© the eyeranian

BREAKING NEWS - Ms. Ameri must have contacted her Republican bosses in Washington to correct the GOP website!!!

nrcc.org/nrcc_contents/tools/spotlights/ameri.shtml NOW says "The Iranian-born Ameri left Iran in 1973 to come to the United States ... " rather than the previously false claim that "The Iranian-born Ameri left Iran in 1973 during the Islamic Revolution ...". This change happened just in the last 24-48 hours.

So Mr. Pedram, your blog is being noticed by the Washington pols -- and Republicans at that. BRAVO!

Now what is left for Ms. Ameri to clarify from the recent exchange at http://www.eyeranian.net/2004/01/17,692.shtml is whether she, as The Washington Post reports online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/candidates/21968/
, is an "Agnostic" or not. Previously The Willamette Week published an interview with Ms. Ameri in December 2003 in which she said:
"although I don't really practice a particular religion, I have a very deep faith in God." (http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=4667&page=3)

Why has there not been a discussion of these interesting details before? Hopefully this is just the beginning of voters challenging candidates to answer, clarify and, if need be, correct.

One correction down, one clarification to go -- for now.

Posted by: at August 3, 2004 01:57 PM

It seems to me like we are doing a lot of nitpicking. Are these real, substantiated claims that Goli Ameri is deliberately misleading the press and public? Or are we finding minor errors in remote places in order to demonize her candidacy?

Willamette Week clearly misreported information on its own, since Goli Ameri told them she was at Stanford for both graduate and undergraduate work (which means that she would have been in California until at least 1979, seeing as undergrad is 4 years and masters is 2 years, and that's assuming that she did not even take a few years off to work in between, as most people do), as well as a few years working in the Bay Area. If you read her bio on the washingtonpost.com, you'll see that they took a lot of the information from other news articles available online. Therefore, I do not believe that information is directly provided by the campaign, especially seeing as the Washington Post has to find that information on 435 different House races...meaning listing at least 870 different candidates. There are bound to be minor errors. ESPECIALLY seeing as some people do define agnostics as people who do not adhere to a particular organized relgion, regardless of their views on deities. And wait...Why is this an issue again? Because Pedram claims that Iranian-Americans cannot be properly represented by an agnostic? Sounds very discriminatory if you ask me.

I respect the Ameri campaign for having corrected the NRCC's error. What I do not respect is demonizing a candidate because of his or her political views. Goli's positions on key issues, even if we do not like them, do not make her a liar. And the NRCC is not Goli Ameri's boss, they simply provide funding for issue ads and offer guidlines for strategies on winning. I don't think they forced her to be pro-choice, for example!

Whoever wrote the posting that said that Goli was born in 1956, then came to the United States in 1973 (and therefore supposedly it is wrong that she was 17) really needs to think about math and birthdays a little harder. How incredibly ridiculous. If her birthday is after September, when she began school, she could still be 17 in 1974 when she started Stanford!!!

Again, we are nitpicking in a borderline absurd manner. Especially seeing as some people cannot even get her last name right. Whoever called her "Mrs. America" needs to go do his or her research before getting all worked up. And someone else complained that she was privileged. So what? Her dad was a doctor, not a mafioso. The majority of Iranians that were able to leave Iran came from at least moderately prosperous families. Goli ALSO says in that interview that she and her husband started with nothing. Even more evidence that her family was persecuted by the Islamic Republic. Lastly, the fact that she went to a telecom conference in Iran shows that she is no neocon. She obviously still cares enough about our country of birth to go there and give a talk about technology issues, a subject on which it seems she is quite an expert. How many Iranian women can claim to be telecom experts?!

The big question, however, is the following: Given her success, why has Goli Ameri's approach been "wrong" to date, as Pedram claims? Why is she full of "fluff" and "hot air?" If she is, why did she seem to piss Pedram off so much? Why are we being so antagonistic towards her? Let's get answers to real questions instead of picking at little details here and there that show the incompetency of the media.

Goli Ameri is going to win. If we're going to be unhappy about it, we better have a darn good reason.

I look forward to taking on some real responses. I still think people are hating on Goli simply because of her political affiliation.

Posted by: Reza at August 3, 2004 06:04 PM

even if she is the star center forward, she still plays for the wrong team.

should anyone be happy that she started lying before even making it to the big leagues? an agnostic with deep believe in god? you need to look up agnostic again.

reza, you need to re-think your loyalties. being happy for the success of another irani just for the fact that they are irani doesn't make sense. khamenei is also irani. should i celebrate his success? how about the basiji working for him or torturer in evin? they're all irani.

now i would not put goli in that category, but she is indeed running as part of a ticket supporting the neo-con administration in power and will toe the party-lines if she's elected. i'd much rather have wu in congress than her, regardless of her ethnic background.

Posted by: javad at August 3, 2004 06:23 PM

"Nitpicking"? "Demonizing"? "Hating"? It seems Reza is the real antagonist. Are you a self-appointed apologist for the Ameri campaign? Or are you in fact connected with her campaign, in which case both you, she and her campaign should make full disclosure.

Now here are your answers:

First, find one time when anyone ever claimed "that Goli Ameri is deliberately misleading the press and public". This is only your imagination; no one has ever claimed or accused, they have only questioned.

Second, your sorry excuse about The Washington Post reporting Mrs. Ameri's religion as "Agnostic" is so ridiculous as to consider a major newspaper like The Post being naive enough to lump all non-Judaeo-Christians into the "Agnostic" column. It is not your job to make up an excuse; it is your candidate's job to clarify, correct or confess.

Third, find one time when anyone wrote that Mrs. Ameri is a "liar". You would be well-served to rethink writing a fraudulent line like "Goli's positions on key issues, even if we do not like them, do not make her a liar." This is a red herring, a strawman -- an excuse to get away from debate on the objective issues via divertsion. Any reference to lying should be refuted - Vasalaam.

Fourth, if you are getting yourself so worked up about what year our dear Mrs. Ameri, at age 17, voluntarily entered the US with a student visa, SHE is the one who has put out this varying info -- not anyone who has written on this blog. If you want to put a blame on anyone, put it on the candidate. It is the candidate who has to clarify and stand behind his/her bio, record and positions -- not you or any one of us.

Fifth, we should all agree with you when you wrote "I respect the Ameri campaign for having corrected the NRCC's error" in implying that her emigration to the US is a result of that previously-unknown revolution of 1973. However, this agreement is tempered by the fact that it in fact has taken the back-and-forth on this blog to oblige the Ameri campaign to correct the GOP website which presumably she, as the candidate, had seen long before this blog exposed the "mistake."

Finally, in the meantime, there is no need for you to fantasize that "we" --whoever "we" refers to -- are "being so antagonistic towards her" or, worse, that "people are hating" Mrs. Ameri. There you go again -- you, and only you, have used such terms and accused others of having such attitudes. You should be looking at your own attitude if you insist on using such fraudulent terms.

