I’ve been a fan of jetBlue for some time.  They’ve driven the cost of commercial air travel down and that’s a good thing.  Like Wal-Mart, they’ve been a huge benefit to consumers.  But all that has changed for me now.

It seems that jetBlue is a sponsor of the yearly KOS convention.  You know, the web site that promotes views like the world would be better off without Tony Snow when he came up with cancer again.  Or how about promoting the idea that radical Islamic fascists have a right to attack US forces?  Or the Pope is a primate?  Or “better luck next time” when there was an assassination attempt on Vice President Dick Cheney?

jetBlue has had its problems and last year it nearly went belly up.  Still, I supported them because they benefited consumers.  Now, the new CEO has decided that the way to promote his airline is to get in bed with radical leftist web sites.  I think they’ve made a huge mistake.

Ford Motor Company has been sinking for over a year because of a boycott sponsored by the American Family Association due to Ford’s sponsorships of gay events.  But Ford is big enough to take it for a while.  JetBlue isn’t.  I can tell you that I will fly ANY airline except jetBlue.  There is no chance at all that I will spend my hard earned money with a company that actively supports such extremism.  And I think lots of other people will agree with me and vote with their wallets.

I’m not the sort to go after someone because they don’t agree with my views.  I’m a fan of Google, even though Google is clearly run by liberals.  But there is a line between holding differing opinions and promoting hate of the sort that DailyKos spews every day.  The DailyKos may be a very successful web site but that doesn’t change the fact that they are sickos who want to see America destroyed.  They don’t just hold a different opinion.  They want all those who disagree with them to die!  And they aren’t shy about saying so!  I don’t care how broad the exposure is, I could never ethically justify sponsoring such a web site just to advertise my product or company.  jetBlue clearly thinks it’s okay.  What do you think?

UPDATE:

Thanks to Jenn Sierra for tipping me to this update on billoreilly.com.  It seems that jetBlue has changed its position.  According to the article, jetBlue has a long history of supporting the troops.

So it appears that there is a happy ending to this one.  jetBlue has seem the error of its ways.  I suspect that the sponsorship was the result of a lack of knowledge of what the DailyKos actually is.  Now they know!

I has the privilege today of attending a luncheon sponsored by the South Carolina Republican Convention. The luncheon was held in Columbia and the keynote speaker was Fred Dalton Thompson. When the opportunity to go to this presented itself, there was no chance I was going to pass it up.

Thompson spoke for about 25 minutes and covered a lot of ground. In a speech of that length you can either cover one topic with some depth or you can skim the surface of a lot of topics. Since there was no overriding theme, Thompson chose the latter. What follows is my account of Thompson’s comments today.

Senator Thompson had quite a few quotable moments. The first was in his recounting of his visit with Former Prime Minister Thatcher and her relationship with Ronald Reagan. Referring to the accomplishments of the two Thompson said “strength doesn’t cause wars, strength prevents wars.” He then recounted how following the end of the cold war the US cut defense spending by more than 1/3, military development by 50% and allowed our intelligence operations to languish, particularly our human intelligence capabilities. He pointed out that through numerous attacks on our assets around the world we did little to nothing until 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

Thompson showed a real grasp of the situation we face in Islamic fascism. He said that our enemy sees this conflict as having already gone on for a hundred years and they are prepared to go another hundred if necessary. He said that people just don’t understand or appreciate that fact. He went on to say that in previous conflicts the country always pulled together but now partisan politics takes precedence. A big applause moment was when Thompson talked about the sons of two friends who are serving in Iraq and have re-upped. He said they had hope and optimism and he wasn’t going to give up hope so long as they held it. Thompson said we need leadership to bring us together, implying that he can provide that leadership.

In the subject of illegal immigration Thompson agreed that it was dividing our party but he expressed optimism that the party would get past it. He emphasized that the resolution had to come from consideration of what was best for the country, not what was best for either party. He said that thousands of illegal immigrants are not Mexicans and that is a grave risk to national security. Thompson said that we could not hope to protect our country until we secure our borders and he flatly said that the current immigration reform bill is not what is best for this country. He rightly pointed out that we got the same promises in 1986 that we are getting today and there is no reason to believe them now. He also pointed out that the US grants one million green cards per year now so claims that we are taking an anti-immigration stand are unfounded. In another quotable moment Thompson said “we welcome legal immigrants and this is home to all of us but we get to decide who comes to our home.” Thompson said the government can’t handle the backlog of four million legal immigrants waiting on processing now so how can they possibly handle 12-20 million more?

