The aggressiveness of republicans in pursuing even when they are outnumbered is what brings them victory after victory.

Even when they were outnumbered during Clinton Presidency, they filibustered budgets, shutting down Federal Govt., brought charges after charges against Clinton, impeached him, and let Gingrich run riot.

Even when they knew they were horribly wrong, they pursued the course relentlessly and ultimately triumphed in even lost causes because the Democrats could not take anymore of their constant attacks.

It is this "In-Your-Face" campaign that makes Americans think Republicans are the party of doers.

And it is what will make americans vote for Republicans again this november.

Democrats are neutered cats who hide at the first noise they hear. Republicans sally out to fight, while Democrats cower in their foxholes fearing they will not see their family again.

They way they vacillate, and capitulate even on issues which their constituents oppose (like bailing out AT&T), is what will cost the democrats the presidency, the Senate and the House.

The Democrats deserve to Lose, since they never deserved to win the first place. Obama lost his respect when he capitulated abruptly on the Telecom Immunity issue.

Instead of fighting back the fear-mongering with facts, and face-to-face attacks against republicans, the democrats are trying not to disturb the status quo, thus earning the derision of their constituents.

For instance, take impeachment: Most Americans did not support impeaching Clinton according to polls, But still the republicans pursued it. On the contrary many americans want Bush/Cheney to be impeached, but Pelosi deliberately refused to even discuss impeaching Bush/Cheney for fear that if another 9/11 were to happen they would be blamed.

If this were a democratic president who led Americans into Iraq by lying, am sure the republican congress and senate would have impeached him, sued him and got him sentenced to life in jail, long time ago.

It is this fear and election-winning-politics that will cause the democrats to go down this november.

Americans look forward to strong, confident leadership in House and Senate and Presidency.

If McCain and Gingrich can provide it again, they will vote for it.

Forget the pandering democrats: You are spineless and this will cost you the House, Senate AND the Presidency that you are so sure of winning.

Your vacillation, indecisiveness, and tendency to cower under attack WILL cost you every single seat.

I would vote for McCain anyday and vote out Nancy Pelosi.

Gaud.

Some of us have been here before the beginnings of time.

Oh, Maud.

Come into the garden , Maud. (The person needs to grow)

Oh,`twere possible, After long grief and pain,

To find the arms of my true love Round me once again--

`

Oh western wind, when wilt thou blow,

That the small rain down can rain?

Christ! that my love were in my arms,

And I be in my bed again!

~

Tennyson. from Maud.

He watched Nature `As careful robins eye the delver's toil.

Maud, by Tennyson.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/pelosi-encourag.html

USA TODAY's Susan Page reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters this morning that it would be

"healthy and wholesome"

for Senate Democrats to force an extended debate over the compromise legislation on domestic surveillance, even if there is little chance that they can prevent its passage.

"This issue has not been digested thoroughly by the American people,"

Pelosi said at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, saying it has been

"a cause for great anger."

That means it could be

"helpful"

if they heard more about it in a Senate debate.

In describing her own position on the bill, she said,

"With great -- take out 'great' -- I can comfortably vote for the bill."
- - Nancy Pelosi

- -Posted by Mike Carney at 11:29 AM/ET, June 24, 2008

Or perhaps they know how crazy the Bush administration is?

For instance, take impeachment: Most Americans did not support impeaching Clinton according to polls, But still the republicans pursued it. On the contrary many americans want Bush/Cheney to be impeached, but Pelosi deliberately refused to even discuss impeaching Bush/Cheney for fear that if another 9/11 were to happen they would be blamed.

I know it sounds crazy to some people but is it possible that they know that 9/11 was an inside job? Are they running scared because Bush is capable of doing it again?

It is a sticky question. You have a madman holding lady Liberty with a gun to her head. How do you save the girl?

Could it be that twisted?

9/11 was the worst failure of government on just about every level of government. I huge list if coincidences that the administration has used very powerfully yo get its way...

Many people both insie and outsid the administration have said that another 9/11 would only help McCain and it appears that he really needs the 'help'.

Just a thought...

Ring of truth to Black's terror comment?

Candidate distances himself from terror comment, but does it ring true?

