By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

The moment the final midterm election votes were counted, Democrats wasted no time stumping for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. However, real conservatives—the normal majority—continue to believe, as we always have, that pulling our forces out prematurely will be a blunder of monumental proportions. It would not only be viewed as frailty on our part, but serve to embolden the enemy and further imperil our nation and its allies. It is the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and their “rush to escape” Iraq that causes great consternation. Conservatives believe it is not really Iraq from which they want to retreat–but from the war itself.

Democrats preach for peace. This is a good thing, but it is neither the answer nor a solution to the death threats that dangle every day over our lives like the Sword of Damocles.

Since the horror of 9/11, liberals would have us believe they support the war in Afghanistan, because that is where the Taliban trained and from where Osama bin Ladin directed or still directs his murder/suicide operations. If we had engaged the Taliban in Afghanistan–and not concurrently expanded the front of the war on terrorism to Iraq–the same peace protesters would be calling for a pull-out of troops from Afghanistan as well. Three and a half years have gone by and the early success in Afghanistan remains, at best, tenuous. With no defined war front or uniformed enemy, the anti-war crowd will always find itself in an apparent quagmire.

We must ask: What then, Democrats? You should not demand we withdraw unless and until you have a bulletproof strategy up your collective sleeve—not some blue sky vision of sitting down with the devil to negotiate a better position in hell.

Speaker of the House-Elect Nancy Pelosi and her liberal colleagues, tend not to think about the ghastly realities with which we are threatened but how they can toss more rhetoric into the air without actually delivering decisive action over the next two years. The bluster and brouhaha surrounding their investigations into past-perceived mistakes does not equal a National Security policy.

At this critical turning point for our nation, Pelosi et al. should remove their rose-colored glasses, turn their attention away from the wholly unrealistic expectations of their “peace without honor” constituents, and concentrate on building up our nation’s strengths rather than tearing them down. We cannot protest our way to victory.

Every American, regardless of political persuasion, must accept the realities of our war on terrorism. The enemy has no intention of going away, whether from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, or from inside our own borders. They have but one goal: the destruction of Israel and America. This is burned into their hearts as children and continues until the day they die, taking as many “infidels” with them as they possibly can. This is not some quixotic mission for Allah they are on, but a duty as natural as the wretched air they breathe.

The gravity of this Islamo-fascist indoctrination cannot be dismissed with a knowing smile before Congress or the wasting of taxpayer money on unnecessary partisan investigations. This, like preaching peace, will not bring relief from our fears, and it won’t end the war. The enemy we face is terminally serious. They have no timetables, or exit strategies, and are wholly unconcerned with how many of their own people die in order to achieve their ends.

They will not go home until they win.

by Lance Thompson

We all know that the media can make or break a rogue. A carefully crafted image can make a tin horn bully into an international dictator superstar–just ask Saddam Hussein. What can the new crop of rogue state leaders and terrorist rabble rousers learn from a savvy media consultant? Let’s run down the list.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iraq: What’s with the windbreaker and open-collar shirts? You’re the leader of a soon-to-be-nuclear power. You need a nuclear power suit. If that’s too Western, go for a Michael Jackson style pseudo-military outift with lots of gold braid and shiny buttons. But you simply can’t deny the Holocaust and threaten Doomsday while dressed for Casual Friday. A dictator dictates–and that includes style–dress up and see if you don’t get another invite from the UN to denounce, threaten and villify Israel in front of the world body.

Moqtada al Sadr, Shiite militia and political leader in Iraq: You can’t go wrong with basic black, but the shiny, polyester blend shawl looks like something you’d wear to get a haircut. Playing up the religious angle is smart, but get some other religious leaders to share the stage with you–a prayer breakfast with Al Sharpton would do wonders. Maybe invite Jimmy Carter to Najaf, and get some Habitat for Humanity coverage as you repair one of those damaged mosques your murdering insurgent followers cowered in during your early predations.