On the question of taxes Thompson said that low taxes benefit everyone but the tax and spend types want to divide up a static pie instead of increasing the size of the pie so everyone gets a larger piece, precisely Reagan’s position. He did not endorse the FairTax but he did say that we are bankrupting the country, the government and the economy and that waiting to fix the problem hurts everyone.

In a great moment for religious conservatives Thompson, referring to the Declaration of Independence, said that our rights come from God and not from government. He went on to say that our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our federal form of government with separation of powers. The implication seemed to be that we’ve strayed far from that ideal now. While not expressly mentioning abortion or assisted suicide, Thompson emphasized the sanctity of human life.

Thompson said we need a new coalition of people coming together for the good of the country. The clear implication was that he could build that coalition. That is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. He built a coalition of people from both parties, not in government but in the electorate. Reagan won two landslide victories by convincing democrats to vote for him.

I’ve often said this country is floundering because no leader has been able to cast a vision that the people caught hold of. Bush seems to understand the threat from Islamic fascism but he has utterly failed to articulate that to the people in a way that grabs their attention. There have been a lot of comparisons between Reagan and Thompson, not the least being they are both actors. Some have pointed out that Thompson is not like Reagan in the sense that Reagan has a long history of conservative intellectual thought and writing. Thompson clearly does not have that.

There is, however, one comparison that really works and that is the ability to communicate. Reagan could cast a vision and so can Thompson. On all the issues I’ve heard him speak on Thompson has been on the right side. He certainly was today. He may not be the conservative intellectual Reagan was but he has that long missing ability to communicate in a way that is at once understandable and compelling. He has the ability to cast a vision. I believe that he can bring in a lot of Democrats and that could easily turn the tide, not just in the election but also in terms of moving this country forward as a people with a common vision for the future. Unless this country gets behind a strong leader who is willing to do what it takes, we are in for a very difficult and painful future. As Churchill said, “sometimes it isn’t enough to do your best, sometimes you have to do what is required.” We, as a country, must be willing to do what is required if we expect our future to look anything like our past. It is my belief that of all the Republican candidates, Fred Dalton Thompson is far and away the best man to cast the vision for this country.

As an ending note let me relate my brief exchange with Thompson today. There was a large crowd of people who wanted to meet Thompson and shake his hand and I was in the middle of it. When I finally got the chance I extended my hand and Thompson took it. He has a real man’s handshake. His large hand wrapped around mine with a firm grip the way a man is supposed to shake hands, not bone crushing but you know you’re shaking hands. I told him that a lot of people were really excited at the prospect of him running and I was one of them. He smiled and thanked me. Then I told him that all those people, including myself, were going to be really disappointed if he decided against running. He grinned real big and said, “so will I.”

————–
NOTE: I recorded Thompson’s speech on my cell phone. The audio isn’t the best in the world and there is considerable background noise but it you can hear what Thompson had to say. The format is a peculiar cell phone format and I can’t find a way to convert it to mp3. I’m thinking about uploading it anyway since Real Player will play it but I’d prefer to convert it to mp3 so everyone can use it. If you know a good way to convert it, please let me know. Alternatively, if you have the ability to convert it I’ll be happy to send it to you for conversion if you’ll send the converted file back. Just let me know.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Orlando the file is now in mp3 format.  To listen to it click here.

Technorati : Fred Thompson

Nancy Pelosi and the dems have left the troops hanging so far and they’ve done so purely for political gain. Make a difference. Sign the petition.

Unless you live on a deserted island you are aware that 2/3 of American no longer support the war in Iraq. That coincided precisely with President Bush’s approval ratings which are the lowest of his presidency and one of the lowest of all time. For a multiplicity of reasons, Americans simply do not support the war and most believe it was a mistake in the first place and, perhaps, that it was based on lies.

The question remains, regardless of what most Americans believe or don’t believe, what are the realistic options regarding this war? Is a pullout, or as Democrats like to phrase it, a phased redeployment, actually a viable option? What can be expected if we do pull out? I think there are a couple of obvious answers that cannot be easily swept away.

