CO- are you old enough to recall Vietnam. Like the phony success of the surge, in a couple of mos. there will be an incident which will galvanize the anti-war folk, and they'll slap their heads liek a V-* and realize Bushco snookered them again.

As for your poll quotes, not in the major Network and newspaper polls that I've seen. What has happened is that the economy has made the war secondary, and so folk are not as passionate as in the late summer and fall. But, again, one incident, and a hot general election with a D pushing the buttons, and Mac will be in trouble. BIG trouble. At least LBJ knew he'd get hammered and bowed out.

Kritt: 'Rove is a Machivellian genius, who created a monster instead of his intention of creating a McKinley-like presidency.'

Rove was a few good campaign speeches by Al Gore, a better legal team by Gore, and a Supreme Court with integrity away from not even being a blip in the dustbin of history, had Bush not gotten in. Genius? No. Old Fashioned consigliere. Yes. There is a difference.

Slam: 'And as for malevolent vs inept its pretty hard to tell. The results are very similar when you are in a position of such power.'

Yes. Motive means zip in politics, only results. Does it matter whether Hitler really hated Jews or just saw an opportunity to gain power? Results would not vary.

If the administration ever releases the names on who was in the “Energy Advisory” meetings leading up to the war I might change my tune. Not until then.

True. But—Cheney and Rove were malevolent and the combination of all three running the government was disasterous! Cheney has been around the block a few too many times and is just too smart to just pass off as incompetent. Rove is a Machivellian genius, who created a monster instead of his intention of creating a McKinley-like presidency.

You don't have to go far out of your way to find the things directly linked to his decisions that resulted in disasters.

Katrina was largely the fault of the administration removing from FEMA its formerly competent leadership, folding it into the Dept of HS which no longer gave it the priority it needed, then both Bush and Cherteroff basically ignoring the warnings they were given. FEMA worked great before, but under Bush it was so screwed up they actually thought of getting rid of it.

Iraq is all Dubya. Believing the BS estimates that the effort would cost only $7billion because they sounded nice wa all Dubya.

The deficit is all Dubya. His tax cuts sucked. As a result the dollar has been getting steadily weaker, the middle class is feeling it more as cost of goods goes up, and median income has been stagnant while those in the upper brackets have been steadily rising. He acts as if those tax cuts are what saved the economy when we have been in a “recovery” phase practically since he took office. China now owns enough of our debt that the interest on it pays for their $40bn military budget.

His appointments to the Dept of Interior have gutted environmental regulation enforcement. Prosecution of violations has dropped to 25% of what it was before, meaning the former lobbyists that now run the dept are simply looking the other way.

Energy is a joke. His ill fated war has driven the price of energy thru the roof, oil is now trading at 4x what it was when he came to office and Cheney's boys at Halliburton are sitting on stock worth 22x what it was in 2002 before we went into Iraq and started giving them no bid contracts and not tracking where the money went.

Education and healthcare costs are rising at rates over twice that of inflation, and secondary school education is languishing in the aftermath of the failed No Child Left Behind policy. To my knowledge Bush doesn't really care why any of this is happening. Bush thinks we should teach ID alongside Biology. In SCIENCE CLASS.

The war on terror has created more terrorists than it has killed, brought us no additional security, and squandered the international goodwill and influence that we really need to fight terrorists. He has argueably in Iraq generated a brand new terrorist state where there was not one before.

Unless you own a shitload of Exxon stock I really don't see what anyone would find good about the Bush presidency.

And the assassination of Bhutto, and hurricanes, and cancer, and the common cold…everything is “blamed” on Bush. And what is said about him is so often so out of touch with reality it doesn't merit any more attention, not to mention respect.

He's inept rather than malevolent, in case it escaped your attention.

* * *

“…….your 70+% is now 64 and the “is it improving question” has now pushed into the majority side”

Next to nobody wants us to withdraw 100% of the troops _immediately_. (In fact, the logical change is to relocate to a small number of better-fortified military bases while reducing the number of deployed troops and other assets.) Roughly half want our troops out in “a year or less”; even Hillary Clinton doesn't advocate 100% immediate removal. (Those wanting immediate removal are those most likely to be the first and loudest to complain if subsequently, civil war begins in earnest and Iraq's oil assets fall into the hands of terrorists or of Iran.)

