This story exemplifies how the republican party seems to always shoot itself in the foot. The democrats are really better at lying and sticking to that lie than the republicans ever could be. I am a republican, am I worried? No! After the left gets back in control, I am sure most republicans will support the dems effort on the war on terror. I will make the bet that we aren't and won't be nearly as visious as the left has been to Bush and team. I care more about our country than any stupid lying political party, and if that means supporting the dems effort on the war, so be it. I am looking forward to them fixing everything that is wrong with America in their first 4 years. They expected that from Bush and we will expect that from them.


chicagotribune.com

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed
GOP candidates running scared
Voter dissatisfaction has party worried about losing power
Advertisement
Click to learn more...
By Jeff Zeleny
Washington Bureau

May 7, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Six months before Election Day, with control of Congress potentially teetering in the balance, Republicans across the country are beset by anxieties about the fortunes of their party and fearful that their dominance could be upended by an electorate hungry for a change.

The alarms, which have been sounding for months, are increasing in volume as the summer nears with feelings of discontent over the price of gasoline, the war in Iraq and illegal immigration. Though Democrats have yet to settle on solutions to those issues or a unified message for the fall, Republicans worry that many voters simply will be looking for a fresh start.

"The atmospherics right now aren't good for Republicans going into the fall elections," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). "Right now, Iraq is the albatross hanging around our necks--it's like a weight out there. If we continue down that track and there is no substantial difference going into the fall elections, there are no guarantees."

Wave of dissatisfaction

Republican strategists and pollsters no longer rule out the possibility of losing the House--the Senate is less likely, they say--if a general wave of dissatisfaction over the direction of the country intensifies and begins overtaking local races.

While Republicans hold many advantages, considering that Democrats need to pick up 15 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate to win a majority, history is not on the party's side. Every president since the Civil War has lost seats in the House or Senate during his sixth year in office, except Bill Clinton in 1998.

To be sure, President Bush has defied history before, expanding his party's majority in Congress during his first midterm election in 2002. In 2004, he defeated Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and added congressional seats, the first president to achieve that feat since Franklin Roosevelt in 1936.

But this year, Republicans concede a key element could be missing from their arsenal: a motivation to vote.

"In 2004, people were passionate about voting for Bush and against Kerry. In 2002, there was a passion about the war on terrorism," said Joe Gaylord, a veteran Republican strategist and a principal architect of the party's 1994 revolution. "But in 2006, I don't see much passion on our side, which could make it a very dangerous year."

He added: "One of the reasons Democrats might do well is the sense that things just aren't right."

In gubernatorial races, too, Democrats are positioned to pick up a number of seats held by Republicans. Seven Republican governors are not seeking re-election, compared with only one Democrat who is stepping down, creating opportunities in Ohio, Florida and New York, among other states.

But as the six-month countdown to the election officially opens Sunday, the fight for control of Congress is drawing the most attention.

With polls showing that up to 7 of 10 Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, Republicans locked in tough races are distancing themselves from Bush and trying to find footing on their own issues. Another troublesome sign for Republicans came in a poll last week for the non-partisan Cook Political Report that found that among those most likely to vote in the fall, people favored the Democratic candidate for Congress over the Republican by 18 percentage points.

"Yes, it's bad," said Lance Tarrance, a Republican pollster who conducted the survey. "We're talking about pretty stiff numbers now that can't be ignored for House Republicans."

And for the first time, he said, his survey showed half of Americans "strongly disapprove" of Bush's performance. "Without a scandal, this is very rare," he added. "It shows the extreme frustration right now in the American public."

Can Democrats capitalize?

It's an open question, though, to what extent Democrats will be able to capitalize on the political climate. Five of the most vulnerable seats in the Senate are held by Republicans--Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Jim Talent of Missouri. Yet if Democrats are to reclaim the majority, they must win each of those contests--or a combination of five others--not lose any of their own seats and oust another Republican as well.

In the House, district boundaries have been carefully drawn to protect the majority of incumbents, Republicans and Democrats alike, which strategists say leaves only about 30 seats realistically in play. Still, Democrats are targeting states where Republican approval is particularly low--Connecticut, New York, Ohio--as among the places they hope to pick up seats.

"Race by race, Republicans have an advantage because there just aren't enough seats on the table for Democrats to win without a strong wave behind them," said Amy Walter, an analyst for the Cook Political Report in Washington. "But for many of these Democratic candidates, it could be like being in the right place at the right time."