Kim Jong Il, Dear Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: Never has some one so short risen to such heights, but the world knows you don’t stack up. You should never allow anyone on your staff to be taller than you are. Even back in the 90's when Madeleine Albright was groveling at your feet, she towered over you. Also, don’t forget the law of bodily proportion (if w = t, then ½ s): If you’re as wide as you are tall, your stature is reduced by half. Losing a little weight shouldn’t be difficult–you’ve helped millions in your country to start and remain on starvation diets that have shed a national aggregate of human mass in the order of the tens of thousands of tons. Remember also that media scrutiny, even in the Hermit Kingdom, is intense. There’s nothing wrong with having Sponge Bob Squarepants as your favorite show (or style guru), but when guests arrive, switch over to PBS or at least Nightline.

Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda: The recluse image works well–especially with the astronomical price on your head. But you do need some new video–we’ve seen that unimproved rocky wasteland shot a million times and it’s played out. The audio tape releases keep you in the public eye, or ear, as it were. But every recording artist knows you can’t just release new songs, you have to tour. I recommend getting some exposure in a friendly forum to show your warm, human side–think "The View," Letterman, or maybe a guest spot as a judge on "Dancing With the Stars."

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia: Mr. Putin, you have done well–stylish wardrobe, winning smile, firm handshake–no one would guess you’ve stacked the Russian government with old KGB assassins who are busy knocking off every dissident, reporter and reformer left over from the glasnost days. Of course, selling missile defense systems to Iran and radioactively poisoning ex-Russian agents in London are bad for the new, cuddly Russky image. But labeling Chechen resistance fighters as terrorists is a public relations coup–you assume the sympathetic role of victim while ruthlessly exterminating all opposition. Stalin would be proud, but he never did it with such charm. For putting it over on a gullible public, Vladimir Putin gets the media manipulator award of the year–the Titanium Teleprompter.

"All Gaul is divided into three parts..." Julius Caesar, 50 B. C.

With Democrats in charge of Congress, a change of strategy in Iraq seems inevitable. Is there a course that promises stability, progress and advantage for the United States?

In a 1 May 2006 New York Times editorial, Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council for Foreign Relations, and Delaware Senator Joe Biden, advocated an Iraq divided into three semi-autonomous regions governed by the three opposing political factions–Kurds in the north, Shiites to the south, and Sunnis in the tempestuous middle.

Since Gelb is an advisor to the much ballyhooed Baker Commission, and Biden is a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he currently serves as ranking Democrat, this proposal is certain to receive greater consideration in the very near future. Despite several fatal flaws, the plan has a salvageable core that we might consider.

Gelb and Biden advocate a five-part solution: a central government in Baghdad; financial support from oil revenues to the petro-poor Sunnis, American economic support for the entire government tied to respect for the rights of "women and ethno-religious minorities," troop withdrawal and a UN-sponsored "pledge" to respect Iraq’s borders.

The central government in Baghdad already exists, after three elections, a constitution and years of sacrifice. Its stability is the primary target of the insurgency, whose violent tactics are the reason for all the hand-wringing and nay-saying. Advocating a central government is hardly a new idea, and it is clear that under current conditions, such a government is unsustainable.

Sharing oil revenues is even more problematic. If the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can’t work together in a coalition government, what is the likelihood they will all suddenly become rational and cooperative when it comes to the only source of wealth in the entire nation–petroleum? Sharing oil revenues between these bitter antagonists is unrealistic.

American aid is also no solution. American aid has been pouring into Iraq since the war began–hospitals, schools, infrastructure. None of it has lessened the violent opposition to a central government. Tying it to the rights of women and religious minorities is an undefinable, unenforceable, unrealistic condition.

Troop withdrawal is everyone’s goal. But no political framework for a unified Iraq will endure if Americans pull out. The international "pledges" to respect Iraq’s borders are laughable, considering that Iraqi neighbors Iran and Syria run the insurgency across those very borders with the enthusiasm of video game players with a new Playstation. Pledges and treaties are meaningless to such states.

Nevertheless, the core of the article is the division of Iraq. That proposal has promise.

The Kurds are already semi-autonomous. There is almost no insurgency. Businesses prosper, homes are built, infrastructure is modernized. Two airlines serve the Kurdish region. Visitors from other countries do not fear for their lives when they leave their hotels. Kurds invest not only in their own economy, but also abroad–particularly in Europe. Kurds have a functioning government which enjoys widespread support among the Kurdish population. It has all the hallmarks of a healthy emerging state.

