Illinois likes politicians with weird names

Illinois voters have gone and done something crazy once again. First they elected Ba-rack O-bam-a as a U.S. Senator, and now conservative DuPage County has gone and elected Moin Moon Khan and Esin Busche as township trustees. The Chicago Tribune (free registration required) reports:

No one would mistake a gathering of DuPage County Republicans for the United Nations, but the party took a significant step last week toward shaking its image as a party dominated by “old white-haired men” when Moin Moon Khan and Esin Busche were elected township trustees.

Party officials say as far as they can tell, Khan, an Indian-born longtime Chicago-area activist who works as a computer network administrator, and Busche, a Turkish-born chemist, are the first Muslim Republicans elected to public office anywhere in the state–and a symbol of the party’s new outreach effort in a rapidly diversifying county.

“This is a small office, and for me it may be a very small individual achievement,” said Khan. “However, I think it’s a giant milestone for the minority communities in general and the Muslim American community in particular.”

What’s even more astonishing is that Khan beat out someone named “Bob Wagner.” I found the following quote by Rasheed Ahmed, coordinator of the Illinois Muslim Political Coordinating Council, quite interesting:

Muslims don’t tend to naturally gravitate to either party, Ahmed said, because there are parts of both the Democratic and Republican positions that appeal to them.

There was also this little gem by Paul Hinds, chairman of the York Township Republican Party.

“We get pegged too much as 70-year-old white-haired men. That’s a stereotype we always have to work against,” he said. “That’s not what we are.”

Moon’s personal story is quite inspiring as related at NRI-Worldwide:

Khan, who came to the US in 1986 with, plans to become a journalist, switched to computers after getting a journalism degree from the University of Georgia, because being a scribe “was not financially lucrative”.

But politics was in his veins, he said, and when he moved to Illinois, he founded the Bihar Cultural Association and served on the boards of more than a dozen civic organisations in the past 15 years.

“Being a scribe was not financially lucrative?” Yeah, no sh*t.

24 thoughts on “Illinois likes politicians with weird names

  1. Why is it surprising that someone named Khan beat out someone named Wagner?

    Assumptions about The Midwest and Southern states Seem to be in there

    Ok, not fair! You’re just paraphrasing Paul Hinds who must know his corner of the Republican Party.

    Not criticizing! Just commenting. Not male-gynistic, by any means. Love SM! Love contributors! Do not mean to add to negative comment vibes when feel only positive things about said blog and blog posters….

    PS: Sorry about the silly comment. I have been ‘previewing’ chick lit books for someone and can’t stop writing like this. Must stop and read something more substantive. It’s killing me.

  2. MD: “Why is it surprising” A: I think 9 out of 10 people would find it surprising that a Muslim guy could win in a heavily Republican district. The Republican party after all has been highjacked by Christian Conservatives

    MD: Assumptions about The Midwest and Southern states Seem to be in there A: Of course, but I have lived in the midwest, including Illinois (where I was born), as well as the South (Texas), so I feel qualified to make assumptions.

    MD: Ok, not fair! You’re just paraphrasing Paul Hinds A: Actually I quoted him

    MD: Do not mean to add to negative comment vibes A: I see nothing at all negative in your comments

    MD: I have been ‘previewing’ chick lit books A: I have been chewing chick-lets.

    🙂

  3. I think 9 out of 10 people would find it surprising that a Muslim guy could win in a heavily Republican district.

    Similarly, I think 9 out of 10 liberals would find it surprising that

    Conventional Wisdom sure holds lots of surprises.

  4. Here is my take on your stats:

    – 30% of Gays voted for Bush –> Sad – 70% of Vietnamese voted for Bush –> Anti-communists vote (still greatful to America for saving them from the North Vietnamese) – 60% of Filipino’s –> mostly 1st gen conservative Christians I’ll bet – 40% of Latinos –> mostly conservative Christians – the highest ranking minority cabinet posts in the last 20 yrs were put in place by the GOP (Condi, Colin, Gonzales, etc.) –> Gee, I wonder why – Another strange name – Bobby Jindal – won by a 78% landslide — now we know that Lousianna is the boondocks but are 78% of them really Christian Fundamentalists? –> Umm, when have I ever stated that EVERYONE that voted for Jindal was a fundie? That’s silly. Also, Jindal isn’t Muslim so it’s kind of irrelevant to bring him into this discussion.

  5. Another strange name – Bobby Jindal – won by a 78% landslide…

    But lost for governor against a woman whose last name means ‘white.’

    40% of Latinos –> mostly conservative Christians

    No, Dubya’s a Texan and down with Latinos. His bro speaks Spanish, and he proposed immigration amnesty.