Carl Forti, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, dismissed the notion that Democrats would find success nationalizing the election. He said voters would be able to "draw a distinction between the national environment and their unhappiness with it."

"We don't live in a country where people go into the polling booth and vote for a Republican Congress or a Democratic Congress," Forti said. "They vote for a person and they have a relationship with that person."

John Hibbing, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska who has written extensively about Congress, said: "Tip O'Neill's famous phrase about all politics being local is cute, but it's dead wrong here. Politicians can do a heck of a lot by working hard on their constituencies, but they are also subject to national trends."

Indeed, some members of Congress who once assumed they would have relatively easy races are being forced to rethink their political standing. In New Hampshire, for example, a poll last week showed Rep. Charles Bass, a Republican, was leading his Democratic opponent by only 7 percentage points, even though his rival was virtually unknown.

"This is a reaction against Bush," said Andy Smith, the director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. "Since Bush is not going to be on the ballot in 2006, the voters right now are punishing other Republicans."

Before November, though, Republican congressional leaders hope to have a fresh batch of legislation including tax relief--as well as progress in Iraq--to present to voters.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of his party's congressional campaign committee, called Democratic candidates to a private meeting last week. The theme of his stern warning--to dampen expectations -- may have been unimaginable a year ago when Republicans were riding high and talking about building a lasting majority.

"Don't drink the Kool-Aid! We have a lot of work to do," he said. "Anybody that tells you they know the answer six months out is a fool."

- - -

Key midterm races

To gain control of Congress, Democrats would have to pick up six seats in the Senate and 15 seats in the House.

Here is a look at some races that could prove pivotal.

HOUSE

ARIZONA, 8TH The retirement of Rep. Jim Kolbe (R) has created a free-for-all in a district where immigration may play a large role.

COLORADO, 7TH Rep. Bob Beauprez (R) is running for governor, which creates an open seat in a state that is trending Democratic.

CONNECTICUT, 2ND Rep. Rob Simmons (R) tries to fight against ill feelings toward Republicans in his moderate district.

CONNECTICUT, 4TH Rep. Christopher Shays (R) touts his independence in a district where GOP ratings are low.

FLORIDA, 22ND Rep. Clay Shaw (R), after winning by fewer than 600 votes in 2004, faces a tougher challenge this year.

ILLINOIS, 6TH The retirement of Rep. Henry Hyde (R) creates an opening, with Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth (D) vying against state Sen. Peter Roskam (R).

ILLINOIS, 8TH Rep. Melissa Bean (D) tries to win a second term in a district long represented by Republican Phil Crane. Her opponent is David McSweeney (R).

INDIANA, 8TH Rep. John Hostettler (R) faces a tough challenge from Sheriff Brad Ellsworth (D).

INDIANA, 9TH Rep. Mike Sodrel (R) tries to win a second term as he faces former Rep. Baron Hill (D) yet again.

IOWA, 1ST With Rep. Jim Nussle (R) running for governor, Democrats are fighting for an open seat in eastern Iowa.

MINNESOTA, 6TH Rep. Mark Kennedy (R) is running for Senate, which creates an opening in the Minneapolis suburbs.

NEW MEXICO, 1ST Rep. Heather Wilson (R) struggles every cycle but faces well-known Democratic attorney general this year.

OHIO, 15TH Rep. Deborah Pryce (R) faces a strong challenger in Mary Jo Kilroy, a Democratic commissioner in Columbus.

OHIO, 18TH Rep. Bob Ney (R) tries to survive a federal probe into a corruption scandal, but Democrats field a political neophyte.

PENNSYLVANIA, 6TH Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) faces a rematch with Democrat Lois Murphy, whom he narrowly beat in 2004.

SENATE

MINNESOTA

(Open seat) Rep. Mark Kennedy (R) faces Amy Klobuchar (D), the county attorney in Minneapolis. Will Klobuchar be able to link this GOP congressman with problems in Washington?

MISSOURI

Sen. Jim Talent (R) is locked in a tough contest with Claire McCaskill, the Democratic candidate for governor in 2004. Will her support for stem cell research cause Talent trouble?

MONTANA

Sen. Conrad Burns (R) faces an unusually tough race because of ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The Democratic challenger is not decided, but can the chosen candidate capitalize on Burns' woes?

