The lowest polling numbers for a congress since they started tracking them and the Democrats still think they're going to ride a wave?

I mean Bush isn't running.

Although I'm afraid that the Presidency may be up for grabs, the Democrats may face losses in Congress if they don't find something else to do besides holding show trials and raising taxes.

One of the principal factors for the low rating is the Democratic base's dissatisfaction that Congress hasn't done more to get us out of Iraq. I don't think that dissatisfaction, from the base, will translate into lost votes from the base. That said, I don't think the dems have a lock on anything. They will have to work and they will have to get out the vote.

The Dems trying to say they're gonna win in 2008 at this point in time is like trying to call a ball game in the top of the 1st inning. You may be right, but there's a greater chance you'll be wrong. There's a lot of things that can occur in the next year and a quarter, and a large portion of them are actually bad for the Party of the Donkey (like General Petraeus' success in Iraq).

The Dems are more likely trying to shore up support in their base by proclaiming "everything is fine" even as they watch things unravel.

The wave that will bury the Republicans is a demographic wave. In the future, there will just not be enough private sector, middle class, married whites with children to support the Republican Party.

The only question in 2008 is will the Democratic party gain the 60 seats in the Senate that will make the Republicans irrelevent or if they will have to wait until 2010.

America had better start thinking about what it is like to live in a country that is, in effect, a one party state.

Is Maryland, Mass, and DC the models for the political future of the U.S.?

CCG

You may be right to a certain extent. It's way too early to start thinking about a sure thing. But I don't think they are thinking that way. Iraq will play a huge role in the election and that outcome is far from determined yet. The problem that might jump up to bite the Repubs is the economy. If the housing bubble continues to deflate there will be a huge impact on the economy - and that would be a Repub problem.

One of the principal factors for the low rating is the Democratic base's dissatisfaction that Congress hasn't done more to get us out of Iraq.

Why did Lieberman win over Lamont, again?

Sorry, I sent before I finished

People wanted the Iraq situation to improve. Leaving may be one way for some. But it is the only way for far fewer. With the surge appearing to work for now, the Democrats can't stump on pulling out.

There's a fundamental difference jpm. No one really knows yet whether the surge is working and if it is whether it is making a difference. We'll see and hopefully we'll get an honest appraisal in September.

We'll see and hopefully we'll get an honest appraisal in September.
--------------------------------------------
At least we can expect more honesty from General Petreaus compared to Reid/Pelosi and most of the liberal media/blogs.

So are we now going to turn the thread into the evil liberals and evil consevatives?

The extremist elements of the Democratic base are making things very difficult for it's candidates. They have to skate on the paper thin ice between DU-ish liberalism, KOS-tic progressivism and traditional Democratic values.

This polarization will only become more apparent after General Petraeus' report. Expect to see alot of stumbling around. If the low congressional poll numbers are a really a result of them not doing enough to oppose the President, then it's only going to get more difficult for the Democrats as the race narrows and they have to decide who to please.

So are we now going to turn the thread into the evil liberals and evil consevatives?
------------------------------------------------
Is this another typical distraction from a statement of facts? Don't you expect an honest appraisal from General Petreaus?

Yes I do expect one from General Petraeus as long as it comes from him. If it comes from the WH I don't expect one.

By the same token, we can't expect much honesty from the dem congress and the reporting from the liberal media. So at least you agree that the attack on general Petreaus from people like Bill Sneinder from CNN is despicable.

For a little perspective: in the summer of 1991, George H.W. Bush was so popular that the most prominent Democratic contenders to run against him all opted out of the race early - Gephardt, Gore, Cuomo - leaving a choice between Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, and Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown.

15 months later, the President didn't even win 40% of the vote.

Democrats have won a whopping ONE election in a row, and now see nothing but blue skies ahead. I doubt it. They do have good chances in the Senate, with 21 Republican-held seats up against only 12 Democrats. In the House, though, there are 63 Democrats from districts won by Bush in 2004, and 42 from districts Bush won twice, so with the lack of achievements and the low approval of the Pelosi House, Republicans have a legitimate chance of retaking it next year.