First, American credibility will be decimated for the foreseeable future, regardless of who controls Congress or the White House. We have already had too many instances where we did not follow through with our commitments and the world already suspects that we cannot be depended upon to do what we say we will do. Perhaps that is a consequence of our form of government, although historically we had a much better reputation. From here on out we will not be able to gain allies in any serious international endeavor because the world will now that when it gets tough we bail out.

As serious as such a consequence may be, it is not as serious as the second difficulty with the redeployment strategy. As noted above, much of the world already expects that when it gets really tough the US will run. Indeed, Osama bin Laden said as much following our exodus from Somalia and that has been the stated strategy of Islamic fascists the world over. They know they cannot beat the US in a military sense. So their strategy has been to make it too costly to continue to engage them. They understand that the longer they drag this out the less support the President will have at home and, eventually, that support will dry up and he will have little choice but to withdraw.

So what happens then? The Islamic fascists declare their victory over America to start with. And as much as politicians may want to deny it, the claim will be valid. And with that victory will come an incredible increase in the ability of the Islamic fascists to recruit. Their approach will have been fully validated and new recruits will flood in in numbers never before imagined.

And who will be running this new army of Islamic terrorists? Probably Iran. And since we already know what Iran’s goals are, it will not be surprising if shortly thereafter the incidents of terrorism in Israel increase dramatically. Of course, Israel will only be the next step, not the last step. The Islamic fascists refer to Israel as the little Satan. Great Satan is reserved for the US. And if you labor under the false belief that they will change that view if we pull out of Iraq, lets just dispel that right now. Make no mistake, They WILL come after us here on American soil and their goals will far exceed 9/11.

While many Americans have fallen for the ridiculous assertion that Iraq has been a distraction from the war on terrorism, nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever you may believe about the start of the war, whether justified or not, the Islamic fascist themselves claim that Iraq is now the central front in that war. Anything short of complete and total victory there will be disastrous for the US and the world.

I am not the best prognosticator around and I don’t claim to have any sort of crystal ball. But I know this much, the troop increase that President Bush is starting to implement is, at worst, the minimum required at this moment. Regular readers will know that I am not a Bush cheerleader. He has often disappointed me because he is not a conservative. But he is the Commander in Chief and he is the only person in the world who is capable of waging this war, a war that absolutely must be waged. I don’t know if Bush will use these additional troops in an effective way. My gut instinct is that he won’t because America simply does not have the stomach to do what needs to be done. Still, the alternative to adding troops is far worse.

I urge all Americans who value freedom to support the President now. I’m not asking you to like him or approve of his overall job as President. I don’t approve of his overall performance. But he, our troops and the world need us to stand as one and win this conflict. The consequences of failure are simply too dreadful to contemplate.

For well over a year there have been calls from Democrats to increase troop strength to deal with the “insurgency” in Iraq. Speaker Pelosi herself said more than a year ago that’s what she would do. Now, President Bush has basically admitted that he made a mistake in not sending enough troops to secure Iraq and he wants to send twenty thousand more troops to get the job done. Predictably, the Democrats will not support the President on this.

It has been painfully clear to me for some time that the Democrats do not oppose the President’s ideas per se. What they really oppose is any possibility of a Bush success. The Democrats would rather lose the war in Iraq than allow a Bush victory there. They apparently believe they can deal with the mess later and if they can’t, they can blame in on Republicans. It’s all about winning the White House in ‘08.

This is an extremely short sighted view. I certainly understand either party pulling out the stops to win the White House. But are there no stops that should remain? How far is too far to go in the name winning power? It’s been often said that in times past politics stopped at the water’s edge but those days are long behind us.

The reality is, we are not engaged in a battle for control of the US government. We are engaged in a war for the very survival of western civilization. What I cannot understand is why Democrats can’t grasp that fact. It’s not just that losing in Iraq would be damaging to American prestige around the world, although it would. It’s not just that losing in Iraq will strengthen Iran, even though it will. The reality is this. If we don’t “do what is required” to defeat Islamic fascism our very existence as a free society will be in jeopardy.

There have been plenty of mistakes in Iraq. I have believed almost from the beginning that we needed more troops there. Regular readers know that I am not a big Bush supporter. He has made mistakes. But he, at least, seems to grasp the ramifications of a US lose in Iraq. He understands that we face, perhaps, the most dangerous, insidious enemy we have ever faced as a nation and as a civilization.

President Bush has my support in increasing troop strength in Iraq by twenty thousand and I say increase it even more if necessary. As Churchill said, sometimes is is not enough to do our best. Sometimes we must do what is required, regardless of the cost. Our forbears understood that and they did what was required. Are we willing to do the same today. Is freedom worth fighting and dying for? I say it is.

