[Cincinatus' Wife]

*** The Republicans won in 2002 and look likely to repeat the trick this year not because they significantly extended their national base, but because they made the most of their existing one. And in 2004, as in 2002, they are successfully demoralizing, confusing and generating complacent and/or indecisive apathy in the theoretically larger support base of their opponents. ***

No, it couldn't possibly be the disaster they call the Democrat party candidate.

[rabidralph]

Joe Gibbs, rules!

[Red Badger]

...his impressive Vietnam combat and heroism record

Where?.....

[Guillermo]

Considering the disastrous war in IRaq, it must be the horridness of the Dem candidate.

Kerry is an incredibly bad candidate.

The fact that he's from Massachusetts is reason enough to make him a bad candidate.

[HIDEK6]

gasoline prices still hovering around the $40-a-barrel mark

At that price I'll buy all the gasoline he can sell me.

[cripplecreek]

Gibbs certainly has the Midas touch. It's an amazing feat to achieve success in one sport (football) but Gibbs has done it in two sports.

[ultima ratio]

What a lot of nonsense. Republicans do, indeed, win because of better strategy. But they are not weak on economics. And they certainly were not responsible for the swift boat attacks on Kerry--whose war record was far from being as superb as this writer claims, and whose post-war record was actually treasonous. The truth is, the Democrats--like the old media which supports them--have grown corrupt after almost a century of having it their own way. Their first instinct is to demagogue issues--which betrays an elitist contempt for the American public generally.

[wideawake]

The author of this piece is a fool.

He believes that the Democrats are as strong on national security and defense as the Republican party, which is ridiculous on its face.

He also believes that the Democrats have a superior economic agenda to the Republicans, which is the statement of a raving lunatic.

His thesis is that Republicans have achieved electoral ascendancy purely through strategic deftness despite an unattractive message. The reality is almost exactly the reverse.

[expatpat]

The characterization of Gibbs' football is a little inaccurate. It's true he liked to run the football, but he also threw long passes when the opponents were focussed on stopping the run. Watch what happened after Theisman's leg was broken in the Giants game, or the Dougie Williams Superbowl win to see how it really went.

[11Bush]

The author misses the largest influence in Mr. Gibbs. He strongly believes in our creator and gives the Lord full due for his personal success.

All of which is something a dem could never do.

[Tredge]

If I were to try and sum up this column in a line or two, it would be: "Democrats will continue to fail to win back power in Washington unless they really start getting out their message." It's the same refrain we've heard after every election they've lost since 2000.

[wayoverontheright]

What do the Democrats need to win back the presidency in 2004? Or even in 2008?

A new belief structure, perhaps?

[Brytani]

As a once again proud Redskins fan - Joe Gibbs for President!!!! (after 4 more years of Bush of course)

[faithincowboys]

Joe Gibbs is a winner. Won in NASCAR and won in the NFL. He is also born again I think.