I am very afraid that this is true. I am constantly amazed that candidates like Conrad Burns make it out of primaries, much less compete in or win general elections. It is why I don't make predictions from the blissfully liberal bubble I am happy to live in.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. While I'm all for reduced spending other "pure" conservative issues lose – I am sick of abortion being used as a litmus test for any candidate by the dems or republicans.

I have no problems with how the war is being run. Bush did not mislead us. He said we were in for the long haul and indeed we are. As far as the border: Immediately after the 2004 election, Bush and his cronies began to strong arm people on it. Object to open borders, you were labeled a racist. After huge battles, they backed off but still label anyone who objects as racist. You can say he signed this immigration bill, but there is no way I will every believe that it is anything more than a ruse. Less than 24 hours after the election has proved this out. No matter what they do, taxpayers are still stuck with the huge costs of subsidizing labor for business. Not only are the tax costs huge, not even counted is the cost in quality of life and infrastructure.

Also, the reality is my vote is worthless due to gerrymandering. It has made the competition of ideas nonexistent. There is no competition in parties or between the parties. It has all been predetermined by politicos in the backrooms.

Another one of my big objection to republicans, as I posted before, is that the personal behavior of people who label themselves as republicans is disgusting. Woman are routinely referred to as bitches and cunts. The sexual abuse of children, the ridicule of the mentally and developmentally disabled are running jokes. Call me a prude, but I don't want to be even remotely associated with that type of behavior.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you agree with this analysis. Government pork has always been around, even at the height of the "Republican revolution" of the 90's. I don't think it's ever a big issue for voters; I think you know that most of America doesn't really care about spending. As far as scandals, the two parties both had them. And the Republicans did have a platform: support for the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

My analysis is simpler: the side out of power was a lot more motivated. It's not the first or last time.

This was not a defeat for American conservatism (lower taxes, small government, a cautious international policy, close the borders) but it was a defeat for "big government conservatism," neoconservatism and the Bush administration, as Klein notes what the GOP has become.

I think there is something else here. Look at the past fifteen years in American politics. We've had a health care plan sent down to defeat, a massive Republican victory in 94, government shutdown, the Clinton sex scandals, Clinton's impeachment, the American people repudiating the GOP at the polls in 98, the close election of 2000, 9/11, Afganistan, Iraq which was not worn well with the American people, another close presidential election, Katrina, and now the GOP follies featuring the likes of Mark Foley. All of this is covered round the clock, nonstop by sixteen or whatever all news, all the time stations.

Something tells me for better or for worse, Americans are searching for order, for stability in national politics. They did this a number of times before, going with Ike for example as well as the bland, reassuring leaders of the Gilded Age. I think that's what the American people will be looking for in 2008: an adult, someone who can bring some sense of reassurance that things will be stable. I don't think the American people want someone who reminds them of the current president or the last one. Watching HRC last night, I was struck by how I was not paying attention to her but her husband behind her and was then amused to hear Chris Matthews and not Dan Patrick say the same thing. Are there any candidates like that? McCain certainly and Bayh on the other side. Rudy at times though he can be pretty confrontational and petty.

But be warned, just as in the Gilded Age, this quest for stability and order comes with a high price. Back then, the desire for peace after the confrontational poliitcs of the 1850s, the Civil War, presidential impeachment and never ending battles over Reconstruction came at the expense of civil rights for the freedmen. I suspect the desire for stability today will come at the expense of the war on terror.

I suspect the desire for stability today will come at the expense of the war on terror.

Which means we will never achieve stability because we will be subject to terrorist attacks here and abroad.

My analysis is simpler: the side out of power was a lot more motivated. It's not the first or last time.

That's essentially my analysis too. Will post shortly. But I do agree that if Republicans can't talk about spending cuts and are mired in scandal, they're just not going to win.

I'm not so sure jay. I think you can be a political adult and support the war on terror. I think three of the lions of the Senate proved that last night: Joementum, Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar. I also think McCain may be the last best hope. He has to show why the war is still worth waging and what he will do differently than the current administration.

I'm not a fan of McCain. On a number of issues, the guy scares me. But something is telling me I will be looking at a primary between him and Romney when it all shakes up. I'll probably look at Tancredo's name, Brownback's name, curse Iowa and New Hampshire, sigh, and vote for McCain. It will be a loud sigh.

I agree with that, yet I dismiss the notion that Gore lost because he was running as Republican Lite (carrying on Bill Clinton's tradition) instead of as a real liberal. Go figure.

Nancy who?