They don't want to be a part of any club that would have them as
member
http://www.whataretheysaying.org/archives/001223.html

The Democrats lost the presidential election and also lost the
House and the Senate. I wasn't expecting them to lose this badly.
I was expecting this: The Daily Kos has a surprising number of
reasonable responses to Kerry's concession, but the old refrain
goes on:

    "There were a lot of Germans, Italians, and Spanish that
    vehemently disagreed with the Fascist movement in
    Europe in the 1930's. I guess I know what they felt like as
    they saw the long shadows falling over Europe."

    "We have a responsibilty to our country and the world to
    fight back against those shadows. Before 11/2, I thought
    this was just an ugly election cycle. Now I know it's more,
    and we are fighting an epic struggle against the worst of
    human nature. We don't have the option of quitting the
    fight."

    What happened to Kerry the fighter? What happened to
    making sure every vote is counted? Why do I feel like it's
    Germany in the 1930s and I'm watching the party rise to
    power again?

Come on - if Bush really was the second coming of Hitler, would
millions of Americans have voted for him? If Bush had serious
plans to make our nation a Christian theocracy would Americans
have embraced him? If Bush was the raging lunatic Kos' readers
imagine, what kind of contempt do they feel towards the average
American voter?

I wonder how long it will take for the left to figure out that their
complete lack of trust in their fellow Americans, their contempt
for traditional ideals of Democratic liberalism cost them the
election.

They don't trust Americans and they don't trust 'the system.' John
Kerry called the more than 30 nations who joined us in the
international operation to remove Saddam Hussein a a "trumped-
up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought,
and the extorted."

If the ever-elusive French had joined the coalition, does anyone
doubt that Kerry would be treating them with the same contempt
that he shows towards the British, Australians, Italians and the
Poles?

Consumed by self-hatred, the left projects that same hatred onto
any group that they're associated with. They don't want to belong
to any club that would have them as a member.

Groucho Marx was a smart man, but I don't think his one-liner
was meant to suggest a workable political platform. If we're the
club that they don't want to join, then why should we vote for
them?

The apparent mass exodus of liberals from the Democratic party
is not the result of some vast conspiracy, it's a result of the party's
slide down the slippery slope of Leftism, divisiveness and self-
contempt.

It wasn't always this way. Scott Wrightson says:

    ..it's inexplicable to me how the Democratic Party insists
    on nominating liberal candidates, then insists on painting
    them as centrist for the rest of the campaign. It's an
    unworkable solution. If they hadn't backed into the best
    pure politician in the past 40 years, they may very well
    have been looking at 28 years of Republicans in the White
    House. To a certain extent, I believe the Clinton era masks
    a larger problem in the Democratic Party: If Carter had
    won 100,000 less votes in 1976, the Dems wouldn't have
    won a majority in a presidential election since 1964. 40
    years. The post-Kennedy platform isn't winning over
    Americans. The post-Kennedy platform is barely holding
    onto its base. And the Democratic Party's own coalition of
    the coerced and the bribed - the ragtag bunch of small
    interest groups to whom Democratic candidates prostitute
    their values - have far too strong a hold on the party. How
    can you hope to sell a broader message to America when
    you're busy selling individualized messages and promises
    to Native Americans, Blacks, Latinos, Homosexuals,
    Single Mothers, the Homeless, the Poor, the Middle Class,
    and every other social and demographic group you can sell
    to?

Post-Kennedy is the time when Democrats began to embrace
impossibly utopian ideals; when they couldn't live up to these
impossible ideals, they started to hate themselves, and other
Americans for this 'failure.'

One impossible ideal was the hope that we could abandon the
need for a strong military defense. There's a word for animals that
don't feel the need to defend themselves - extinct. What would
happen if the army had to hold a bake sale to buy a new tank?

America would look an awful lot like Darfur right now.

Then there's the utopian ideal of political correctness, the
command that other cultures must be respected and never
criticized, even if they do have faults. Unfortunately, this striving
for respect of 'diversity' leads us away from liberal democracy.

Jeff G. of Protein Wisdom says:

    I've long argued that, for all its claim to the moral high
    ground, the diversity agenda - at heart a divisive
    movement meant to Balkanize the country into identity
    voting blocks in order to secure lobbying power and
    bureaucratize grievance - is anathema to the country, and
    moves profoundly against the quintessential American
    ideal of personal autonomy in that it elevates the group
    over the individual. And no one is more responsible for
    pushing this agenda than the progressives of the
    Democratic base.

As John Fonte says in his essay about the Ideological War within
the West, diversity, or the interests of the ascribed group over the
individual citizen is a policy that stands in direct opposition to
liberal democracy.

    The ascribed group over the individual citizen: The key
    political unit is not the individual citizen, who forms
    voluntary associations and works with fellow citizens
    regardless of race, sex, or national origin, but the
    ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one
    is born.

    A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with
    immigrant groups designated as victims. Transnational
    ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian
    Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy.

Or, as British Muslim Ibrahim Sargin said:

    I choose to define my community as the people with
    whom I interact and choose to be represented by the
    political party for which I vote. Why should I, in
    community terms, have more in common with a Muslim
    from Bradford than with a Jew from Tonttenham or a
    Christian from Ramsgate?

Americans don't criticize intolerant cultures because we hate
diversity. We don't vote the way we do because we're
misinformed. We make choices and we speak our minds because
our laws allow us to do so and we want to keep it that way.

Roger Simon had this quote: "If one person says you're drunk,
ignore him. If six people say you're drunk, sit down."

Millions of Americans are saying to the Democrats - sit down.
Stop with the accusations. We didn't vote for a fascist, we didn't
vote for a theocracy, we didn't vote a Christian Right agenda and
we were not the dupes of some vast Neo-Con Conspiracy. We are
not your enemy.

We voted for the ideals that once formed the Democratic party's
base. Liberal Democracy, the only thing we have to fear is fear
itself, ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can
do for your country. Bring back the achievable goals and the
humanist acceptance of faults and imperfections that Roosevelt
and Kennedy stood for. Join the club.

Iranians welcome massively Bush's re-election
http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4319.shtml

Millions of Iranians expressed their satisfaction on the outcome of the US Presidential elections and George W. Bush's victory by calling and congratulating each other. Many were seen walking in the streets and shaking each others hands or showing a discret V sign.

Many are speaking about the promises made by Mr. Bush to back the Iranian Nation in its quest for freedom and democracy.

As Iranians and especially the younger generations have become happy, those affiliated to the Islamic regime are seen deeply worried about their future.

The regime and its US based known apologists and lobbyists had tried hard to make fear to Iranians on the outcome of a Bush win. Money was poured by controversial individuals, such as Akbar Ghahary the treasurer of IAPAC, to money oriented TV and radio networks, such as, 670 AM, Tamasha TV, Melli TV and a specific program of Apadana TV hosted by an ideologist named Faramarz Foroozandeh.

But all these desperate tries were not able to lure the Iranians of inside and nor especially the members of the Diaspora.

Witnessing such fiasco, the Islamic regime tried hard to bring the few thousands of professional demonstrators for its organized celebration of the 1979 attack against the US Embassy in Tehran. It's to note that the Iranian Capital has over 12 millions of inhabitants and that the today's official commemoration of one of the main Islamist act of terror ecountered another massive popular rejection.