Zifnab wrote:

---

In another 15 months a new president will be sworn in, most likely a democrat

I'm not a huge fan of any of the front runners but I'd be willing to put my hard earned cash up that this won't be the case. The only democrat I can think of that has earned the good will nessecary to get enough swing voters is too busy counting his 100's of millions of dollars....

I think you're wrong there. At least for the next election, and possibly the 2010 congressional races, I think we will see a continuation of the huge swing towards the democrats that we saw in 2006. I think the swing will continue until democrats start fucking shit up (which probably won't take too long), but by that time their majorities in the Senate and the House will take a few years of elections to overcome. In the long run, the George Bush presidency will be seen to have been as damaging to the republican party as it has been to our country.

The republican party has become an absolute joke to young people in the US. That may not matter much now since young people don't really vote in huge numbers, but when the current generation ages a little and starts voting, we will be seeing the after effects of the current incompetence for years. I also am seeing more and more evidence that they are losing the Catholics. While mostly one issue pro-life voters, they've seen that a republican president with republican majorities in both houses didn't really do shit to get rid of Roe v. Wade and all those pictures of Iraqi children being slaughtered in a war that the Pope considers illegal and immoral are causing them to question the meaning of voting pro-life.

I don't think the veto of SCHIP and the swiftboating of a 12 year old child are gaining them any points with pro-life, pro-family voters either. You can question whether or not the republican party should be held accountable by the words and actions of absolutely horrible human beings like Ann Coultier, Michelle Malkin and Bill O'Reilly, but it's too late for that now. Fox News and Clear Channel radio have made them the public faces of the republican party and now the republican party is stuck with them.

ZydallonTrismegistus wrote:

---

Why don't you call them "faggots" to top it off? I mean, you stated in the other thread that all Republicans are "faggots" that like to hang out in public restrooms looking for gay sex, don't back off that now. It makes your points so much more valid.

I never said that all republicans are faggots that like to hang out in public restrooms looking for gay sex. How about we just agree that it's a very significant minority?

Thymiak wrote:

---

Isn't this already happening though? In 2006, the democrats said make us the majority and we'll get the country out of Iraq. Well they were made the majority, and we're still not out of Iraq, and now they're crying that the republican MINORITY is preventing them from getting anything done. I think things could go either way since neither party has shown much strength.

Not really. One election isn't enough to transfer ownership of the the Iraq invasion/occupation to the Congress. If anyone here thinks this has become anything other than George Bush's war, you're kidding yourself. Assuming a democrat wins the next election, I'll agree that the actions of the next president in relation to Iraq will go a long way in determining how people will vote in 2010 and beyond. But don't think democrats are going to shoulder the blame for not ending the war after two years with a very weak majority.

Also, just like we see on this forum, the core republican voters are still very much behind the president and the war. The major republican candidates all support the war and promise a continuation of Bush's disastrous policies. That doesn't go unnoticed. The quickest route to salvation for the republican party would be the repudiation of Bush and the war and the nomination of a traditional conservative like Ron Paul. That's not going to happen.