The Kurds are also friendly to the United States. If American forces were necessary to guarantee their independence, our troops would be welcomed as protectors, not maligned as occupiers. There is no internal insurgency. If we provide one-third of the economic and military assistance to a Kurdish state that we already send to Iraq, the benefits would be many times greater. We would have a strong, stable, prosperous ally in the region–a self-sustaining strategic partner.

Adnan Mufti, president of the Kurdistan National Assembly, has stated that his goal is an autonomous region within a federal Iraqi framework, but that assumes that there will be a sustainable framework and a stable coalition government. Even now, as factions fight over shared responsibility for all of Iraq, the Kurdish region is insulated from the strife by its own success.

Other Iraqis would object to an independent Kurdish state, particularly when it comes to oil revenue. But there are other petroleum reserves in Iraq–mainly in the Shiite south. With a stable independent Kurdish state as a model, Sunnis and Shiites would have a choice–cooperate to share the wealth of the rest of Iraq, or continue to fight over it. Either way, it would be hard to imagine Sunnis and Shiites finding common cause long enough to force a Kurdish state back into a fractious Iraq.

Turkey also objects to an independent Kurdish state, concerned that Kurdish nationalism would encourage Kurds in Turkey to seek their own independent nation. Currently, the stable Kurdish autonomous region buffers Turkey from Iraq’s unrest. An independent state would serve the same function, and would be preferable to a deteriorating Iraq.

Allowing Iraq to divide into three parts would give the United States a strong ally in place of a weak dependent. Two-thirds of Iraq might still be locked in Shiite-Sunni conflict. However, the Shiites may find that separating themselves from the Sunnis would provide the same benefits that independence would give the Kurds.

Mr. Gelb and Mr. Biden have stumbled onto a vision of Iraq that is already becoming a reality. If the United States sees an independent Kurdish state as an emerging democracy, and a model for the region, we can achieve that most elusive of goals–a new, stable, prosperous ally at a time we need one most.

LowDownCentral presents its first annual
Thanksgiving Day "Turkey of the Year" Award.

The runners-up:
 
  # 5:    Rep. Charles Rangel for trying to reintroduce a bill to reinstate the military draft.



# 4:  Speaker of the House-Elect, Nancy Pelosi for her first post-victory blunder in publicly supporting the failed candidacy
 of John Murtha, and thinly veiled catfight with Jane Harmon.



# 3:  Congressman John Murtha for proposing an immediate troop withdrawal, providing terrorists with a path to victory.
  They watch CNN too.



# 2:  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for cleverly hiding his Democrat feathers.  No steroids in the preparation of this bird.




AND

# 1: 2006 TURKEY OF THE YEAR AWARD GOES TO
 PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

for failing to exercise restraint on spending:
 "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."

for his open borders position on illegal immigration: 
“Decent, hard-working people will now be protected by labor laws
 with the right to change jobs, earn fair wages and enjoy the same
 working conditions that the law requires for American workers.”




HE COOKED HIS OWN GOOSE IN THE MID-TERM ELECTION

"Low Voter Turnout Is An Indication Of Fewer People Going To The Polls."

***

HAPPY THANKSGIVING
from
LOWDOWNCENTRAL

 Fiddle-dee-dee...this war talk's spoiling all the fun at every Democratic party...

 Besides, now that I'm Speaker, there isn't going to be any war without funds.  I can't think about that right now.  If I do, I'll go crazy.  I'll think about that tomorrow.

"I'm conservative, but I'm not a nut about it."

By Rose Pedenko

In the wake of the recent mid-term election, it has become clear our electoral process is fraught with problems. Gerrymandering, ballot machine malfunctions, computer glitches chopping off a candidate’s name, campaign financing—all called into question by the media in the weeks leading up to November 7. Although there was a sweep of congressional seats handing the balance of power to Democrats, it happened by the thinnest of margins. Had there not been so many disenchanted conservative voters, control of the House and Senate might still be in Republican hands.

How do we remedy what has evolved into such a flawed process? Namely, in the grand tradition of Hollywood, with the premiere of “American Political Idol.” Sounds like another half-baked idea? Let’s not be too quick to dismiss such a spectacle without a review of its potential.

