The old rules no longer apply mike f. The internet chances the politcal landscape for the better. We are in a new age where the old rules of politics no longer apply

I don't think a comparison between a presidential election and an off-year election is too enlightening...of course the electorate is going to change: a lot of people who vote in presidential elections don't pay attention to any other elections. I think a better comparison would be from 2006 to 2002. I think the Democrats should learn the lessons from 2006; attack the gerrymandered districts that are now competitive (like Pa and In were in '04). That means going after Texas and Michigan hard. Also, don't pick a president who is too liberal that would sandbag your chances in the moderate districts.

From the Liberman post:

I hear you lonesomerobot. Great points. Also, the right thinks there movement is of God. Very sad. "Render to Ceaser" is their mantra. Not knowing that they are misquoting Jesus. Jesus was getting tricked by the equvilant to tax men ( republicans). They asked if THEY should pay taxes to Ceaser. Jesus basically said, " Give to ceaser what is his and Give GOd what is HIS." The meaning of the statement is that money is a joke, a means not a end, and their souls were his. The republican movement has become the tax men in this senerio. They have become what Jesus was against.

I started watching O'Reilly out of shear fear. How can you reason with O'REilly/Rush/Coulter/Hannity? At least now MOST people veiw the above for what they are, propogandists and facists who would do or say anything for money.

It would be funny if so many people around the world wern't dying. It would be funny if our government was not getting SABATOGED by treasonous sell-outs.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 15, 2007 12:26 PM

You got it mascmen7. Mobbing John Gotti style. Is your enemy's enemy your freind? The right has aligned with some unsavory characters. From the isreali gov, to the mob, to the meixican mafia (red storm). All to keep power. All to keep people on the streets scared

"the image of Republican competence in foreign affairs"

Where did this image come from? The citizens of the rest of the world would probably vote Democrat 90:10 if they had the chance,even before the Iraq debacle. Most of us away from America see the repbulican party as, well, scary with their overly aggressive foreign policy.

On the other hand Clinton's foreign policy in the 90s (granted he made some mistakes, like Rwanda)has helped made him the most popular politician in the world.

"When Iraq is resolved, where will those voters return?

After Iraq, we get back to discussing the differences in opinion between most of the country and the people like Donna, who posted above. Then the R's will be back in charge.

Go Ried, go Pelosi. Our Iraq policy should be the same as our Darfur policy.

Posted by: Razorback | May 14, 2007 10:58 AM"
Thats laughable.

Would those issues include raising the minimum wage, which is supported by 80% of the country, but not by Republicans? Or maybe you mean universal health care, which is supported by a majority of the country? Or maybe you mean actually funding education instead of stealing from them and calling it choice? Should I go on?

I liked the post that stated there is no difference between Repugs and the Mob. Repugs kill foreigners that are not both white and Christian. Iraqis and Mexicans. Repugs steal everything they can and believe strongly in no bid conracts. They spend wildly with no concern for the collapsing dollar. Free but not fair trade is their religion as all our industries leave America with the help of Repug advisors. We should consult the Mob to see if they could give these Repugs a job so they could be replaced.

It would be nice if those who merely want to rant off-topic would choose another forum.

In 2006, total votes in US House elections was about 76 million; in 2004, total votes in the US House election was about 113 million.
The electorate in years with presidential elections includes "low propensity" voters who are disproportionately low-income, low-educated, and minority. It seems that "normalizing" the number of voters of both elections would skew the analysis.

Interestingly, despite the mainstream media's belief in a "conservative majority," the GOP hasn't received more than 50% of total votes cast in off-year House elections since 1946. The 2006 results seem more a return to the post-WWII norm.

1954: 52% D; 47% R
1958: 56% D; 44% R
1962: 52% D; 47% R
1966: 50% D; 48% R
1970: 53% D; 45% R
1974: 57% D; 40% R
1978: 53% D; 45% R
1982: 54% D; 44% R
1986: 50% D; 48% R
1990: 52% D; 44% R
1994: 50% R; 44% D
1998: 48% R; 47% D
2002: 50% R; 45% D
2006: 52% D; 46% R

"192 Dems vote for immediate surrender in Iraq. Screw the consequences, just like vietnam."

Show me the consequences of pulling out of Vietnam, please. The North defeated the South, which is what would have happened if we hadn't intervened in the first place. The general population of South Vietnam didn't want us there in the first place. Sound familiar?

Of course, the Domino Theory was correct, and all of Asia fell to communism. Oh wait, it didn't? Oops, sorry about that.

Iraq has some similar qualities to Vietnam, but it isn't the same. I'm a liberal Democrat (and I'll wear that title with pride until the day I die), and I don't think we can pull out of Iraq without some kind of peacekeeping force in place behind us. Leaving now would destroy what civilization is already in place and leave Iraq in a human rights tragedy that would make Darfur look like a Tupperware party.

