Better Bush for Democrats

Kerry’s conceded. Bizarre as it may sound, the Bush victory is probably better in the long term for Democrats; in fact for everyone. With Republicans having tightened their grip on both houses, Kerry would have been a weak president in any case. Now, America’s precious separation of powers has effectively been breached as the Gallant Old Party (this original meaning’s so quaint, isn’t it?) controls all three branches of government: the judiciary too, is about to lurch rightward.

There’s nothing to suggest that the neo-conservative agenda is panning out as its advocates thought. The US economy is weakening and there’s been no democratic domino to topple the world’s evil regimes. The continued failure will become ever more apparent. But had Kerry won, Democrats may have been left carrying the can. Better still, defeat and the excesses of the neo-cons will wind-up a bitterly divided country and force Democrats to come up with a positive vision for the future. Never again will they enter a race playing safe; believing it’s theirs to lose. Alternatively, the neo-cons have been given the golden opportunity they need to prove themselves right.

One thought on “Better Bush for Democrats

  1. So, the Democrats should step quietly back and watch the neo-cons shoot themselves in vulnerable areas? That would be wonderful to watch. ;)

    It’s true though – into his second term, Bush can’t keep blaming Clinton and friends for all the woes he’s facing in his administration and policy-making. And hopefully, by then, the Democrats would have sorted themselves out properly.

Leave a Reply