By Christopher G. Adamo

In stark but reliable simplicity, Republican successes of the past several decades can be directly correlated to the contrasts between their philosophy and agenda as compared to that of the Democrats. In the 1994 election cycle, differences between the two parties were clearly defined, and Republicans triumphed. Conversely whenever distinctions become blurred, Republican fortunes fall commensurately.

Unfortunately this phenomenon, so crucially important to Republican victory, is apparently beyond the understanding of GOP “moderates,” who believe that victory results from an indefinable strategy of fence sitting. As the 2006 elections loom, it is incumbent upon the Republicans to recognize these realities, especially in light of the shameless efforts by Democrat leaders to present a facade of being in the political center.

Making matters worse, Republicans in Congress and the Senate, and occasionally even the Bush Administration, have egregiously fumbled the conservative agenda. Thus, they no longer present a clear, conservative front on such issues as spending or the growth of entitlements.

On matters of national sovereignty, such as America’s hemorrhaging southern border and the resulting invasion of illegal aliens, the Republican perspective is ambiguous at best. And in the historically “red state” heartland, agricultural producers are frustrated to the breaking point by federal policy that makes the northern border equally porous to an influx of four-footed foreign invaders.

Yet even in the wake of so many Republican foibles, it is valuable to consider just how much America stands to lose if Democrats once again dominate the federal government. A cursory overview of their recent antics yields convincing evidence.

To begin with, the “censure” ploy of Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, were he to enjoy support for such a move in a Democrat controlled Senate, could only further embolden the Islamist enemies of America, who hold fast to hopes of triumphing in the terror war by simply outlasting America’s will to fight.

Who can doubt that Feingold’s real motive is to lay the groundwork for eventual impeachment of President Bush, based not on his foreign policy or the overblown NSA controversy, but instead on a juvenile Democrat obsession of getting even with Republicans for the impeachment of Bill Clinton?

Democrat House leader Nancy Pelosi, no less venomous in her partisanship than Feingold, nonetheless wishes Feingold would remain quiet about such things until after November. But to the Islamists, the message is unmistakable. A president who effectively confronts terrorism risks public humiliation, and even possible removal from office for doing so.

Back on the home front, members of the armed forces, who have served so courageously and sacrificially since 9-11, are getting a foretaste of what they can expect under Democrat rule. In a rerun of the Clinton years, some among their ranks are being used as public relations “props,” in yet another ruse to blur party distinctions.

According to a memo from Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid of Nevada, aspiring Democrat candidates should make military personnel and hardware prominent in their rallies during the campaign season, in order to convince America that its interests will be equally protected under the headship of a Democrat controlled Congress.

Meanwhile, Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the media are doing their best to exaggerate any negative news coming out of Iraq. Talk of an imaginary Iraqi “civil war” has been incessant.

So what is really represented by a party that claims to support the military while simultaneously working to drive it to defeat by portraying its enemies as invincible? In short, liberals running the Democrat Party hold no regard for the military, or the country it was instituted to protect, and are willing to play any game necessary to reacquire and enhance their political power.

If, driven by their addiction to power and ensuing rage against any who would encroach on it, they will play these games with murderous terrorists, what havoc might they be expected to wreak on domestic policy, the Constitution, and the rule of law?

A heavy-handed dose of liberal government, along with a renewed vigor among activist judges, is inevitable. And it is certain that liberals secretly salivate at the prospect of repealing President Bush’s tax cuts, if for no other reason than to destroy his legacy.

Democrats have made it abundantly obvious that they are presently no more concerned with America’s safety and security, or the advancement of sound fiscal policy, than they were during the 1990’s. Rather, they seek vengeance, retribution, and at any cost to the country, political advantage.