A little bit safer..

The World, that is.

Why? Because the Republican Party no longer controls the United States Government unimpeded.

And because Donald Rumsfeld has been fired.

If I hadn't been out celebrating something else, I would have been out celebrating this!

Comments

[Michael]

The hands off policy of Bill Clinton and the Democrats did a fantastic job of preventing Terrorism. Yeah, Right.

[Russell Brown]

"The hands off policy of Bill Clinton and the Democrats did a fantastic job of preventing Terrorism. Yeah, Right."

And you're contending there have been no major terrorist attacks under the current US administration? London? Madrid? Bali? Saudi Arabia? Algeria? Pakistan? India? Every friggin day in Iraq?

Would you like to reconsider that rather bold claim?

Cheres,
RB

[stef]

I'm so glad the dems finally got their acts together. But they need to do a whole shitload of work for 08. The republicans I know have already started regrouping.

[Michael]

Sorry, Russell. I didn't know London, Madrid, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Pakistan, India or Iraq were a part of the United States of America. Perhaps standards in Geography have fallen since you left school.

Remember the US President is charged with defending only one country. Or perhaps you prefer Dubya to be responsible for the whole world.

[Alex Henderson]

I think it was George W Bush who needed the reminder, Michael, not Russell Brown. And the American people have certainly done that. Whether the 'new look' Democrats are ready for the challenge, not sure, but the opportunity is there ... and I hope they don't blow it.

[mike]

No tim barclay, Peter mck, rightkiwi, IP or Craig today Jordan? Is this a holiday, or is it Tax-Cuts-Leads-To-This day?
mike

[Craig Ranapia]

Mike:

Oh, I've been doing a bit of reading on some of these freshmen Democrats Jordan is so enthused about. Somehow, I'm not wetting my panties at the truly Rick Santorum being replaced with a Democrat who is equally keen on stripping gay and lesbian citizens of their civil rights, just a little more circumspect about where - and how - he says it. Just to write a little reality check, it's rather simplistic to assume that the Democrats and the GOP are as neatly ideologically divided as political parties here. And does anyone know what the Democrats 'new direction' on Iraq is, because they were deliberately *ahem* strategically ambiguous on the campaign trail and I don't know how long the fudge can continue.

[Dorothy Macedo]

I'm glad I've found your blog, Jordan. But it is disappointing to see that the majority of comments come from people who think making cheap jibes is a substitute for a political debate - however from my experience in UK politics that seems to be endemic to the world of blogging. Some people have too much time on their hands and presumably no other (real world) outlet for their frustrations. A short post by an actual political activist is worth a thousand rants by these armchair critics.

[tim barclay]

I think the result is fair enough. From time to time there needs to be a clean out especially with all the corruption and ethics scandals happening. We have similar ethics problems in NZ regarding our Government. What surprised me was the loss in support for the Republicans west of the Missippi in the Arizonas. That will wound the Republicans the most.

[neil morrison]

Mike, Clinton did not have a hands off policy - he threatened to bomb North Korea (Bush merely refuses to take the military option off the table). He and Blair launched a major bombing campaign against Saddam in 1998 - which put a significant dent in Saddam's WMD capacity. Clinton, admittedly at Blairs prodding and a few years late, took out Melosevic.

He got a few things wrong - not intervening in Rwanda not going after the Taliban more forcefully but the US was never going to get international approvakl fot that prior to 9/11.

The Reps have tried to paint the Dems as soft on terrorism but that's just campaign rhetotic, they've never been dovish. Just look at what Michael Moore was saying about Clinton - the same as he's saying about Bush now, warmonger blah blah blah.

[Michael]

Neil - First, it's Michael - I hate being called Mike.

Secondly, I agree. Clinton's biggest National Security mistake was not clearing the Taliban out of Afghanistan after the US Embassy bombings in Africa. Bush had to do that after 9/11. Bush also raced headlong into Iraq where more caution was needed, but the alternative was to wait for Saddam to die of old age and see who takes over in the power vacuum. Given the experience of Kennedy and the leadership of Cuba ...

But what gets up my nose is this 'Bush is Evil' campaign the Left run all around the world. It's an insult to basic intelligence. You may disagree with him, or his policies, but I've yet to see his devil horns. Bush has made mistakes with his National Security policy, but they are no more glaring than the ones made by his Deomcratic predecessor - which was the point I was trying to make with my 'Yeah, Right' statement.

[neil morrison]

Michael, I have the same problem with the "Bush is Evil" thing too and am skeptical of this new found love for the Dems on Left. I don't recall there being much support from that quarter for Clinton when he was in office.

