Arab Suffrage

Ironic? Of course. But more telling is the list of those who find it maddening. That's a very long list -- and virtually everyone on it is either an Islamist or a Democrat.

More than coincidence? Your Curmudgeon reports; you decide.

A fine example of bias. The verb in bold highlights it... and even raising the question of it being more than coincidence underscores it.

What an arrogant comment. Just because those two locations happen to be the focus of media attention, as well as being what the world (including the United States) shows the most interest in, it certainly doesn't mean that they are the only "meaningful" votes. That's an ethnocentric, narrowminded, ignorant, and to be honest racist, thing, to say.

Mark: It's certainly no coincidence.

Hat: Arrogant? For pointing out a fact? How can facts be "ethnocentric, narrowminded, ignorant, and to be honest racist"? Please name another country with a significant population of Arabs that holds meaningful elections.

MW: That's your opinion. As we established earlier, though, your opinion and the truth aren't necessarily the same.

The reality is that many Democrats are hopeful for Iraq. As Americans, we all want Iraq to be a success.

The reasons why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq and handled the situation the way we did are a separate issue from success being a necessity in Iraq.

I disagree with the President's decision to invade Iraq and get so heavily involved with nation-building, but since he did and we have, failure is not an option.

I know of many Bush-voting conservatives who feel the same way... a few of which I know from work.

I should also add that other Bush-voting conservatives who I work with think we should get out of Iraq now.

Mark: If it's just my opinion, then please name another country where Arabs have a meaningful opportunity to vote.

That's not the point I was addressing. I was addressing the coincidence thing. You think that Democrats are somehow in agreement with Islamic extremists over Iraq... that Democrats don't want success for America (and, ultimately, for the Iraqis) in Iraq. THAT is what is a matter of opinion.

Not all activist Democrats hope for the failure of constitutional democratic-republicanism in Iraq. But some do -- and more to the point, an American who does hope for such a failure is almost guaranteed to be an activist Democrat.

A distressing number of activist Democrats would embrace Satan himself if it would return the Democratic Party to power. Democratic Party loyalists who don't like that should do something about it instead of simply denying it or trying to wish it away.

FWP: Extremists are, by definition, not representative of anything in particular. Using extremist Democrats to define the party is like me using the KKK or the Neo-Nazis to define the Republican party.

Mark, to the best of my knowledge, the only former KKK-er currently in public office is Senator Robert W. Byrd -- a Democrat. Alongside that, a few of the most extreme activist Democrats have been photographed with their arms around former President Jimmy Carter -- a Democrat. That same former president has embraced Kim Jong-Il, has spoken warmly of Fidel Castro, and has certified a fraudulent election in favor of Hugo Chavez. He also denounced Zell Miller for, of all things, "disloyalty to the Democratic Party," because Miller, whose first loyalty is to the United States, feels the Democrats have become dismissively carefree about national defense and the terrorist threat. Now, would you care to name a neo-Nazi with a position of any importance in the GOP, or are you just engaging in slander by insinuation?

Osmam bin Laden, architect of the 9/11 atrocities, has been defended for having built "schools and day care centers" -- DAY-CARE CENTERS! -- by Senator Patty Murray -- a Democrat. Just before the opening of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam Hussein received a supportive delegation from representatives Jim McDermott and David Bonior -- Democrats. The thesis that the 9/11 atrocities were the fruit of an American/Israeli conspiracy was actively promoted by Representative Cynthia McKinney -- a Democrat.

Dan Rather and Steven Spielberg -- Democrats -- have both gushed embarrasingly over Fidel Castro. Cameron Diaz -- a Democrat -- orated that to vote for the re-election of President Bush would be tantamount to legalizing rape.

Democrats have also shrilly accused the GOP and its standard-bearers of all manner of election fraud, without substantiation of any sort. In 2000, the most blatant defiance of written election law was in St. Louis, where polls were illegally held open well beyond the official closing time. The beneficiary? Jean Carnahan -- a Democrat. 2004's most prominent site for election fraud is King County of Washington State, where thousands more votes were cast than there were registered voters, and at least 129 felons were permitted to vote in defiance of state law. The beneficiary? Christine Gregoire -- a Democrat.

Conservatives and Republicans routinely distance themselves from racists, enemies of fundamental rights, inciters of violence, and purveyors of malicious propaganda. So: Shall we talk about Jesse Jackson, Charles Schumer, Al Sharpton, and Michael Moore next? Or Bill and Hillary Clinton, who had that murdering thug Yasser Arafat to the White House more often than any other foreign figure of note?

Time to take honest stock of your preferred party's liabilities, my friend. The word for the day is "purge."

FWP: Booyah.

FWP: A few things to keep in mind:

1. Dan Rather, Steven Spielberg, and Cameron Diaz do not speak for me and probably don't speak for the Democratic party either. I've been over this before with the Sean Penn thing; they're entertainers (Dan Rather too) who I never have and never will look to for policy advice or consideration.

2. Election fraud charges are a two-way street. There's plenty to go around from both sides. I don't know for sure whether any of the charges are accurate, but I know that there's too many of them for it all to be smoke-and-mirrors, whether the charges are Democratic or Republican in origin.

3. If you want to talk about former presidents, let's not forget Richard Nixon... the most loathed American president of modern times. I know the Republican party has changed since then, but you brought up Jimmy Carter.

All things considered, I'm not sure if what you're saying is biased propaganda or "just the facts, ma'am". As such, your comments mean nothing to me.

If you really want to examine the skeletons in each party's respective closet, though, I'd wager that both parties will give you plenty to talk about, although I doubt I'd see a similarly thorough examination of the Republican party from you anyway.

The Democratic party is my "preferred party" (even though I'm not a registered member of any party) simply because I like the Republican party less.. not because I think the Democratic party is perfect or that it's a perfect reflection of me and my opinions.

Conservatives and Republicans routinely distance themselves from racists, enemies of fundamental rights, inciters of violence, and purveyors of malicious propaganda. So: Shall we talk about Jesse Jackson, Charles Schumer, Al Sharpton, and Michael Moore next?

Because no Republican would ever do such a thing. </sarcastro>

That aside, you used the convenient weasel word "routinely." In other words, you haven't made a specific proposition here; you've only implied it, meaning that no matter how someone tries to counter it, you can claim you meant something else. Excellent work; you could be a politician yourself!

Do you not count Afghanistan? They can vote now, or are there no Arabs there. But, still if you include them, that's still pretty amazing that those are the only places to vote.

Freak: Afghanistan, right. I don't think they're Arabs strictly, though I'm sure there's an Arab minority, just like in America and France and other places. Maybe it should be counted.

No the afgans arent arab and there is a smaller arab minority than in pittsburg.

I am not sure what meaningful means in this context.

In the Maghreb Morocco has pretty reasonable voting In the Levant Lebanon and to some extent Jordan.

Kuwait has some pretty sound elections.

Of course the pretty sizable arab minority in Iran votes.

Israel not sure what one would say if meaningful means whole residential popoulation then not but its a pretty meaningless statement

AW: According to the CIA factbook, only 10% of Kuwaitis can vote. Iran doesn't have meaningful votes. Jordan is a monarchy, and Lebanon is a Syrian client state. Beyond that, I don't follow what you wrote.