Too late, Karol. The powers that be have already chose a path guaranteeing huge losses in 2008.

You said: "we will vote for the party with no ideals, no vision, no plan and no purpose faster than we will vote for the party who says they have all those things but then acts as if they don't. They rather the empty Democrats than fraudulent Republicans and I can't blame them."

Wow. Karol, the fog is finally lifting for you. You sound like me. I 100% agree with that statement.

You and I will never agree on ideology and on policy, but I respect your ideological views and (for the most part) would not be so tragically upset if politicians were elected who actually followed through on it. But the hallmark of the last six years (certainly the last four), has been say one thing, do/mean another.

Now, if you can just lift that fog on our President -- the man who says his is a uniter, not a divider and becomes one of the most partisan presidents ever. The Administration that has changed its position/story on Iraq more times than John Kerry waffles on...well, anything.

I feel like we're having a wedding without the bride here or, to be more apt, a funeral without the corpse. There is a name missing from the above post. We can gripe all we want about Mel Martinez and his record on amnesty and I would add his rather strange position on the Schiavo case, demanding national action on the Republicans' part and then washing his hands of the whole affair. What are his qualifications for the RNC? Why, the same as Brownie's to lead FEMA and Harriet Meiers to be on Supreme Court! Martinez is a creature of the president and his loyalty is always to be counted on.

And that's the rub. There are already articles about how Bush's last minute appearances for Talent and Burns doomed those incumbent senators. If the 2006 elections proved anything, it is that the American people are a bit tired of the current administration. Placing a bootlicker like Martinez at RNC will do nothing to save Republican fortunes.

Oddly, there is one hope I think for the Republicans. Even if McCain wants to put more troops in Iraq, he is not associated by most Americans with the Bush regime. The man Bush beat in 2000 appears to be the man who may well be holding the knife at the ritual sacrifice of Bush on the altar of my goddess, the muse of history, Clio herself in 2008. For if McCain gets the presidency, it will be seen as a repudiation of the Bush presidency by his own party and, yes, history will take notice.

I'm not a McCain supporter by any means but he does give the Republicans cover on reform, leadership on the war, and some distance from what is increasingly a presidency that is held in low opinion.

Well Signor, at least you agree the Democrats have "no ideals, no vision, no plan and no purpose". So maybe the fog is actually lifting for YOU.

Von Bek, to me Bush is the past, I'm looking at the future. He can't run in '08, discussing him is not worth our time. I want the future Republican leaders to step forward and say we won't stand for this break in conservatism--especially not when we're losing because of it.

My sincerest apologies for misunderstanding your previous post on November 8 which read as follows:

"And lest Democrats get too happy
Guess who is still president?

That's right"

The president is still relevant and, even when a lame duck, is always a factor in a presidential election. Wilson clearly dragged down James Cox for example in 1920 even though Cox was not a member of the administration. I think he is not quite the past yet as can be shown by Mel Martinez at the helm. And I think your future Republican leaders have to figure out a way to go around the Bush circle, work with them, and, if need be, wage war against them to turn around their dark fortunes.

Um, he is still president and no matter how happy Democrats get, they can't be too happy about that.

This post, however, was not about Bush and it wasn't about the Democrats. It was about the future of the Republican party.

Problem is the future is the hands of Martinez. And Martinez is pretty tied to Bush. And if the future means 2008, Bush is still around.

Re Martinez Vs Steele:

This is an obvious move by Bush to impose his amnesty plan on America whether we want it or not!

Steele would fight amnesty...Martinez will encourage it. That's all there is to it.

Why Republicans can't understand that open borders are not only a bad idea for security, but a losing proposition for their party (do they really believe all those "huddled masses" will vote Republican?) I don't know.

The elections clearly showed that around 70% of voters support border enforcement and are against amnesty.

Just look at the AZ results...in spite of electing a Democrat for Governor and throwing out a couple of Republican congressmen, not to mention being the only state with a marriage amendment (defined as between a man and a woman) that voted no, they overwhelmingly supported 4 anti-illegal propositions, including:

English as the official language
No punitive damages in lawsuits favoring illegals
No benefits (ie in-state tuition, etc.) for illegals.
No bail for illegal immigrants charged with a felony.

Politicians like Bush and McCain continue to present these trends as anti-immigration. The truth is that this is an ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION trend and the sooner the Republicans get on board, the sooner they'll be in sync with their constituency and start winning races again.

Republicans lost the elections on Iraq, not corruption. The Dems may not have a concrete plan for iraq but the R's are the ones being blamed for sticking us there, tying our hands with the real enemy (iran) and having no plan for getting out. The "we'll get out when things are settled over there" plan will never get us out. Stable autocracies(Egypt, Jordan) are better for us than the deomcracy we are trying to establish.

Republicans lost the elections on Iraq, not corruption.

Exit polls are saying different.

The Democrats don't have ANY plan on Iraq and ran in 2004 on the 'we're just like Republicans on Iraq' platform.