What we need to do is regain international support, in some way apologize for the situation as it is, and establish a multinational peacekeeping operation. Then, let's boot out the no-bid contractors in charge of the infrastructure, and start giving the Iraqis jobs.

And, sorry about this folks, we're going to have to negotiate with some of the people blowing things up there. I'm not saying al-qaeda gets a seat at the table, but we have to bring factions together to hammer out a way to end the conflict. The guns aren't working.

This is an absolutely ridiculous statistical technique, if the description given is accurate. The voters who vote in midterm elections are different than those that vote in presidentials. Simply multiplying the midterm numbers by a constant (in order to bump turnout up to 2004) is worthless. I am sympathetic toward this group's aims but I can't stomach the tactic here. I mean, usually when a partisan group pushes a point of view with this kind of study the biases in the methodology are subtle, not glaring. This is eighth-grade-level social science.

To me the interesting thing about the 2006 election and its 4.7 million new Democratic voters is that it didn't occur in 2004. Why did it take so long for those white, affluent, religious, rural males (that amazing 90%) to be uncomfortable enough with Bush and his war? In 2004 most people were already shaking their heads in disbelief over the incompetence we were witnessing, weren't they? Was it simply a matter of these guys taking that long to decide that the war was so serious a mistake as to be even scarier than gay marriage? If so, that is an indication of truly insane and irrational priorities, but maybe we should not be surprised?

Razorback, if we turn to domestic issues, Republicans are in big trouble. People don't know this, but they way they want to balance the budget is by nearly abolishing Social Security, Medicare, and education spending which will throw the elderly and children out into the street.

I hear you anna. 600 million to catch one man, zaraquri. That's the goal. That's how our government robs us. Make it seem sliek we have no money. Why is that? But when the war started we had no money. Where did all the war funds come from?

All Americans citizens could have the basics. Housing, electricity, medical, food. The right would not allow that. They model of slave-master doesn't hold if people don't need.

Before anyone says the left is for amnesty. Reagan is the last to offer blanket amnesty. What had been done from then to now. Reagan was in. Bush 41 was in. They did nothing. Now the right is trying to pin this issue on the dems. Look at what is happening not what these propogandists say

It's great that the Democrats are drawing so much more support than the Republicans. This really supports the notion that the Democrats are taking on issues that really matter to the American people. From health care to education and poverty, these issues take precedence over an ever-inflating military budget that seems to bring no resolve for any country involved.

The Borgen Project states that just $19 billion annually can end starvation and $23 billon annually can reverse the spread of Malaria and AIDS. In contrast, we have spent over $340 billion in Iraq. With poverty being so easily addressed, it is no wonder that a war-touting Republican side isn't doing well in the polls or with the American people.

I think you underestimate the importance of domestic issues, as well Barton Keyes. I think the real issues that destroyed the right are corruption, domestic (illegal)spying, and illeagl immigration (the right is passing the buck to the dems, but everyone knows the right wants to flood the housing and job markets. Raise rent and low wages (slave labor). The conservative movement is done for ten years

Democratic liberals shouldn't get ahead of themselves. America has not yet shifted back toward the left. Most indicators seem to say the conservative/moderate tilt is still predominant. But the tilt does appear to have leveled off. And that lack of conservative political momentum has almost exclusively been due to the tragically inept Republican performance in Iraq. Outside of Iraq, Republicans still seem to have advantages: the conservative drive to close our borders to illegal emigration plays on traditional American fears; the ecomony and stock market are doing well; crime is not an issue; education reform still leans toward no child left behind if only from public inattention.
But Iraq does provide a chance for the Democrats to regain the levers of politcal power and to begin to move the country away from the rightward tilt--if they don't overplay their hand. This is because Iraq seriously also underminds a number of traditionally Republican advantages:the image of Republican competence in foreign affairs has been seriously eroded by a cogenital image of over-reaching. Republicans look as if they have gutted the effectiveness of our military despite waving the flag relentlessly at political rallies. They now look as a threat to civil and privacy rights. And they now are seen as bumbling government managers whether with FEMA or the Justice Dept.
The trick for leftward leanimg Democrats is not to mistake disgust at Republican ineptitude for increasing adherence to old time liberal dogma: absolute abortion rights, strict affirmative action, more open immigration,and increased government programs to solve problems. The fact is that boat has sailed.

Joe Lieberman was not "kicked out of the party." He lost the primary, but was so desperate to stay in DC that he joined the Dark Side.

Even if you halve the projection of Democratic gains, it's going to be a bloodbath for the GOP in November 2008. They own the debacle in Iraq and they won't be able to explain their idiotic loyalty to their totally incompetent twit in the White House.

Live in the now. The 60's have blown away in the breeze. A chance at utopia failed, but still remembered. Without the Red Scare, by American Republicans, we would have had unity.

Razor's the same guy that asked me why treason is illegal. In America, no less. Not much credibility after that one. I pity him. I can't hate you zouk/razor.

