason your highness

Here is a very nice analysis of the current political situation. I found it to be very succint. Which for those whose english is not very good, is not the same as moist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/comment/story/0,,2249657,00.html

And what I find true is that America is not really one homogenous place. And for those whose English not verrry good, thats not the same as homoyouknowhat.

According to the Grott-Eskley 'Model of Human Social Bond Formation, peoples in America are searching to form identities that are other than "American" because the place is so vast and "secular" that most people do not feel part of anything being American. Thats why America is splitting up into smaller "states within states". There is the "fundo religious right" currently in power, the so-called East-Coast Bleeding Heart Liberals (like peace4all), the 'Marines' (like McCain and OmarG) >>>wail lez jus blow em up<<< and various other nutto subgroupings including the so-called "American-Muslims" (including ***no comments***).

The only Republican I would consider voting for would be Ron Paul, and this is because he goes against his party-line and is against the War and is committed to changing US Foreign Policy.

But since he has no chance in Hell to win, I would vote for either Barrack or Hillary.

Majority of Republicans are against Muslims. Look at what Mitt Romney said...he will not even consider having a Muslim on his advisory staff!

Don't vote for Conservatives!

Speaking for myself, I actually *REALLY* strongly resented the fact that a coalition of Muslim organizations endorsed Bush back in 2000. It made me seriously reconsider whether any of those groups involved in the endorsement really represented my as a Musliom. One of the largest segments of Muslims in the US (about 40%+) is African-American/Blackamerican and are more likely to vote Democratic. In fact a number of competing Muslim organizations were formed in order to endorse the other candidate.

I don't want to be divisive but an article like the above makes me think of Muslims in America as already split between wealthy immigrants who are voting according to their pocketbooks and indigenous Muslims who are voting more on local social justice concerns.

Suhail Khan definitely doesn't represent my views as a Muslim and I feel that the above article presents a distorted picture of the American political realities which voters should keep in mind. A few photo ops with Muslim leaders and a few token appointments to his administration don't suddenly turn Bush and the Republicans into friends of the ummah. The way Khan mentions free trade, taxes, capital gains, and regulations in the above again, make me think that he is basing his endorsement of conservatives on his pocketbook rather than Islamic principles or the best interests of the ummah, either in the United States or abroad.

I don't like sweeping generalizations and I think one could probably find exceptions, but in the US many of the conservatives are going to be beholden to the Christian religious right which is at times is candidly anti-Islamic. Moreover when the religious right expresses a concern for religious freedom, they generally mean the right of Christianity to impose itself on everyone else (public nativity scenes, ten commandment displays, prayer [typically Christian] in school) and so I would say that Muslim religious freedom is more likely to be protected by the left.

For obvious reasons, Barack Hussein Obama is going to be slightly more understanding to Muslim issues. He's also going to have a lot of pressure to not appear "soft" on Muslims but I still think that on balance he's going to be better to have in the white house than someone who is openly anti-Islamic like Guiliani or Romney. I'm saying that not just as a Muslim but as an American.

I have no idea what low-level, opportunistic Republican hack the writer of this post really is, but all empirical evidence points to the fact that among Conservative circles Muslims/Islam are considered at or below the level of child molestors, rapists, and homosexuals. A cursory glance at right wing talk radio, blogs, or Fox News should be enough to confirm that. Among the candidates in particular, this article in Salon refutes nearly all the garbage the writer wrote above:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/02/01/islamophobia/

regards,
sh