I’ll try.

Well, at least on this one the American people spoke, and it's clear. Some random thoughts.

Your nation just won.

Ta-dah!

Democrats deserve a reasonable leadership. Clinton is politically super, personally lousy. Wouldn't want my kids playing with his kids. A disgraceful human being in many ways.



For minority Democrats, no one has stepped up to take Jesse Jackson's place. Jackson is deservedly condemned to the same sideshow as is Clinton - kinda fun to look at once in a while, nothing to be taken seriously.

And any party which will tolerate a James Carville as spokesperson isn't really a serious alternative to anything. Carville is a disgrace, an attack dog who might have a job to do, but it's in the middle of the night against shadowy foes, not a person for daylight and known forces.





Except for Carville*, a good summary of the DNC as a whole. Pure crap. The entire party is in dire need of a serious purge. Leadership? What they deserve is what they build, and what they’ve built has been displayed for the American, and global, public for well over a decade now, culminating in the current War on Terrorism.

*Carville (CNN’s Crossfire) is a nonentity mouthpiece for the paying client (Clinton, Bush, Mitsotakis, Cardoso, Flores, Mahuad, the Liberal Party of Canada, Blair, et al...), nothing more (but he can be funny on late-nite talk shows).

In a nearby Senate race the Republicans outspent the Democrat 4 to 1, and had attack ads running constantly since the primary. Hard for someone who isn't steeped in politics to separate the issues in that circumstance.



And, when the pendulum swings the other way it will be a serious swing. The poor, the disenfranchised cannot remain shut out in a democracy, no matter how much money is spent on elections by the plunderers. The options are to see they become involved, or they will take. "Reparations" and that sort of thing will come to pass as long as most people don't think they'll be paying it themselves.





That’s nice.

This:
Do you would prefer no action be taken to stop organized, international terrorism? Are you proposing negotiations with liars, thieves and murderers? What would you prefer? Tell me, Bowser. How would you propose stopping an organization from killing vacationers at will -- from killing theatergoers at will -- from killing shoppers at will -- from killing commuters at will -- from killing freedom at will?



How?





...preambles this bit of prattle:

I think it's going to be a terrible two years. The innocent in the US and overseas will pay grievously, as an out-of-control military kills at will in the Third World. And we can't sow hate and hostility, violence and war without reaping the same. That's the folly of the "eye for an eye" philosophy. But like milk curdling, it takes time for the natural, equal and opposite reaction.



And for conservatives, it's your two years. Enjoy them.





A little whine, to which I replied:

That’s very funny, considering that is the exact goal of the current administration. To stop illegal militaries and terrorist operatives from killing innocents at will. You know, places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Kashmir, Iran, the Philippines -- the U.S.



It will be a rough two years, likely six -- at least -- but hardly terrible. The war will go on and many will die, that in itself is terrible, but we shall be victorious. Anything less is unacceptable, since anything less amounts to the end of freedom, the end of this great nation, the end of Western civilization, and the end to technological achievement. The end of the future. The end of life as we know it.

The birth of the next stone age.

Fight it all you will. The United States of America will still beat you -- “and your little dog, too.”





You just cannot see that, can you? This was not a local election. This was global. This is phase 1 to “Getting the Job Done.”

Now I know you don’t like the al-Qai’da, or terrorists (the current definition) in general. I know you don’t like the idea of people being randomly killed, just because they happen to be from Israel, from France, from Australia, from the U.S., from the U.K. -- from the West. I know this.

You cannot, however, seem to grasp the reality of the situation. It is absolutely, devastatingly true that the greatest ally international crime and terror has on land and sea is the United States of America’s own DNC, and for two very plain reasons:

1. they want to be “fair” with their enemies
2. in power, they would represent the mightiest nation on the globe

The DNC would prefer to barter their way out of a war. They would rather trade with the enemy. Sure, they’ll exchange little slapping battles with the bad guys now and then, but only for the glory of the next vote. Recent history shows that the Democrat arms himself with circumventable embargoes, with empty words, and with vague threats of equally vague reprisal.

Bush & Co has shown that the way to defeat the enemy is to face him squarely and blow him away. America has seen this, and America has spoken. Americans enjoy kicking in the bad guys’ doors and blowing their existence from the face of the planet. Perhaps you would prefer the bad guys sitting around a cozy campfire and planning their next strike? I, like most of America (if you cannot find the polls for this, just review the latest elections), prefer my enemies dead. If not dead, I like them running, and running from me, from the West. I want them to taste the terror and know that it is real.

That’s about it,
Dan