The strategy is, of course, to take away the accusation that Democrats are "weak" on terrorism by being able to point to the fact that they supported every security initiative that President Bush put forward.

Of course, the Conservative media, led by FoxNews, will STILL declare that Democrats are soft on terrorism. And, given the fact that our mainstream media takes 100% of their talking points from FoxNews, it will work.

It would serve the Democratic Party right if America wound up with a President McCain and a RepublicanCongress in 2009. Just America the country would be irrepairably damaged.

Re: "It's not clear to me that any of their four policy prescriptions can really be clearly distinguished from Democratic policies. "

They do not have to distinguishable in reality, only in rhetorical terms. What is necessary will be a media that uncritically repeates whatever talking points that come from the RNC and FoxNews, without critical examination.

Has that ever happened before?

Will the Democrats cave to the Bush Administration?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Does a bear **** in the woods?

Re: "If the Republicans want to drill enough, force them to make some sacrifices. "

Force them?

Republicans will just refuse to budge. George W. Bush will demand unconditional surrender.

Senate Republicans will fillibuster anything other than unconditional drilling, everywhere.

If there is even one square foot undrilled, FoxNews will declare that Democrats "Hate America".

If there is NOT one square foot undrilled, FoxNews will declare that Democrats "hate America".

Harry Ried will declare a "compromised" was reached. No one will believe him.

The headlines will read "Democrats cave in, again" By now the Newspapers have this headline pre-printed on front pages by the millions, all they have to do is fill in the particulars on a weekly basis. (Except when Congress is not in session, in which case they bring out the "Do-nothing Congress" stories).

George W. Bush is not the one living in a bubble, The Democratic leadership is, if they actually believe they are accomplishing anything different than a Republican Congress would have.

Re: "How tone deaf can these people be?"

They, including Mr. Gramm are not the least bit tone deaf. They know exactly what they are saying and exactly about whom they are speaking.

Mr. Gramm, like all Conservative "leaders" just knows that he is completely unaccountable for what he says or does. Just as he was when his wife sat on the board of Enron, raking in $ millions, while he protected that company in Congress.

Was ex-Senator Gramm ever held accountable? Will he ever be held accountable? Will anyone in the Bush administration ever be held accountable? Just today, Karl Rove failed to show up for subpoenaed testimony in Congress. Will he be held accountable?

The answer is, “No”. Not now. Not ever. And everyone knows it.

There is no “tone deafness” involved.

Playing the race card is exactly what the Republican national committee will do. The best way to counter white conservative disgruntlement is to inflame race hatred with "Blacks are coming to rape your daughters" the same way they have used "Muslims are coming to forcibly convert you" on Fundamentalist Christians.

If Republicans combine it with voter intimidation programs (led by all those Loyal Bushies in the Justice Department), it will also work.

Of course George W. Bush is going to pardon his cronies. He might even stick his finger in America's eye by granting a blanket pardon to "everyone and anyone who has ever interrogated a prisoner in the War on Terror" leaving names out and the US courts to tie themselves in knots for a generation.

If George W. Bush does "name names", it will be fun to watch which of his sycophants is "left out" to face jail time when those pardoned are called to testify and cannot "take the Fifth" the way Oliver North did and Scooter Libby still can.

Since no one is sure if a President can pardon himself, I predict that, on the morning of his last day in office, George W. Bush will pardon Dick Cheney, have Cheney sworn in (all it actually takes, constitutionally is a notary, but I'm sure Anton Scalia will love to do it), and then have dick Cheney issue a pardon for "ex-president George W. Bush".

And there will not be one single Republican who will complain about it: Their personal loyalty to the Bush family is that strong.

Re: "Based on your pervious comments, I'd say you can help fill those blanks in. Sad that you never have as much "insight" about McCain's problems, isn't it?"

The problem with McCain's "problem" is that the reporting media, which John McCain refers to as "his base" can be counted on to give Saint John Free Pass on any of his problems: reporting them for only one day, or not at all, while simultaneously repeating every negative about Barak Obama for weeks.

After all, John McCain is a "Maverick" and "Straight Talker", isn't he?

Re: "Do you folks really think Nov. 4 will get here before martial law?"

It depends on the polls, and by how much Barak Obama is leading.

If it looks like the results can be skewed by some judicious "working" of the votes by Diebold and Justice Department can block the voting of sufficient African-Americans, then the Bush White House will forgoe that option.

If however, Barak Obama is strongly in the lead, and it looks as though Republicans will not keep their fillibuster strength in the Senate (including Joe Lieberman, who will switch his registarion on command from the White House if necessary), then "Bush's Third Term" might commence with George W. Bush rather than John McCain.

Why does the Iraqi leadership "want the terrorists to win"?

John McCain is obviously waiting for word from the White House as to what his position will be.