Iraq and the economy will determine the outcome, of course. Bad news in either area will hurt GOP chances for the House and White House, while good news for America is bad news for Democrats, as usual over the last thirty years.

Any attack on the general is despicable. But LIA you're a little off base here. The dems have nothing to do with the report. It comes from Bush either through Petraeus or the WH. You're making a strawman argument here.

Addison:

I agreed with you up to the end. That's a silly last sentence. But then if that's what you believe that's what you believe.

Keep dreaming.

The same electorate that told the Republicans where to go will in all likelyhood do the same or worse to the Democrats that have raised taxes and spent more while accomplishing less.

FWIW the Democrats that ran to the right of their Republican opponents and won based on that did the Republicans a favor by weeding out some of the party 'moderates' who more often voted with the opposing party. They are going to have tough races as they defend their lockstep votes and current party leadership positions.

"You can't *pay* for entertainment like this"

But LIA you're a little off base here. The dems have nothing to do with the report.
------------------------------------------------
The dems demanded the WH to file a report by Sept. If they don't trust the WH, they can ask Petreaus to testify publicly as they wish. So again, the dems are less than honest here. So their complaint about the WH report is another example of their dishonesty. I think you are the one who is trying to make a strawman arg here.

Again, if the dems want to hear from Petreaus himself, they can. The pre-emptive attack against the general from Reid/Pelosi and their allies is despicable as you mentioned.

Good grief you have a convoluted way to arrive at conclusion. It's the same as "the democrats got up in the morning so they're single-handedly responsible for everything bad in the universe." It's tough having a reasonable dialogue with you LAI, I'll say that. If I said some democrat said "it's sunny today" you'd figure out a way to say he's lying.

JFO,
Looks like you are reverting back to your trademark of distraction and spin. I simply pointed out the dishonesty of the dems in demanding the report from the WH and then attacking the report itself. The dems can hear directly from Petreaus as they wish. Don't know why you keep spinning this issue. Maybe, that is your whole purpose here?

Iraq and the economy will determine the outcome, of course. Bad news in either area will hurt GOP chances for the House and White House, while good news for America is bad news for Democrats, as usual over the last thirty years.
-------------------------------------
Jim,
This is right on as usual.

LAI

I've tried a couple of times to dialogue with you but it always ends up in the same place. -your way tired and used up accusation of spin and distraction and dishonesty. Blah blah blah..... For gosh sake you're the one taking the thread away from the topic (an election) and into Petraeus, and dems and the media lying.

So lets just agree that we'll never agree. You may post your usual stuff about spin and lying and dishonesty to your hearts content. But otherwise do me a favor and bother someone else.

JFO,
You brought up the point about the WH report and I simply pointed out the dishonesty of the dems wrt the point you raised. This is simply a case of fact-checking. That 's all I am trying to point out to you. You repeately insulted CCG, so I am surprised that you don't like to be fact-checked when you made a point.

But if another wave is coming and the data prove it, why the need to flood the zone with ads, auto-dial calls, direct mail, etc? There are three things going on.

And in Southern New England, Dunkin Donuts has the market cornered on coffee. Indeed, the franchise is so omnipresent in the geographic region that a common joke is that there's a D&D on every corner (sometimes that joke isn't much of an exaggeration). Yet Dunkin Donuts feels a need to continue their advertising blitz in that area. Why?

As long as Iraq remains a major issue with the majority of voters, Republican candidates will likely have a hard time in many areas such as the West and NorthEast attracting voters. Vietnam did the same damage to the Democrats hopes back in 1968, sinking HHH after the big 1964 landslide by LBJ.

National Security is still a problem for the dems.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070819/27security.htm

The Dems' Security Insecurity
New efforts to counter the GOP lead on national defense

JFO, Petraeus is scheduled to make his report to Congress.

