The latest USA Today poll showed Bush and the Republicans up a bit. It should be amusing to watch the spin on this one. As I have said all along, I think most polling is useless except in a trending sense, so I really don't care about thi...

To make your case you would have to show that the democrats would be better on fiscal responsibility, small government, a government with minimal interference with in citizens lives, big on personal responsibility or strong on defense. I don't see any of those areas that the democrats would be better on. They might decide to have a different set of priorities, but they would I think make things worse on all of those fronts. Think about social security reform. The first step to solving a problem is admitting there is a problem. They can't even get that far. I won't give the GOP an 'A', but relative to the democrats they are ahead.

The other idea is split government. The problem is split government works best as a means to keep the status quo and keep both parties from raiding the taxpayers money. But we have some very real problems that the government needs to face up to. A split government is to likely to ignore those problems and let them get worse.

As far as lobbyist goes, I think your suggestion is like trying to cut down on the flies by shifting the outhouse a few feet. Lobbyist can react to switches in congressional majorities much faster than we can switch them. The solution is to go back to a pre-FDR view of congressional powers, thus cutting off the source of the problem, trillions of dollars in the honey pot and the idea that if you can think of it, it can be a law.

How can you call someone losing a primary the result of "fanatics and extremists"? The majority of the party disagreed with Lieberman strongly enough that they didn't want him to represent them - end of story. And since when does a primary have anything to do with who polls better among the entire state? I like McCain better than Trent Lott, but I wouldn't vote for either of 'em in a general election.

its not that the GOP is the best to be hoped for, but they are better than the alternative

Before Bush I might've bought into that. I've voted Repub before when it made sense. But ever since they took over both Congress and the WH... ever since they took a successful campaign to stop terror & protect the US in Afghanistan & turned it into "George's Long-Ass Spring Break" in Iraq, I've been done with them. The GOP has dropped every single tenet it ever held (except for the extreme social conservatism, which I've always disagreed with).

Fiscal responsibility? Gone. I don't think we need to beat that dead horse here. Small gov't? Baloney. A gov't that's responsive to the people & interferes in their lives as little as possible? Never gonna see it again. Big on personal responsibility? They've re-defined the term 'nanny state'. Strong on defense? No, stupid on defense - a military solution will no more solve Iraq than it did for the Israelis in Palestine, or us in Vietnam; but nobody in the GOP (besides maybe Hagel) is willing to even admit that, let alone actually come up with a plan more worthwhile than "clap louder".

You may be rooting for the 'old' GOP YAJ, but that party doesn't exist anymore. This GOP, from the Oval Office on down, can't admit any possibility of error, so all mistakes become policy. It's plain to me, and an increasing number of others, that "staying the course" is a sure road to economic, military, and social collapse.

Do you see democrats not taking any lobbyist money? Did you miss the article about K-street hiring democratic lobbyist as a hedge against democratic gains in congress. Are you really so naive to think that the democrats would be any better?

This, on the other hand, I totally agree with. Power corrupts. My suggestion would be to just shift the balance of power every so often to keep the lobbyists spending more time trying to figure out who's in power than influencing them.

Why would anyone consider this a good thing?

For some reason I'm flashing back to the New York columnist who couldn't believe Richard Nixon could have been re-elected in 1972, since she didn't know anyone who voted for him.

Believe it or not, there are those who see the democrats as a worse alternative.

In terms of "fanatics and extremists" which party recently ousted a three term incumbent from their primary when polls immediately after the primary shows he has above 50% support among the voters of that state. And the senators principle problem in his party? He sees that running away from Iraq would embolden the terrorist and cast doubt among our allies as to whether we would bear any burden and endure any hardship in the war against those who want to kill us.

Have you looked at the distribution of lobbyist money? Do you see democrats not taking any lobbyist money? Did you miss the article about K-street hiring democratic lobbyist as a hedge against democratic gains in congress. Are you really so naive to think that the democrats would be any better?

A serious argument can be made on the republicans not being the best stewards of the taxpayers money. But look at how the democrats reacted to the question of social security reform. Do you really expect people to think that a party that can't even acknowledge the financial problems of an entitlement program like social security is in would be more responsible about fiscal matters?

If you haven't seen the rhetoric coming from the left as "vicious partisan attacks" then you are blinded by your own ideology.

As I commented to legion, its not that the GOP is the best to be hoped for, but they are better than the alternative. Now I would love to see the democrats get their act together and start making positive proposals to problems rather than just obstructing progress. I think it would spur the republicans to improve their act also. But when sadly, as long as you are winning it is common to play down to the level of your opponents. And given the seriousness of the stakes, it is hard for me to justify a "shock" as a good way to spur the republicans on because the unintended consequences of the shock would be to let the worse democrats get there hands on the levers.

And it's all predicated on national security. WASHINGTON — The arrest of terror suspects in London has helped buoy President Bush to his highest approval rating in six months and dampen Democratic congressional prospects to their lowest in a year......

On the other hand, I think just a little movement by the GOP back to some of its "traditional" values would let it sew up a majority position for a generation.

Si riduce, fino a quasi scomparire, il vantaggio dei Democratici nell'ultimo sondaggio Gallup/USA Today in vista delle elezioni di mid-term per il rinnovo del Congresso. Il GOP, che alla fine di giugno era dietro di 16 punti percentuali (38% contro 5....