I am remembering that in 1978 Sen. Goldwater and Sen. McGovern cosponsored a bill to send American troops into Cambodia after Pol Pot.

If I remember correctly, the bill was buried in the derision of the conservatives and liberals for whom Goldwater and McGovern had so recently been the spokesmen.

Please either note the irony of history as I remember it or correct my recollection, if it is faulty.

If my recollection is factually correct, it points up the difference between being opposed to one particular war and being opposed to the use of force in diplomacy, in general. I think those Dems who oppose the use of force as an instrument in world diplomacy [let's call them Kuciniches, or Kdems] will hurt the Dem cause in 2008. I think Reps who believe that the Middle East can be secured solely by the small and overstretched US Army and Marines are barking up the "other" wrong tree.

But, those of you who remember, please second or refute my recollection of 1978. I thought Goldwater and McGovern were right, that time.

For all we know Zouk is CC. :)

"Additionally, entries that are unsigned will be removed"

also can you remove anything I don't like. I am very tender, you see. We Libs support censorship of anything intelligent.

I will continue to post "profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material "

CC:
The poster who calls himself King of Zouk has now taken the habit of using regular's names. Your rules state he should be removed from the site. We would all appreciate that.

GW shows every indication of digging his heels in and "staying the course" until January 20, 2009. Some Republicans will begin to vote against GW in Congress, but I wonder if there will be enough to override vetoes?

And make no mistake, (to use one of GW's favorite phrases), the situation in Iraq will only get worse. In the next 20 months the Federal Government will be broken under the stewardship of Cheny and company. This includes the Army, Marines, and National Guard. The rest of us will be picking up the pieces for decades and the Republicans will be blamed for the mess during that time. For the next generation,Republicans will be a small regional party whose only success will be in impeding any progress our country makes towards healing.

We were all kicked out of the party

Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, Harry Truman

That is easy to answer, Lylepink: The majority of the American electorate disagrees with them.

Honest Democrat?? there are none, that's why.

Remember my thoughts, spelling and grammar are intentionally mispelled just to make you think I'm very stupid. this has worked all my life.

rufus1133:

Answering your own questions will help you because maybe you will know what the hell you are talking about BEFORE you post. That would be a big improvement.

Why can't a real honest liberal democrat ever win a Presidential election?

Lylepink, what is the question you wanted me to anwswer. I cannot find it.

The obsession ignoRANT coward has with koz and razor is just so pathetic -- he can't seem to think of anything else. No mind, apparently

How does anwering my own questions help me razor? I'm trying to help you. What benifet is their answering questions I already know the answer to. I'm using old greek tatics to help you. :)

That's the problem with the right in this country. You CAN'T think about anyone but yourself. Any new data has to be filtered through your ME prism first. Good luck with that. I am trying to help you . Don't hate me

Well, | , go back and re-read what Donna and drindl say. Check out the invective, the blind hatred of the Bush administration they harbor. Then tell me their comments (and others) shouldn't be described as full of hate.

The obsession koz has with pelosi and reid is just so pathetic -- he can't seem to think of anything else. No life, apparently.

What about the poor man who steals to feed his family, Razor? I need to know how your people's twisted world works. Should he be charged or is their justification? What other reasons why treason should not be charged in this country. How about fraud? What other laws are republicans exemt to? I need to know Razor/Zouk so I can reroute my life in a new direction. Someone tell me who has to follow the laws and who gets a break. Is it race or money? Why should Bush not be in jail right now razor? You tell me because I can't rationalize it at all

lyle -- I read the watimes occasionally, and listen to [briefly, very briefly] hannit and limbaugh, to see what the nutty wingers' talking points will be -- then I know what they will ALL be saying that day, including the r trolls who come h ere.

They are so utterly wacked out and fact-free that it is rather amusing. I especilly like the comments of their incredible simple-minded listeners. Tragic, but funny in an absurdist fashion.

Razorback: your 2:52pm post says you corrected me about a false rep. I made in your second paragraph, on WHAT?? There is not anything I can find where you responded to my "False representations", in a "harsh cival manner". Put it there sport, I am a little slow in finding and remembering everything I say. OLD AGE, some like you would suggest.

rufus1133 says:

"We'll get the names razor. We'll find out who's phone records were viewed and why. Listneing to peoples's calls, going through their mail/email is a federal crime ,no?"

This was after RUFUS1133 made an allegation about terrorist laws being used against people, and he was asked to name one. He couldn't. He ran he mouth, and didn't know what he was talking about.

Then he askes:

Listneing to peoples's calls, going through their mail/email is a federal crime ,no?"

Have you ever thought you use your limited mental capacity to try to answer that question yourself? There are some circumstances when that is legal, some when it isn't, which mostly depend on who is listening in or intercepting mail.

Why dont you try doing a little research and basing a post on facts instead of just yacking off.

