Does It Matter Who the GOP Nominates?

[Janett_Reno]

(As you read this) Keep in mind those words i have been telling you about, faith and values. The Rove gang has played the faith and values up big and won on this in the past but the American people see they was lied to. They put the Dems in the house and senate. So these days the people do not believe Rove and Pat Robertson and trust them when they tell you who to vote for. The game is over. They see Bush is a puppet on strings. Lastly, i went in deep and looked who and where the money is comming in for all the canidates. I am simply amazed how much Obama is getting poured in. Things i see, McCain is almost tapped out and gone. He has spent and the money is not comming in now. He is one of the best put up head to head against Obama, Hillary or Edwards. No he does not beat them but he makes it a lil closer than the others. He won't last much longer because of the money.

Rommney is doing well now with voters but no he can't beat any of the Dems but like McCain, he has spent heavily and his money is drying up somewhat and he is having to dip in his own pocket. Remember, without money you lose. Money wins politics.

Hillary and Rudy are holding back and Hillary has a ton of money left. Obama is spending it and alot but he is getting money poured in. Rudy, like McCain runs pretty good head to head with Edwards, Obama and Clinton but can't beat the top 2 and maybe top 3. McCain threw a good chance away with sticking with Bush and now he is done. Edwards can't keep up with the money from Clinton and Obama. He is winning Iowa but then he falls back. He is running 3rd in SC with Hillary out front and Edwards needed to win that state. Fred Thompson, well he runs fair and 3rd behind the other 2 againt the Dems but can't beat any of the top 3. He knows they are going to rip him, if he comes out and runs. He votes and talks differently on abortion. Plus they will rip his public life. Ron Paul is a good guy but remember if you do not have the money, you lose. Sort of sad. Just wait when Hillary and Rudy bring out the big money. Then there leads will widen within their party but Obama is getting money pouring in but he is also spending alot. Rommney is doing good but needs more money to pour in fast or he can fade fast. Faith & Values are thrown out.
-------------------------------------------

Here is the article....


Republicans are wondering a lot these days, wondering if it might be Rudy or McCain or Romney or, perhaps, Thompson whom they will nominate. But maybe they should be wondering about something else instead. Maybe they should be wondering if it matters at all whom they nominate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpol...K6nJtK2Rvq188F

Start with the obvious. President Bush is on the political ropes. In truth, it seems a testing moment for him. His approval rating barely reaches 30 percent. Worse than a lamed duck, he has become a maimed duck, virtually unable to influence important events.

Moreover, Bush's political problems have now spread to his party. Polls tell us that Democrats have opened up as much as a 15-point lead in party identification, a nadir not seen by the GOP since the hellish Watergate days of the 1970s. Voters are not just unhappy with Bush, they are deserting his party as well.


Equally foreboding for Republicans, the increasingly creaky Reagan coalition has become a pale shadow of its former self. Key issues such as immigration and Iraq are opening major fissures among Republicans, while their once vaunted values bloc seems less politically motivated. Out of favor with voters, Republicans increasingly seem out of sorts with themselves.

Grim as things now seem for Republicans, the recent past wasn't much better. The GOP suffered an ominous defeat in the 2006 midterm elections. A midterm defeat of that magnitude is a leading political indicator that points menacingly to a change in party control of the White House in 2008.

[dude1394]

eeek.......No one's even paying attention yet. No one's running against the hillary.

The starting gate hasn't even been set, sheesh..

I think the dems might should worry about that 14% congressional approval rating a little bit if you are that concerned about polls this early.

[Janett_Reno]

The Dems will pick up seats in the house and senate next time with a 14% ratting.

[dude1394]

You dems sure are an arrogrant lot. You've been out of power for a decade or so and it take Al Queada to get you back in it.

Your poll numbers however say that you are the worst governing congress in the history of the nation. Keep being arrogant.

[dude1394]

As I said. EDIT: It was all too good, I had to post it all.
http://www.dailymail.com/story/Opini...cent-approval/

WHEN I looked at the numbers last month, the Gallup Poll showed President Bush's job approval was at 32 percent, and Congress was at 24 percent. Could things get any worse?

Of course they can. Never underestimate the power of the Democratic Party to self-destruct.

The first job approval numbers for July are in and the Reuters/Zogby Poll shows Bush at 34 percent, Congress at 14 percent.

