This also confirms that Bush's declining poll numbers have been caused by declining support amongst conservatives, which I have suspected.
It's too bad that the war is the overriding issue. There is only one party that will fight the war. So conservatives need to support the R's regardless. The alternative is unthinkable.
Stand with our President. . .defend GW and his Legacy. . .or perish. . .
Staffers!!??...we don't need no stink'in staffers...
Many people desire that our Presdient spend more time on domestic issues (immigration, for example) right now. People in a comfortable, wealthy nation tend to become bored by war--especially a long term war waged against us by assassins (guerrillas) bent on worldwide ethnic cleansing (including wiping us out). Many even believe that wars started by our enemies are actually conspiracies of distraction plotted against us by our own leaders.
But we're not living in a "mini-series," and there's no grand conspiracy to distract us.
Iran Prepares 'Judgment Day' Attack Plan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1628446/posts
This is really sad: "If we want to ensure voter turnout among conservatives doesn't drop, we've got to perform."
He isn't saying they need to shape up and do their jobs, but that they need to do just enough to retain power. I think I'm sick of politics, specifically politicians, for the time being. They care not one bit about the citizens of this country or the laws therein, just how they can stay in power to sponge off the populace.
I'm really seeing America as a lost cause. I haven't thought about a time frame, but for the first time in my life, I don't see any hope that this country will outlast the left and opportunistic politicians.
bttt
bttt
To keep majority in Nov2006 Congress must stop the unholy alliance with the socialists! They must not pass the Specter/Mccain/Kennedy bill. They need to get back to showing the major differences between the two parties not act as one.
Mullings - An American Cyber-Column by Rich Galen
http://www.mullings.com/index.html
Polls v Reality
Monday May 8, 2006
I love the fact that I am out of the Washington, DC metropolitan area fairly frequently. The Washington, DC metropolitan area is filled with people like me. People like me talk to other people like me, picking up scraps of information, half-baked (and totally unsupported) theories from other people like us, then we race each other to be the first on CNN of FNC to say it out loud so that reporters will hear it, write about it, and declare it to be: TRUTH.
This is the most efficient system for garbage recycling in the whole of human history.
I am not immune to the polls. I read them. I talk to the pollsters. I see the look on their faces as they describe the electoral terrors which are impending a mere six months distant.
Then I go out into the real world, and see and hear things which are far different.
As a theory-baker of the first water, I am fully capable of thinking of a theory, rolling it around on my intellectual tongue, tinkering with it to give it just a dash of history and a pinch of insight and then foisting on … you.
I have been saying for some time that while I don't doubt the polling numbers - when they're all within a couple of points of each other, they are probably good numbers - but I think they are measuring the wrong thing.
When I go out into the non-Washington world, I do not see Republicans hiding under their beds, or staying away from GOP events as would be the case if the base were overwhelmingly angry or disheartened.
I was the GOP party treasurer in Marietta, Ohio 45750 during the Watergate era. People who had held fundraisers in their homes were denying they had every heard of the Republican party.
That was a bad time. According to the Clerk of the House website, in the 93rd Congress (1973-75) the party division was 243 Democrats and 192 Republicans.
When the House convened in January of 1975 the results of the previous November's election had decreased the GOP numbers to 144; a loss of 48 seats.
Two years later Republicans lost yet another seat, so in the 95th Congress - four years after Watergate - they found themselves with only 143 Members to the Democrats' 292.
There is absolutely nothing like that rampant in the heartland. Not even in what the Democrats consider to be ground zero for their electoral gains in November: Ohio.
The New York Times sent reporters Adam Nagourney and Ian Irbina out to Columbus to see what is what.
Ohio's Governor Bob Taft is sitting at about 17% in the polls.
SIDEBAR I believe I have been quoted saying that Bob Taft and French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin are the only two politicians in the world who wish they had George W. Bush's numbers.
I have nothing against Taft, but I take great delight in following the collapse of de Villepin's career after he lied to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell about France's support for a UN resolution on Iraq.