Does anyone have any info on the Iraq govenment voting for the US to remove troops from their country? If we stay against the Iraqi people's will, Is that against international law? Do laws have any real ground or are all laws subjective now?

Who are you and what did you do and why? Razor/Zouk would have us ask that question of all CRIMINALS before taking them down. That is a facsist argument. A great amn once said, " In a free society we can only arrest people for the laws they break not he beliefs the hold." The republicnas disagree with him on both accounts. Facsists

192 Dems vote for immediate surrender in Iraq. Screw the consequences, just like vietnam.

This really demonstrates the hatred that Herry Reid and the house Dems have for soldiers in this country. They hate them more than al-queda, more than anything. They are deranged with hate. That's all they live for.

This is one of the most revolting things I have ever heard. What a pathetic and dangerously mentally ill scumbag this is, what a pathetic excuse for a human being.

We'll get the names razor. We'll find out who's phone records were viewed and why. Listneing to peoples's calls, going through their mail/email is a federal crime ,no?

We'll get all the names and info once bush is out of office. Ie George Tenat.

I will now post the next 40 articles all alone. the rest of you keep quiet.

'Leftists loved my lai'

This really demonstrates the hatred that the wingers have for Dems in this country. They hate us more than al-queda, more than anything. They are deranged with hate. That's all they live for.

This is one of the most revolting things I have ever heard. What a pathetic and dangerously mentally ill scumbag this is, what a pathetic excuse for a human being.

Bay buchanan or not, hillary is still completly into herself only. Kinda like bill.

'I have run out of borrowed ideas that were cut and pasted from Kos. I will have to spew insults for the rest of the day.'

I see KOZ is here. Amazing the amountof time he spends posting drool.

"Leftists loved My Lai - they just adored it - but they were never called to account for the communist atrocities after Saigon fell"

Disgusting distortions.

In 40 years I have never heard anybody, anybody, think that My Lai was anything other than an absolute disgrace.

When Saigon fell that war had finally become what it should have been for 20 years, a Civil War between the Vietnamese.

Who should have been called to account? Nguyen Van Thieu, Nguyen Cao Ky, Big Minh, Henry Kissinger, to name a few.

' Further, the downward trend of the ratio puts the situation in Iraq in a whole new light. The overall trend is good news. '

Tell it to all the dead american servicepeople, delusional one.

I have run out of borrowed ideas that were cut and pasted from Kos. I will have to spew insults for the rest of the day.

I second or third -- that fringe lunatic Bay Buchanan, 'respected' -- omigod... LOL.

RUFUS1133 says:

"It's funny how all these so called "terrorist laws" are used not against terrorist, but as a pretext to invade the rights of people who you disagree with or disagree with you."

Just name one. Try naming ONE.

Then you go back to your nutty rant about treason that you and I have discussed previously. Read the LAW Rufus, and then it will be obvious why Rosie and Hannity havnt been charged.

Razorback, you see, hates the Constitution. I think he should be charged with treason --held without bail in a secret location, tortured and not allowed to see an attorney. Apparently, that would be just fine with him.

"respected political analyst Bay Buchanan"

Wow! If a post was ever discredited by something in its content, this was it.

'the Republicans are in a win-win situation--if by some miracle the war takes an upturn, they win. If, as is much more likely, the war continues as is and the Republicans lose, they leave Democrats with an unwinable war and no easy way out.'

This is exactly the proble, with the R party. All they can think about is 'winning' -- they just don't give a damn about their country.

Strange as it may seem, not one post about a question I asked from the "Wackos", as usual. This is the tactic, don't answer a question, change the subject, and in real life they have little or no support and use these forums for what, [Idon't know], could someone give me a clue??

A 67% increase in power distribution is impressive by any measure. While it is still 2000 MW short of the intended goal of 6000 MW it is still an impressive feat. Yet, oddly this progress is not reported on. In fact, the numbers do not seem to be analyzed by the media at all. Is this a simple oversight or a deliberate misleading by the media and war critics?

These are two examples our many of how the available information is not analyzed and reported. There are many more. Things like water treatment, sewer, potable water, schools, free press, communications, bridges, economy, and farming are some of the other good news progress that is not reported. There are certainly some other examples that would show disappointing trends or lack of progress, but the media has been doing a good job of reporting on those negative aspects. I just thought that since the media was only doing half of the fair and accurate part I would pick up their slack in a very small way to show that there is significant, unreported good news.

To put the ISF deaths into a clearer perspective The FBI reported that in 2005, 67 police officers were killed by accident while on duty and 55 by hostile acts in 2005, for a total of 132 police officers out of 673,146 law enforcement officers in the United States in 2005. After dividing 132 officers killed by 12 months (to make the comparison on the same basis), 0.016 police officers died in America per month per 1000 police in 2005. Granted 0.79 ISF killed compared to 0.016 US police officers killed is a wide margin; it is roughly 50 times more dangerous to be serving in the ISF than in an average American police department, including all the rural and suburban areas with comparatively low police casualties. This is an honest, fair comparison that you will not see from the media in their war reporting. Further, the downward trend of the ratio puts the situation in Iraq in a whole new light. The overall trend is good news.

