I'd like to thank President Bush, Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and Jack Abramoff for their efforts in putting the Democratic party in charge in 2006.

Quote :

"For GOP, Election Anxiety Mounts Candidates Need Convincing for '06 By Charles Babington and Chris Cillizza Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, October 10, 2005; A01 Republican politicians in multiple states have recently decided not to run for Senate next year, stirring anxiety among Washington operatives about the effectiveness of the party's recruiting efforts and whether this signals a broader decline in GOP congressional prospects. Prominent Republicans have passed up races in North Dakota and West Virginia, both GOP-leaning states with potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents. Earlier, Republican recruiters on Capitol Hill and at the White House failed to lure their first choices to run in Florida, Michigan and Vermont. These setbacks have prompted grumbling. Some Republican operatives, including some who work closely with the White House, privately point to what they regard as a lackluster performance by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (N.C.) as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the group that heads fundraising and candidate recruitment for GOP senators. But some strategists more sympathetic to Dole point the finger right back. With an unpopular war in Iraq, ethical controversies shadowing top Republicans in the House and Senate, and President Bush suffering the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, the waters look less inviting to politicians deciding whether to plunge into an election bid. Additionally, some Capitol Hill operatives complain that preoccupied senior White House officials have been less engaged in candidate recruitment than they were for the 2002 and 2004 elections. These sources would speak only on background because of the sensitivity of partisan strategies. Historically, Senate and House races are often won or lost in the year before the election, as a party's prospects hinge critically on whether the most capable politicians decide to invest time, money and personal pride in a competitive race. Often, this commitment takes some coaxing."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100901332_pf.html

10/10/2005 9:24:15 PM

politics as usual, same shit will happen to the democratic party soon im sure... once they gain some power back.

10/10/2005 9:29:56 PM

True, but it took the Democrats 40 years to become corrupt and be thrown out of office. Republicans will have done it in 12.

10/10/2005 10:30:29 PM

It's almost as if these things are cyclical.

10/10/2005 10:32:17 PM

I think we had very productive power sharing when Clinton was President and Congress was Republican.

10/10/2005 10:36:50 PM

^I was just thinking the same thing. Divided gov't seemed to work in the '90s.

10/10/2005 10:38:59 PM

Republicans may be thoroughly incompetent but until they start saying fags can marry, abortion is ok, and socialists can take over America they won't be democrats.

10/10/2005 11:13:45 PM

I'd be convinced if it wasn't for the Supreme Court. I'd be far happier to have a Large Republican majority in both houses and a democratic president if I could be assured there would be no vacancies, but I cannot, so I digress.

10/10/2005 11:42:07 PM

Quote :

"GOP's best friend could be its nightmare Lobbyist Jack Abramoff helped fuel conservative successes, but his dealings could lead to powerful ethical fallout. By Jeff Shields Inquirer Staff Writer WASHINGTON - Lobbyist Jack Abramoff was not at the Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing last week, but he was the central topic, as Congress continued to probe what some call one of this generation's most outrageous political scandals. It was J. Steven Griles' turn to testify Wednesday, but it could have been any number of people. Griles, a former Interior Department deputy, was called to address suggestions that Abramoff had improperly influenced his federal work. Griles, who denies wrongdoing, is just the latest in a line of Republican officials and conservative leaders to be linked to Abramoff, who has been accused of mocking the laws that govern money and influence in American politics. The hearing was a sharp reminder that while White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby dominate the headlines, Abramoff remains - according to some observers - the Republican Party's most dangerous problem. "I don't think we have had something of this scope, arrogance and sheer venality in our lifetimes," Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote recently. "It is building to an explosion, one that could create immense collateral damage within Congress and in coming elections.""

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/13100178.htm

11/7/2005 7:43:43 AM

a democratic victory is 08 is a near certainty...probably a few seats this year will change parties

11/7/2005 8:22:38 AM

i wouldnt speak so quickly....A LOT can happen in the next 3 years.

..republicans thought they would have no problem winning after the clinton problems, and look how close the election was.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 8:25 AM. Reason : df]

11/7/2005 8:25:09 AM

Isn't it a bit early to be calling the Reps dead?