  6. My point to commenting on the above stats, was simply to offer that the new recruits to the GOP’s big tent are virtually all religious conservatives (and people scared by terrorism who want big brother to protect them). Believe it or not, the older I’ve gotten the more fiscally conservative I have become. I actually now agree with several traditional Republican principles. The problem is that my acceptance of some of those priniciples is totally diminished by the baggage that comes with it. Vinod, I think you’ll agree that Danforth’s op-ed in the New York Times said it best.

  7. Similarly, I think 9 out of 10 liberals would find it surprising that – 30% of Gays voted for Bush – 70% of Vietnamese voted for Bush – 60% of Filipino’s – 40% of Latinos

    Vinod, you yourself stated on your blog that these stats are “of dubious value”…You seem quite comfortable with supporting your arguments with dubious evidence.

    Bobby Jindal – won by a 78% landslide — now we know that Lousianna is the boondocks but are 78% of them really Christian Fundamentalists?

    Interesting question….would 78% of that Louisiana district vote for “Piyush Jindal”? I highly doubt-doubt it….

  8. No, Dubya’s a Texan and down with Latinos. His bro speaks Spanish, and he proposed immigration amnesty.

    He actually didn’t propose legalization. He proposed a program that would allow undocumented workers to get a marginal status and leave them tied to their employers. It’s more like the H1 program (but for strawberry pickers, not software engineers, so you can imagine how much less power they would have) than it is like any of the legalization programs we’ve seen in the past.

  9. My point to commenting on the above stats, was simply to offer that the new recruits to the GOP’s big tent are virtually all religious conservatives (and people scared by terrorism who want big brother to protect them).

    Abhi, I agree with your general point that the meaning that Vinod took from those (highly dubiously sourced) stats is off. I think your rseponse is a little oversimplified though.

    Among queer folks, there’s a strong subset of White gay men and other assimilationists who want to ally themselves with the people in power more than with the peope who are getting screwed because they’re privileged in many other ways (class, race, etc.).

    Filipinos traditionally vote Republican. It doesn’t mean they agree with “Republican principles” (whatever those are) or religion and fear of terrorism as much as (in my opinion) it’s a symptom of immigrant groups getting channeled into machine politics. I’m basing that just on my own family experience (when I told my father to vote for Grandpa Munster on the Green Party ticket for governor of NY in 1999, he said “no, just vote for all the Democrats”). But I don’t really know for sure.

    Anyway, those are just two examples just to demonstrate it’s a bit more complicated than just religion (or social conservatism, which is probably what’s more appealing) and terrorism.

  10. PS: it is sad that 30% of gays voted for the Republicans, but not in the way you think abhi. Imagine wanting gay marriage (which I don’t got a problem with) and believing in the Arab democratic experiment and the liberation of Iraq from Sadam Hussain. Which way would you go? How would you vote? Either way, one party would disappoint you, so you just have to pick one issue to trump the others.

    And as for that whole Condi point – it’s amazing how being a Republican negates things. I mean, if Hillary becomes the next president, even if I don’t vote for her, there will still be a part of me that is proud a woman is president. Even if you don’t agree with Condileeza Rice’s politics, can’t you be just a little glad that an African-American woman has reaches such political heights? I mean, Barack Obama had to make that point in the Condi hearings in front of Byrd and Boxer. Sad.

    This is the main problem I have: I’m not a fan of the social conservatives of the right or left. And they’re there on the left too, telling you what to do and how to spend your money and what you can say and what you can’t – hello Sepia Mutineers and the DRUM post. Don’t you remember? You’ve been Larry Summered yourself, boyos.

  11. so you just have to pick one issue to trump the others

    Agreed. That one issue is increasingly becoming either “values” or hyper-fear of terrorism.

    As far as my point about minority appointments I was being glib. The fact is that if we had a Democrat as president (or a Green or Independent) we would still see an identical or greater increase in minority cabinet appointments as compared to previous administrations. That is the political reality as determined by changing demographics (and political necessity). Therefore that stat line is kind of meaningless to me when looking at differences between the parties at the cabinet level.

  12. PS: it is sad that 30% of gays voted for the Republicans, but not in the way you think abhi. Imagine wanting gay marriage (which I don’t got a problem with) and believing in the Arab democratic experiment and the liberation of Iraq from Sadam Hussain. Which way would you go? How would you vote? Either way, one party would disappoint you, so you just have to pick one issue to trump the others.

    The better way to frame it is: “imagine if you’re gay and want the same rights as straight people but you’re also wealthy, want tax cuts, fear terrorism inordinately, don’t support government programs you don’t benefit from directly, and may or may not be racist.”

    That’s the breakdown in the community that I see. I don’t believe most people (particularly gay republicans) vote for who they do because they care about the success of the arab democratic experiment.

  13. Also, some other, less shocking numbers for the queer community’s vote:

    77% for Kerry, which is confirmed here. I’m not sure if they’re referring to the same exit polls, but I find these numbers more plausible.