No one has ACCUSED Mrs. Ameri of anything. Instead she, as a political candidate, has only been legitimately QUESTIONED, and challenged, to correct, clarify or stand by her self-portrayal -- not her portrayal by others.

Posted by: at August 3, 2004 06:59 PM

Agha Javad makes a valid point: are Iranians, in ghorbat, duty-bound to blindly support every hamvatan-e-azeez -- no matter what nonesense that fellow-Iranian espouses? His example of Khamenei as an Iranian whom we would NOT support is valid. (Of course, we do not consider Khameni, Rafsanjani et al as Iranian patriots -- indeed our ultra-nationalist hamvatanan even refer to the mullahs and their hangers-on as Arabs.) In any case, supporting our community in exile should be encouraged, especially at the humanitarian level. Of course, encouraging success among Iranians in the fields of business/commerce, academics, entertainmentarts, sports/athletics, etc. is also important.

Unfortunately, politics is always suspect to Iranians; not that it should be in and of itself, but Iranians are in general skeptical -- perhaps with good reason. What is worse, especially for a people that is prone to conspiracy theories, is when there is good reason to feed skepticism, such as when not all appears kosher with a policy, politician, candidate or campaign. In any case, let us all encourage the best in others while handling that sometimes unhealthy Iranian dose of doubt. As the Russians saying goes, "trust but verify." That may be the best this first generation of Iranians can do in the yenge-donya.

Posted by: at August 3, 2004 08:09 PM

Well, I hate to be accused of "demonizing" but something is definitly fishy about her claims regarding Iran. I've read her website which has changed quite a bit in a matter of weeks.

It seems to me that in the primary elections and to non-Iranians, especially Republicans, she does not explain that she was already out of Iran when the revolution happened. This is the same kind of "misleading" I suppose that Michael Moore is accused of.

For example, consider the following quote from the Oregonian:

-------------
In vying for the Republican nomination in the 1st District, Ameri shared her life story through TV commercials, showing family pictures as a deep voice recalls how "Goli watched radicals in Iran persecute her family and destroy a nation."
-------------

To average Americans this means she was in Iran, no and's if's or but's about it. She doesn't specifically say it, but how easy was it for her to clear it up. Just to say "she watched from Stanford..." or "She watched from afar..."

Of course average Americans, not knowing these dates from the top of their heads will easily believe that she had a more traumatic experience.

What if Geroge Bush made a commercial with pictures and footage invoking images of Vietnam war with a voice saying "George Bush served his country during the Vietnam War." Wouldn't that be misleading?

-Q

Posted by: Qumars Bolourchian at August 3, 2004 10:20 PM

Write on, Qumars. Witnessing the turmoil of the Iranian revolution from the campus of Stanford University is a heck lot different than being in the thick of things. But when one says that she "witnessed" the turmoil in that country, as you say, "To average Americans this means she was in Iran."

When the average Americans are convinced, for example, that Saddam and Al Qaeda are pretty much one and the same, it is no wonder that all of this foreign stuff can EASILY be lumped together for a public which is content with soap operas and spectator sports than to care a hill o'beans.

Now no one is saying that Mrs. Ameri should have been stuck in the middle of the turmoil in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter. But a little forthrightness from the beginning would have prevented this fiasco which has spread from an Iranian-American blog to the website of the GOP!

The real bottom line here is that for average Americans, ANY Iranian in their midst is more likely than not presumed to be an emigre, if not a refugee, from the theocracy. So it CAN be politically expedient to be seen as a "victim" of the revolution or its consequences, even if one was not.

And for us Iranians, let's be frank: the VAST majority of Iranians who studying here in the 1970s had EVERY intention to return to the Mamlekat-e-Shahanshai, had it not been for the fact that the Mamlekat got transformed into an ayatollocracy. This is especially true for someone who, even now 25 years later, says that her family was "definitely" privileged under the Setamshahi rule.

Those Iranian-Americans who were here long (that means at least a full half-decade) before the revolution resent being lumped into a generic "refugee" status by average Americans -- due in part to people like Mrs. Ameri who was herself neither a refugee nor is she barred from traveling to Iran. Let's bring that back into this discussion: if the revolution in Iran caused turmoil which even led to the death of one of her uncles, and now she is openly campaigning in the Bush "Axis of Evil" GOP, what is she doing visiting the Islamic republic???

Reza Khan, don't be so sure she is going to win.

Posted by: at August 3, 2004 10:55 PM

It doesn't seem to end...check out this one:

The night Mrs. Ameri handily won the GOP primary, in May 2004, she told The Oregonian newspaper that her father "left Iran during the country's revolution and lives in France." She continued with the saga: "It's an amazing journey our family has been through . . . You can be chased out of your native land and 25 years later, your daughter is a Republican candidate for Congress..." (www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1084968106100830.xml?oregonian?lcpl)

But several months earlier, in that December 2003 interview with the Willamette Week (http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=4667&page=2), Mrs. Ameri said that at the time of the revolution her parents "were abroad at a medical convention and couldn't go back. And they confiscated everything of my father's: his house, his properties, the business, you name it--everything. So he, you know, stayed in France, where he still lives."

The Willamette Week then asked Mrs. Ameri did her father go back to Iran?

Mrs. Ameri replied, "Finally after 10 years he said, "This is crazy, I haven't done anything. I've got to go back and figure this thing out." By this time the government had toned down a little bit, so he was able to get his home back and he sold the home, and he decided to do charity work. So he built this five-story medical clinic, and got the government involved. It has really been his pride and joy."

This all begs the question: was her father, as she told The Oregonian, in fact "chased" out of Iran? According to her Willamette Week interview, he eventually went back, retrieved and liquidated his confiscated property and then joint-ventured with the ayatollahs' government for a charity project. But he apparently still lives in France.

Go figure.

Posted by: at August 4, 2004 12:58 AM

I remember the winter of '77-'78, the hostage crisis, the flight of the Shah, the coup d'etat. It was like, one day no one knew where or what Iran was, (Iran? Quatar? Is that in Egypt? Wasn't it a character on Star Trek?) It may or may not have been a revolution, but I can assure you, it was a time of anxiety for Iranians outside the country. Families of students abroad told them to stay out, not to come home. Stay out how? Assets were frozen. Exile is different from a vacation or study abroad, even if you are the Shah of Shahs. Let me assure you, it wasn't easy to be Iranian anywhere at that time.

Posted by: atmikha at August 4, 2004 06:42 AM

This should read:
"It was like, one day no one knew where or what Iran was (Iran? Quatar? Is that in Egypt? Wasn't it a character on Star Trek?), the next day, everyone knew ALL about Iran, the fanatical students, the crazy, militant mullahs, the greedy Shah, the evil SAVAK. From zero to hostile in a week."