Shouldn't you at least wait until a poll or something?

11/7/2005 8:25:27 AM

^^clintons numbers for the most part remained high. plus we had economic prosperity and peace.


now we've got an unsuported war, scandal (just like with clinton), an ok economy and general low approval ratings. theres no comparison.


[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 8:32 AM. Reason : -]

11/7/2005 8:31:16 AM

i agree...but there are still 3 years left.

im the last person that wants these republicans to stay in office, but i also know that theres still a lot to be seen in the next 3 years.

11/7/2005 8:37:19 AM

I'm looking forward to '06 more than '08

11/7/2005 8:41:17 AM

^^

but whats going to happen in the next 3 years? the president cant do anything. hes spent his influence on ss.

iraq will continue to hurt. the only thing that will save him is a terror attack, which is seeming more and more unlikely.

11/7/2005 8:53:02 AM

Quote :

"but whats going to happen in the next 3 years? "

thats exactly my point...we dont know.

11/7/2005 8:57:36 AM

Quote :

"the only thing that will save him is a terror attack, which is seeming more and more unlikely."

rove will orchestrate one at just the right moment.

11/7/2005 9:18:00 AM

Quote :

"I think we had very productive power sharing when Clinton was President and Congress was Republican."

president clinton was more republican than president gw bush in some ways.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 9:20 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/7/2005 9:20:15 AM

Quote :

"thats exactly my point...we dont know. "

no. but certain things we know will probably happen. probably, nothing will change in iraq.

11/7/2005 9:41:12 AM

we have a republican president, house, and senate

and yet we can't control spending

and you neanderthals will point and call commie names everytime an election rolls around


you fuckers are fantastic


you fuck with my stem cells and i swear...

11/7/2005 10:12:10 AM

I dunno, I think a terrorist attack would hurt the republicans, not help them. They keep saying that we're safer now because of them...

then again, it would be the response to the terror attack that could help them. Lord help them if they bring in another michael brown for the cleanup

11/7/2005 10:20:00 AM

you know what would be the best thing for the republicans right now?

the assasination of george bush

assiniated presidents get defult respect. america would give the republicans a clean slate.

11/7/2005 11:08:38 AM

Quote :

"president clinton was more republican than president gw bush in some ways."

/wins the tread.

Clinton was a horndog, but that SOB was a great politician, and most certainly more of a conservative than Bush and co. have turned out to be. I don't even like the guy, but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat right now.

11/7/2005 12:47:37 PM

I keep reading that the Abramoff case has the potential to inflict more damage on the GOP than the rest of the scandals combined. What'd he do?

11/7/2005 2:24:05 PM

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 2:42 PM. Reason : ,]

11/7/2005 2:25:59 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101108.html

Quote :

"Five years ago, while he was still one of the capital's most prominent Republican lobbyists, Abramoff, with Kidan and former Reagan administration official Ben Waldman of Springfield, Va., took over SunCruz Casinos. The company operated a fleet of gambling boats from as many as 11 ports in Florida. Although the indictment does not detail the effort, Abramoff leveraged his connections with members of Congress to advance the SunCruz deal, according to interviews and thousands of documents, court records and e-mails filed in related bankruptcy cases. Abramoff's spokesman in New York, Andrew Blum, declined to comment, referring calls to Abramoff's Miami attorney, Neal Sonnett, who did not return calls. Kidan said in a statement that he had cooperated with investigators, adding: "I did nothing wrong and these allegations are totally unfounded.""

...

Quote :

"Abramoff and Kidan are accused of faking a wire transfer of $23 million, the equity they had agreed to put into the $147.5 million purchase of SunCruz from Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, the multimillionaire founder of the popular Miami Subs chain of sandwich shops. The wire transfer, said R. Alexander Acosta, the U.S. attorney here, "was counterfeit." ... After the sale, Boulis retained a piece of the business, but relations among the partners quickly soured, according to lawsuits and bankruptcy records. Boulis accused Kidan of maintaining connections to organized crime, and he and Kidan came to blows during a business meeting. On Feb. 6, 2001, Boulis was killed as he drove home from a business meeting by someone in a Mustang who fired three hollow-point bullets into his chest. No one has been arrested in the slaying."