Following the 2000 presidential election, Democrats wanted to jettison the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote. The idea was bandied about again in 2004 but failed to take hold. Election boards weighing the pros and cons have pointed out that the Electoral College fails to accurately reflect the national popular will. What can be more egalitarian than a popular network television show? All of us, irrespective of party affiliation, can and would pick up the phone and dial an 800 number to cast a vote. This would mean—no long lines, chads or voter intimidation.

There has been much speculation, privately as well as publicly, concerning the success of the wildly popular television show, American Idol. Over a billion votes were cast in the last season. When was the last time a billion votes were cast in any American election? Did I hear someone say “Never”? Say it louder—NEVER. Notwithstanding that many are repeat voters, it remains a remarkable number.

Our panel of judges might be a balanced group from across the political spectrum, for example: Larry Elder, Tim Russert, Michelle Malkin, Alan Colmes, Christopher Hitchens and Jon Stewart. There was a case study conducted by Mobliss which stated that “the success of American Idol was its inter-activity and engagement, turning passive viewers into active participants with a stake in each week’s progress.” What better way to motivate an apathetic U.S. electorate?

The pre-election season would find our panel of highly paid judges holding auditions across the nation. The process begins with a candidate by candidate recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and a more than likely out of key rendition of The Star Spangled Banner. Assuming the contestants don’t blow the words or lyrics, they move on to the next round.

In the second round, the judges cut away the dead wood with a series of increasingly difficult and pointed questions: In 25 words or less, state your strategy to end terrorism. Will you raise taxes? How do you compare America with other nations?

The semi-finals would consist of a debate with two-minute rounds and 90 second rebuttals. No advance questions, notes or preparation allowed. The grilling by the judges grows intense and merciless. On this show it’s all about thinking on their feet. The telegenic emerge, separating the Nixons from the Kennedys of the world. Think Mitt Romney with his matinee idol looks.

In the finals, the candidates state their unequivocal positions on the economy, foreign affairs and defense. What you see and hear is what you get. There will be no glad-handing leading up to costly primaries. No taxpayer funded voter guides, paper ballots, or alleged discrimination. With no fund-raising or campaign contributions, the candidates are free and beholden to no one—not corporations, labor unions, or special interest groups. The playing field is level because the wealthier candidates cannot fund their own campaigns or advance a hidden agenda.

American Political Idol is a win-win proposition for the network too. They garner high ratings and generate Super Bowl ad revenues. Why all the fanfare—because Americans want to watch the candidates orally duke it out on their own, without the benefit of spinmeisters.

The phone lines are opened and callers from across the nation vote for their favorite candidate. It’s all about the best candidate winning.

An idea whose time has come?

Next Season: Dancing with the Other Party’s Stars.

by Lance Thompson

On 11 November of this year, the US Marine Corps Reserve Training Center in Pasadena, California, was officially named "Blecksmith Hall," to commemorate the contributions of Lt. James Patrick Blecksmith. He was a gifted athlete and a Naval Academy graduate. The gold bars he wore on his collar–the rank insignia of a newly minted Marine second lieutenant–were the same ones his father had worn in Vietnam, and his grandfather in World War II. He wore those bars to Iraq, where he took command of the Third Platoon of India Company, 3^rd Battalion, 5^th Marine Regiment–the unit he was leading when he earned the Bronze Star. J. P. was the son of Pam and Ed Blecksmith of nearby San Marino, and part of a much larger family.

Two years ago, in November 2004, Lt. Blecksmith’s Third Platoon was a motivated, well-disciplined unit that led the initial assault into the enemy-held stronghold of Fallujah. The combat was intense--street by street, house to house. Under Lt. Blecksmith’s leadership, Third Platoon consistently seized objectives and eliminated insurgent positions. Lt. Blecksmith coordinated support from tanks, artillery and aircraft to counter snipers, repeated ambushes and well-coordinated insurgent attacks. In one engagement, two of Blecksmith’s men were wounded. According to the official citation, Lt. Blecksmith "orchestrated medical evacuation under fire....As he continued his attack south to clear the zone, again the platoon came under fire, and without hesitation, he charged atop a building to obtain a commanding view of the urban battlefield. Directing the squads from the front while exposed, he came under enemy fire and fell mortally wounded. By his zealous initiative, courageous actions, and exceptional dedication to duty, Second Lieutenant Blecksmith gallantly gave his life for his country and reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service." The date of the action was 11 November 2004.