I hope one of the positive outcomes of the election will be for the Left to get out of the habit of blaming everything wrong in the world on the US. That was relatively easy to do when the Reps were completely in charge but now that the Dems will influence on policy it should be harder and perhaps there'll be a bit more thought into how complex many foreign policy issues are.

[Clint]

Neil, very refreshing to hear some logic being applied to the debate. I agree with what Michael has articulated and am glad you have given it an answer better than the Bush is evil/stupid crowd.

However, I would love to know what Jordan and co think of the "Blue Dog" Democrats that were voted in. These guys don't like Hilary Clinton, are for low taxes and small Govt. They are also anti abortion and their numbers are the ones the Dems will need to push their new majority.~

I can wager they are closer at home to Bush and Co than whoever is planning to run for the Dems in the next election. :)

[Carl Anderson]

A lot of the enthusiasm for the democrats is based, i think on a negative premise. "they aren't the Republicans, so they must be good". I can see the appeal of that line of thought. It's hard to see how the democrats could be much worse. Also, many cannot remmeber what a democratic government actually looks like, so they are free to idealise it!

But many on the left here should realise that the Democrats are not much more liberal than the Republicans (some of them are less so). The Democrats are not what we would call a left wing party. I quite like Gore Vidal's description of the USA as a nation with one political party which has two right wings.

[kiwi_donkey]

So is Pelosi a dummy runner for a Clinton presidential bid? I don't know the background to her gaining the democractic leadership, but she is ideal to accustom the electorate to powerful women, and act as a lightning rod for conservative discontent. And Senator Clinton could then run on a more conservtive platform!

Interesting ...

[Oliver]

I've spent a bit of time in Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina and Slovenia in the last couple of months and the overwhelming opinion from locals was that if it wasn't for NATO led by Clinton then they would all still be killing each other over there. The UN were good for bugger all in their attempts to stop the fighting. Srebrenica being the ultimate example.

While it may be good to have a better balance of power in the US and Rumsfeld goneburgers I do worry about the Dems as they seem to have several conflicting positions on every issue and they certainly aren't keen on FTAs or the WTO.

[Clint]

Absolutely Oliver. The UN were useless and that region owes their peace to a strong US led NATO intervention.

I have yet to find any other reason given to us why the Dems won apart from the Iraq war. The MSN have not given us any other reason, and Dem supporters in NZ (ie uninformed anti Bushites) are happy to clap this victory without really knowing the facts. As I mentioned before, the Dems are far from a different party than the GOP, hell even the Blue Dog contingent who tipped the balance this time have more in common with Bush than they do Clinton and co.

[sagenz]

oliver - that was tony blair that got NATO into the Balkans. left to his own devices clinton would have done exactly what he did in rwanda. nothing.

it will be interesting to see whether the bush haters will now shut up long enough to do something about darfur or whether they still think we should all just hold hands and get along.

jordan - Do you still believe in appeasement, as that is the only way you could have written such a fatuous post. islamofascists have been emboldened by their PR success. The tempo of Madrid style terrorist attacks will step up now.

[GeniusNZ]

One of the issues is that no matter why US citizens REALLY vote (for example sex scandals, personalities etc) the international media just understands the international events side of things e.g. "Iraq vs no Iraq".

So the republicans could be kicked out because they were all raping page boys (hypothetically) and the Iraqi insurgents could still win a "we defeated the US" propaganda victory.

At some point the voters presumably recognize this and “you can’t vote us out because that would be a victory for our enemies” argument just stops getting votes.

As to if they actual are winning - the terrorists have brought disaster onto their own countries – it’s a pretty pathetic sort of victory. It would be better if we (the public, the media or international community) stopped trumping total destruction as the criteria by which we will accept they win.

[Michael]

I was in Sarajevo in September and went to the City Musuem on the old Sniper Alley. You don't know whether to laugh or cry (until you see what the kids drew of what they most want to eat - what kid dreams of a big plate of salad?) but the most stupid photo was the UN Troop carriers parked on corners so that locals could shelter from a sniper until they decided it was safe to sprint across the street. If the UN troops had shot back then the siege would've ended in a week.

But to blame Clinton is a mistake - Yeltsin prevented the UN from doing anything as Russia traditionally is allied to Serbia. Which is why Blair and Clinton eventually bypassed the UN (no point if the Russians would veto everything) and used NATO after the Sarajevo market shelling.

[John]

Rummy is already planning his new life's work. Video is here