The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times newspapers, along with television networks ABC, CBS and NBC, and magazines such as Time and Newsweek managed to keep stories hurtful to Republicans on the front burner the entire year, while ignoring similar stories about Democrats. The Mark Foley scandal warranted frontpage coverage every day from the moment it broke in September until the November election.

Meanwhile, William Jefferson's name may be unfamiliar to you. He's the Democrat congressman who was caught on video taking a bribe, and who had $90,000 in cash wrapped in foil in his freezer. You have to search diligently to find his story.

So the MSM had a great year. However, a couple of more blatantly Liberal vehicles didn't do so well.

Air America Radio
Air America Radio filed for bankruptcy in October. Its programs had ratings lower than dead air and static, to the point that many advertisers, including Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, McDonald's, Cingular, Visa, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, the U.S. Postal Service and the Navy, explicitly said that they did not want to be associated with the unattractive corpse. Financial scandals and a defamation suit (which a judge recently ruled can continue) pretty much put the pennies over the eyes of the Liberal network which upon its debut only two years ago got frontpage attaboys from the entire MSM.

As a result, the demi-celebrity hosts have all left. Al Franken, the last rat on the sinking ship, is deluding himself into considering a political career, so his time is also short. Not getting paid by the failed Liberal enterprise probably played a big part in his decision.

You can be sure he wishes for happier (and better paying) times as Stuart Smalley on Saturday Night Live.

Keith Olbermann and MSNBC
Many Liberal lottery ticket-buyers point to MSNBC, and Liberal henchman Keith Olbermann's "increase" in ratings during 2006 as proof of some sort of recovery. MSNBC did, indeed, increase its ratings, due mainly to KO's manufactured feud with top dog Bill O'Reilly of Fox. (Liberals suckling from the Conservative teat is nothing new; Franken had to invoke Rush Limbaugh's name to sell his book.)

However, MSNBC's so-called "success" is a will-o'-the-wisp. The network consistently ranks sixth out of five, one below dead last. If we still had test patterns it would rank even lower. Meanwhile, Fox News Channel, nemesis of Liberals because it reports the truth (which they can't abide,) remained firmly in the lead, maintaining a strong hold on cable news with 14 of the top 15 programs.

The Lesson
What this proves is that, in order to survive, Liberal media, just like Liberal politicians, have to present themselves as more conservative than they really are. Boldly and honestly revealing their true ideology is the kiss of death.

North Korea apparently detonated a nuclear bomb a few days ago. Their leader has been belligerent and pretty clear in his animosity toward the United States. They have ballistic missiles that can carry a warhead far enough to attack other countries, such as Japan. I’m not sure if they have anything that can reach the U.S., and I don’t have it in me to research that particular issue. I’m too full of despair.

While it’s pointless to assign blame for this situation, the Liberal Democrats have been shouting loudly that it’s Bush’s fault. I’ll respond in kind this once, for reasons I’ll mention in a moment.

Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Madeline Albright. The destruction of the world may be on their shoulders. They engineered the 1994 "Agreed Framework," in which North Korea agreed to not build nuclear weapons in exchange for economic assistance from the United States. They were told early on that North Korea was not trustworthy, but went ahead anyway. The economic assistance included aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor.

When Democrats boast about the "successful" Clinton negotiations, this is what they’re referring to: a program in which we paid an enemy not to arm himself. Incredibly, we gave him our entire portion up front, and without provisions for anything remotely resembling a method for verification or enforcement. As early as 1997 or 1998, North Korea picked up its nuclear weapon development where it left off. The biggest jaw-dropper of all is that American payments continued in the late 1990’s even after we discovered North Korea was breaking the agreement.

Now the Democrats want to blame Bush for not engaging in bilateral talks with North Korea, and for angering North Korea by naming it as part of the Axis of Evil.

The reason for my running battle against Liberal Democrats is that they are likely to get me killed. This isn’t a political disagreement about economic policy, or welfare, or how big government should be. This is literally life or death.

On this topic, I really, truly do not understand their position. What they have tried in the past has not worked. (That’s typical of Democrat policies: 40 years of Johnson’s "War on Poverty," and of programs designed to help blacks. According to Democrats, blacks still need help. Seems to me like blacks would get the message and try something else.) The old saying is "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." What can you say about the Clinton administration that was fooled over and over and over again? And why in the world would anyone in his right mind want to follow such a staggeringly unsuccessful example?

With the recent Mark Foley scandal, the Democrats have likely secured the election this November. Democrats will control the House of Representatives, and maybe the Senate. They will engage in activities designed to destroy Bush and the Republicans, and they will ignore the defense of America. They will insist on following Clinton’s example in dealing with our enemies. Disregarding the facts and history, Democrats will coddle, mollify, placate and appease. They will disarm America and our allies to show our goodwill. Despite this, our enemies will continue their belligerence and aggression. One thing has changed now, thanks to Clinton, and this is why I’m pointing the finger: Our enemies now have the capability to destroy entire cities.

The Democrats, for some unfathomable reason, follow a policy that leads to American defeat and destruction. If and when they win in November, we will be on a road upon which my children and grandchildren will have to travel. With a Hillary Clinton presidential victory possible in 2008, we’re looking at an incredible amount of damage. America as we know it will be dramatically altered if that level of terrorism becomes possible.

