Somehow, I thought I could depend on you or Tano to point that out. The Kool-aid dispenser is down the hall, just to the left.

So, tout polls when they support your preconceived notions and dismiss them when they don't. Very honest.

Don't know which polls you have been looking at but recent polling has Dems with the advantage on terrorism.

Somehow, I thought I could depend on you or Tano to point that out. The Kool-aid dispenser is down the hall, just to the left.

Mostly, it has to do with the democrats not taking the situation all that seriously. Poll after poll has been showing that that's the opinion of how the democrats have been dealing with Islamic terrorism.

Don't know which polls you have been looking at but recent polling has Dems with the advantage on terrorism. (about halfway down the page) Dems are more trusted on dealing with terrorism by 46 to 38. The Gallup poll has similar results. (expensive subscription required) This has been more or less consistent since late in 2005.

The rest of your post also reads like a spoof. I guess that is why Andy mistook you for Triumph.

As to the discussion over "divided government" I get into discussions about this in the past with Bruce, and it's one of the few points that we actually have stopped disagreements on. It seems to me, that when we start talking about "divided government" from Bruce's point of view, we are counting the blue noses and the red noses and if they come reasonably close to 50/50, that qualifies as being properly 'divided".

In my view, what he doesn't seem to be accounted for, is the number of republicans who invariably vote like democrats. John McCain being one. Arlen Spector, Lincoln Chaffee, and so on. On that basis, by definition, let's postulate a senate which is precisely balanced at 50% republican, and 50% Democrat. That's balance is by definition unbalanced in terms of liberal versus everyone else, By virtue of the number of liberal republicans.

You see, the problem, is not so much the parties involved, though that he is a decent indicator, the problem is the underlying principles for each individual. Those are not necessarily reflected by the party label.

The result is a 50/50 balance of democrats to republicans is not going to be enough to halt the tilt to the left. Moreover after 60 years and more of democrat dominated legislatures, even a small republican majority is not going to be enough to overcome the leftist tool that has been established, or even slow it down , given the number of liberal republicans still in the Mix.

I submit that after that long and emanation by the left, what is required to balance the situation is an equally long domination of the legislature's by the right. Further, that domination has to be in large enough numbers to overcome the RINOs to be effective in repairing the damage.

What I'm suggesting is, gridlock is not what we need. Repair is what we need. What Bruce suggests does not provide repair. As a matter of fact, given the overbalanced to the left, even from republicans, it doesn't even provide gridlock.

All bets are off if there's another major terrorist attack on American soil before the election.

How do you see a terrorist attack on US soil between now and the '08 election being used to Republican political advantage?

Absent an incredibly unlikely Reagan-like win with a major coattail effect, I don’t see how the GOP takes back the Congress in 2008.

All bets are off if there's another major terrorist attack on American soil before the election. (Please do not misinterpret me as saying that I want that to happen, because I don't.)

Freedom is on the march.

Always the victim, eh? It couldn't just be that your comments are a waste of your's and my time, plus space on someone's server.

Triumph:
You can stop posting comments now, nobody cares.

Freedom is on the march.

Thank you.

Did you know that, not once in the debates have the words "Islamic terrorist."

Republicans will win handily both Houses of congress and the Presidency, so we can get back to being a united country again.

Of course, if the Democrat party happens to steal more votes than the Republicans in '08, Bush will do the right thing and remain in office for a third term, in order to secure our freedom.

The second proposition hinges on conflation. There are many different strains of conservativism, any number of which have little in common with the others.

Social conservatives haven't been successful in maintaining or furthering their agenda since the 1950's. They're fighting a delaying action. There's no “success” to measure against.

Fiscal conservatives had a temporary period of success during the Clinton Administration. When are people going to figure out that was the anomaly rather than the norm?

Small government conservatives have little to write home about, either. Where are the great triumphs? Eliminating AFDC. It took them 60 years and it's been downhill since then.

Their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding libertarians have done pretty well over the last 60 years, regardless of who was running the show and occupying which offices. Whether the country is better off for it is a mixed bag.