Posted by: atmikha at August 4, 2004 07:10 AM

You mean "'78-'79".

Posted by: at August 4, 2004 07:35 AM

77-78, 78-79...or in Mrs. Ameri's case, 73, 74 instead of 77, 78 or 79 -- who's paying attention?...WE are.

Posted by: at August 4, 2004 07:47 AM

A previous post wrote:

Let's bring that back into this discussion: if the revolution in Iran caused turmoil which even led to the death of one of her uncles, and now she is openly campaigning in the Bush "Axis of Evil" GOP, what is she doing visiting the Islamic republic???

It is natural for Iranian expatriates to still visit family back in Iran -- of course most of these new Americans are not out campaigning as loyal followers of Mr. Bush against the Axis of evil. It would seem a bit strange for Mrs. Ameri to rant and rave against the revolution that persecuted her family and "destroyed a nation" as one of her campaign ads says, and then innocently visit the Islamic republic, admittedly, on at least 2 occasions (reference yet again that Willamette Week interview).

Now just because she has reported these visits does not mean she would want it to necessarily be known. It is not like she is advocating dialogue with the ayatollahs; on the contrary she is a loyal member of the Bush Brigage, whose members are not exactly applying for tourist visas to visit the Iran.

Mrs. Ameri' opposition several years ago to fingerprinting Iranian visitors to the US came up in her primary race, and continues to be an issue in the general election. After all, she can be challenged with a double-standard charge when she now is a party-line supporter of Mr. Bush's Patriot Act, etc. One wonders what the crafters of the Patriot Act think of Republican congressional candidates visiting -- for ANY reason -- one of the Axis of Evil countries. Mrs. Ameri chose to affiliate with the GOP crowd; she might have an excuse if she was NOT entrenched with the Bush Brigade.

Posted by: at August 4, 2004 08:49 AM

After all this is the same person who wrote an open letter to Colin Powell in March urging him to not have anything to do with the ayatollahs. Her own website has a the preface and full text:

"The Bush administration needs to know the regime in Iran cannot be trusted. They will do anything to stay in power. That includes lying about nuclear weapons. I have sent this letter to Secretary Powell because I know first hand the horror these people are capable of," stated Ameri, who was born in Iran.

Ameri's letter reads in part:

"The regime in Iran is the most offensive and unrepentant sponsor of terrorist activity in the entire Middle East. The autocratic clerics stand squarely against nearly every value we Americans prize: individual freedom, personal dignity, equal rights and civil decency."

One wonders whether the Secretary of State, who issues American passports, knows that Mrs. Ameri traveled at least twice to Iran presumably with her Iranian passport, scarf-clad picture and all. After all the ayatollahs consider Mrs. Ameri and any other person whose father is Iranian, includling one's children, as Iranian citizens. Even their children, if even born outside of Iran, must have Iranian passports in order to visi Iran. We all know that; it's no secret to us -- but it sure would be interesting to average Americans, wouldn't it?

YOU CAN'T EXPECT PEOPLE TO TAKE YOUR RANTING AND RAVING AGAINST THE "MOST OFFENSIVE" AUTOCRATIC REGIME IN IRAN SERIOUSLY WHEN YOU VOLUNTARILY, AND NOT REPEATEDLY, TRAVEL TO THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC.

Posted by: at August 4, 2004 09:45 AM

YOU CAN'T EXPECT PEOPLE TO TAKE YOUR RANTING AND RAVING AGAINST THE "MOST OFFENSIVE" AUTOCRATIC REGIME IN IRAN SERIOUSLY WHEN YOU VOLUNTARILY, AND IN FACT REPEATEDLY, TRAVEL TO THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC.

Posted by: at August 4, 2004 09:46 AM

One wonders if Mrs. Ameri would be allowed return to the US -- now that she has publicly jumped on President Bush's anti-Axis of Eveil bandwagon -- if she were ever to travel to Iran again. She can forget about returning to Iran, although it would appear -- from her activities here with the Iranian American Republican Council, etc. -- that she would have had no interest in ever visiting Iran. On the contrary, not only did she return to Iran, but more than once. How many members of the Iranian American Republican Council regularly travel to Iran? The former chairman of the IARC is now Grand Master of the Iranian Freemasons in exile. How about that?

Posted by: at August 4, 2004 06:38 PM

I believe that my original suspicions have been confirmed. "She still plays for the wrong team," according to Javad. Clearly, all of you are discriminating against her and implying that she has misled the public with her story because of her Republican political affiliations.

There is no right or wrong team in America. we have Republicans, and we have Democrats, in addition to many other parties. I don't believe either party is the "wrong" team. And it's fine if you want to support David Wu in a race that will put Iranian-Americans on the map if Goli wins. I just asked that you admit that you are criticizing Goli because she is a Republican.

Anyway, her story seems pretty consistent to me. I believe the burden of proof is on you that is criticizing her to prove that she provided the Washington Post specifically with that information, and then subsequently "flip-flopped" on her religion. It is not Goli's job to search through every candidate profile for every paper, PAC and political group to make minute changes. Fine, don't vote for her because she is an agnostic, or is, or whatever. That is not an issue for me. If religion is an issue, then I don't believe you are all as open-minded of liberals as you may want to believe you are.

I have decided to strongly support Goli Ameri. This blog has shown me that the only dirt we can dig up on this woman is whether she was 17 or 18 when she started Stanford, or whether her dad was living in France or just visiting France during the revolution. The fact of the matter is that Goli's family was persecuted. It never says she "witnessed" the persecution, it says she "watched" them... which of course does not imply physically watching her family's possessions get stolen, it is a figure of speech describing a poor college kid having nothing home to return to. At least that's the way I see it. You can choose to see it however you like, even if it makes Goli Ameri out to be a misleading poltician.

I think it's great Goli went to Iran to visit family members, and give a talk on telecom issues. You can criticize her from both sides if you like, but I prefer to take a moderate tone on Iran.

Pedram and none of you still have yet to answer my questions regarding Goli Ameri's campaign being full of hot air and fluff. I still don't understand how her approach is wrong. I am a registered Democrat, not a fan of Bush, and will vote for Kerry come November, but Goli Ameri's credentials along with her Iranian-American background make her very attractive to me. And it sure seems like the four or five of you posting on this one blog are in the minority given how much she has raised from Iranian-Americans nationwide: from Seattle all the way to Florida.

You find me a Stanford-educated, successful, attractive, female, breast cancer surviving Democratic Iranian-American candidate that makes the Democrats' list of top targeted campaigns time and time again that raised a kid that went to Stanford, and I'll sure as hell want to support her. Even more than Goli Ameri. Because according to Pedram, he wouldn't distinguish between the two, seeing as he doesn't care if the candidate is a Republican or Democrat. Is that really true, Pedram? I think you're guilty of a little misleading of your own.