Lylepink says:

"Razorback: I don't usually respond to the "Wackos" that I think you are, but for the sake of "William", who I blew out of the water, I will give you a chance, so fire away."

Lest you forget, the real reason you quit responding to me wasn't because you decided I was a wacko, it was because you made a false representation and I corrected you in a harsh uncivil manner.

I don't know what question you are trying to ask me to respond to. Unlike some of the yackers on here, my views are well founded upon research and thought, therefore I am always willing to take questions from those I disagree with.

If there is something you want me to respond to, please state what it is, and I will respond.

The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) includes military, police, special police, Iraqi National Guard, and border police. From early-2005 to mid-2006 the hot topic for marking progress in the war was how many ISF were being trained and employed. However, in mid-2006 this media reporting trend almost wholly dried up, and the biggest critic of ISF training progress in Congress, Senator Biden, stopped beating the drum. Why? Look at the data on page 32 of the Index.

In July-August 2006, the number of deployed ISF jumped from 269,600 up to 298,000. The previous months had experienced much smaller growth, but July/August 2006 experienced a 10.6% jump in ISF. The numbers jumped again in September by almost 10,000 to 307,800. October rose 4000, and November rose almost 11,000. In essence, the critics of the war lost their talking point, and shifted instead toward troop withdrawal as the idea to be pushed.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/the_missing_context_in_media_r.html

ehopkins says:

"Razorback, Jose Padilla is a US citizen. He was held in Gitmo for 31/2 years as an "enemy combatant". After a supreme court ruling in his favor, he was finally transferred into military custody and his trial is set to begin this week."

The difference between real law and "psuedo law" is that with real law, you give cite. The great thing about the law is that it is all written down. Its not what you think or what I think, its what is actually written down.

"Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Jose Padilla is a United States citizen detained by the Department of Defense pursuant to the President's determination that he is an "enemy combatant" who conspired with al Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States. We confront two questions: First, did Padilla properly file his habeas petition in the Southern District of New York; and second, did the President possess authority to detain Padilla militarily. We answer the threshold question in the negative and thus do not reach the second question presented.

Because we do not decide the merits, we only briefly recount the relevant facts. On May 8, 2002, Padilla flew from Pakistan to Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. As he stepped off the plane, Padilla was apprehended by federal agents executing a material witness warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District) in connection with its grand jury investigation into the September 11th terrorist attacks. Padilla was then transported to New York, where he was held in federal criminal custody. On May 22, acting through appointed counsel, Padilla moved to vacate the material witness warrant."

Rumsfeld v. Padilla
542 U.S. 426, 124 S.Ct. 2711

This is part of what the US Supreme Court said.

Nutty conspiracy theorists should not the following:

1. His case was heard, and he lost because he sued the wrong person.

2. On May 22, a few weeks after his arrest, he was appointed an attorney.

3. That wasn't really a ruling in his favor, so I dont know what your source was.

I dont feel any risk that I will be treated as Padilla, mostly because I havnt done what he has done.

"respected political analyst Bay Buchanan"

surely not the bay buchanan whose brother is pat buchanan? LOL nice try ace.

Leftists loved My Lai - they just adored it - but they were never called to account for the communist atrocities after Saigon fell. Pol Pot's butchery was never laid at the feet of the self-righteous bastards who shrieked, "Give peace a chance."

And no one on the left will discuss what might happen if we fail in Iraq. The truth is that they don't care.

We face merciless, implacable enemies who joyously slaughter the innocent with the zeal of religious fanaticism. Yet we want to make sure we don't hurt anyone's feelings.

We've tried many things in Iraq. They've all failed. It's a shame we never really tried to fight.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05142007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/why_iraqs_so_hard_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=3

Hillary Clinton may suffer from a psychological condition that would raise questions about her fitness for office. In a book released today, respected political analyst Bay Buchanan reveals that Hillary bears all the classic symptoms of "clinical narcissism."

According to the American Psychiatric Association, this condition includes feelings of superiority, self-importance and "fantasies of unlimited success, fame or power."
In "The Extreme Makeover of Hillary Rodham Clinton," Buchanan chronicles examples of Hillary's instability, from her incoherent speeches as both student and First Lady, to her casual disregard for the law, to her ever-changing opinion on the Iraq war. These character flaws, writes Buchanan, make Hillary overly dependent on gurus and outside experts, with no internal compass to guide her -- or the country.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699

Iraq will NOT be as large an issue in 2008, even if Democrats in Congress do little about it, for one simple reason:

Either Bush will get the troops out by then, or most Republicans running in 2008, in order to stand a chance, will essentially agree with their Democratic opponents.

