Ah, the crashing cymbals of the crescendo, the refrain of divided government and the punditry aligned in chorus!

Punditry is a paying profession that seeks compensation through delivering highly read commentary. Knowing how to be read is crucial, knowing the cycle of readership is part of the job description.

However, there is a very tangible difference between the suggestions of punditry and reality. "Give Pelosi" a chance to show her ineptness and it is a "gift to conservatives" may make fine rhetoric, but it is the sort of reality that says, "give your kids to the bad babysitter" and they'll appreciate you more. That's a form of selfishness at the expense of others. If one really cares about the kids, one doesn't let the bad babysitter get them just so that one wont be criticized or so that one looks good by comparison.

When for 40 Years the democrats held both houses of congress and taxes were growing almost exponentially, with inflation alongside it, I cannot once recall the cry for "divided government" as a blessing or solution.

In fact the term 'gridlock' was invented to describe what occurs when you have divided government.

How quickly folks forget.

The Tet offensive in Iraq is a real thing. If I were an insurgent seeking a reduced US military presence in Iraq, I would pray to Allah for a democrat victory, for I would see that they are historically the US' 'cut and run' party.

Increasing the violence before an election, when you know you have a global media only to happy to distort reality and create a sense of hysteria for a few dollars, is the path to power.

Then I would have a freer hand to create a totalitarian regime, without the pesky US interference.

Again, If the republicans lose all we have to look forward to is a pullout. Then many more deaths and a lot of finger pointing. So when any punditry thinks this is a good idea, they join the democrats in being anti-humanitarian and only too happy to sacrifice folks for money or power.

This is not something a conservative, who truly cares for people can endorse. 'Let the democrats f--- things up' is merely salable punditry and not a viable course of action for someone concerned for the welfare of the world.

Let me repeat, if the democrats win, all we can look forward to is a pullout, gridlock, death, tax increases and finger-pointing. They have put forward nothing else resembling a plan or a greater foreign policy alternative. Quite the contrary, the democratic party has demonstrated they do not understand the middle eastern mindset at all. 2800 casualties is nothing to an emboldened ME adversary who smells fear and weakness.

After we pullout of a quasi-controlled conflict environment we merely look forward to the terror attacks on embassies, ships, buildings and civilians again that marked weak democratic governance.

Perhaps the greatest distortion the media sells is that somehow Bush has caused all this hatred. The reality is Bush has merely shined a light into the dank corner of the basement and for the first time the world can clearly see what exists there. The intransigent hatred, religious fanaticism, universal indoctrination, sectarian hatred and contempt for the west, were there long before Bush became president.

Expecting this region to 'heal' by removing republicans is insane. It merely will remove the flashlight that aids in identifying and removing the worst of the murderous global terrorist infestation.

That's the problem in a nutshell. Democrats are self-serving folks who want power and really don't care about the world except to manipulate events to point the finger at their political opponents. Punditry is in the same boat, they merely want to sell themselves.

Sacrificing the world on the advice of Jezebels and those who have succumbed to carefully groomed hysteria is not my idea of sound foreign policy or the act of a true humanitarian.