Here, read this. I'll even help you by pulling out a quote and adding my own emphasis so that you can see what I am talking about:

According to the officials, Gen. David H. Petraeus is expected to propose the partial pullback in his September status report to Congress, when both the war's critics and supporters plan to reassess its course. Administration officials who support the current troop levels hope Petraeus' recommendations will persuade Congress to reject pressure for a major U.S. withdrawal.

Therefore, Congress, not the White House, is the sole determiner of whether the report is made in a public or private forum.

Now, I doubt that you are stoopid enough to fail to realize that Congress can say in what manner a report to Congress is made, therefore, I believe that you are engaging in deliberate spin before the fact (pre-spin?) in order to attempt to gain some cover from what is expected to be a generally positive report from General Petraeus.

And it ain't gonna work. I won't let you get away with it, no matter how much you insult me.

Couple more inconvenient facts for ya, JFO.

Inconvenient Fact the First: The White House is involved in writing the report because it is required by law!

Public Law 110-28 (link to .pdf), passed by Congress, signed by the President, says:

The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.

Get that? The President shall submit a report. Now, it should be obvious to anyone with more than two working brain cells that having the President submitting a report pretty much requires that the White House be involved in drafting the report.

Inconvenient Fact the Second: General Petraeus must report in open (that is, public) session, again, by law!

The very same law quoted above says, in the paragraph following the one above:

TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS.--Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.

"Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq" is currently General David Petraeus.

Therefore, by law, Petraeus must testify in open session. Period.

No doubt the Congress that passed that law expected to be able to rake Petraeus over the coals in public to humiliate him. They never considered that Petraeus' strategy (of which "The Surge" is but one part) would actually work.

And now they're squirming on those coals themselves, and it's rather amusing to watch.

CCG

It'd be nice if you made any sense at all - occasionally you do. But not this time. You must be smoking the same stuff Addison was smoking the other day. What in the hell are you talking about?

Short memory span, JFO?

I am referring to your comment above which says:

Yes I do expect one from General Petraeus as long as it comes from him. If it comes from the WH I don't expect one.

So I am showing you the law, passed by your beloved Democrat-controlled Congress, that requires both to make a report, and also requires that Petraeus make his report in open session.

I realize there's a bit of a time differential there... that's what happens when you work for a living... you can't be online all day.

CCG:

Ok, I understand your point now but you still make no sense.
My statement is pretty clear. If Petraeus WRITES the report I trust it. If the WH WRITES the report I don't. So you take that and somehow translate it into the democrats have something to do with WRITING the report? You're not that stupid CCG - think about it. He can make his report on Fox News for all I care - if he WROTE it I'll believe it.

It'd be nice if you made any sense at all -...

Don't know what your problem is jfo. I followed his comments just fine. Aren't you a lawyer? You should be able to keep up with something like that.

So lets just agree that we'll never agree.

Don't know why you don't understand that to begin with jfo. Although your tone today seems to be conciliatory, most of us know in fact you are a hard core liberal and only come here in an attempt to spread your superior viewpoint to us rubes. Yet, it doesn't work.

If I said some democrat said "it's sunny today" ...

Yep. You're right. I'd look outside and check. For starters just because I know it's rarely ever sunny in the democratics' world.

I am sorry, JFO, I did not say what you hallucinated that I said.

I said they had passed a law requiring the President to make a report, and the same law requires General Petraeus to make a report in open session.

Please quote the exact sentence (with a link to the post in question) where I said the Democrats had anything to do with writing those reports.

CCG:

Then what in the hell are you talking about? All I've said is that I'd trust Petraeus' report. What are you taking issue with? Who cares who ordered it as long as Petraeus gives it? What the hell are you arguing with me about. For heavens sake I agreed with most of your first comment on this thread. If they "rake him over the coals" for political purposes they're wrong.