Thanks very much for a healthy debate, and for helping me to make the decision to strongly support Goli's campaign.

And I DO believe she's going to win.

Posted by: Reza at August 4, 2004 10:50 PM

Reza Khan, your post shows that innocence is still alive and well as you comfortably believe that Mrs. Ameri's "story seems pretty consistent." If your candidate was as diligent as you must think she is, she would, yes, make it her job to search through every candidate profile on her to make sure she is being portrayed correctly. And if you think that correcting the revolution to its actual date or clarifying one's religion are "minute" changes, then give us just one example of a "major" change.

The more one reads the press reports about Mrs. Ameri over the past few months which have any reference to Iran, one finds a consistent pattern of inconsistency.

She is quoted saying things or dating events which, when reviewed, do not all match or else imply things -- such as that she must have left Iran once and for all at age 17 and, of course after "watching" all the nasty things during the revolution, would and did never want to go back. Then we find out that that in fact she has gone back - twice.

If you think it's so great that she has in fact repeatedly visited Iran, why not encourage her to disclose this in her campaign website bio or, better yet, tell the GOP to put this fact in her candidate profile on their website? In fact why doesn't she advertise her visits to Iran if she can be a bridge-builder between the Iranian and American peoples. How many of the Iranian-Americans, as well as other Iranians, who have given her money would be thrilled to know that this past VP of the Iranian American Republic Council had herself photographed with a scarf over her head to get an Iranian passport to pass through Mehrabad Airport?

Not all of us are critical of Mrs. Ameri only because she is Republican. Even though some may say it is a natural progression: being part of the royalist elite of Iran to becoming a Republican in exile in America. After all this is someone who is a self-described privileged person, which certainly does not match the "poor college kid" you make her out to have been.

Whether it is an Iranian-American or a Chinese-American candidate for public office, it would be nice to have basic forthrightness on the "minor" as well as major details and issues. Right now there are more than just a few "minor" doubts popping up about Mrs. Ameri's straightforwardness.

Posted by: at August 4, 2004 11:59 PM

THIS WRITER WILL SAY WHAT NONE OF YOU HAVE HAD THE GUTS TO SAY: GOLI AMERI HAS BEEN DOWNRIGHT DISHONEST

Example #1:

In an interview with Oregon Public Radio in May 2004, Ameri referred to herself as a "refugee". THAT IS A LIE! She came to this country as a student and chose to stay after completing her education.

Example #2:

At her primary victory party, she told the whole crowd after calling her father in France: "You can be chased out of your native land and 25 years later, your daughter is a Republican candidate for Congress." (The Oregonian, Wednesday, May 19, 2004)

THAT IS ANOTHER LIE! Neither she nor her father, according to her own account in the Willamette Week December 24, 2003, were "chased" out of Iran. Her parents were visiting France when the revolution broke out and were obliged to stay on afterward.

Example #3:

Ameri told the Portland Tribune (January 20, 2004), "How could I support the interests of a regime that has imprisoned and murdered my family, caused severe heartache, suffering and anguish to me, and executed dozens of my parents' friends?"

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE INCONSISTENCIES IN AMERI. IF SHE CONSIDERS THE IRANIAN REGIME TO BE SO HORRIBLE, WHY IS IT THAT HAS NOT STAYED AWAY FROM IRAN ALTOGETHER -- THIS IS YET ANOTHER LIE SINCE SHE DID NOT DISCLOSE IN THIS INTERVIEW THAT SHE HAS TRAVELED TO IRAN. BY THE WAY, THERE IS A SECOND LIE HERE - SHE HAS NEVER SAID THAT ANYONE IN HER FAMILY WAS MURDERED, ONLY THAT AN UNCLE DIED AFTER BEING RELEASED FROM PRISON - UNLESS SOME OTHER RELATIVE WAS OUTRIGHT EXECUTED, WHICH SHE HAS NOT SAID.

LIES! LIES! LIES!

Posted by: at August 5, 2004 01:37 AM

The OPR report was not in May but rather in June (June 16 to be exact) and can be found on the internet (and on Goli's campaign website) at http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=650894

You can read the text and hear the actual radio report.

The section which the previous posting refers to is the following:

" Ameri and her husband are from Iran. She immigrated in the 1970s to attend Stanford University and remained in California after the 1979 Iranian revolution. Now, the former marketing consultant could be the first Iranian elected to Congress.

Goli Ameri: It's huge! I mean, you are a refugee from a country and you come here and you live the American dream and then you ask people to vote for you. It's very emotional. It is. "

Even though Goli said she was a refugee, the OPR prefaced her comment by saying that she came here as a student in the 1970s and then remained here after the 79 revolution.

Take it for what it is worth.

Posted by: at August 5, 2004 12:05 PM

Her choice of political parties to run for, plus her lack of clarity about her bachground, shows what a confused individual she is. She isn't sure about her religious affiliation, how she left her country of birth, how her family left and was treated there and finally her status here. Not to mention how she feels about fingerprinting foreigners and this is just the start of her political career.

Remember, she is from that very unique clique that spent summers in European schools and even went to a foreign school in Iran. Totally disconnected from main-stream society in Iran and she continues to be out of touch with her background.

I agree with Reza that she probably WILL win. This is the exact kind of "ethnic" candidate GOP needs to portray a different face; very confused and with little connection to her ethnic origins/people.

Posted by: irooni at August 5, 2004 01:27 PM

FINALLY SOME SERIOUS KEYBOARD-LASHING...

Irooni is right on target, but Ameri does NOT have to win.

Let's help her esteemed incumbent opponent, Congressman David Wu. His campaign webaddress is WUFORCONGRESS.COM. His campaign HQ phone# is (503) 228-4598 and you can email him directly at david@wuforcongress.com

Let Congressman Wu know that there are Iranian-Americans who question Ameri's integrity, as well as her politics, and are happy to help the better candidate, no matter what the ethnic background. After all, we are ALL Americans.

Posted by: at August 5, 2004 01:42 PM

I have also heard Ameri enunciate on several occasions her family's "persecution" and their plight (used loosely here!) following the Iranian revolution, thereby exposing her obvious contempt and hatred of the present regime. My concern is whether as an elected Iranian-American legislature she will have the clear-sighted, unencumbered, and untainted mindset -- beyond her personal experience -- to make critical decisions regarding future Iran-US ralations. I have serious doubts.

Posted by: gagoo at August 5, 2004 04:39 PM

This lady Goli Ameri is behaving like a demagogue. Like most Easterners she has a penchant of uplaying her high-browed origins. Whereas in America candidates want to talk of their humble origins, not touting that when she was a adolescent "I was in England and Switzerland for a few summers going to school there." (see Willamette Week December 24, 2004 at www.wweek.com/story.php?story=4667&page=3)

Ameri must have come across as arrogant in that interview because th Willamette Week reporter finally asked her, "You studied in Paris. Your son is at Exeter. How do you relate to people in this district--including a lot of new immigrants who don't have the advantages that you did when you arrived?"