Under Democratic leadership, Congress has gone from the brink of the abyss and leaped. Whee!

Pollster John Zogby broke down the numbers.

"The Democratic Congress gets poor marks across the ideological spectrum -- just 21 percent of liberals and 10 percent of the very liberal give it positive marks, while 14 percent of conservatives and 14 percent of the very conservative give it positive ratings," Zogby wrote.

"Among Democrats, just 19 percent give Congress positive marks, compared to 13 percent of Republicans and 8 percent of political independents.

"By way of comparison, the Republican Congress had a 23 percent positive job approval rating last October, just a week before voters tossed the GOP out of their leadership posts in both houses."

After six months, Democrats do have one bipartisan accomplishment: Everyone hates Congress.

Not so George Walker Bush. Among Republicans, 63 percent still think he is doing an outstanding job

Congress now has no base outside of its staff, the reporters who cover it and Mom, and even she is wavering.

I am not laughing. I am not gloating. I am troubled.

I am not alone. Law professor Glenn Reynolds, who runs the Instapundit Web site, wrote, "This has gone past the point of being funny. It's really worrisome."

In a democracy, people must have faith in their institutions. In a totalitarian government, fear will do.

The problem is that neither party shows leaders in Washington who are in touch with the realities that their constituents face. Congressmen and senators have too much money, too much power and too much tenure.

Last year, the congressional Republicans went hog wild on pork spending. Prosecutors put a couple of them in prison for selling favors. One of them was caught messing with the House pages, who are the equivalent of political altar boys.

[b]Voters threw the bums out. But unlike 1994, when voters voted in new Republican leadership, voters elected the old Democratic leadership. Democrat David Obey of Wisconsin became House appropriations chairman -- again after a 12-year absence.

This is reform?

Instead of addressing the energy crisis, tax reform, securing the borders or even increasing production of U.S. oil to end America's reliance on foreign oil, Democrats have one agenda item: Putting Bush's head on a plate.

Their inability to impeach Bush may explain why only 19 percent of Democrats approve of the job being done by the Democratic Congress.

But what about the 8 percent job approval by independents?

Instead of debates, we get stunts like this week's all-night filibuster.

Instead of compromise, we get up-or-down votes without amendments.

Instead of tackling problems, we get hundreds of investigations into Bush.

Instead of civility we get Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada taking a below-the-belt verbal jab at Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and then making Specter wait 30 minutes to respond.

Democratic leaders want to do nothing. They want to portray Republicans as obstructionists and Bush as evil, in the hopes of securing the presidency in 2008 and a 60-vote majority in the Senate.

This probably will work.

In driving down the public's confidence in the federal government, Democrats are counting on apathy. That is what happened in 2006 when more Republican voters from 2004 stayed home than Democratic voters did.

But what if it doesn't? What if the public sees this cynicism for what it is? Whither the democracy?

Our Congress will take the month of August off. They can take September through December off, too, for all I care.

For the sake of the Republic, I hope that Democrats will get together at some point, review the public's reaction and come up with a plan to accomplish something other than pin-the-blame-on-the-elephant.

I wouldn't count on Janet to push 'em, Janet's too busy feeding the BDS.

[dude1394]

Funny isn't it, the republicans were deservedly excorciated for spending too much and lo and behold even in 2006 (when they were in power) the dems led the pack in earmarks. But there are spenders and there are spenders.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...e_war_machine/

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the Democrats would "drain the swamp" of Republican corruption and "break the link between lobbyists and legislation." But the Globe recently reported that Kennedy slid $100 million into the 2008 defense authorization bill for a General Electric fighter engine that the Air Force said it did not need.

It gets worse in a defense budget that is zooming to $648.8 billion. The nonpartisan budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense last month analyzed 309 Senate defense earmarks. Four of the top five "earmarkers" were not Republican hawks but centrist and liberal Democrats.

Levin led the way with 44 earmarks. Clinton was second with 26. Reed was fourth with 23, one behind Republican John Warner of Virginia. In fifth place was Charles Schumer of New York with 21. When asked if she saw any change in defense earmark behavior since the Democrats took back the House and the Senate, senior analyst Laura Peterson of the Taxpayers for Common Sense said over the telephone, "No."