Then what in the hell are you talking about?
---------------------------------
That the dems are dishonest for demanding the report the report from the WH and then attacking that the WH wont' give an honest report. The dems should simply ask for the report directly from Petreaus instead of using this dishonest arg/spin.

Blah blah blah LAI your broken record is still broken. Blah blah blah.

Oh, and by the way Petraeus' boss is the man currently residing in the WH, not Congress. Geez, you can't get away from blah blah blah can you?

JFO,
Looks like you have a prob handling the truth. Using your own standard, we cannot trust the dems when they report about the problems in Iraq. The dishonesty of the dems is clear when Reid/Pelosi had to pre-emptily attack Petreaus. Or are you trying to wiggle your way out of the statement that you trust Petreaus now?
Just trying to follow the logic of your arg.

CCG

I've gone back and read the comments to try and make some sense out of the confusion. Maybe this will clear it up for you. If not I give up.

In comment #13 I was responding to a statement from LAI about an"honest assessment." When I said if it (an assessment) comes from Petraeus I'll believe it. If it (an assessment written for Petraeus) comes from the WH I won't.

I was never referring or commenting about the law passed by Congress.

So - once again: (1) Petraeus writes the report I believe it; (2) if the WH writes it, I don't; (3) if Petraeus is attacked for political purposes it's wrong.

Hope that clears it up.

LAI

Blah blah blah blah.

JFO,
Again, using your arg, we don't trust the dem when they complain about the WH report. They will hear directly from Petreaus. So no need to pass a law demanding a report from the WH. Looks like they want to use this as an excuse to discredit Petreaus. Just like to point out this glaring dishonesty of the dem raising this point. This is the reason we can't trust the dems in Congress.

Blah blah blah blah.
--------------------------
JFO 's trademark when running out of arg. Blah blah blah ....

LAI

OK no more blah blah blah.

From now on it's: "you win LAI."

So, to your last comment - "you win LAI."

JFO,
Just make sure that we have the fact correctly checked. That 's what you are after right?

You win LAI

I'm off to bed now. I just want you to know that whatever you post for the rest of the evening -you win LAI.

JFO,
THanks for agreeing that the dems were less than honest when they raised the point about the WH report. Finally we have an agreement. You should ask the dem congress to pass another law to drop the request for the report from the WH.

So what are you gonna believe if they both write the report, as they will?

I know already; you'll believe what will support your prejudices.
============================

So - once again: (1) Petraeus writes the report I believe it; (2) if the WH writes it, I don't; (3) if Petraeus is attacked for political purposes it's wrong.

Once again, for the obtuse:

(1) General David Petraeus, Commander MNF-I, will deliver a report to Congress, in open session.

(2) The White House will deliver a report to Congress, presumably in written form.

(2a) If the reports are identical, we all know the Dems will cry foul. Therefore, it is safe to assume that they will be different in some manner, besides being delivered by two different people.

(3) General Petraeus has already been attacked for political purposes. Will you now declare that Harry Reid was wrong? Or will you spin it so that Reid's comments are somehow "not political"?

(4) It's apparent to anyone with more than two functioning brain cells what you're doing with (1) and (2). You're setting yourself up to blast General Petraeus' report by claiming that it was written by the White House instead of by the General himself. This is a flawed strategy, as you basically have to telegraph it ahead of time, and, thus, people with more intelligence than you give them credit for having can catch on and expose it.

May God bless you, JFO.

CCG

I'm sorry you're so blind to your ideology that you have to make every attempt at a discussion into an attempt to trap people who disagree with you.
You make up silly scenarios so you can say your pre-judgments were correct. What's wrong with waiting to see what happens? I think I've made by view pretty clear about believing Petraeus but not having any confidence in the WH.

As for your supercilious posting about politics, isn't there something somewhere in the Bible about hypocrisy? You play politics, I play politics, liberals play politics, conservatives play politics for gosh sake. Everyone is always looking for a "political advantage." It doesn't play well CCG when you pretend that moral superiority of yours about "politics."

