I have a confession to make. I think the democrats' winning the House and Senate may be a bad thing. This isn't necessarily an out-of-date topic, just one I've been thinking about a lot. But please, bear with me.
See, Bush is bad for the country. I firmly believe that and have never seen any evidence to the contrary. But Bush was good for the Democratic party. Bush did more for the democrats than Kennedy ever could have. And so we won. But now, Bush seems to be conceding a lot. Rumsfeld got canned, Bush has been playing nice with Pelosi, all in all he's a better president now than he was. And that's unfortunate, because this nation has a short memory and in two years, the hatred for his party that got the dems into Congress won't be as intense. And that increases the chance of another Republican president. If he would just keep equating valuing soldiers' lives with siding with terrorists, if he would just keep spouting bullshit about Stay the Course vs. Cut and Run, if he would only consider continuing to mindlessly bash all democrats, liberals, gays, non-Christians, etc, for another two years, we might have it made. But no, now he will have to tone down the stupidity and limit himself to Borat-like idiocy in speeches. He's not going to declare himself The Decider anymore, and that hurts the Democrats.
I'll admit it, I voted almost exclusively for Democrats, the only exception being a local election where I knew the candidate (what party ties can the Regional Superintendant Of Schools have anyway?) so I am to blame too. But what choice did I have? Vote for Republicans? No way. And that's obviously how voters across the country felt as well. But Bush seems to have some reasonably intelligent advisors now, and he seems to be listening to them. History may even end up remembering him in a full-length bus, against all evidence. I believe it is important in the long run for Bush to "stay the course" in his own view of Iraq. Two more years in Iraq under Bush could get us out of there six months after the inauguration. If he starts to waver though, we may end up with another Republican who would probably keep us there throughout another term.
I support taking action against North Korea; they actually have the bomb, and they shoot it at us. Sure, they miss, but they shoot it. But we had to be in Iraq, because maybe Saddam had some kind of weapon. But when Kim admits that he has nuclear weapons, and he tries to blow up Hawaii for fun, The Decider, now sharing his toys with the Democrats, decided to take swift action, and cut off Kim's supply of iPods.
The problem is the Republican defense philosophy, which is somewhat similar to that of a drunk chick in a trailer park. Saddam pissed off Bush Sr, so Bush Jr runs out screaming "My name is Inigo Montoya!" and starts pulling down statues all over Iraq. I believe the war cry was "Oh no he di-int!" (possibly with some sort of Zorro-like finger snapping). George Bush took to war like a woman in a Rikki Lake audience. And the rest of the Republican party seemed to eat it up like a Jerry Springer audience. Basically, in the world of talk show metaphors, I place the Republicans in with the paternity test and cheating husbands programs, while the democrats are somewhere between Dr Phil helping a dysfunctional family and Tony Danza interviewing Emeril. We're not as violent, but also not as bold at times.
I believe in diplomacy, and if that really doesn't work, I feel there is a time when troop deployment should be swiftly employed. I feel that getting soldiers killed should (gasp) be the last resort, not the first. War seems to be nothing more these days than a contest to see who will let more of their own people die. It's not technology; I'm not sure when the last time was that we didn't have a picture of our enemy shaking hands with a former US president. Our enemies are killing us with weapons we supplied them with. It's all very Orwellian. They're our allies! Uh...We hate them now, always have.
I will no doubt vote democrat in the next presidential election. But the primaries will be tough. Hillary may be the best for the job. I don't know since I'm pretty far from New York and New York senators aren't really publicized much here. But if we run Hillary against some handsome guy in a suit, I fear we'll have no chance. The female thing will screw her a little, sure. But having Bill standing behind her at the podium? Having every smear add focusing on her judgment in just staying married? Without Bush on our team I don't think Hillary can win. And make no mistake, Bush is on our team, in a strategy sense. He's the kid the coach puts on the field after betting on the other side. He's the guy who runs the ball into the wrong end zone. He's the best asset the DNC has.