This from the executive summary of the Iraq Study Group Report. “Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.” So Hamilton, Baker, et. al., actually believe that Iran and Syria have an interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq? Pardon me but what are these folks smoking?

I am, of course, somewhat late in joining the debate surrounding the ISG Report and much of what I will say has been said in other ways by other people. Nevertheless, I believe it is important to reinforce what others before me have said. I will end with conclusions but first it is necessary to point out some of the more blatant flaws in the report itself.

The ISG Report (here after refereed to as the report) reaches at least one correct conclusions.

If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.

While the above includes many hypotheticals, it is basically accurate in my view. The remedy the ISG prescribes, however, seems designed to encourage the very outcomes hypothesized. One must wonder whether the ISG simply does not understand the dynamics at play with Islamic fascists or their stated goals and their true goals are the same.

Again, from the executive summary, “No country in the region will benefit in the long term from a chaotic Iraq. Yet Iraq’s neighbors are not doing enough to help Iraq achieve stability. Some are undercutting stability.” The final sentence illustrates the fallacy of the first sentence. Clearly Iran and Syria believe they have much to gain from instability in Iraq as demonstrated by their continued interference in Iraq. How then does the ISG conclude that Iran and Syria have an “interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq?”

The ISG has a real talent for stating the obvious.

In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

Okay, not much to argue with here. Everyone would likely agree that Iran should stop providing arms to insurgents and “respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” and that Syria should “control its borders with Iraq.” The question is, how do we influence them to do so? The ISG would have us believe that all we need do is sit down at the table with them and explain it to them diplomatically using a series of incentives and disincentives. Well what have we been doing? Iran is developing nuclear weapons and the U.S. has worked diligently to stop that process with virtually no success. Without the cooperation of the rest of the western world and without the willingness to use “what ever means necessary” to achieve that goal, we will continue to meet with failure. The same is true of our attempts to stop Iraq and Syria from interfering with Iraq.

Both Iran and Iraq have interests that do not coincide with American interests. In fact, they cannot coincide with American interests because their are interested in destroying us and western civilization. They want Sharia law to rule the world. It is difficult to see how the U.S. or any other nation can negotiate with that. The only negotiating tool we really have at our disposal is our military strength and a willingness to use it as necessary. The conflict in Iraq, as fought thus far, has demonstrated repeatedly that we are NOT willing to use our military might! And therein lies the problem.

Cal Thomas had some interesting observations yesterday regarding the ISG report.

The ISG must not have noticed that Iran and Syria are largely responsible for destabilizing Baghdad. Syria is simultaneously using its Hezbollah proxy to undermine the elected Lebanese government. What possible reason would Iran and Syria have to stabilize Iraq so that the United States can leave behind a free nation? Iran and Syria would see a free Iraq as a threat to their own dictatorial regimes.

Quite right. Either the ISG is living in la la land or they have another agenda. Thomas had more to say.

There are noble calls for cooperation between Republicans and Democrats and between the White House and Congress, but the problem is not on our side. It’s on the other side. The ISG failed to deal with the religious motivations of those who believe their God wants us dead and who have no qualms about devising weapons of mass destruction to wipe out millions of us. “Infidel” diplomats are not about to influence dictators and mullahs who believe their “holy book” commands them to lie to the “cross worshippers” and “crusaders” in their own crusade for world dominance by force.

Note to ISG; Islamic fascists are not interested in negotiations, they simply want to kill us! They see our desire to negotiate as an indication of our weakness and they are more than happy to exploit that weakness. Indeed, that is precisely what they have been doing in Iraq for some time.

For the ISG, America is the ultimate cause of the problems in the Middle East. Our policies supporting Israel top the list of ISG complaints and they see any ultimate solution in Iraq involving a two state solution with Palestine and Israel. But again the ISG ignores the fact that several administrations have attempted just that and failed. And the reason for that failure has nothing to do with American diplomacy. It boils down to the fact the Islamic fascists are not interested in or willing to tolerate a two state solution. As the Iranian President has stated on numerous occasions, they will settle for nothing less that the destruction of Israel. That seems an awfully high price to pay for “stability” in Iraq and the Middle East and there is absolutely no reason to suspect that even the destruction of Israel would result in stability in the region.