RHODE ISLAND

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) is struggling to win a primary before looking to November. Has his frequent siding with Democrats put him in too precarious a spot with Republicans?

OHIO

Sen. Mike DeWine (R) faces Rep. Sherrod Brown (D). Will DeWine be able to inoculate himself from the troubles that the GOP is facing in Ohio and Washington?

PENNSYLVANIA

Sen. Rick Santorum (R) faces a challenge from Bob Casey Jr. (D), the state treasurer. Both oppose abortion rights, but will Casey, a moderate, be more appealing than Santorum, a conservative?

-- Chicago Tribune/Jeff Zeleny

----------

jzeleny@tribune.com

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

I would be worried if I were them, but not yet to the point of panic. I don't think Bush will recover much in the polls, but the Dems are not exactly seizing the day.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I think that in a few years Republican's will be leading in the polls. But in 10 years Democrats will be in almost full control. I am a student and every teacher that I know influences everyone to think Democratically by saying things like Bush is a liar, Republicans lie, Republicans are stupid, America is racist, we are stealing oil in Iraq, we are causing a civil war in Iraq, and worst of all............................................... ........... Democrats are good. I am not old enough to vote i am sorry to say, but if i were, i would vote republican. Soon because of teachers influencing kids, we will be a Nation run by Democrats. What a horror............. but it's true.

as some maintain and they influenced opinon, then the country would always have been conservative. Obviously that has not occured and its not likely to.

I am not convinved Republicans will lose the seats people think. The reality is that open seats are critical to victories and democrats are actually at a disadvantage in this. People dont vote for national issues, they vote for individual seats and they heavily favor incumbants. In addition, House seats are so gerrymanded and money is so central to elections, that only a handful of seats are ever competitive.

Democrats will win some seats, but not a lot.

__________________
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

I wouldn't be writing off the Republicans retaining Majority Control just yet. The Dems need a net gain of 6 (I believe it is) to take over control of the Senate....and 15 to take over control of the Congress. Anything's possible; but I doubt it. Bush's poll numbers are low because he's made some very difficult decisions. His low poll numbers won't cause me to go vote for a Democrat.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

because 70 plus percent of Americans think he is a moron including 45 percent of conservatives in the last poll. It is of course difficult to invade other countries, ignore stagnating wages and growing poverty, entirely ignore rising energy prices, bungle desperately needed education reform, give speaches on social security while your political appointes makes an idiot of himself, and destroy our relations with the rest of the world. Oh yeah, have the largest deficits in history....something unlike with Reagan he cant' blame on Congress since his party runs congress.


But Bush is not on the ballot so America's views on him wont matter much. Incumbancy, money, and the fact that only half of Amerians vote (and not on national issues) will likely save the Republican party. This time anyway.

__________________
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

Really? And would you please give direct links to *ANY* survey that specifically asked if Mr. Bush is "a moron"? I mean, any *SERIOUS* poll by any reputable company? Come on, Sovietski, I know ya can do it. AP/Ipsos, Gallup, or even Rasmussen --- any of the legitimate survey outfits will do.

Who asked if respondents thought Mr. Bush was "a moron"? Link me! Hit me with your best shot!

While I'm waiting for the deafening silence on that one, let's get into more of your leftist fantasy....

Yeah, considering how shabby Clinton left our military and our intelligence apparatus, it really *WAS* difficult to invade. But we managed --- this time in what, 100 hours or so? That was, as I recall, a day or so after R.W. "Johnny" Apple at the New Yawk Slimes pompously declared the whole thing "a quagmire." (So much for the Jayson Blair Gazette!)

Does the phrase "shock and awe" ring any bells there, glorious comrade? ("This Scud's for you, Achmed!")

You might want to refine that tinfoil chappeau you're sporting about unemployment, though. The U.S. Dept. of Labor said in April 2006 alone, the economy added (not lost) 138,000 people, and they in turn saw an 9-cent-per-hour hike in wages. LINK

The Dimwits like to bellow nonsense about unemployment, but the hard cold truth here is that the U.S. now is LOWER unemployment than the same 5.5% figure Dims used to crow was "full employment." What changed, beside the fact that Dims are not in power, so screaming about good news is all they've really got here?