Only then did she play the role of the humble candidates going so far as saying, "I am not an elitist. That is one adjective I dislike with a passion."

You can only dislike something "with a passion" if you know that that is what others must think about you.

ELITIST!

Posted by: at August 5, 2004 06:37 PM

NEWS FLASH!

The GOP has yet to fully correct its website(s) about Goli Ameri.

http://stomp4victory.org/cgi-data/news_doc/files/47.shtml is a profile of Ameri which STILL incorrectly states she left Iran during the 1973 Islamic revolution, which actually happened in 1978 and she had leisurely traveled here 5 years earlier to go to college.

The GOP has corrected this misstatement on its other website nrcc.org/nrcc_contents/tools/spotlights/ameri.shtml

Poor Republicans. One hand doesn't know what the other is doing in the GOP.

Posted by: at August 6, 2004 09:21 AM

Reza, where are you?

Posted by: at August 6, 2004 12:21 PM

Here is a new find:

This is the ONLY article which does NOT appear on the Ameri campaign website's News section. It is from the May 5th issue of The Oregonian and is available at:

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/metro_west_news/1083758752214480.xml?oregonian?wvg

The article highlights her position that US troops should remain in Iraq; it also reveals interesting family perspectives which also raise some other issues, like her acknowledgement that "her opinions probably will keep her 92-year-old father from returning to Iran."

Here are some excerpts:

...Ameri left Iran for the United States as a wide-eyed college freshman in 1974. She left behind well-educated parents who watched their lives change at the whim of a ruling shah, and after a decade of rebuilding, saw it fall apart during the country's revolution...

...Ameri, who has returned to Iran once with her children, is a staunch supporter of the war on terrorism and the conflict in Iraq. She said U.S. troops should stay in Iraq, "because Iraqis need to be face to face with our soldiers every day seeing that can-do spirit.

"It's a spirit that's enough to turn that country around and be a role model for the Middle East."

Although she believes in her outspoken approach to the Middle East, she said her opinions probably will keep her 92-year-old father from returning to Iran. She weighed that as she decided to run for office, and with her mother's blessing, went forward.

"That is where I was born, and I am proud of my heritage," she said. "But this is my homeland. This is the place I feel passionate about."

The Oregonian reported that Ameri returned to Iran only once; however in the Willamette Week December 24, 2003 issue quotes Ameri saying "I went back for the first time about eight years ago because I wanted my kids to see where I had grown up. And then I went back again about four years ago to give a speech at a telecommunications conference..."

see http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=4667&page=2

In that same interview she says the following about her father's predicament during and after the revolution:

"They were abroad at a medical convention and couldn't go back. And they confiscated everything of my father's: his house, his properties, the business, you name it--everything. So he, you know, stayed in France, where he still lives. Finally after 10 years he said, "This is crazy, I haven't done anything. I've got to go back and figure this thing out." By this time the government had toned down a little bit, so he was able to get his home back and he sold the home, and he decided to do charity work. So he built this five-story medical clinic, and got the government involved. It has really been his pride and joy."

Posted by: at August 6, 2004 08:15 PM

It is interesting that neither The Oregonian article appears nor any reference to her hawkish position on the Iraq War appear on her website. There is not one indication on her website's Issues section, nor anywhere else, that she in fact supports keeping our troops in Iraq. The Oregonian article is the first report in which she is directly quoted in print on this issue. If that is her position, why doesn't she promote it on her website? Quite the contrary, she knows perfectly well what an immensely unopular policy this is in her district. Congressman Wu should be pointing out her position on the War and our troops every chance he gets.

Posted by: Anti-War at August 6, 2004 08:32 PM

I AM Anti-War but FOR keeping the troops in Iraq. One has nothing to do with the other.

Posted by: at August 7, 2004 11:18 AM

How does the presence of troops in Iraq have nothing to do with the fact that the War is how they got there in the first place?

Posted by: Anti-War at August 7, 2004 12:31 PM

Is that previous post from Goli Ameri? Is she finally responding to this blog?

Posted by: at August 7, 2004 12:51 PM

You guys are totally deifying the media. How do we know these are not mistakes on the part of the media? Let's remember that the media said the poor Palestinians rejoiced at the fact that Sept. 11th happened, showed an old archived video and had us all convinced that Palestinians were dancing in the streets. When, in fact, they did not. And I think Goli Ameri is a little too busy to be running all around the web looking for little errors here and there. The INTERVIEW and her quotes themselves are what count. Those seem to be consistent. But then again, you must all be smarter than the hundreds of Iranian-Americans nationwide donating hundreds of thousands to the campaign, right?? AND, on her website it very clearly says that she supports the war. And how do we know it's unpopular in her district again? Are you pollsters now too. Do us all a favor and just shut the hell up. You sure will when she wins.

Posted by: Another Democrat for Goli Ameri at August 7, 2004 02:40 PM

1 - You should've used "One of the rare Democrats who is trying to unseat David Wu". I think it would've been a more accurate nickname.

2 - The support/money she gets from "Iranian-Americans nationwide", comes from the certain clique she belongs to, who can afford big donations, love W and can't wait for foreign troops to invade Iran so they can return to their mansions.

3 - I agree with the earlier comments about how her possible win has very little to do with her stand or her credentials, but more to do with her elitist background and how GOP loves a minority candidate with little connection to his/her roots.

Posted by: visitor at August 7, 2004 02:49 PM

You hit it right on the nail:

The support/money Goli Ameri gets from "Iranian-Americans nationwide" comes from the certain clique she belongs to, who can afford big donations, love W and can't wait for foreign troops to invade Iran so they can return to their mansions -- like in Niavaran, next to their putrified Shah's old palace, although the mullahs' mansions further north make these "poor" royalists' former abodes pale in comparison.

You should have referred to this "Democrat" as not a rare but rather only the second "Democrat for Goli Ameri". Such a Democrat should join the likes of Zell Miller and attend the GOP convention later this year -- just go be one of a handful of confused Republicans in ill-fitting Democratic clothes.

Say, "Democrat" Joon: If you had carefully (rather than hot-headedly) read the previous posting, you would have seen that it never said that your Republican sweetheart's website doesn't say she supports Bush Baby's war. Instead, tell us where on her website it says one time that she is, in fact, 100% for keeping our troops in Iraq.

Either put up or KHAFEH SHO va GOM SHO! (that's "shut up and get lost" in colloquial Farsi for the benefit of our non-Persian fellow-Americans)

Posted by: Whatever at August 7, 2004 04:20 PM

Goli Joon,

We have a problem here. We know that a particularly influential group of Iranians would love nothing more than to support a US strike against Iran. Secondly, most of us (As well as most sane humans on Earth) think Bush is crazy and there's a good chance he will actually do it for a variety of reasons. Given this, we are worried.

