What you say makes good sense...as usual...but, if this situation in Iraq just stays the same it will REALLY hurt all Republicans no matter what (and it has not changed for a long time now). Right now as per the Bush administration they don't want it to change in thinking they have exactly the right approach in the long term. Nixon hurt his party quite a bit and this is as drastic a political situation as I have scene in terms of making an overall impact on who the current administration represents (as a party).

One can debate to kingdom come about which Democrats voted for war or not but the party in power (Executive branch) gets tagged on such issues. Also, one can argue all they want about the current Democrats 'not having a plan' but the facts are that the current Republican administration in power gets to call the shots on issues like this (the Iraq war, foriegn policy). Democrats are not at all required to have a plan becuase it is the EB's charge to make this happen. I cannot see any argument here, this is the way our government is set up. Democrats can have all the resolutions they want but the Executive branch has a lot of say and then in the end gets held responsible for those actions.

Bottom line, any Republican is next to the 'sh** hole'...and will get it splashing on them. Sorry to be so blunt but any Republican candidate (good or bad) better start waking up to this reality.

Any Republican candidate will have some backlash in regards to the war, as seen in the latest mid-terms when a few of anti-war Republicans were beaten, and couple by pro-war (or at least partially pro-war) Democrats beat them. I do think that there are more than a few voters out there who voted for Democrats based on promises to get out of Iraq may wee become disillusioned if those candidates don't deliver. Whether they have the power to deliver like they said is immaterial . . . the point for some will be that there were some campaign promises and it furthers voter apathy if pledges are not delivered.

November 2008 is a long ways away, and for whatever reason, people do like Giuliani a lot. I think if he can get past the primary he will be a very viable candidate. A lot will be depend on the Democratic nomination. As of right now, I think Edwards has the best shot (it would help considerably if he could carry his own state), although I still think it will be very hard to counteract the Clinton money.

Well, let the Senate debate the issue. Why is Ried and the Democrat majority afraid of the debate?

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

Go Sooners

Maybe it is because they don't have that much time. They are so busy naming post offices and delivering obits. for people in their state, heaping praise on race horses and talking about football, even to the local high school team. When will they find time to have debates on two issues?

The Repulicans still hold the votes in the Senate. So how can the Democrats deliver (as Dom1 says) if you have Lieberman voting with the Republicans on the deciding vote on the Iraq surge. Also, Dark Vader Cheney can break any tie. The Democrats did delivery by showing solidarity with casting all 49 votes together. Thanks to Lieberman's turn coat vote the Republicans won by one vote, 50-49.

The American people are watching! When 08 rolls around and nothing has changed in Iraq.......and DUMB ASS Bush has started a 3rd front by bombing Iran w/ Tactical Nukes! The GOP in Congress will loose more seats and the American voter will not risk allowing another conservative in the W.H. in 08.

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

How much power does the congress have to really stop or shut down the Executive branch when it comes to this war? If Bush really digs his heeels in (like I think he is starting to do) then what does it matter? I honestly think Bush, basically on his own now, can ruin the party's chances of winning the White House again unless something turns drastically fro the better between now and 2008.

I know there are peope who think Carter was one of the worst presidents in the nations history but one thing he got handed that was 'the last straw' was the hostage crisis in Iran. Who would have looked favorable at the time (either Rep or Dem)? So you follow Nixon and you also follow the Vietnam War...you are in office during the oil/energy crisis that was causes by the shifting political winds int he middle east. The problems we aface now...how much of that has been fostered by this particular administration, are they victims of the events that surround them? I think those are good questions to ask when looking into the next two years and see what it holds for both parties.

I always felt sorry for Carter. I don't think anyone could have done much better.
But for george: Whoever becomes pres. after him is going to go through hell. There are so many time bombs out there. I'd bet a lot of R.s are going to vote for a D. And if a D. wins, they will blame it on him/her.
The hostages were released before Carter left office. He has never gotten credit for that. Now I would like a R. to say that Reagan commited treason by making a deal with Iran before he became pres.