Well Signor, at least you agree the Democrats have "no ideals, no vision, no plan and no purpose". So maybe the fog is actually lifting for YOU.

Hehhheeeee... it was the lack of ideals, vision, and purpose that got us hosed up in the first place. Pot, meet the Kettle.

You actually said it about yourself in the first post I replied to. You have no idea what the war is (i.e. you don't have an idea of the goal, so can have no plan), but you know how it should be fought.

Did you ever take a stats class Karol?

An as a corollary, there really can't be a 'plan' for Iraq until the endgame is realized. That endgame usually comes out of the Commander in Chief's office, and since he has completely screwed the pooch, we'll have to wait for his babysitters (i.e. the Iraq Working Group) to figure it out, before a plan gets developed.

The dems may have no idea, but they at least pretend to listen to those who disagree with them, rather than accusing them of treason.

Bryan, I rather the Republicans didn't "pretend" to listen, thanks.

David, there can be no endgame until we start fighting the terrorists who are coming to kill us instead of coddling them at our own expense.

I thought the Republicans would have some sense slapped into them by the election.

Looks like I was wrong.

The dems may have no idea, but they at least pretend to listen to those who disagree with them, rather than accusing them of treason.

Lies are lies, whether they are to your face or behind your back.

Despite being a democrat, I'm disgusted at the way they won the elections... but I'm grateful they did. So you guys, keep doing what your doing!

Haven't you heard. Our boys in Congress just passed another multi-billion dollar program -- to save us from underage drinking!

Fortunately for the Republicans, after running against the Republican "culture of corruption" the Democrats have managed to put their most ethically challenged Congresspersons in positions of power. Well, aside from Jefferson, who will probably be in jail soon.

Karol, you prefer a party of crooks and liars who don't pretend to listen to their electorate? I'm not surprised the others got in then, no matter how bad they may be. Maybe don't have "We don't care what you think" as a slogan.
The other thing is, if I was a voter in your elections, and I was being told that the wish to change policy was tantamount to treason on my part, I would feel the love of my country was being impugned. One thing that is loud and clear from my reading through US sites, don't ever insult peoples' love for the USA. If you say someone's opinion is "a win for Al-Queada", for example, you are skating on very thin ice indeed.

Bryan, point to someone even half-way credible that said that.

So, are you saying that Ann Coulter does not qualify as credible?

Bush said it about Pelosi

Bush said that a vote for the democrats meant "The terrorists win and America loses". Is he senior enough? Because this is one of those (but for the thin ice) inferences that a vote against the republicans is a vote against America. I've never met (or communicated with) an American whose patriotism I would dare to question, hence what I say about thin ice.

Unless you are thinking Bush isn't half-way credible? ;-0
If I feel I've been proven wrong, Karol, I'll admit it. I wonder what you will do (supposing, one day this happens).

Ann Coulter does not count as credible.

Provide the Bush link and I'll see.

Karol, I will provide you a date, but I've never learnt how to do links that stick. Give me about an hour...

"'Democrats, Bush said at a rally in Georgia earlier in the day, have "come up with a lot of creative ways to describe leaving Iraq before the job is done. ... However they put it, the Democrat approach to Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.'"

So Bush is saying that the Democrats approach means the terrorist wins and America loses.
This is roughly equivalent to saying voting for democrats is a vote for the democratic approach and that means the terrorist will win.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226338,00.html

Thanks Paul, it was October 30th he said that. Do you think americans are insulted when their patriotism is impugned?

I got many links by googling "bush terrorists win and america loses". I'll let you pick one you trust Karol, be it Australian, LA or Washington post (I'm not sure you'll go for a 'progressive' site ;)

That's not what he said and I think everyone involved in this conversation knows it. He said leaving Iraq before it is finished will allow the terrorists to win. That's a fact. If Democrats want to pull out of Iraq early this will allow the terrorists to win. It's not the same as equating a vote for the Democrats with a vote for the terrorists.

The full text of the speech is here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061031-11.html

I'll give Bush the benefit of the doubt on this one. I gave Kerry the same courtesy.

Having said that I think it's ironic that the same president who said it didn't matter where Osama was said the following:

"A vote to send a Democrat to Congress is a vote to make the Speaker of the House -- the third person in line for the presidency -- a woman who said that capturing Osama bin Laden would not make America any safer."

Uh, yeah, we cause really did a good job of catching him after five years and two months.....

But then as Fred Barnes, no critic of W. to be sure, wrote in the Weekly Standard:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/696wnfcp.asp

"Emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism."

For the unfaithful generation, those who put the party over principles, who still seek a sign, no sign will be given it except the Sign of Jonah the prophet.

Karol, no one here has claimed that Bush or anyone else said that a vote for democrats is a vote for terrorist.
Why do you have some inside info on Bush saying that? :)

You said nobody credible said anything that would cause the hearer to feel their patriotism impugned. Like the Kerry (crap) joke, I contend that this part of his speech may have done that. What he meant does not excuse what he said. I didn't hear him back-pedaling this like Kerry tried (and failed) to.