Mark Foley’s sex scandal is not the deciding factor in a possible Republican defeat, but it’s part of it. Larger is the Republican House and Senate’s unwillingness to fight for Conservative principles, and to govern with strength and conviction. Although the Clinton administration structured the deal which armed our enemy, elected Republicans have, since then, betrayed us almost as much. They behaved in ways that may put lemmings in control of our government.

My children are just now becoming young adults. How do I explain to them that the tribulations they will face - the large, world-destroying ones - were to a large extent the fault of the people that I helped elect?

Republicans take heed. Scared, angry voters bury politicians.

The Democrat party of Harry Truman and JFK no longer exists. Somewhere in the last forty years, the Democrat party has been hijacked by an anti-American cabal. Think about it: whenever there is good news for America, say the economy or in the war in Iraq, Democrats rush out to say how bad it actually is. The message is clear: Good news for America is bad news for Democrats

Which implies that bad news for America is good news for Democrats. On a more personal level, any victory for pro-abortionists or for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexuals is a victory for Democrats. Any court ruling that forbids an expression of Christian beliefs is a victory for Democrats. The granting of constitutional rights to enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay is a victory for Democrats.

All of which means that a pro-life, pro-traditional family values, pro-national security Christian Democrat no longer has a place to go. Either subtly or overtly, that type of Democrat is being urged and persuaded to support candidates who are antithetical to his or her own beliefs.  Moreover, decent Democrats are being urged to change their core beliefs.

Republicans certainly don't have a monopoly on decency, just as Democrats don't have a monopoly on immorality.  But longtime Democrats, or those who are Democrats because their parents were -- my own mother claimed to the day she died that "Hoover got us into the Great Depression, and FDR got us out" -- have to face the fact that they have been booted out of their own home.

As difficult as it may seem, those Democrats have to give serious thought to voting Republican.  Sure, there may be differences of opinion about how to go about protecting America, or how best to handle immigration, or any number of political topics.  In the Republican party those debates are going on.  What is not in doubt is that Republicans believe in those traditional American values -- God, family and country --  that today's Democrats constantly undermine and ridicule.

The Republican party needs to ensure that Democrats who want to make that leap have a soft place to land.  Regardless of trivial differences in political beliefs, there should always be a place for decent people.

 We have to understand the radical Muslims, either to be able to get along with them, or to more efficiently destroy them. A core feature of their belief is the concept of jihad, or holy war.

I approach topics like this systematically. Let me explain my thinking.

1) Not all Muslims want to kill us. Just as not all Texans are cowboys, and not all lettuce is iceberg, we can be wrong in our perceptions. I will say this, however: Those Muslims who do NOT want to kill us are very quiet people.

2) There is a Christian parallel to the view the radical Muslims have. It's the biblical story of S0d0m and Gomorrah. According to the bible, the two cities were so wicked that God didn't want them to exist, so he destroyed them. Radical Muslims consider western society so wicked that it must be wiped out.

3) I can see their point. Music, movies, dancing, television -- they are all very coarse now. I'm a crude person from a crude background, yet I'm occasionally shocked at what I see or hear. People with more delicate sensibilities must be really suffering. Additionally, for the last sixty years the United States has been feeling its oats, poking its nose in places it didn't belong, neglecting other places where we could have done some good -- basically doing what nations do.

4) Having said that, I'm not willing to be killed for the sake of understanding; I don't want my children to die; I don't want my way of life wiped from the face of the planet. And that seems to be the purpose of the radical Muslims.

5) With completely opposite goals -- radical Muslims want Americans dead, and Americans don't want to die -- there is no middle ground, no chance for compromise. Any sort of rapprochement the radical Muslims advance before they are defeated into submission is a distraction. They can not afford to, and will not compromise on this fundamental belief that has become so central to their lives.  To them, America must cease to exist.

6) The only original theory I've ever had is this ("original" in that I don't remember hearing it anywhere else): A conflict will be conducted at the lowest level to which either side is willing to go.  If I'm arguing with my neighbor, and he punches me in the stomach, I will have to react physically in some way or I won't survive. (Yes, I saw "Gandhi." There are exceptions to this rule.) The radical Muslims will sit at the bargaining table while they cut off heads.

7) We need to win in several ways. First, we must inflict such damage and pain to their side that the cost to them is too great to continue. Second, we must convince them that all they have to do to stop the pain is to walk away, go back to their lives, and not kill people. Third, we must influence their society in such a way that they can live in harmony with other societies and religions. (Besides murdering Americans, Muslims are also killing Buddhists in southeast Asia.)

8) Conversely, anything less than complete American victory, such as leaving Iraq and the rest of the Middle East prematurely, will be perceived as weakness by radical Muslims. This weakness will embolden them, encouraging them to be even more aggressive. This is exactly what Osama bin Laden claimed in an interview, referring to the American withdrawal from Somalia.

The military might of the United States -- Schwarzkopf's "Thunder and Lightning" -- must be brought to bear on the radical Muslims. When a terrorist is in his home, he should be jumpy, listening for the sound of the drone bomb that is seeking him out. His fear of America must override his desire to destroy it. Only then can we move the level of the conflict upward, and eventually eliminate jihad altogether.