END SIDEBAR
Ohio is central to the Democrats' hope of taking over the US Senate. However, as the NY Times reporters wrote yesterday that following the primaries last week, "party officials and analysts said one of the Democrats' most alluring targets, Senator Mike DeWine, seemed less vulnerable than he had earlier this year."
That is largely because he will be opposed by Democratic Congressman Sherrod Brown who, according to the NYT, "supports abortion rights, opposed the constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage and voted against the war in Iraq."
On the House side, Democratic hopes of taking the seat held by US Rep. Bob Ney (who has been implicated in the lobbying scandals) "were set back when the Democrats' favored candidate … lost to a lesser-known and politically inexperienced challenger..."
On the Gubernatorial front, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell won the GOP primary which caused the Ohio Democratic chairman to say the race to replace Taft "could prove tougher than many Washington Democrats think."
There it is: What people in the real world think is very, very different from what those of us in Washington think.
If the Democrats can't sweep Ohio, it is difficult to see how they can take control of either the House or the Senate.
No matter what the polls say.
On a the Secret Decoder Ring page http://www.mullings.com/dr_05-08-06.htm today: A link to the NY Times piece, the etymology of "of the first water," a link to the Clerk of the House web page showing which party had how many seats going all the way back to 1789; a Mullfoto from my trip to Paris last month, and another ugly animal Catchy Caption of the Day.
Until I read this, I was pessimistic about our chances of holding the House. Mike Murphy is NEVER right about ANYTHING. I wish he would go work for the 'Rats. He's our own Dick Morris, only without the charm.
The GOP needs an engergy policy (drill, drill, drill and build refineries, and put in some greenie stuff to make it go down well) in which they have to hammer the Dems. The big problem is that it's not an unfair question to ask why it has not been put in place alreadly
The disapproval numbers are probably exaggerated because of an oversampling of Democrats, but even if somewhat lower, the numbers are still toxic."
There were a million reasons why we could never take the House in 1994. Someone at the national level had better come up with a plan...quickly!
2) Likewise, I also believe John Fund has been incredibly wrong on a lot of stuff for quite a while.
There is something about the ink-ocracy that gets in the Washington/NYC beltway and loses all proportion.
For example, I walked some streets for Ken Blackwell last week. Of all the people who were home (probably 50% on my list), judging from their response to Blackwell (a VERY conservative candidate), I could detect very little hostility to Bush/Republicans. I had NO ONE say, "I'm not voting for a Republican!" I had LOTS seem energized about Blackwell, who won the primary going away.
Further evidence: the two conservative senate opponents of DeWine (one of whom I voted for) only got 25% of the vote. There is no way DeWine loses in the general. If only HALF of those Republicans turn out to vote for him as a "lesser of two evils" candidate, we still have the numbers and win.
All of this is said with the understanding that NO ONE PAYS ATTENTION NOW, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth on FR. If you go back to 2004, in May we were all desperate that Bush was going to lose, and that Kerry had all this momentum, blah, blah. Six months is an eternity in politics.
For example, what happened to the "culture of corruption" in THREE months? It backfired on the Dems, with McKinney and Kennedy. Gas prices are coming down. Iraq is still looking very positive.
GOP nets one seat gain in the Senate, one to five in the House, but I may be bumping these predictions UPWARD. Stay tuned.
If nothing else, this will teach the GOP that conservatives are not like the clueless black voters that the Dems can abuse at will.
I don't buy it.
The Democrats, the MSM, and the DNC have a one sentence game plan, "Make the public hate GWBush."
From this they have push polled low numbers.
From this they have selectivly covered only bad news areas
From this they have created their "Agenda for Amerika" because they think the 'contract WITH America' won because the public hated clinton not agreed with ideas.
This is all symbolism over substance.
I have no doubt in my mind that we must all vote PERIOD. We have to keep pelosi and her ilk out of power longer and longer. They must retire out of power the same way Justice Marshal retired out of power and bitter.
Good! They deserve to lose.
Looks like the Dems have it in the bag. Oh well, guess there's no reason for them to even show up and vote.