Replies

Word to the less-than-wise: hurling insults is not a way to get people interested in what you have to say.

I wish you were right, but I seriously doubt it. See, rather than just blathering about good and evil, I'm actually looking at the seats in play. I'm looking at which GOP seats are vulnerable and which Democratic seats are vulnerable and seeing a whole heck of a lot more of the former than the latter. In fact, if you are so all-fired certain that the GOP will pick up seats, I'd be more than happy to engage you in a wager. Got the balls to put your money where your mouth is? I doubt it.

You're right that we're not going to lose the Senate, and you're probably right that we're not going to lose the House, but we're probably going to lose seats in both. A 60-seat majority? You're high. See previous offer to wager; I'll give you ten-to-one odds that the GOP does not emerge from the November elections with a 60-seat majority. Exactly where do you think the Republicans have the potential to gain five seats? Which five Democratic Senate seats will flip without the GOP losing any? Give me specific states and challengers. C'mon, let's hear it.

Wishful thinking and insipid name-calling are no substitute for clear-eyed assessment of the situation and strategizing.

You are correct. A lot can happen between now and election day, but it won't shift on anything said in the original post.

I think the author makes a few assumptions that are questionable. One if the unspoken idea that naturally republicans are stronger on defense than democrats. That's not necessarily true. I think the dems are running 15-20 retired military types in House elections: it's difficult to characterize those guys as weak on defense, provided that they don't talk weak on defense.

Since the Dubai stumble, the democrats for the first time in as far back as anyone can remember poll better on national security issues. That dovetails with another assumption the article makes: that the polls are broadly rigged against the GOP. I think there is a slight liberal bias in polls, but how can it be that when the president was doing well, all the major polls showed him doing well, and when he is doing poorly, all the major polls show him doing poorly?

The polls, despite wholesale Freeper denial, are on balance accurate. There is an astonishing, and unhealthy, resistance to bad news on FR. During the impeachment of Clinton, polls consistently showed that the american public didn't support removal of the president. Freepdom projected its own disdain for the president onto the american public. When the results came in, it was clear that Freepdom wasn't just wrong: it was remarkably wrong.

The idea that Bush will poll better and the GOP will gain ground in 8 months based on some issues where they are polling terribly today isn't very reassuring. Talk of good and evil notwithstanding, there is no broad public perception of the dems as the agents of evil. Maybe misguided. Maybe befuddled. Maybe inept. Not evil, though. Banking on an overstated theme that isn't really accurate in the first place is very sloppy thinking that won't lead to success.

If the GOP does well in 2006 (and I think they could, but you'd never know it now), it won't be for any of the reasons listed in the essay.

Wishful thinking and insipid name-calling are no substitute for clear-eyed assessment of the situation and strategizing.

Amen. This thread is proof positive that the right has its Drinkers O'the KoolAid just like the left. Here's reality: It's tough to have intelligent reasoned debates on here precisely because of the attitude that launched this thread. If you take any position contrary to a Bush position, you're "negative" or a "lily liver" or any of a host of other ridiculous perjoratives. Despite that, I base my opinions on the facts I observe and my conversative values. I do not, and will not, base my opinions on what Dubya or anyone else does or believes, as do so many on here.

You know, we used to say that Klinton could rape a nun on the White House lawn on national TV and the left would still find a way to support him. There's zero difference in that kind of blind loyalty and the kind that finds a silver lining in whatever Bush does. Yes, there's a vast difference in those two men, but the loyalty principle is exactly the same.

A prime example is immigration. There's no doubt in my mind that if Freeperdom was totally unaware of Bush's stance on immigration, and that stance was posted here for discussion, it would be ripped to shreds as idiotic. Yet because it's the Bush position, it's declared to be some sort of masterful strategy or some such nonsense.

Polls: Yes, some of them are biased, especially the ones constructed by the staggeringly biased MSM. But a lot of them are spot on. Oddly enough, there's no blasting of them when Bush (or any other GOP element) is doing well in them, but the moment they paint less than a rosy picture, they're decried as meaningless. I remember in 2000 on election eve, Zogby releasing his poll that showed Gore taking a slight lead in the national picture, equivalent of course to the popular vote. Oh the hilarity and name-calling that ensued. "Zogby Sauce" and such. 24 hours later, when it was obvious that the poll had been dead on, the topic quietly died. That goes on over and over.

I'll take intelligent, reasoned debate, based on facts, any day over wishful thinking and baseless complacency.