Exactly two years later, 11 November 2006, the ceremony naming the Marine Reserve Center for Lt. Blecksmith was held. Blecksmith Hall, as it is now known, is home to the 2^nd Battalion, 23^rd Marine Regiment. Speakers at the event included Pasadena Congressman Adam Schiff, Marine General Douglas M. Stone, Marine Captain Sven Jensen, and Ed Blecksmith--J. P.’s father.

The Blecksmith family has longtime ties to the community. J. P.’s funeral in 2004 was held at the Church of Our Saviour in San Gabriel. Over 1500 family members, friends and neighbors attended to pay their respects. In her eulogy, J. P.’s sister, Christina, quoted General George S. Patton: "Let me not mourn for the men who have died fighting, but rather let me be proud that such heroes have lived." Patton, like the Blecksmith family, was a member of the Church of Our Saviour. His birthday was November 11^th, the same date Blecksmith’s life ended.

It was evident from the attendance at the dedication ceremony on Saturday that Lt. Blecksmith still has close ties to the community. The crowd filled available chairs and overflowed onto bleachers which had originally been intended for Marines. Men of the 2/23 made way for veterans and civilians, and stood through the ceremony. Lt. Blecksmith’s mother cut the ribbon to open the newly dedicated hall. His father spoke of his son, and the burden that military families bear in every war. General Stone talked about how every Marine who passed through Blecksmith Hall would now be aware of that fallen officer: "His will be the first name they see...and the last to be forgotten."

There was a Marine band and honor guard, Marine veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Marines like Captain Jensen, a fellow officer who fought alongside Lt. Blecksmith in Fallujah and remembered J. P.’s sense of humor and the high standards he set for himself. There were relatives, neighbors, friends, and friends of friends. Whether their bond was service to country, the wartime loss of a loved one, or lives that intertwined with the fallen Marine, on this Veterans Day they were all family.

Veterans Day is an occasion for remembering veterans–those who came back and those who didn’t. It is also an appropriate time to remember military families who sacrifice tremendously for the good of the country. Their only compensation is the knowledge that their family members perform a vital mission which ensures that this nation and its values shall endure. As J. P.’s father eloquently pointed out, military families "pick up the check" for the freedoms we all enjoy. The Blecksmith family has been picking up the check for three generations.

At a Memorial Day address in 2005, Ed Blecksmith closed his tribute to his son with this quote from Jack London: "I would rather be ashes than dust! I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dry rot. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time." J. P. Blecksmith donated the brief time he had to the service of his country. He is a source of pride and inspiration to two families–the Blecksmiths, whose tradition of service he proudly upheld, and the Marines, who bestowed a fitting tribute to a young man who embodied everything they stand for.

By Lance Thompson

The controversy over John Kerry’s comments about education and the military in late October prompted radio talk show host Dennis Prager to address the following question: Which would you advise your child to do after graduating from high school–go to college for four years or enlist in the service?

Four years of college includes three summers without college, if one doesn’t count the one between high school and higher learning. That post-high school summer is often frittered away in an endless grad party, an extended vacation to some far-off land, or a summer job to sock away some cash for college.

The first two years of college are devoted to fulfilling general education requirements, reteaching what wasn’t properly learned in high school, and re-enacting favorite scenes from Animal House in dorms, fraternities, sororities, or in the rented domiciles of landlords foolish enough to accept college students. This is essentially an extended version of high school, with different people, a new area code, and strange food and drink.

If and when the college student decides on a course of study, the serious undergraduate work begins in the third year, continues into the fourth year, and, sometimes a fifth year. Colleges don’t mind an extra year or two–they encourage longer stays, just as Disneyland and Sea World suggest revenue-boosting overnight stayovers to thoroughly enjoy their theme parks. When finished, the student has a bachelor’s degree in a particular major. If he has any work experience at all, it is usually from part-time, on-campus or summer jobs.

The college graduate will be four years older, but little wiser. His grades will measure his ability to master the academic and theoretical, but will give no indication of his understanding of the practical aspects of the real world.

