stop me if you think that you've heard this one before

We are entering the election season. Labor day officially starts it, apparently (although many candidates have been running furiously for months). So what are Republicans going to say for the next year? A vote for the Democratic Candidate is a vote for terrorism.

Let's make sure we understand. A vote for Kerry, Dean, Clark, Graham, Gephardt or any of the others is a vote for terrorism.

Of course the President isn't going to be saying this himself; he has people that do that for him. As a happy member of the upper class since birth, he's used to having other people doing his dirty work for him. But not to worry, there are dozens of conservatives who are willing to unfairly trash their opponents.

David Limbuagh happily comments on the unenviable position of the Democrats. You see the only issue that matters is the war on Terror, and Democrats, in order to make that issue work for them, have to attack the President. Speaking as if to Terry McCaulliff, he states, "You have concluded that to win the White House you have to discredit and slander President Bush and undermine his performance in the War on Terror."

I'm not sure we need to slander the President to note that we have just passed an unhappy milestone; more American soldiers have died since President Bush declared peace than died during the war. I'm not sure we have to slander the President to note that he apparently has no exit strategy. I'm also not sure we need to slander the President to note that while the economy might be roaring ahead in some sectors, we still have a large unemployment rate.

At any rate, the message is clear. Democrats are in a position where their lack of patriotism and hatred of America had led them to attack a sitting President in a time of (undeclared) war. If they were loyal Americans, they would spend this campaign cycle praising President Bush as a noble leader who deserves our support. Who needs Democracy?

Bill Murchinson makes the same point from another angle. He begins his comments by discussing radio transcripts from the World Trade Center on September 11, 2003, and comments that the war begun that day is still being fought. And that the war in Iraq is part and parcel of that war. He is optimistic about our chances, at least.

"At some point, things will start to break our way, if only because guerrillas, even the fruit-cakiest of them, cannot sustain themselves indefinitely against what Robert E. Lee, at Appomattox, called "overwhelming numbers and resources." Only an explicit decision by the United States to tuck tail and run could deliver Iraq back to the Baathists and similar riffraff. It is somehow comforting to know that even Howard Dean rejects this expedient."

But don't worry, if Mr. Murchinson is unwilling to describe the Liberals as cowards who will abandon the war on Terror, I'm sure there are dozens of others who will take up the task.