I personally have a nightmare that we may wake up one morning in Spring of 2005 to an early morning "announcement" with President Bush reading a well-rehearsed speech about a "pre-emptive" strike on Iran. There Bush is standing together with Cheney, Powell and Bill Frist with a freshman congresswoman from Oregon enthusiastically clapping in the background. CNN and FOX news had already received memos from the administration that this action was "in close consultation" with "the only Iranian-American in Congress."

In other words, you will be used to justify an attack. Your ethnicity will be sold as "expertise" and your political party gets to claim "support" in the Middle Eastern community.

Perhaps this is a small price to pay for a personal visit and photo-op in your district by President Bush late in your campaign when you most need the help.

There's a simple way to resolve this. Simply take a public pledge to the tune of "I reject Bush's Pre-emptive Strike policy." And "I will not support attacking Iran."

We both know, that this pledge does not mean you can't defend America in case of clear, and IMMEDIATE danger like the kind the UN charter allows for.

We both also know that you can twist this message to please both sides. Respectfully, do not take us for fools and water down the pledge. Take the pledge, and I guarantee you that you will gain the support of most of the Iranian community, in or out of Oregon. Your opponent has at least in principle agreed to this already in previous speeches.

DON'T take this pledge, or pretend you never heard of this issue, and you prove that you DO in fact support a war, or some kind of internal meddling of Iranian affairs.

Again, don't take us for fools, no one is saying you can't declare "solidarity" with the student movement or push democracy in Iran through your speeches or visits. But sending arms to dissident groups, supporing "covert action", "aerial strikes", "expanding the war on Terror to Iran" is a no-no. We may have problems with the Iranian regime, but we're not about to hand over our country to Donald Rumsfeld to "Liberate."

DON'T take this pledge and this issue may end up as a question in your debates with Wu. I know myself and like-minded Iranians will do everything to make sure all the news media and relevant agencies in Oregon understand the controversy that you represent in the Iranian community.

Respectfully,

Qumars Bolourchian, Writer/Journalist -California

Posted by: Qumars Bolourchian at August 7, 2004 08:44 PM

Bravo, Qumars!

No one could have put to blog or paper better the real threat of a, God forbid, "Congresswoman Ameri" aka Bush's War-with-Iran Whore in your truly realistic pre-emptive-strike scenario.

CALL TO ACTION: Q'S LETTER NEEDS TO BE CIRCULATED TO ALL IRANIAN-AMERICAN AS WELL AS MUSLIM/MIDEASTERN/ARAB-AMERICAN MEDIA AND ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT THE U.S.

The shame that we Iranian-Americans are bearing with the Ameri campaign is countered by the positive campaign of an Arab-American Democratic candidate for California General Assembly, FERIAL MASRY, who is against the War -- yet she supports our troops, one of whom is her oldest son who just completed his tour of duty in Iraq with the U.S. Army Civil Affairs Unit and has spent the last year rebuilding schools and hospitals in Iraq.

Check out Mrs. Masry's campaign website at http://www.ferialmasryforassembly.com

Posted by: Iranian-American Muslim and Proud of All Three Adjectives at August 7, 2004 09:48 PM

Even 8 years ago Goli Ameri was confused, and confusing, as to when she came to the U.S.

In 1996 Stanford University alumni magazine published an article by Ameri about her first trip to Iran after coming to the US more than 20 years earlier. The article is at http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1996/sepoct/articles/lifting.html.

However the article is prefaced by the following words: "After 17 years in the United States, an Iranian-American alum returns home..."

17 years? Here we go again.

Let's count: 1996 minus 17 years gets us to 1979, which is when Ameri wants people to think she came to the US. The preface should have, correctly, said "23 years" or "22 years" -- depending on whether you believe the GOP congressional campaign websites [which Ameri still has not fully corrected, since one of them (http://stomp4victory.org/cgi-data/news_doc/files/47.shtml) still states that she "left Iran in 1973 during the Islamic revolution"] or the December 24, 2003 Willamette Week interview in which she says "I came to the U.S. in 1974."

Why is it that Ameri does not specify in the biography section of her website precisely what year -- not merely at age 17 -- she came to the U.S.

Just clear it up once and for all -- or is it too much to her benefit for this ongoing inconsistency (that is a nicer term than dishonesty) to continue?

Posted by: visitore at August 9, 2004 02:35 PM

Isn't Condoleezza Rice Bush's War Whore?

Goli Ameri wants to follow in her footsteps.

After all, Ameri told the Willameete Week, "I can tell you who my role model is. It's Condie Rice. I just admire that woman so."

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=4667&page=3)

Posted by: Anti-WarWhore at August 9, 2004 03:44 PM

Finally found a journalist who caught the deception of Ameri's "watched radicals in Iran persecute her family and destroy a nation" ad -- and of course the article does NOT appear on her campaign website's News section.

The astute journalist is Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun; his article appeared on primary election day. He correctly noted "The Iranian revolution occurred five years after Ms. Ameri came to America to become a college student at Stanford, but the ad suggests that she fled Iran to escape the oppression of the fundamentalist regime."

One correction that has to be made to Mr. Gerstein's reporting is his statement, which is refuted by The Washington Post candidate profile of Ameri, that "She would also be the first member of Congress known to have Muslim roots." Roots maybe, but not beliefs of a Muslim -- instead an Agnostic.

Below is the full text of Mr. Gerstein's article in the New York Sun:

Ms. Ameri Seeks to Send Quite a Signal
May 18, 2004
The New York Sun
Josh Gerstein

BEAVERTON, Ore. -- If Goli Ameri wins the Republican congressional primary here today, she will have performed a remarkable act of political jujitsu. If she wins in November, she will make history.

Ms.Ameri, 47, would become the first Iranian-American to serve in Congress. She would also be the first member of Congress known to have Muslim roots.

"What a signal it would send to the women in the Middle East," she said during an interview at her campaign office yesterday. "People all around the world are going to understand what a miraculous place this country is."

In January, Ms. Ameri's leading rival for the nomination, Timothy Phillips, raised questions about her fund-raising. He also suggested that her ties to the Iranian-American community led her to oppose fingerprinting procedures that the Clinton administration imposed on visitors from Iran and several other countries.

Ms. Ameri's campaign is well financed, mostly due to donations from Iranian-Americans across the country. Of the more than $900,000 she has raised, about 80% has come from outside Oregon. Her campaign says that more than half of its war chest has come from Iranian immigrants.

"If you really want to represent Oregonians you should be able to raise money from Oregonians," said Mr. Phillips, 37, who owns a stock brokerage firm in Portland. He said the issue is particularly important because the incumbent congressman, David Wu, a Democrat, has relied extensively on money from Taiwanese-Americans outside the state.