In the first 100 hours of their House leadership, Democrats pushed through a domestic agenda of six measures -- dubbed the "Six for 'O6" -- including elevating the minimum-wage increase, funding stem-cell research, funding alternative energy development, implementing the recommendations of the September 11 commission, changing Medicare's drug plan and cutting student loan interest rates.
None has become law and three face a presidential veto.

Steven Strang says:

"The Democrats stumbled into the "electoral benefits" of the Iraqi war, and several of the current presidential candidates seem intent on bumbling it."

He is only half right. The Democrats "stumbled" into electoral benefits in 2006. They will get more in 2008. The only risk for the Democrats is if Ned Lamont type candidates start taking out electable Dems in the primaries, and pull them too far the the left. Other than that, there isn't any downside for Dems. There is an unpopular war that they have been opposed to in various degrees for quite some time. There is little political downside to that.

Steven is an R that makes the same mistake as alot of D's who post on here: They assume public opinion agrees with their position and make no serious effort to study public opinion, and post conclusary false statements that the public in general thinks just like them.

Democrats have spent four months spinning their wheels with partisan political exercises when we could have gotten the right thing done in one week," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner

drindl: When YOU go to the WaTimes for a story, I find a bit puzzleing, since you claim to be a progessive/liberal, and they are as far to the right as Fox news. Thompson fits the mold, not Rudy. Please explain for an old politico what you are talking about.

It's funny how all these so called "terrorist laws" are used not against terrorist, but as a pretext to invade the rights of people who you disagree with or disagree with you. Razor better hope the same principle that applies to Rosie, Rather and Imus don't apply to Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly. What will he do without his avatars? His movement would crumble and die without the lying propogandists moving it. MAking a fortune in the process. Some conservatives have sold this country out and continue to do so. I think they should bring back the treason charge and consequences

Harry Reid calls for redeployment out of Fort Dix, New Jersey. Maybe they could go to Okinowa?

"Pelosi and Emanuel specifically recruited veterans and pro-life, pro-gun candidates to challenge GOP turf."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/08/MNGSMM8CRB1.DTL

As soon as the left goes back to being the left, they will lose, unless Bush is still insisting that Arabs in the middle east really want democracy rather than the violent fanaticism that they seem to prefer.

Razorback, Jose Padilla is a US citizen. He was held in Gitmo for 31/2 years as an "enemy combatant". After a supreme court ruling in his favor, he was finally transferred into military custody and his trial is set to begin this week. I don't think you understandf the danger to citizens. The "war on terror" is such a nebulous title, it's conceivable the administration could designate a common thief as a domestic terrorist and lock him up in a detention center.

The Democrats stumbled into the "electoral benefits" of the Iraqi war, and several of the current presidential candidates seem intent on bumbling it. In some ways, the Republicans are in a win-win situation--if by some miracle the war takes an upturn, they win. If, as is much more likely, the war continues as is and the Republicans lose, they leave Democrats with an unwinable war and no easy way out.

drindl writes
"This should be fun."

Indeed, it should be. The GOPpers I've talked to seem to think that either 1) Fred Thompson is the savior of the modern Republican party or 2) the religious right doesn't have as much control over the nomination as people think. I suspect they're going to find themselves wrong on both counts.

"The Washington Times reports that many Christian conservative leaders are getting ready to support Fred Thompson, having found serious flaws with all the current candidates -- especially Rudy Giuliani. "It's the moment of truth for conservatives," said one source. "Either social conservatives rally to stop a Giuliani nomination and victory for him in November 2008 or our issues -- abortion, same-sex marriage, the preservation of the family -- are permanently off the Republican Party agenda."

This should be fun.

Razorback, in re: "I was referring to the congression elections from 1994 on, including 2006, when even with a very unpopular war/administration, many of the victorious Dem candidates were pro-life, pro-gun, rural etc. Casey PA, Shuler NC, just to name a few."

I don't think you can generalize so broadly about that many cycles, during which the issues in play were different. Of course, for some voters abortion and guns are always the key issues, but for most I think these vary from year to year. For example, issues very much on voters' minds these days - identity theft, global warming, the dollar's losing ground as the 'default currency', homeland security, electoral reform, Al Qaeda, Putin's Russia, same sex marriage, the influence of religion on public education, the price of oil / development of alternative fuels, the independent government of Palestine (obviously, an incomplete list in no particular order) - are all seen important issues today but were barely if at all on the radar in 1994.

Don't the differences in the report mirror the normal differences between Presidential and non-Presidential year elections? Presidential elections tend to bring out the less affluent, single, inner city residents and minorities that don't bother with mid-terms.

The GOP has a strategy for dealing with Iraq, which will become apparent in 3 or 4 months (in short, they will cut and run from support of the President). The GOP's bigger problems are slowly coming to light with investigations into the Bush admin - currently most obvious in the AG/Justice investigations. The GOP tries to claim the mantle of responsible, small government, but more and more its becoming clear that they as incapable of delivering on those promises as the Dems would be.