The decision to go to college does not require a major change of course in the graduate’s life. He was used to returning to classes after every summer--college is just a bigger school with a better football team. Momentum will carry most high school students to higher education of some kind, whether it’s a community college or one of those upper management factories of the Ivy League. The real decision is postponed until a student graduates from college–he must now find employment, a place to live, and make a life for himself.

Now suppose, during the post-high school summer, the graduate stops by the recruiting office, talks to a recruiter, and signs up to serve his country for four years.

From the minute the recruit arrives at boot camp, his training begins in earnest. The recruit’s training is completely different than classes he had in high school. He is brought to peak physical condition, educated in military culture and history, and trained in specialized skills specific to his particular job. There is no wasted time, there are no undeclared majors, no frat parties or summers off. Military training is deadly serious.

It is also brief. It lasts a few weeks, perhaps a matter of months for more specialized or technical skills. But by the time a college student wanders through his first year of bonehead English, world history, or chemistry for non-majors, the military recruit has completed training, been assigned to his unit, and is performing his job in the real world.

Admittedly, part of that real world is combat. Before the college student reaches his first summer, the military recruit could be in Iraq, Afghanistan, or some other region where he will be asked to risk his life in defense of his country. It is true the college student will never face that danger. College is a protected, insulated environment where adult responsibilities can be postponed or ignored. It is definitely safer than military service.

As the next three years pass, the college student will take more classes, gather more knowledge, attain a degree. The soldier, sailor, airman or Marine will hone his skills, advance in rank, learn principles of teamwork, responsibility and leadership.

He will do one thing more. He will serve his country. Joining the military is an honorable, selfless act. It is an investment of self in something larger than the individual. The benefits of college are directed inward, toward the individual. The duties of a member of the military are to defend the nation and the Constitution. Americans in uniform pay the price for the freedom we all enjoy. It is the voluntary contribution of a citizen who knows his country cannot endure without that contribution. That is an aspect of character no degree can confer.

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it.  If it keeps moving, regulate it.  And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

By Lance Thompson

We lost, they won. There is no cause for celebration for conservatives. Still, there are a few bright spots on the horizon.

Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was defeated. While voters across the country threw out Republicans good and bad, this RINO was definitely one we needed to lose. Lincoln Chafee was so far to the left, if he stayed out in the sun too long, he turned blue instead of red.

Most of the leading contenders for the Democrat presidential nomination are in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden will all have two years in the upper chamber under control of their own party. They will have two years to create a record to run against. Presidential rerun hopeful Al Gore is in the safest place of all–outside elected office.

Congress is in the hands of the Democrats. In order to legislate, they must make public their agenda and seek support for it. No more carping and second-guessing from the back bench. They must put their names to legislation they sponsor and stand behind it. Americans may embrace their view or not, but either way, Democrats will be compelled to put forth plans for Iraq, for the economy, for national security.

Democrats will name chairmen of various Congressional committees. Some of the House appointments expected are Charles Rangel (who said all Bush tax cuts are on the repealing table) at Ways & Means, Alcee Hastings (one of only six judges ever impeached by the Senate) to head the Intelligence Committee, John Conyers (who supports slavery reparations) at Judiciary. These appointments will be similar to that of a president selecting a cabinet. The people Democrats select will tell us what they believe, what they value, what they consider important.

President Bush’s veto pen, which is in no danger of running out of ink, may find more application now that Congressional bills will bear the Democrat stamp. The President may have felt constrained to veto legislation from a Republican-controlled Congress. Governing by veto means that little progress will be made, but it also clearly establishes differences between the parties, and those differences will be the bases for the 2008 campaign.

Defeat encourages introspection in ways that victory never can. I used this space earlier to discourage conservatives from boycotting the election to teach Republicans a lesson. Whether the boycott was a reason for defeat or not, Republicans must face the reality that they have lost the support of many Americans. They have spent profligately, they have traded principles for politics, they have allowed the size of government to swell. If this election forces them to return to true conservatism, it’s a lesson worth learning.

I point out these few rays of sunshine not for the purpose of optimism. We must have a strategy for what comes next. That strategy must take into account the lessons of 2006: Cling to principle, not to power. Spend the people’s money as if the well of wealth was not bottomless. Heed the concerns of constituents. Republicans have a chance to renew their commitment to conservatism and responsibility. A majority of Americans are hungry for leaders they can trust and believe in. Republicans have an opportunity to earn that trust anew. That is something to be thankful for.

