Recently Karl Rove infuriated the Democrats. President Bush's Chief of Staff, had the absolute audacity to suggest that the Republicans should use the success of the War on Terrorism as a poltical platform plank: "We can go to the country on this issue of the war on terrorism."

Dick "I want to be president so bad I don't care how many times I run" Gephardt was particularly vituperative. "These young people in Afghanistan are not fighting for the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. They're fighting for the S the United States ."

Well, yeah. But an interesting point is that about nine out of ten of them are Republicans.

You might remember that statistic from the "000 election. You remember, the one where Al Gore's operatives tried everything they could to eliminate the military vote?

Realistically it's probably worse than that at this point. I have many friends in the military, most of them in either combat arms ("people are shooting at us and we're shooting back") or combat support ("people are shooting at us and we're reloading for the guys who are shooting back") and the ratio of Democrats is about one in twenty. And that includes a majority of Hispanics and blacks.

This didn't used to be the case. Prior to and even during Vietnam , there were people from both parties in all the levels of the military. Indeed, in WWII Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a slim majority. But now the military is an entirely GOP fiefdom. One has to wonder why. Or, perhaps one doesn't.

Let us take a look at fundamental philosophical differences between the parties.

While the Republicans realize that they're members are not perfect, they expect their leadership to be both truthful and clean of "sin" whether that be outright political corruption or moral turpitude. Sans peur, sans reproach.

The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to revel in both. Whether it is Jackson Lee with her "I am a queen and expect to be treated as such" or Bill Clinton's "It depends upon what the meaning of is is" the Democrats believe in the fundamental doctrine of post-modern deconstructionist politics: it doesn't matter what lie you tell, it's only words.

Compare and contrast what happened to Newt or Guliani when it became clear they were having extra-marital affairs. The writing was on the wall and both quickly fell on their respective swords. They had to: Republicans would settle for nothing less.

Now, think about this. You are heading into "bandit country", just you and a few other guys. You are going to be depending upon them to watch you while you sleep, to look for mines as they move, to kill the enemy so that he won't kill you and most of all to stand by you or carry you out if you are hurt.

You have a choice of two people to cover you: Rudolph Guliani or Bill Clinton. Which do you choose? Yeah. Go figure.

Here we begin to see why there are no Democrats in the military. Everyone in the military is not faced with such a stark choice. But the pressures that exist in the military reflect such stark choices every day. The guys on a carrier deck have to know that the man or woman behind and besides them are going to do their job, no matter what, with no excuses. If they don't, somebody dies. Whether it's a pilot when something breaks or the person who gets sucked into an engine. Throughout the military there are these life and death situations, none of which can be deconstructed other than by deconstructing a human being.

So, this is not the fault of the military, it is the fault of the Democratic party. Above and beyond their lack of interest in "our troops", their support of liars and thieves and charlatans, from Bill Clinton to Al Sharpton shows their utter contempt for everything that can be called a "martial virtue."

And this is clear to the voters. Which is why the Democratic party is in a bind. It has set itself up as the party of the anti-reality. And post-9/'' it is clear that no such party can survive. I will not foretell it's death in the next couple of elections, but it is possible. Certainly the death of the "deconstructionist" wing is possible and even likely. One can but hope.

For the real question is: Is it a good idea to not only wonder if there is another and better way, but to reject "factual reality" as a bourgeoise plot? For this is, in essence, the nature of the modern Democratic party. They have gone so far out on the limb of "rejection of the lessons of the past" that they had reached the point of "creating new realities as we go along." Realities that less sophisticated persons call fantasies. And then "real reality" slapped them in the face, hard, on 9/''.

In a few months, voters will go to the booths and elect a new congress. Between now and then it's something to wonder: "Do I really want someone in charge of funding my military, that I couldn't trust at my back?"

Vote however your conscience dictates in November. But, remember, nine out of ten of those guys (and gals) in harm's way will be voting for the Republican.