Razorback: I don't usually respond to the "Wackos" that I think you are, but for the sake of "William", who I blew out of the water, I will give you a chance, so fire away.

Somewhere recently I read that the rural areas around the country are where an inordinate number of combat deaths come from. You can easily see this in the list of deaths posted on The News Hour almost nightly.

Although rural areas tend to be conservative and Republican, these losses are deeply felt well beyond the immediate families. So, it's not just the lack of security progress that we see in the news that is changing sentiment. It's the personal sacrifices in small communities.

And it's much more than just those who die in combat. Those servicepeople who return seriously wounded become regular reminders of the real lives that have been damaged irreparably by this immoral war.

And a lot of us in small-town America resent the fact so few of the Washington politicans' families who are pursuing this conflict have any of their sons and daughters at risk.

This is one of the reasons why we can't figure out why Sen. McCain is so hawkish. I believe both he and Sen. Webb have family members there, but their views are diametrically opposed.

'The recent debate does not relate to the habeous corpus rights of US CITIZENS. '

That's an outright lie and you know it. Why do you think Gaonzalez is being questoned about it? Because Congress knows quite well that some US citizens are being denied their right of habeas corpus.

christ, you're an american citizen, I presume... why are you so eager to be denied your lawful rights and freedoms?

Donna says:

"Razorback, Bush had narrow wins in 2000 and 2004, I don't quite see that as a mandate for most of the country. And of course those wins are debatable."

I wasn't only referring to those 2 elections in which Bush received more votes and a higher percentage of the vote than did Clinton in either of his wins.

I was referring to the congression elections from 1994 on, including 2006, when even with a very unpopular war/administration, many of the victorious Dem candidates were pro-life, pro-gun, rural etc. Casey PA, Shuler NC, just to name a few.

This confirms the point of the study quoted by CC.

Haha, got me. However, I don't think that saying that democrats are 'terrorists' or have the same goals as terrorists, is equivalent to saying that the way the republican party operates today --the cronyism, the corruption, the profiteering, the no-bid contracts, the shoddy work, the shady back room deals -- which after all, we read about every single day.

I'm saying your party operates in an unethical manner, you are calling me personally a murderer. There's a difference.

"he just doesn't care" should change his name to "he just doesn't know what the issue is".

The recent debate does not relate to the habeous corpus rights of US CITIZENS. The issue that has been debated is whether foriegn nationals not in military uniform who have never been US Citizens have habeas corpus rights.

Liberals who complain about "psudo science" all the time do not realize that that American law is not applied to non citizens in the way that is is applied to citizens. Psuedo-law is just fine for the left.

Gonzales is an idiot who makes you wonder how he graduated from Harvard law, but that is no excuse twisting the issue like that.

drindl says:

"I also think the fact that there's currently not much difference between the republican party and the mob is turning a lot of people off."

This must not be the same drindl who whined the other day about how bad it hurt her feelings to be compared to terrorists.

The 'uber-extremists lefties' who want the president to uphold the Constitution, as he was sworn to do, instead of gutting it.

CC: This has to be one of your best mistakes in analysis. Throughout, you are going with the "Beltway" folk that have no idea of how the common folk around the country think. I look at different polls and the key to them, IMO, is past history of who they are polling for, dem or repub. My own poll is from people I know and have contact with on a regular or infrequent basis. Each and every dem states they will support Hillary and folks I have known for years and never talked about politics have told me they registered to vote for the first time to support Hillary. This, again, is the "Hidden Vote" I have mentioned and you "Beltway Folks" doesn't seem to know what I am talking about. The folks out here knows.

The time has come for real consequences to real crime sin this administration. Zero help from te right as far as accountability. I guess if the other side doesn't/can't find your crime, I guess it never happened. Normal citizens are not above the law. Normal citizens get pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. These sell-outs and treasonous people's time is up

Under the Bush administration, any U.S. citizen can be detained and arrested without being charged with any crime, and without even being told why.

At Friday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales whether any U.S. citizens are "being held today, for over a month, who have been denied habeas corpus or access to an attorney." Instead of giving an answer, Gonzales replied, "[Y]ou're asking me a question I hadn't really thought about."

Sherman then followed up and asked whether there any "U.S. citizens being held now by the US, foreign governments or foreign organizations, without access to attorneys, as a result of rendition." Gonzales again said, "It's just -- quite frankly, I hadn't thought about this."

When Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, he claimed that there is "no express grant of habeas in the Constitution." Today, Sherman asked Gonzales, "Wouldn't it be your duty as Attorney General to make sure that their [U.S. citizens'] rights to habeas corpus were honored?" After some hedging, Gonzales finally agreed: "Yes."

JD please. anyone who disagrees with you, you sling the term 'hateful' I'm afraid it's just the truth and facts which you hate.