"This is a very typical pattern that Congressman Wu has done - sold our seat out," said Mr. Phillips. "Unfortunately with Wu, what it led us to is two 'no' votes on trade with China."

Mr. Phillips said Mr. Wu appeared to have done the bidding of Taiwan independence supporters eager to disrupt trade between America and mainland China. Jobs in this district are heavily dependent on foreign trade.

Mr. Wu's campaign manager, Cameron Johnson, said Mr. Wu's antitrade votes were based strictly on the merits.

"He wanted to use the United States's economic leverage to stop things like child labor, prison labor, and some of the unfair and appalling human rights and labor violations that are common in China," Mr. Johnson said.

Referring to both Ms. Ameri and Mr. Wu, Mr. Phillips asked, "What are we buying? Whose interests are they going to serve?"

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Phillips said he was not eager to focus his campaign on the issue of Ms. Ameri's base of support, but he called the questions "legitimate." He said the timing of Ms. Ameri's lobbying for fewer restrictions on Iranian visitors to America was particularly odious.

"Iran in 1997 and 1998 was the premier state sponsor of terrorism," he declared.

Ms. Ameri, who came to America in 1974, has done more than simply swat away the charges - she has attempted to turn her Iranian background into a political selling point.

One of her television commercials shows images from the Iranian revolution in 1979. One Islamic fighter is seen hoisting a gun in the air; others burn a photograph.

"As a young girl, Goli Ameri learned about evil in ways most politicians never will. Goli watched radicals in Iran persecute her family and destroy a nation," the announcer intones.

The Iranian revolution occurred five years after Ms. Ameri came to America to become a college student at Stanford, but the ad suggests that she fled Iran to escape the oppression of the fundamentalist regime. The television spot, which is rich with imagery of the American flag, also touts her efforts to promote an anti-tax ballot measure. It closes by describing Ms. Ameri as "an American dream come true."

A mailer her campaign sent to voters takes a similar tack, folding out to display a poster-sized image of the Statue of Liberty.

Ms. Ameri told The New York Sun that she understands Islamic fanaticism better than most Americans.

"People like us know what tyranny is. We know how to fight it," she said. "We have no romantic notions of what the Islamic fundamentalism is all about."

Ms. Ameri said she is a staunch supporter of the war on terror and President Bush's efforts against Al Qaeda.

"The extremists and the terrorists: the only thing these people understand well is strength and backbone. You start being an appeaser and they think you're weak," she said.

Ms. Ameri said she detested the former Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, but she said his observation that America was sluggish to respond to provocations was fundamentally correct.

"I clearly still remember Ayatollah Khomeini's words, 'America can't do a damn thing,'" she said. "He was right. America didn't do a darn thing. They didn't do a darn thing when the hostages were taken. They didn't do a darn thing when Islamic fundamentalism spread and the U.S.S. Cole was bombed. They didn't do a darn thing when the embassies were bombed. And we wonder why 9/11 happened?"

Ms. Ameri said the concern she expressed in 1998 about American procedures for issuing visas to Iranians has largely been resolved by a new policy that requires visitors from all countries to be photographed and fingerprinted. She said she is still troubled by the delays and difficulties Iranians have obtaining visas to America. She said Iranians are treated more harshly than Saudi Arabians or Egyptians, although citizens of those countries were involved in the September 11 attacks.

"It's kind of hurtful. I'm really hoping I can look into that," she said.

Ms. Ameri, who runs a small telecommunications consulting firm, acknowledged that group solidarity has driven many Iranian-Americans to give to her campaign.

"Obviously, they're proud to have someone of the same background running for public office," she said.

Asked whether she could be considered the first Muslim in Congress if she wins in November, Ms. Ameri said, "I certainly come from a Muslim background but I don't really practice a Muslim religion."

"I was born in a Muslim household, but in a very secular Muslim household," Ms. Ameri explained. She said her father has little to do with religion but her mother is rather devout.

"She practices in the true sense of Islam not this kind of nonsense that you hear around you," the candidate added.

Ms. Ameri mentioned that she is friendly with many Iranian-Americans who have Jewish roots. "Our best friends are Iranian Jews," she said.

Oregon's first district includes downtown Portland and most of the northwest portion of the state. The largest industries include high technology, timber, and fishing. Democrats account for 38% of the voters; Republicans, 37%.

The final days of the primary campaign have been remarkably quiet. There have been no big rallies or press events.

"It's very quiet. Almost eerily still," said Mr. Phillips. The reason is the mail balloting system used in Oregon. Most voters who are expected to vote have already done so.

Ms. Ameri's campaign said it believes she is leading, while Mr. Phillips said he thinks the race is within the margin of error in the polls.

Mr. Phillips and Ms. Ameri are closely aligned on most issues. While Ms. Ameri generally appears to be in lockstep with President Bush, Mr. Phillips has strayed on a couple of issues. For example, he favors barring the use of the Patriot Act in cases that do not involve national security.

"Anything that violates people's civil liberties I think you have to take a very hard serious look at," Mr. Phillips said. "You've got to show a little independent streak."

Mr. Phillips, who was once considered the favorite in the race, has struggled to keep up with Ms. Ameri's prolific fund-raising. He has raised about $520,000. Earlier this month, he pumped an additional $100,000 of his own money into the race.

Lagging behind Ms. Ameri and Mr. Phillips in the polls is another Republican candidate, Jason Meshell. Mr. Meshell's Web site describes him as "one true blue Republican running against two country-club moderates." The 27-year-old Navy reservist has campaigned on his conservative views on social issues, like gay marriage, abortion, and the appeals court ruling ordering that the words "under God" be excised from the pledge of allegiance.

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Meshell said he believes he can appeal to "Harry Truman Democrats." Lacking the funding of the other two Republican candidates, Mr. Meshell has mounted a grass-roots campaign through churches and community groups. He also expressed concerns about Ms. Ameri's out-of-state funding. "If it's not coming from Oregon, then you need to take a close look at who it's coming from," Mr. Meshell said. He predicted a "photo finish" in today's race.

Whoever wins today is expected to face an uphill battle this fall against the incumbent, Mr. Wu, who has $1.3 million in the bank. He is unopposed for his party's nomination.

If Ms. Ameri wins in November, voters will have traded the first Chinese-American elected to Congress for the first Iranian-American. Mr. Phillips is of Indian descent, which makes the slate of candidates begin to resemble a Benetton ad.

"This is a real melting pot story," Mr. Phillips observed.

Posted by: . at August 9, 2004 06:57 PM

Goli Ameri: "Our best friends are Iranian Jews"

Ameri's true colors about Muslims come out in the New York Sun article. She insults the religious sensibilities of the vast majority of Iranian-Americans, who are Muslims, as well as other Muslim Americans.

