The Arab islamochristian James Zogby recently pontificated from his well-funded and influential think tank:
“The reasons [i.e, the reasons why "Arab Americans" -- obviously he means Muslims and other non-Muslim Arab dhimmis like him -- are overwhelmingly disenchanted with Republicans and will thus vote for Obama] are not so much faith as that the Republican Party has just turned them off, especially on the Muslim side, when you have everything from loyalty oaths in the Republican debate, whether Muslims should take an extra loyalty oath; the notion that you never met a Middle East country that you didn’t want to bomb; the very hard line on almost every issue involving the Middle East.
I used to think I didn't have enough evidence for the principle or factor I kept noticing -- which we could call Pipes' Law (in honor of that gold standard of the soft-on-Muslims Counter-Jihad analyst, Daniel Pipes) -- namely, that it doesn't matter how careful we try to be, in our criticism of Islam, to be soft on Muslims and to anxiously assure our audience that we "don't mean ALL Muslims" and that we are "not racists" because "Islam is not a race" -- they still treat us exactly as though we had said we are against ALL Muslims and want to round them all up and put them in camps.
So, after seeing this prominent and publicly influential statement from Zogby, in which he is preposterously caricaturing the Republican position on Muslims as though Republicans want to bomb all Muslim countries etc. -- when Republicans have been for the most part maddeningly soft on Islam for years -- I see one more piece of evidence, out of umpteen I've seen over the past few years, for the operative reality of Pipes' Law.
Certainly, some Republicans have been incrementally better than Democrats on various issues revolving around the problem of Islam (more or less, depending on the particular issue); but with one or two mild exceptions, Republicans and other "conservatives" have been nowhere near where they should be (which would approximate Zogby's caricature and, in certain respects, frankly, go beyond it).
In response to Pipes' Law. then, I proffer Hesperado's Law:
§ § § § §
The Pipes Dream, revisited