Thomas concludes with a statement that mirrors what I have been saying for some time.

Enemies like this understand only one thing: power. They do not keep promises, or honor treaties and agreements that do not serve their primary interests. For them, those interests include humiliating the United States, securing Iraq for the acolytes of Osama bin Laden and then moving on to challenge America in other places and finally on our own soil. The problem is that if we wait to crush them until they reach our shores (and too many are already among us), it will be too late.

George Orwell said, “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” The Iraq Study Group Report won’t contribute to our safety. Finishing the job we started, by whatever means necessary, will.

Thomas uncovers what the ISG refuses to admit. We do not face a problem with a diplomatic solution. Diplomacy is doomed to failure because of the enemy we face and the longer diplomacy is used, the stronger the enemy grows.

That leads back to the conclusions of the ISG report. While a plurality on both sides of the aisle have embraced the ISG report, many have done so out of frustration and a desire to rid ourselves of the Iraq problem at any cost. And make no mistake, if the ISG recommendations are followed, the cost will be high indeed. Ultimately, the ISG recommendations, if followed, will result in a U.S defeat in Iraq and the complete loss of American credibility around the world. But that is minor compared to the victory the Islamic fascists would have achieved.

If the U.S. leaves Iraq without crushing the insurgency, if we leave with anything short of complete and total victory, the Islamic fascists will have everything they have worked for. They will have control of both Iran and Iraq, they will have nuclear weapons and they will then challenge America directly. And there is no doubt that should Iran get nuclear weapons, they will use those weapons in short order against Israel. Whether you you believe in a biblical Armageddon or not, what will follow such an American defeat will be exactly that.

So whether the ISG simply wants any way possible for America to gracefully exit Iraq with as little loss of credibility as possible or they have a hidden agenda, the result is the same. There will be no graceful exit. We may lie to ourselves and call it that but it will be nothing short of utter defeat and that defeat will not be because we did not have the ability to win. It will be because we did not have the will to win. Elan Journo writing for the Ayn Rand Institute put it this way.

America’s security depends on identifying precisely the enemy that threatens our lives–and then crushing it, rendering it a non-threat. It depends on proudly defending our right to live free of foreign aggression–by unapologetically killing the killers who want us dead.

(snip)

Victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan. The enemy and its supporters were exhausted materially and crushed in spirit. What our actions demonstrated to them was that any attempt to implement their vicious ideologies would bring them only destruction and death. Since their defeat, Nazism and Japanese imperialism have essentially withered as ideological forces. Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran’s totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile.We triumphed over both Japan and Germany in less than four years after Pearl Harbor. Yet more than five years after 9/11, against a far weaker enemy, our soldiers still die daily in Iraq. Why? Because this war is neither assertive nor ruthless–it is a tragically meek pretense at war.

The only solution in Iraq and indeed in the larger war with Islamic fascism is American willingness and resolve to fight to win, “by whatever means necessary.” Anything less is doomed to failure.

The elections are over. For politicians it’s time to start working on ‘08. But what about the rest of us? What do we do now?

‘08 is a long way off. I don’t know about you but I’m not prepared to spend two years in campaign mode. While the ‘08 elections are important, there is little any of us can do today to impact them. But there are many other issues to be looked at and dealt with in the mean time.

For one thing, with dems in control of the Senate we know right off that judicial appointments will be far more difficult for President Bush. It is likely that there will be one more vacancy on the Supreme Court in the next two years and I expect the President to avoid judicial activists and appoint someone who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than superimpose his/her own ideology on it. That will, of course, mean a battle. It will be difficult to even get such a nominee through the Senate Judiciary Committee. We need to be prepared for that fight because it is likely to be coming. Even for normal appointments to the federal bench there will be much difficulty.

Comprehensive immigration reform now seems much more likely. Conservatives oppose reforms so far offered and those are just the kinds of reforms that will be offered again. Amnesty, by what ever name, will sail through both Houses of Congress and the President is likely to sign such legislation. Unless we are prepared with strong grassroots efforts to stop it, it will be a slam dunk.

Future Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated the raising the minimum wage will be a top priority. Few issues have been subject to such demagoguery than the minimum wage. And few issues are so poorly understood by the electorate. We know that any significant increase in the minimum wage will have two effects. First, it will increase unemployment for those at the bottom of the wage scale. Second, it will further slow the economy when it has already been slowed too much by aggressive fed interest rate policy. If Democrats are not checked, we will likely be headed into a new recession. That might be good for Republican prospects in ‘08 but it isn’t good for the American people and only strong grassroots efforts can stop it.