Pentagon, State Department feuding in Iraq.
"Paul Brinkley, a deputy undersecretary of defense, has been called a Stalinist by U.S. diplomats in Iraq. One has accused him of helping insurgents build better bombs. The State Department has even taken the unusual step of enlisting the CIA to dispute the validity of Brinkley's work. His transgression? To begin reopening dozens of government-owned factories in Iraq."

Brinkley and his colleagues at the Pentagon believe that rehabilitating shuttered, state-run enterprises could reduce violence by employing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Officials at State counter that the initiative is antithetical to free-market reforms the United States should promote in Iraq.

The bureaucratic knife fight over the best way to revive Iraq's moribund economy illustrates how the two principal players in the reconstruction of Iraq -- the departments of Defense and State -- remain at odds over basic economic and political measures. The bickering has hamstrung initiatives to promote stability four years after Saddam Hussein's fall.

Good post Chris. Don't listen to these uber-extremist lefties who criticize you and call you a right wing hack for posting research from a DEMOCRATIC organization, albeit one that isn't so far out on the left that they make Cuba look conservative.

It's all a matter of perspective, and so many of the hateful posters on this blog truly lack it.

We're hearing a lot from the military these days regarding Iraq. None of it will please the President. Earlier, General Petraeus reminded our troops that when dealing with Iraqis, we had to obey the Geneva Conventions, not the President's and Vice President's views on torture. Yesterday, the NYT highlighted former General John Batiste, who (along with General Paul Eaton) retired early to speak out against the President's handling of the Iraq occupation and called the President to task in this video for VoteVets.

"Mr. President, you did not listen," General Batiste says in new television advertisements being broadcast in Republican Congressional districts as part of a $500,000 campaign financed by VoteVets.org. "You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women."

CC can only think in terms of the center-right mentality that is the Beltway 'reality' so naturally he frames things that way, Judge.

As others have pointed out, Iraq isn't going to be 'over' for a long, long time. Bush will not begin drawng down the troops while he is in office -- quite the contrary. He has vowed that. He wants to send even more and keep them there. No matter what we do, things are going to get worse in the middle east before they get better. Probably for many years.

and as far as the 'centre' is concerned, just what do you mean by that, CC? Beltway types usually point to Leiberman, who used to be a Dem but is now a sold-out republican, since his wife became a lobbyist for BigPharma and Banking. His whole voting pattern has changed, and he's simply a tool of transnational corporations.

I really don't think there's anything 'centrist' about allowing foreign interests [who distinctly do NOT have the interests of US citizens at heart] to write our laws.

I also think the fact that there's currently not much difference between the republican party and the mob is turning a lot of people off. It isn't just disparate cases of corruption -- everything they do is about ripping off taxpayers.

What do you people see happening in the next senate and house elections? Will it be the same sweep as the last ones, if so the republicans are in huge trouble. What would stop a democratic sweep on the republican side? What do you think the republicans have to do to prevent all the discord from effecting them at teh polls?

Nice to see CC at least beginning to recognize reality instead of saying "2004 this" and "2004 that."

Having said that the following sounds like an RNC talking point:
"And now that Democrats are in power on Capitol Hill, will that nullify their "time for change" message at all? Will voters angry about the war punish Democrats if the party isn't able to begin bringing home the troops?"

Hello? Earth to CC? Who is trying to bring them home and who isn't? Who votes to keep them there over and over and over again? I'd be the first to deplore the state of the electorate but it's hard to believe that you think they are THAT stupid.

"The overwhelming negative influence of the Iraq war on Republican candidates makes it hard to know whether the Third Way study is simply a snapshot in time or a predictor of things to come in 2008."

Aww, c'mon are you pulling our legs on this or not? This is Bush's War, no ifs, ands or buts. Heck, even if the war ends tomorrow the blame will resonate for years. Find a few of those "moderate Republicans" (in quotes because I think it's an oxymoron) that chatted with Bush last week and ask them if they think its "simply a snapshot in time or a predictor of things to come in 2008." Betcha a yellow legal pad it's the latter.

Razorback, Bush had narrow wins in 2000 and 2004, I don't quite see that as a mandate for most of the country. And of course those wins are debatable.

"When Iraq is resolved........." in five years, ten years, twenty years, our lifetimes? Iraq will be the gop anchor for years, Razor, and the fact that Shrub and his cronies have left such a pox on the Repug party really doesn't bode well for the short term or even medium term prospects for you...

When Iraq is resolved, where will those voters return?

After Iraq, we get back to discussing the differences in opinion between most of the country and the people like Donna, who posted above. Then the R's will be back in charge.

Go Ried, go Pelosi. Our Iraq policy should be the same as our Darfur policy.

Excellent presidential election coverage: http://www.solidpolitics.com

Why don't you ask a liberal group Chris? I am sick and tired of these faux Democrats -- the third way -- what a load of crap. And who has defined the centre? Corporatist shills like the third way that's who.