By Jonathan Weisman and Anne E. Kornblut

The Washington Post

updated 12:18 a.m. ET, Wed., June. 25, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama and his surrogates continued to criticize Charles R. Black Jr., a top adviser to Sen. John McCain, on Tuesday for saying a terrorist attack before the November election would help the presumptive Republican nominee. But behind their protests lay a question that has dogged Democrats since Sept. 11, 2001: Was Black speaking the truth?

"I don't think anyone knows the answer to this question," said Tad Devine, a senior strategist on Sen. John F. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, which confronted the same internal debate. "On the one hand, Republicans say they made America safe. That argument goes by the wayside if there's an attack. On the other hand, an attack would change the entire framework of this election."

Black's comment to Fortune magazine that a terrorist attack "certainly would be a big advantage" roiled the presidential campaign for a second straight day. Obama -- who has made a determined effort to shore up his credentials on national security since clinching the Democratic nomination, arguing that the United States is less safe now than before President Bush took office -- wasted no time in trying to counter Black's statement. Obama dispatched Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, to hold a conference call with reporters in which he called Black's comments "a candid and very disappointing glimpse into the thinking of one of McCain's closest advisers." He did not directly call for Black to step aside.

"I think the remarks were so out of place that they call for some recalibration in the thinking and perhaps a greater adherence to principle here in staying away from the politics of fear," Ben-Veniste said.

McCain has distanced himself from Black's comments, saying, "If he said that -- and I don't know the context -- I strenuously disagree."

An ‘obvious’ claim?

But radio host Rush Limbaugh said aloud what other Republicans have been saying privately for months. Black's comments were "obvious," Limbaugh said yesterday on his program as he criticized McCain for distancing himself from them.

Limbaugh said in no uncertain terms that Obama would be weak in the face of terrorism. "We know damn well it's Obama who would seek to appease our enemies. We know damn well it's McCain who won't put up with another attack," Limbaugh said.

To this day, Kerry (D-Mass.) has blamed an Osama bin Laden videotape released on Oct. 29, 2004, for his defeat in the election the following week. And McCain, while campaigning in Connecticut for Rep. Christopher Shays that week in 2004, described the bin Laden video as a boost for Bush. "I think it's very helpful to President Bush," McCain said at the time. "It focuses America's attention on the war on terrorism. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but I think it does have an effect."

Fears of an ‘October surprise’

Devine said Kerry campaign officials always feared an "October surprise" -- the capture of bin Laden, a terrorist attack or some other maneuver that would thrust terrorism into the forefront of voters' minds.

"We certainly were concerned that an administration that had shown itself willing to do almost anything would do almost anything," he said. "We weren't planning around it. There were no meetings around an October surprise, but were there discussions? Certainly."

Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of the 2004 nominee, went so far as to tell a business group in Phoenix late in the campaign that she "wouldn't be surprised if [bin Laden] appeared in the next month."

In his first debate with President Bush that year, Kerry tried to confront the issue head-on, accusing the president of a "colossal error of judgment" in "taking his eye off" bin Laden with the invasion of Iraq.

But the fight against terrorism remained Bush's key strength, even with an electorate that had begun to sour on his stewardship of the economy and his conduct of the Iraq war.

Dems appear to embrace terror debate

Obama advisers insisted yesterday that the Democrats can win the terrorism argument this year, even if there is an attack.

"I think the American people have gotten sensitized to the politicization of the war on terror by the Republican Party," said Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), an Obama adviser. "Republicans have gone to the well too often, and the American people are seeing through it."

Obama has already begun the process of building a profile on national security issues. Last week's appearance with former military officers came after he had talked tough about al-Qaeda and promised action against the group's sanctuaries in western Pakistan. He has also begun a shift to the political center, saying he would support a compromise bill to authorize warrantless wiretapping of terrorist suspects over the strenuous protests of civil libertarians and party liberals. The Senate will vote to break a Democratic filibuster of the measure today.

"If something like an October surprise would happen, it would remind people about many of the Bush administration failures, that Osama bin Laden is on the loose, that al-Qaeda is stronger, that we've not been successful in pursuing foreign policy objectives," said former congressman Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), another former 9/11 Commission member and an Obama homeland security adviser. "And I think those are strikes in favor of our argument for change."

But the sensitivity is still there. Davis, saying he was speaking personally and not for the campaign, advised Obama to choose a seasoned foreign policy veteran with strong national security credentials as his running mate. He mentioned former senators Sam Nunn of Georgia and Bob Graham of Florida.

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25357745/