The biggest and by far most important issue is the war with Islamic fascism. To date, Democrats have appeared not to take it seriously, preferring to handle terrorist events through law enforcement. If dems truly believe what they’ve preached, they will work diligently to get us out of this war and hunkered down back home. If that should happen, we will see many more 9/11 style attacks on the US. Again, this may be good for Republican prospects in ‘08 but it is decidedly bad for American and we have to do whatever we can to prevent such an eventuality.

It is incumbent on all of us to communicate with our members of Congress and let them know that we will not sit back and allow them to make America vulnerable. Most conservatives I know have a pretty good understanding of the enemy we face. It is an enemy that only understands strength and weakness. It is an enemy that will interpret any move by the US to withdraw as a sign that our will is failing us and that will embolden them. Indeed, they are already taking credit for the Republican defeat and for Rumsfeld’s resignation. In the coming days look for the Islamic fascists to move aggressively to increase and consolidate the power this election has given them.

We face dark and dangerous days ahead. We must face them with resolve and determination. I believe that all of civilization is threatened and we must face that threat head on and unified. To this point we have been anything but unified. I desperately hope that it will not take a few more 9/11 style attacks to convince the electorate that we cannot win unless we are united.

We will face these and other issues over the next two years. All of us must work to educate ourselves. No one is going to come to us and teach us what the truth is on any of these issues. The one thing you can count on politicians to do is demagogue the issues. Even the best of them is driven by elections and they are motivated to do and say what they think is necessary to be reelected. If we want to know the truth we have to do the work to discover it. We have to research the issues. We have to educate ourselves so we understand what is at stake and so we can, in turn, work to educate others. I’ve always believed that truth ultimately prevails over lies and deceit but that can only be true when people know the truth.

You’ve heard about this movie. Now you can see it, all of it, right here, for free. And you should see this movie before you go to the polls on election day.

Part I – There’s a Problem

Part II – The Culture of Jihad

Part III – The Media of Terrorism

Part IV – Jihad in the West

Part V – The Culture of Denial

Part VI – To Their Own Children

Part VII – Hitler and the Mufti

Part VIII – We’ve Been Here Before…

On Townhall.com, Cal Thomas has a column that makes an astounding statement. “This election isn’t about House pages; it’s about survival” said Thomas. He’s exactly right. When Clinton defeated Bush 41, the Democrat tag line was “it’s the economy, stupid.” Today’s Republican tag line ought to be, “it’s about survival, stupid.”

Thomas says that congressional Republicans “seem to have run out of ideas.” He goes on to say,

They now ask for votes on two levels, neither of which is appealing. The first is that the Democrats would do a worse job than Republicans, which is like choosing which of two ugly sisters to take on a date. The second is they crave power for its own sake. Republicans have failed to give voters sufficient reason to vote for them, except for one that trumps all the rest – they can better defend the country.

That’s not a generally rosy picture but it is accurate. Like the perpetual argument of the Democrats, Republicans have been reduced to saying “we aren’t as bad as they are.” But even in that unenviable position, the Republicans still hold a superior argument to Democrats because they actually have ideas and plans for dealing with terrorists. The Democrats have nothing but opposition. As Thomas said,

Democrats have no plan for keeping America safe, or winning the war against the fanatics. They have opposed most of the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance methods. They have opposed aggressive interrogation tactics designed to get information to protect us, including opposition to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where detainees are treated better than they could expect if they were detained in their homelands.

<snip>

For all of their promises to do a better job of fighting this war, Democrats have no plan, other than retreat. That is the plan the terrorists have for us. Retreat is not in their playbook. The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere don’t speak of timetables for withdrawal or bringing their fighters home in time for Ramadan. They’re in it for the long haul. They believe we are not. A victory by Democrats next month will validate their view and encourage them to fight harder.

That pretty well sums up the Democrat position. The question is, is the American electorate paying enough attention to know that? The Democrats, particular in the MSM and the blogosphere, have worked overtime to obscure those facts because they know they are hurt by them. The challenge for Republicans and conservatives is to get that message out. I’m doing my part.

Michelle Malkin writes about having one of her videos banned on YouTube without explanation. Se her open video letter to YouTube below.