...

Quote :

"To help land the deal, an Abramoff associate, Michael Scanlon, persuaded Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) to officially criticize Boulis in the Congressional Record; later, Ney praised Kidan in the official publication of Congress. Abramoff listed Tony Rudy, a top DeLay aide at the time, and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) as personal references on his loan papers. And he flew key members of DeLay's staff -- including his current chief of staff -- on a SunCruz jet and took them for a night of gambling on a SunCruz boat at the 2001 Super Bowl in Tampa. The Super Bowl trip came just days before Boulis's slaying. Ney has said he was duped by Abramoff and Scanlon. DeLay's spokesmen have said he does not remember meeting the banker or sending the flag. His spokesman declined to comment. Rudy has declined to comment. Rohrabacher has said he gladly served as a reference for Abramoff."

11/7/2005 2:42:12 PM

Unless the Democrats completely botch the elections, there is no doubt in my mind that they will sweep at least one house of Congress, if not both.

As for 2008, I doubt these scandals will have as much impact. Much of the corruption has been focused upon Bush administration officials and other members of the GOP leadership that are closely tied. If you have someone like McCain or another "moderate" Republican running, you could easily give the Democrats a good run for the White House.

11/7/2005 3:58:27 PM

Quote :

"Unless the Democrats completely botch the elections"

That's a big "unless."

11/7/2005 4:10:11 PM

Quote :

"Unless the Democrats completely botch the elections"

that would be interesting politics indeed if the democrats could manage to avoid botching an election

11/7/2005 4:30:44 PM

everyone loves a good "the sky is falling" story.

11/7/2005 6:01:35 PM

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=19603

Quote :

