the above article is not stating what the FACTS ARE... THE Republicans want an open debate on all aspects of the iraq war surge topic..... HARRY REID himself has not allowed any discusion about The republican resolution..which would put the democrats in a bind.... And yes you are right the democrats are waitng it out.... Hoping the MSM will save them from the hole they dug

You are so caught up in your own propaganda that you don't even understand what I'm saying. The article does state the facts : the Democrats wanted to focus the debate on their anti-surge resolution, so they prevented the Republicans from bringing their pro-surge resolutions to the floor. In retaliation, the Republicans blocked the debate, since they wanted an open debate to try and push their pro-surge bills. But now, some of them are breaking ranks, which proves my point that the Democrats can successfully wear down the opposition, although it's yet to be seen if they can get a vote on their proposal.

And don't complain about how unfair this is--the Republican majority in the last Congress was well versed in these sort of procedural tactics. This is how congressional politics work.

i dont care what you are saying....... you are wrong.....

I agree with you, Republican prospects for '08 are very bleak. The chances are that the Democratic candidate will take the Presidency (out of the "Big Three", I personally support either Edwards or Obama, Clinton is too much of a throwback to the triangulating 90s), and doubtlessly the Democratic Party will also increase its majority in Congress.
The latter is almost a certainty--unless something catastrophic happens in the Middle East, as this 110th Congress can very easily become much more popular than the 109th, which was, quite frankly, pathetic (Republicans and Democrats share the blame). As for the Presidency, although a Democratic victory is probable, it isn't assured.
Even so, the Republican contenders aren't very promising : I don't know about the GOP primaries, but it doesn't look good with respect to the general election : Giulani doesn't have much substance beyond the 9/11 Mayor story, if he even gets past the primaries (Giulani in drag, anyone?); McCain isn't really the maverick he claims to be, and supports this whole escalation in Iraq; Brownback could be the "surprise candidate" in the primaries, but he doesn't stand a chance in the general election; Mitt Romney has his moderate Republican credentials, but he probably won't get through the primaries anyway.

You're beginning to sound like Smitty !

If you'd get your information from a larger variety of sources, it would do you a world of good.

Even though Giuliani isn't the first choice of many Republicans, he is gaining ground. He is out raising McCain, and I think it is a sign of Republicans uniting behind the most viable candidate. I don't think it is likely that Republicans will vote Democrat if Giuliani is nominated when that vote is going to go towards Hillary Clinton. I think that the only way that Republicans don't vote for Giuliani should he be nominated is if they stay home. Giuliani at least brings things back to the middle whereas I don't think Hillary Clinton does that at all. I do question if he gets through the primaries, but as of now, he is a very viable candidate.

With regard to the GOP primaries, we don't yet really know who the Big Republican Money is backing. Big Democratic Money is mostly backing Clinton, but we don't have such a clear picture of the Republican field.

McCain is not doing well in raising money. That money that was thought to be going to McCain is running dry and it is going to go somewhere.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/...idential_money

This shows Giuliani with a slight lead over McCain, but Romney has the most. I don't expect Romney to out raise Giuliani.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/po...-headline.html

I think this is a sign that the Bush money is going to be going largely towards Giuliani.

Neither of them will have Hillary Clinton money though.

Yes, Giulani may get the Big Money--New York City, after all-- and has a definite appeal with his tough 9/11 image, but I'm not yet sure if he can get past the primaries. Big Money might also choose to get behind Romney, since he's the only real moderate Republican out there--Giulani is more of a hybrid--and Big Money knows what the mainstream wants after the debacle that was the '06 election. However, GOP primary voters may not follow Big Money's lead; at least, I haven't sensed much enthusiasm for the "Big Three" (Giulani, McCain, Romney) among what I can see of the base, but you probably have more insight into the average GOPer's sentiments.

But, more generally, with respect to the general election--

Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate, as they always do; Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate, as they always do, notwithstanding changes of heart on the margins. But Republicans account for only one third of the population, Democrats for only a smaller third: the moderates in the middle will decide the election in favor of one candidate or the other, as always. And moderates are trending Democratic big time.

I agree that elections are generally won in the middle. Although, without a doubt, the middle is trending Democrat, I think that Giuliani has an advantage that others in the party may not have in a general election over a Hillary Clinton in that he is closer to the middle than she is. A question will be if he can bring enough voters from the middle over. If he distances himself from Bush some he may be able to do this. Of course, his first big hurdle will be winning the primaries. I don't know if Romney will take some New England Republicans away from Rudy or not. I am not sure how popular Romney is outside Massachusetts.