“bet the ranch its the election dealbreaker”

For those who need to know: Scroll down to “Most Important Problems” and then to “Top Priorities” here.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Re…

More serious point…….your 70+% is now 64 and the “is it improving question” has now pushed into the majority side. Not trying to dissuade you of your antiwar position, just don't bet the ranch its the election dealbreaker any longer.

How is hating on Bush's disastrous policies, appointments, and general failure mentally ill? Seems to me a sign of sanity. What the hell would he have to do to lose your faith DLS? He's done everything short of starting a nuclear exchange to screw things up.

Even Hillary would have a field day playing to the 70+% of people who want out now. Granted, she won't get the troops home like she says, but she can win the election in an atmosphere tired of the war.

It is safe to say that most political scientists believe in the 40-20-40 theory. And if you look at elections where the base got their candidate, for the most part they've been disasters–1964 for the GOP, 1972 for the Democrats. The election of 1980 is a special case; the Democrats were headed for a train wreck that year (and it is not a difficult argument to make that the Republican locomotive is about to run off the tracks in 2008).

Of course, Limbaugh likes the “energize the base” argument for a simple reason: that's his job. But it appears the GOP electorate is a little wiser than that.

Oh, BTW, Huckabee's convincing appeal is ONLY in the South, not particularly in the South. His best showing in a Northern primary was in Illinois, with 17%.

I might be inclined to buy some “stay at home” factor, but pulling the lever for Hillary/Obama……..oh, c'mon. I think if you give McCain a clean, respectable fiscal con and he'll hold red and be a real threat in purple. TMV might have another 4 years to bash a Republican adminsitration.

Joe, I'm not so sure that this make Huckabee a viable VP choice for McCain… Let's say Huck's not on the ticket. What are his supporters going to do, vote for Obama or Hillary? Unlikely. The best they'll have to offer is apathy — staying home and not casting a vote. Yes, this reduced turnout can hurt McCain, but having Huck on the ticket may also hurt him by turning away many of the independents and undecideds he'll need in order to win come November. And those people that are turned away won't be staying home — they'll be going to his opponent. I have no idea which would hurt more.

That said, at this point can the Republican Party even coherently agree upon what DLS called a “good Vice Presidential candidate” or is the current state of affairs too fractured?

Willingness to reach over to the other side is good or bad depending on what the objective is in so reaching. If it is to preserve or expand big government, that's bad, for example. McCain is rightfully called a RINO or a Dem Lite if he does this.

With McCain, typical comments include what I heard earlier today when talking about the elections — I just chose to listen to what the other guy said about McCain. He found willingness to seek a concensus laudable, because too often it's been a case of squabbling (or blatant obstructionism and criminal negligence in the case of the Democrats and trying to save Social Security, for example). But McCain was blasted as he has been by Americans time after time for supporting amnesty for illegal aliens. This offends most Americans. (Those who aren't offended are behaving in a questionable manner, to say the least.) Amnesty is a big weak point with McCain. (Ironically, the leadership and mainstream in the GOP in Washington also seek amnesty, because it pleases the business community, the most influential GOP special interest.)

The problem in Washington is that there is no conservative alternative to today's “recovering” version of the failed welfare-state model the Democratic Party built in this country, a party tainted by post-1960s radical nonsense. On one side we have the Dems, whom Americans suspect will try incrementalist measures if they regain the power they've long sought. On the other, there is a highly co-opted and corrupted GOP, who is perfectly happy itself with a monstrously oversized and over-acting Washington. What's really needed, which remains at home to the right of center, is a true alternative, which is a large scaling back of Washington and all its regulations as well as its entitlements. However, sadly, when you rob from a relatively few Peters to pay and buy the votes of many more Pauls, the numbers of the Pauls lead to ever more growth in Washington.

“McCain’s appeal to independents and even the left is what makes him such a powerhouse in the general election.

It is also precisely what has so many in the Republican base so wildly fearful of handing him the keys to the kingdom.”

God forbid you win a general election that included people from the other side of the fence. Its this mentality of your with us or against us thats torn the GOP apart and made so many of its policies come to nothing. That brand of conservatism is in retreat and I hope after November its buried for as long as we can keep it so.