The New York Times claims that Arabs in the US are raising money for Bush. The story argues that, contrary to public opinion polls which seem to show that the vast majority of Arab Americans are disgusted with Bush, other Arabs do like him.
Interesting thesis. It wouldn't be surprising that there is diversity in the political opinions of any particular community, ethnic or otherwise. And it wouldn't be surprising if, in particular, support for Bush comes from wealthy Arab Americans who are among that small class which disproportionately benefit from his tax cuts.
But wait. What's the evidence for the article's claims? The article identifies three principle people. First there is "Mori Hosseini, the Iranian-born chief executive of ICI Homes, a home builder in Daytona Beach, Fla." Um, being Iranian born makes you Iranian, not Arab. Who else? Next up is "Yousif Ghafari, a Lebanese Christian who came to the United States in 1972 and now heads his own engineering firm." Okay, that's an Arab at least, although the Lebanese Christian community has always produced its fair share of Republicans. And then there's "Dr. Malik Hasan, a native of Pakistan and the former chief executive of Foundation Health Systems of Denver, one of the largest health maintenance organizations." Wait a minute - Pakistani? Since when have Pakistanis been Arabs?
So two thirds of the evidence for "Arabs" supporting Bush is actually non-Arab.
This isn't one of those tedious "the Times is biased" arguments... just bemused bafflement at some really bad reporting.
[Thanks toBedouina for the tip!]
UPDATE: Slate's Jack Shafer picks up the story. Better late than never! And really, this story deserves all the ridicule it can get.
Well, to be fair to the Times (I can't believe I'm saying that), the lead does say "Arab-Americans and foreign-born Muslims", even though the article is mostly framed around the whole "wealthy Arab" motif. I guess they couldn't find as many as they thought were out there.
It would have been much more informative if the writer had looked into the personal histories of the people for possible reasons for their support of Bush (pro-shah Iranian exiles hoping the ayatollahs get it next?). But, instead, the Times chose to do a fluff article about how Bush can reach out to everyone. Sad.
Posted by: Manumission | February 17, 2004 at 06:18 PM
Well, I guess they figured that if they raised money for anyone else, Ashcroft would throw them in the slammer for a couple of years while he investigated where they money was going. They're at least safe giving money to Bush.
Stupid New York Times.
Posted by: Ananna | February 17, 2004 at 08:41 PM