Here is what New York Sun article quotes her saying :

"Asked whether she could be considered the first Muslim in Congress if she wins in November, Ms. Ameri said, "I certainly come from a Muslim background but I don't really practice a Muslim religion."

"I was born in a Muslim household, but in a very secular Muslim household," Ms. Ameri explained. She said her father has little to do with religion but her mother is rather devout.

"She practices in the true sense of Islam not this kind of nonsense that you hear around you," the candidate added.

Ms. Ameri mentioned that she is friendly with many Iranian-Americans who have Jewish roots. "Our best friends are Iranian Jews," she said.

CALL TO ACTION: THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE WIDELY CIRCULATED TO THE IRANIAN-AMERICAN AND OTHER MUSLIM COMMUNITIES IN OREGON AND NATIONALLY.

Posted by: Iranian-American Muslim and Proud of All Three Adjectives at August 9, 2004 07:49 PM

The following GOP website still maintains that Iran's Islamic revolution took place in 1973, because that is when Goli Ameri left Iran (at least it doesn't see "chased out of" or "fled" ... )

http://stomp4victory.org/cgi-data/news_doc/files/47.shtml

Just as false as when Stanford University Alumni Journal implied in 1996 that Ameri left Iran in 1979, saying she had been in the US only 17 years before her 1996 return-trip to the Islamic republic (whereas she had matriculated at Stanford in 1974, or 1973 if you believe the GOP websites ... )

It never ends ...

The Oregonian in its endorsement of Ameri during the primary election wrote that her family "fled" Iran. That is false. Her brothers, according to her own interview with the Willamette Week, had preceded her to US and her parents were in France at the time of the revolution. BUT DID SHE CORRECT THE OREGONIAN?

Why would she? Such falsities are obviously to her benefit so that people will think she is, in her own lies, a "refugee".

Some refugee -- going to Sorbonne and Stanford, and then sending her kids to Catlin Gabel and Exeter while complaining about high administrative costs of the public education system.

ELITIST!

CORRECT IT ALREADY, GOLI JOON!

Posted by: Anti-Elitist at August 10, 2004 02:23 PM

WILL GOLI AMERI BE AT THE FOLLOWING EVENT ON FRIDAY THE 13TH WITH BUSH?

"Ask President Bush"
> 12:45 p.m.
> Southridge High School
> Main Gym
> 9625 South West 125th Avenue
> Beaverton, Oregon

Posted by: OREGONIAN at August 11, 2004 07:36 PM

IS GOLI TRYING TO GET A 3RD DEMOCRAT TO SUPPORT HER?

Her latest press release states that Ameri said "Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's plan to grant college tuition to students who took two years off to serve their country was worthy of consideration."

BEWARE REPUBLICANS - YOUR GOLI MAY BE WHORING TO THE OTHER SIDE, TOO.

Posted by: Anti-WarWhore at August 11, 2004 08:07 PM

MEANWHILE GOLI AMERI WILL BE IN WASHINGTON, DC on August 19, where you, too, can have lunch with her for only $500 ($1000 for PACs)...

Hey, Q: write a piece about this new Fat Persian Cat

Posted by: Anti-Elitist at August 11, 2004 09:28 PM

Enough talk of whoring. Let's stick to to Qumars's challenge to Goli Ameri.

GOLI: WILL YOU SIGN A PLEDGE NOT TO SUPPORT A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE BY THE U.S. MILITARY (WETHER THE WHITE HOUSE IS IN REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT HANDS)?

An answer is necessary; you cannot ignore the issue.

Posted by: Akbar at August 12, 2004 03:10 PM

Haven't heard from the 2 Democrats for Ameri for a while, esp Reza who never answered the following challenge about Goli Ameri traveling to the Islamic republic in the 1990s:

If you think it's so great that she has in fact repeatedly visited Iran, why not encourage her to disclose this in her campaign website bio or, better yet, tell the GOP to put this fact in her candidate profile on their website? In fact why doesn't she advertise her visits to Iran if she can be a bridge-builder between the Iranian and American peoples. How many of the Iranian-Americans, as well as other Iranians, who have given her money would be thrilled to know that this past VP of the Iranian American Republic Council had herself photographed with a scarf over her head to get an Iranian passport to pass through Mehrabad Airport?

Posted by: Fair Game at August 13, 2004 09:32 AM

Bush-Cheney campaign staffer Susan Sheybani has become the poster child for spoiled ETHNIC Republican brats.

For those who do not how Miss Sheybani has brought pride and joy to all Iranian-Americans, newswires on July 29 reported the following:

"Why don't they get new jobs if they're unhappy -- or go on Prozac?" said Susan Sheybani, an assistant to Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt.

The comment was apparently directed to a colleague who was transferring a phone call from a reporter asking about job quality, and who overheard the remark.

When told the Prozac comment had been overheard, Sheybani said: "Oh, I was just kidding."

Source: Reuters

Did you know this little TOGHS darling was once a Cherry Blossom princess? How appropriate -- but more interesting, guess which state she represented in the 2001 National Cherry Blossom Parade in Washington, DC?

Answer: Goli Ameri's OREGON

Posted by: Iranian-American Democrat at August 13, 2004 10:21 AM

Great post. Thanks!

Posted by: duplication equipment at August 16, 2004 07:10 PM

Where have all the bloggers gone? Goli Ameri hasn't let grass grow under her flat feet.

Monday she was wrapping the stars and stripes around her statue of a figure with a press conference in which she was joined by a big gun from Washington, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Today is hump day before she treks to Washington.

Friday she will be trying to collect $500 and $1000 a person and PAC representative, respectively, for lunch at a restaurant equidistant between Capitol Hill and the White House, at 801 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Muslims in the Portland area have not been sitting still. They've been spreading the news that Goli Ameri does not consider herself to be a Muslim (see The New York Sun, May 18).

Meanwhile she has not expressed any protest to The Washington Post's description of her as an Agnostic, as is still being correctly reported by The Washington Post online. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/candidates/21968/

Coming up: Goli is probably pulling her hose over the news that her role-model, Condoleezza Rice, will be in Portland for a luncheon on Sept 7. Condi is the #1 war-whore in the GOP; the two war-whores will be sure to confer at the Oregon Convention Center where the Portland World Affairs Council luncheon will be held.

We're keepin' track of you, Goli Joon.

Posted by: Defeat Goli at August 18, 2004 07:59 PM

What an honor Goli Ameri must be to the Iranian nationalists out there in Eyeranian blogland.

Today, on the 51st anniversary of the CIA coup that overthew the democratic government of Dr. Mossadegh, Ameri's campaign puts out a press release defending the CIA.

look at website for the following news item:

August 19th, 2004
Ameri: David Wu Should Not Play Politics With CIA Nominee

Baureekallah, Goli Joon!

Posted by: Defeat Goli at August 19, 2004 07:36 PM