Lets have a discussion - we know we disagree but please don't act innocent and pure when it comes to politics. Mr Bush, as I said in a comment yesterday is not stupid. One of his talents is his ability to play "politics." That's not a slam on him - it's a recognition of one of his talents. So stop with the attempted traps and stop with the act that you're above it all.

So stop with the attempted traps and stop with the act that you're above it all.
-------------------------------------
Another JFO 's trademark to distract and spin. In other words, JFO can routinely attempt traps and insult people. When the truth is pointed out to him, JFO uses this cheap tactic to spin his way out of it.

Again, JFO is doing exactly what he accuses other of doing: pretending to be above it all (but his pretention is so transparent).

You win LAI

I play politics, liberals play politics, conservatives play politics for gosh sake. Everyone is always looking for a "political advantage."
-------------------------------------
So it is OK for the dems to play politics with national security to get political advantage? No wonder JFO can support people like Reid/Pelosi. Is this another variation of the perfection fallacy? Since noone is perfect, the US military is no different from the terrorists?

JFO,
Thanks again for admitting that the dems do play politics with national security to get power and you don't have any problem with that.

LAI, you win #53
LAI, you win #54

JFO,
Thanks again for agreeing that the Dems do play with politics and you don't have any problem with that.

Also thanks for agreeing that you simply projecting what you are doing onto others as a tactic of distraction.

LAI, you win #56

Thanks again for admitting that you are acting as above it all to spin and distract.

LAI, you win # 58

JFO, if you'll quit laying groundwork for deriding General Petraeus' report as "written by the White House," I'll stop accusing you of it.

How's that?

CCG

Either it's written by the WH or him. Pretty simple to understand, even for you. But I'll have no expectation of you other than to repeat the right wing mantra about it, whatever it is. I have as much faith in your honesty as I do the WH's when it comes to this.

Oh, and LAI, whatever you post in response - you win.

Oh, and JFO, whatever you don't post, they are both gonna write it.
=========================

JFO, you seem to be missing the most obvious point: there will very likely be two reports!

That's what I have been trying to drill into that block of granite you call a "head" for the past two days!

President George W. Bush makes a report, General Petraeus makes a separate report. How hard is that to comprehend?

CCG

I understand that. So, I'll change it to this: (1) The report Petraeus writes (without editing from the WH) I'll believe; (2) I won't believe any report written by the WH.

Hopefully now we understand one another.

Have a good day.

Kim:

I'm developing some new responses to some of the, shall we say, goofier commenters here. Lai has his. And now here's yours:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

There ya go again, JFO, laying groundwork for trying to have it both ways, "respecting" General Petraeus yet discounting his report.

It's so obvious, other folks have remarked to me that it's clear that's what you're doing. So please, stop playing the "I'm innocent" game.

Jesus H Christ are you are utterly and completely as rigid as you come off? No matter what the fu*** I say you repeat the idiotic mantra you have. Are you that fu**ing closed up and blind to anything but the right wing view of the world? I know you're not stupid but you sure can make yourself come off that way sometimes.

For god knows what number of times:
I WILL ACCEPT THE HONESTY OF A REPORT WRITTEN BY PETRAEUS. REPORT!!!! A REPORT!! JMJ you can be a jackass sometimes and this is one of them.

Why don't you try demonstrating a modicum of honesty by telling me whether you will accept without challenge whatever is in Petraeus' report and the WH's report. God forbid you should climb out from underneath your bible and try to live the words contained in it.

No real opinion from me until the rpt comes out...

I will not pre-judge any report until I read it.

You might try that concept sometime.

CCG

You're just a worm, a hypocrite and a worm. You're actually worse than LAI - at least he's honest, crazy but honest. You're the most dishonest "christian" I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

So nice to see your own Christian love on display, JFO.

Please, feel free to continue showing it. You are showing everyone here what kind of person you are far, far better than I ever could.