No matter how disappointed you are in this administration and the direction the country is going, do not lose sight of the horrific alternative:

If we sit out this election or switch parties to teach our

elected officials a lesson, we all lose.


Vote Republican on November 7.

by Lance Thompson

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Let’s take Senator John Kerry at his word–that the above quote was a "botched joke" about President Bush, and he never intended to insult United States troops. I can easily picture a scenario that supports that version of the incident.

Unemployed gag writers from the old Rosie O’Donnell show (now known as Democratic strategists) sit around a table at John Kerry’s office, hemmed in by snow boards, that camouflage duck hunting suit (practically new), a bin containing his Vietnam war medals marked "Take One,"a reproduction antique Heinz ketchup bottle turned into piggy bank, and two litres of unused "Tan in a Can." It’s the way the Oval Office would look now if Ohio had gone the other way.

John Kerry says he’d like to open his appearance at the California fund raiser with a few jokes, and, being an Ivy League graduate, is at least smart enough to know he can’t write his own material. The strategists toss out ideas, in the tradition of Buddy and Sally on the old Dick Van Dyke show. John Kerry sits in judgment, rejecting cute line after cute line. For him, there is a litmus test. The punch line has to say, "George Bush is stupid."

The strategists go back to their laptops, wracking their brains. In six years, they’ve come up with thousands of "George Bush is stupid" jokes. They’ve sold them to Rosie, Barbra, Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, David Letterman, Keith Olbermann. Joe Biden is one of their best customers–but he likes ‘em folksy. They tried to sell a few to Harry Reid, but just looking at him, no one would believe he’d ever told a joke in his life.

Finally, one wag comes up with the education line, shown above. Kerry, who hasn’t had much to smile about since early November 2004, cracks up. That’s it. George Bush is stupid, because he’s stuck in Iraq.

Perhaps some or all of the gag men, er, strategists, wonder if the joke could be misconstrued. It could be interpreted as a zinger against the troops. There are over 100,000 American troops in Iraq–somebody could think that Kerry is talking about them being "stuck in Iraq," rather than Bush. But it’s late and fresh Bush shots are hard to come by. Kerry’s happy with the line, so why rock the boat? It’s time for the strategists to get their evening briefing from Jon Stewart.

This scenario is plausible because it is a microcosm of the Democrat approach to this campaign and to politics in general since American forces removed Saddam. The Democrats are not at war with Islamic terrorists. Their enemy is George Bush. Getting rid of him is their primary mission. If zinging him at a fund raiser offends a few million members of the United States military, and their families, that’s what the Democrats call collateral damage. A small price to pay for making Bush look stupid.

And if getting rid of Bush requires a constant barrage of criticism about the war, about the planning of the war, about the reasons for war, about the conduct of the war, about the tactics of the war, about the troop levels of the war, or about the food, equipment and weapons of war, then so be it. If calls for withdrawal of our forces, resignation of our leaders, prosecution of our soldiers serve only to embolden and encourage our enemies, then the nation will have to bear it. If claiming that half of America wants to give up before the job is done causes more casualties to our troops, that’s okay–because at least it gets rid of George Bush.

The Democrats are consumed with a hatred of Bush that blinds them to every other consideration, and makes them deaf to the sound of their own words. That’s why John Kerry went before the crowd at Pasadena City College and told a joke that a majority of reasonable people believe was a put-down of every man and woman in uniform. While America heard a moronic, insensitive and despicable quip, all Kerry could hear was "George Bush is stupid."

by Lance Thompson

Gleefully do I look forward to 8 November--the day the Dems wake up in post-election hangover, stupefied as to why they don’t control either house of Congress, as was widely anticipated.

What happened, they will ask. The first suspects will be rigged voting machines, stolen elections, false absentee ballots, precinct fraud, sabotaged poll transport vehicles. The Dems will find these explanations first, since they are strategic principles of their campaigns.

When those are exhausted, they will blame the voters. "The voters were fooled again," they will grouse. "They fell for those simplistic Republican issues–patriotism, security, economic growth, low taxes, morality and responsibility." Black voters voted for black Republicans who preached responsibility instead of white Democrats who promised handouts. Americans thoughtlessly voted against trial lawyers, teacher unions and a Democrat impeachment lynch mob.