"Stagnating wages" translates into, "Too lazy to go find a better job." It's called personal initiative, something I'm sure no self-respecting Son or Daughter of Stalin would ever dare tolerate (might upset the 5-year Plan, dont'cha know). Ooooo! I know! Extort your employers! It's the union way, stealing higher wages by threatening sabotage, violence, and all those other fun tricks Reuther and his crew of thugs brought to bear, muscling in with organized crime in the marketplace! Yes! I see it now! Pay that McDonald's burger-flipper a mere $25 an hour, and to hell with the customer whose burgers now cost $8 each!

Then you allege that Mr. Bush is
Hmmm. What would you have us do --- invade Saudi Arabia, or open ANWR for drilling? Me, I think invading Saudi Arabia has the best bet of success. After all, you can't club baby seals dripping with oil, if they're all up to their cute little fins in arab sand, and not arctic snow. You think the moonbats will start yelling to protect the endangered camel-flea, maybe, to slow this down? Call PETA immediately!

No Child Left Behind is educational reform, even though the NEA and AFT both deliberately fudge the failure rates of the kids who can't pass proficiency tests. (Expect a crackdown on that one from the same beloved Dept. of Education --- and expect the teachers unions to howl bloody murder that the kids fail because incompetent union rats cannot and will not actually teach.) Awwww, there I go again, expecting union rats to get off their lazy collectivist keisters and go do honest work!

But I must admit this one gives me long and sober pause....

Well, gee. "Appointees" (correct spelling) is plural, but then you say "him" without naming a "him," which is singular. And as for destroying our relations with the rest of the world --- foreign relations is State, and State is Condi Rice, who is a "she," not a "him" --- and by every poll I've seen over the AP Newswire, she's the most popular Secretary of State in years. A whollllllle lot better than that hideous cow Madeline Half-bright or the classic dimwit, Cyrus Vance.

Oh, you mean by "destroying our relations" we somehow screwed up by ignoring Coughing Anus at his Oil for Food ripoff pals at the United Nations? Or we didn't tongue-kiss enough French toads like Jacqueass Chirac?

C'est la guerre, y'all. It was all that nasty sauce dripping off his jowls, that they try to hide the awful taste of their alleged food. Maybe we'll blow in his ear (preferably with a .44 Colt Magnum).

Oh yeah, you NEA-educated Rhodes Scholar, you. "Speech" and not "speach." (*snork*) Webster's is your friend --- or even the spell-check feature for this very forum! Wow, the miracles of modern technology, yes?

I defy you to produce any Demo-gogue plan that would have avoided deficits with a war going on, Katrina costs, the tsunami costs, and then the other ongoing costs of running our government. Go for it. Show we mere mortals any 2002 Democrat spending plan that would have solved it (short of hiking taxes).

And how would you propose to eliminate that same deficit? Hike taxes? You know, in an election year, that's precisely what the GOP hopes you economic giants actually do try to propose. Since nobody outside of a wraparound canvas sweater believes Dems would *EVER* actually reduce spending across the board, how would you roll back that red ink?

Meaning, all those Rock the Votes kids won't put down the bong and actually get to the polls (provided they can even find the correct polling site). Wow, so much for the foreign subversive George Soros pumping all those bucks into that effort (or into ANSWER and other extreme left causes).

Aren't you guys sorry yet that you butchered about 45 million unborn American babies? Many of those same kids would be voting-age now, wouldn't they --- and your crew of loons could win without hacking the Diebold touch-screen machines to get the outcome you want --- yes? Dimwits are hilarious, killing the very people that they need for electoral college success.....

I can't recall any "tough decisions" he made, but OK. His poll numbers are low because he's been a complete and utter disaster. Today's poll:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1940034&page=1

puts him 1 point ahead of Nixon. And the shocking part? Nixon was a far better President.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I will also pull the lever for a republican, I would amputate my arm before a democrat would get my vote. But the reality is, many in the republican party are just plain stupid, and have no guts. That's why I like Bush, he doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what you think, he does what he thinks is the right thing to do. Although I must say, the immigration nightmare we face in America has left a horrible taste in my mouth, and I am willing to vote for almost anybody that just doesn't give lip service to the remedy (Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado).

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

...to young or not born yet when Nixon was prez. The venom that was spewed was so horrific, I'm surprised he wasn't assassinated. Although he was not nearly as corrupt and vicious as LBJ (that does not stand for Lewinsky Bl*w Job)

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.