    BTW, the latter source notes that a higher percentage of LGBT voters voted for Kerry than Gore (77 to 70) and that Bush’s support dropped by 2% (but that’s, i guess, statistically insignificant).

  14. said Khan. “However, I think it’s a giant milestone for the minority communities in general and the Muslim American community in particular.”

    What happened to being born in India Mo Fo ?

  15. Well, Saurav, how do you know that ‘breakdown’ exactly? Have you talked to every single one of the 30%? Have you interviewed all of them, cut windows into their souls? Polygraph?

    Nice. I’m so glad I’ve got you to tell me what’s in my head, otherwise how would I know that I’m a wealthy, corrupt, evil person who may or may not be racist? I’m so glad you spoke truth to power 🙂

  16. Well, Saurav, how do you know that ‘breakdown’ exactly? Have you talked to every single one of the 30%? Have you interviewed all of them, cut windows into their souls? Polygraph?

    One: I’m sorry if I offended you. Two: I’m speaking as a queer person that attended a post-election meeting for queer folks with over 100 folks who presented different perspectives, had many conversations with queer people about the election, watched a documentary on queer republicans, and generally follows queer politics and engages with other queer activists because i care about this stuff. Also, the trends I’m pointing to are not restricted to this election but are more general. When disempowered groups start getting treated a little better, the better-off segments among them often bolt to the other side as fast as possible.

    Three: I wasn’t saying that everyone who’s queer and votes Republican is doing those things or anything about you in particular. What I was saying is that’s the general trend I sense and is intuitive to me given what I’ve seen in other communities as well (like the desi community, for instance, which also has divides between haves and have-notes (on class, immigration status, sexuality, etc.).

    Of course I could be wrong, just like anyone else. I’m just presenting my semi-informed opinion (like you).

  17. No offense taken Saurav – just being tongue in cheek.

    Yes, I can understand how you would be hurt by the rhetoric and actions of this administration. I am sorry and please understand that not everyone on the right has a problem with equality for gays. I wish you only the best.

    But we will have to agree to disagree on this one: I think that most people on the right and their counterparts on the left are good people who simply disagree on how to solve problems; and even on what the main problems we face are. I think most people act in good faith. Maybe in that way, I am naive.

    Take care.

  18. Alot of the exit polls were wrong or misreported. Bush probably got 30-35% of the Latino vote nationwide rather than 44%:

    Two of the three major exit polls conducted in 2004 showed Bush receiving record levels of 44% (Edison/Mitofsky poll) and 45% (Los Angeles Times poll) of the Latino vote. A third poll, conducted by the Willie C. Velazquez Research Institute, found 31.4% support for Bush and 67.7% for Kerry—a pattern more consistent with historical data and pre-election polling right up to the election. Yet, despite this notable discrepancy “the 44% figure was accepted by many and often repeated.” In none of 10 pre-election surveys conducted between June 2003 and October 2004 … did support for President Bush reach 40% among Latinos. In 9 of those surveys, the president received less than 35% of the anticipated Latino vote. Moreover, the researchers found that “with regard to education, income, age, and immigrant status, every subsection of the Latino electorate stated a vote preference lower than 35% for President Bush.” While the data does show that President Bush received strong support among Cuban-Americans and non-Catholic Christian Latinos (6% and 18% of the overall Latino electorate), the combined numbers of these two subgroups is simply too small to push overall Latino support to a level of 44%. Similarly, the national exit poll results suggested that Bush won among Latinos in Texas by 59–41%; instead, preliminary official vote totals indicate that Kerry did much better among Texan Latinos, winning comfortably in the heavily Latino counties near the Mexico border. The upshot is that the president would have to have won 80% or more of the urban Latino vote in Texas to offset this advantage—a development rendered unlikely by preliminary vote totals from heavily Latino districts in Dallas, where Kerry is estimated to have won 71% of the overall Latino vote. The “data provide little evidence that President Bush received the 44% level of support from Latinos estimated by the 2004 exit polls,” … and “it seems more logical to conclude that the exit polls mistakenly depicted the Latino vote than to accept that Latino preferences could have changed so substantially in such a short period.”
  19. Alot of the exit polls were wrong or misreported. Bush probably got 30-35% of the Latino vote nationwide rather than 44%:

    Not to mention that exit polls initially predicted Kerry won!

  20. I am wondering why he mentioned the American Muslim community and not the India American community.

    Maybe he was traumatized by too many dirty guju’s Al and has excised it from his mind.

  21. The governor of Illinois wins for weirdest name ever.

    Not really Chris. Polish/Slavic enclaves have been huge number of immigrants in the Chicago area for generations. It was so commonplace while growing up, that I feel I’m a quarter polak..