Finally, they will blame each other, and that’s where the fun starts. Hillary voted for the war, Kerry insulted the troops, Nancy Pelosi wasn’t strident enough, Harry Reid was too folksy, Rosie O’Donnell needed more volume, George Soros was stingy, the New York Times wasted too much front-page space on hard news and shoved the partisan attacks under the fold. And nowhere in the Democrat fault-finding, blame-sharing and electoral autopsying will there be any place to consider what the Dems stand for. Because that’s what will have done them in. A platform with no planks, a party without a plan, an attitude bereft of aptitude. The Americans will have voted for substance, once again, and the Democrats will still be mystified.

By Rose Pedenko

After a shot of Pepto-Bismol, I surfed some liberal blogs, The Daily Kos, Liberal Oasis, Democratic Underground ad nauseam. There appears to be consensus on the port side that opinion polls show a “blue” wave rolling across the country. No wonder I feel seasick.

Polls, polls and more polls. The only polls I see are from the fishing expedition being carefully crafted to show Democrats are going to win back the House. One theory long-propounded by the liberal media is that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes fact. It occurred to me that when Chuck Schumer expressed confidence they would win a Senate Majority, he was parroting Karl Rove, as if wishful thinking were the same as confidence.

The left is relishing in the disenchantment of conservatives with George Bush and firmly believe it will translate into fewer votes at the polls. They have misread the tone of dissatisfaction and as usual, misconstrued the griping. The GOP ship is not listing. It always rights itself because we are more logical than emotional. That is the unlearned lesson that will cost the Democrats to go aft from the apparent wind–and wonder for two more years how the election left them high and dry.

This is a Republican, and I this endorse this message.

By Tanya Simon

In this corner…

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is Tim Lane coming to you live from the Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles. This is the event that could change the course of U.S. politics: a general election smack down between President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry.

The crowd is restless. To my left are Democrats wearing blue tank tops and chanting something I’m, heh-heh, unable to repeat on live television. The Republicans are to my right in red tee-shirts that say “We will prevail.”

I can make out Ms. Streisand in the blue section, hollering “Shut the <bleep> up!” to a red-shirted heckler who is being tossed down the aisle steps and pelted with popcorn!

And here they come! The president looks in top form, surrounded by Secret Service and an entourage of Army Rangers. Kerry jumps into the ring first, slips and blames the Secret Service. He tosses a salute to the crowd. The left roar! The president is now in the ring. Both remove their robes – Dubya in his banker’s pinstripe Speedo … Kerry in a camouflage wetsuit. And there’s the bell!

Dubya comes out with a flying scissors leap and down goes Kerry! Kerry tries to get up but the president drives a knee into Kerry’s midsection, and down he goes again! Dubya disables him with his famous hammer-lock, pinning Kerry to the mat, and yelling something in his face! Kerry yells back “I apologize!” … eight, nine, ten! And George Bush is the winner! The Republicans hold control of the Senate!

If only …

The moonbats are gathering, and not just because Halloween has just passed.

You can recognize moonbats by their one-line poltical arguments. I can understand principled but wrong-headed opposition to the invasion of Iraq, but a moonbat will simply chant, "Bush lied, people died," then flutter off to a Starbucks to check the web for news on the latest celebrity break-up.

Qualifying as a Moonbat doesn't require much–in some cases, you need do nothing at all–especially on Election Day. Moonbats don't vote. They offer all sorts of excuses, such as "I hate them all," or "I haven't got the time." Then, of course, they'll spend the next half-hour complaining about the "jerks in office," wondering how anyone could be dumb enough to elect them.

For all you non-voting Moonbats out there, this is a nickel, and I'm going to buy you a clue. If you don't vote you have no right to complain. Voting gives you grousing rights, but not voting only buys you the right to remain silent.

Voting is a fundamental right and responsibility of every citizen in a democracy. That's how it works. If you don't vote, it doesn't work.

Whatever party you belong to, whatever side of the fence you're on, be sure you vote on Election Day. It's your right, it's your privilege, it's your honor, and it's your duty.