"GOP Image Taking a Hit Democrats now have perceptual edge on most major issues by Jeffrey M. Jones GALLUP NEWS SERVICE PRINCETON, NJ -- Recent polling by CNN, USA Today, and Gallup shows a continued decline in the public's views of the Republican Party. The decline is evident in Americans' overall views of the party, as well as in its perceived ability to handle various issues compared with the Democratic Party's ability. The plurality of Americans believe the country would be better off if the Democrats controlled Congress. However, views of the Democratic Party have not necessarily improved; the party's current favorable rating is the same as it was earlier this year. Opinions of the Parties The Oct. 13-16 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found further deterioration in the public's views of the Republican Party, building on declines evident since February. Forty percent of Americans give the GOP a favorable rating and 50% an unfavorable one, compared with a 45%-45% split in September. Since Gallup began asking this question in 1992, the only other time the Republican Party had a majority viewing it unfavorably was in late 1998 and early 1999, during the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings. The recent trend on the public's overall opinion of the Republican Party shows just how much the party's image has suffered. Earlier this year, 56% of Americans viewed the party favorably, similar to the sentiment from last fall. But by the end of February, the party's favorable ratings began to decrease, dropping into the 50% range. In late July they fell further -- below 50% -- and today's ratings are even lower. Currently, 52% of Americans have a favorable view and 36% an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party. While this does show some improvement from September (47%), the party's ratings are no more positive than they were earlier this year. In general, the Democratic Party's favorable rating has hovered around 50% this year. The decline in positive ratings of the GOP has given the Democrats an edge on two key measures related to next year's elections. By a 45% to 32% margin, Americans say the country would be better off if the Democrats rather than Republicans controlled Congress (23% say it does not make any difference). Also, Gallup's latest reading of the generic congressional ballot shows a 50%-43% edge for the Democratic candidates among registered voters. That suggests the Democrats would do well if the elections were held today, though a lot can change in the next year. Despite the Democratic advantages on those two measures, the congressional parties get similar marks for how they are currently handling their jobs. Thirty-eight percent approve of the Republicans in Congress, while 41% approve of the Democrats. Both measures are higher than Congress' overall approval rating, which was 29% in the Oct. 13-16 poll. Democrats Hold Edge on Issues An Oct. 21-23 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll asked the public whether the Democrats or the Republicans in Congress would better handle each of eight prominent issues. Democrats had the edge on seven of the eight, with terrorism being the only one that tilted in the Republican direction. Democrats hold advantages of 20 or more percentage points on healthcare, Social Security, and gas prices. Do you think the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress would do a better job of dealing with each of the following issues and problems? How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]? 2005 Oct 21-23 Healthcare Republicans 30% Democrats 59% Social Security Republicans 33 Democrats 56 Gas prices Republicans 31% Democrats 51% The economy Republicans 38% Democrats 50% Corruption in government Republicans 33% Democrats 44% Taxes Republicans 41% Democrats 49% The situation in Iraq Republicans 40% Democrats 46% Terrorism Republicans 49% Democrats 38% What could be troubling for the Republicans is that Democrats now hold an edge on Iraq and taxes, two issues that had previously favored the Republicans. The parties score about the same when they are rated on their governing approaches more generally. Just fewer than 6 in 10 Americans say the Democrats and, separately, the Republicans represent their values "very" or "moderately" well. Fifty-nine percent say the Democratic Party represents their attitudes about the role of government at least moderately well, and 57% say this about the Republican Party. Fifty-three percent of Americans say each party shares their attitudes about the role of religion in politics. How well does the Republican/Democratic Party do each of the following -- very well, moderately well, not too well, or not well at all? Represent your values Republican Very well 24% Moderately well 33% Not too well 19% Not well at all 22% No opinion 2% Democrat Very well 22% Moderately well 36% Not too well 22% Not well at all 18% No opinion 2% Represent your attitude about the role of government Republican Very well 21% Moderately well 36% Not too well 21% Not well at all 20% No opinion 2% Democrat Very well 18% Moderately well 41% Not too well 22% Not well at all 17% No opinion 2% Share your attitudes about the role of religion in politics Republican Very well 22% Moderately well 31% Not too well 22% Not well at all 23% No opinion 2% Democrat Very well 20% Moderately well 33% Not too well 21% Not well at all 22% No opinion 4% Survey Methods These results are based on telephone interviews with randomly selected national samples of 1,008 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 21-23, 2005, and 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 13-16, 2005. For results based on these samples, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls."

11/7/2005 6:40:59 PM

^^^^^

if McCain somehow gets the GOP nod, I'll go out on a limb and say that the Dems are wasting their time, money, and effort with anyone short of a Jesus Christ/Pamela Anderson ticket.

11/8/2005 1:34:05 AM

Wait, but I don't like McCain...

He's the asshole that brought us campaign finance reform.

11/8/2005 9:03:23 AM

i don't understand why so many republicans hate on campaign finance reform.

11/8/2005 9:09:54 AM

Republicans are the party in defense of the constitution.
Campaign Finance reform is a violation of the first amendment.

11/8/2005 11:33:09 AM

Quote :

"Republicans are the party in defense of the constitution. "

WELL, I GUESS THERE'S NO MORE NEED FOR DISCUSSION HERE. LONESNARK WINS THE THREAD FOR MOST LUDICROUS COMMENT.

11/8/2005 11:38:19 AM

^^^Im not aware of any good reason for anyone on any part of the political spectrum to support it, unless their ass is already sitting in office and then it does a nice job of protecting incumbents.

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 11:44 AM. Reason : ]

11/8/2005 11:43:46 AM

almost every single thing the gov't does is to protect incumbents

and they're doing a pretty good job

11/8/2005 11:53:37 AM

o...k...
^^^ Would you have been happier if I said "Republicans believe they are the sole supporters of the constitution"?

I'm always eager to make everyone happy.

That said, which republican party planks actually run counter to the constitution? (I forget)

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 12:15 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/8/2005 12:14:17 PM

^probably their whole law and order platform at the federal level, specifically medical marijuana and the Raich case.

11/8/2005 12:25:18 PM

I will leave TWW when Dems control congress.

11/22/2005 3:46:38 PM