House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) must be gnashing his teeth that he lost his bid for the job he now has to Nancy Pelosi in October 2001. Had he been elected Whip that year, he would likely have succeeded Richard Gephardt as House Minority Leader in 2002 and would be the face of House Democrats today. With Hoyer at the helm, Democrats would be in a far better position to win a majority in the House this fall.

With a Gallup poll showing Republicans closing the gap (from an 11-point deficit to just 2 points) in the “generic Congressional ballot” and with the recent AP poll that Bruce cited earlier today, it’s far from clear that a Democratic takeover of Congress in the offing for this fall.

As Bruce noted, most Americans have yet to focus on the fall Elections. When they look at the Democrats, not only will they see their local candidates, but they will also see House Minority Leader Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Reid, both who have used their positions to obstruct the president’s agenda. They never seem to miss an opportunity to criticize the president.

In the fall, that opposition may not be enough to sway enough voters to their side. Most Americans prefer congressional leaders who do more than oppose the president, but actually put forward policies to help address the nation’s problems. While the Republicans have been far from perfect, they have at least put forward some legislation. Which the Democrats have obstructed.

Perhaps had the Democrats had leaders who were not so obsessed with the president, individuals willing to compromise with the GOP on a variety of initiatives, they might stand a better chance of winning control of Congress this fall. Such leadership would show that the Democrats are interested in governing. With Steny Hoyer at their helm, they would have a leader who, while critical of the president, has at least said publicly “He is the president of the United States, and he deserves some respect.”

(more…)

If the MSM told the truth about Joe Wilson’s dishonesty as often as it mispresents Karl Rove’s role in (what Best of the Web’s James Taranto calls) the “Valerie Plame kerfuffle, the American people might have a better opinion of the president’s top political aide and a lesser one of that dishonest, but media-savvy, Democrat.

In an article today on Rove, the man the president calls the “architect” of his 2004 re-election victory, reporters Susan Page, David Jackson and Richard Benedetto get the facts wrong when they write:

The grand jury Fitzgerald impaneled heard evidence that Rove had mentioned the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in conversations with at least two reporters, including columnist Robert Novak, but the prosecutor decided against charging Rove with breaking the law by disclosing her name or lying in testimony about it.

Perhaps they grand jury did hear evidence that Rove mentioned Ms. Plame’s name. But, Rove himself never actually mentioned her name.

This Washington Post headline says its all Rove Told Reporter of Plame’s Role But Didn’t Name Her. The presidential aide merely told Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper that it was “Wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.”

Rove only had one other conversation (with someone from the media) on the topic. When columnist Robert Novak “said he had learned that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA,” Rove replied, “I heard that, too.“

Karl Rove never mentioned Valerie Plame’s name to reporters. It’s too bad these USA Today reporters didn’t check their facts before publishing this piece.

I was delighted to learn (via Instapundit) that one of my favorite bloggers stands by her man (and mine) for the 2008 GOP nomination for president of the United States. While the Anchoress doesn’t think Rudy Giuliani is the “perfect man” for the job, she, like me, trusts him “to carry forth the war on terror as it needs to be carried.” And on another key issue, she trusts him to appoint “strict constitutionalist SCOTUS judges.“

While I very much enjoy the Anchoress’s blog, I disagree with her on a number of issues. I like her because she always constructs thoughtful arguments and does so again in this piece defending her support for the former Mayor of the Big Apple. She believes he has the skills and character to lead our nation at this difficult time. So make sure to read her post; she makes a great case for a good man.

With 68 percent of Americans not yet focused at all on the November mid-term Congressional elections, it is a fair to say that the Chattering Class is making mountains of molehills in their undaunting and definitive predictions of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (**takes a shot of bourbon after having to type that**)

After all, we’ve been through this drill before. Ever since the mid-term elections of 1996, the Democrats and their comrades in the MSM have been assuring their supporters they will “Take Back The House” this year. No, THIS year. No, THIS YEAR. Really, this year.

The Washington Times has a further look at the latest polling data and puts some context behind it all.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll of 1,001 Americans, including 813 registered voters, conducted last week found that 71 percent think the country is on the wrong track, compared with only 26 percent who say it’s going in the right direction.

This year’s primary results, where three congressional incumbents were dumped by the voters, “combined with Congress’s abysmal job-approval ratings and extremely high ‘wrong-track’ numbers — indicate a very volatile, turbulent election year, the kind that incumbents hate for good reason,” election forecaster Charlie Cook writes in the National Journal.

But an earlier poll of 1,047 Americans conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corporation from Aug. 2 to 3 drew a dramatically different response when it asked people, “How well are things going in the country today?”

A combined 55 percent said things were going “fairly well” (47 percent) or “very well” (8 percent), compared with those who said “pretty badly” (29 percent) or “very badly” (15 percent).

Keating Holland, CNN’s polling director, said the question is fundamentally different from the right track/wrong track that other pollsters ask, but he acknowledged that “it is a measurement of how well Americans think things are going in the country today.”

(GP Polling Editorial Note: Aug. 2nd and 3rd are weeknights…. traditionally a better time to fairly sample Republicans who are known not to be home on Friday nights and weekends when polling is done then.)

I would simply warn those popping their champagne bottles over an assured Democratic victory to keep it on ice, and your bravado in check, until Americans actually vote. Remember, in the United States of America actual votes that are cast count — exit polls do not count.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Over at Wizbang, Alexander McClure notes that on “the generic congressional ballot between Republicans and Democrats, the margin is now only 2 points.” In the last poll, the Democrats led by 11 points. Looks like things are looking up for the Grand Old Party.

I am not sure I have laughed this hard in quite some time…

Lieberman Invites Kerry on Hunting Trip – ScrappleFace.com

(2006-08-21) — Just a day after Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, implied that Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-CT, is the new Dick Cheney, the amiable Sen. Lieberman offered to “patch things up” by taking Mr. Kerry on a hunting trip in his native state.

The junior senator from Massachusetts told ABC News This Week with George Stephanopoulos that Mr. Lieberman was “adopting the rhetoric of [Vice President] Dick Cheney” regarding Iraq, and that the three-term Connecticut senator is “out of step with the people of Connecticut.”

“I know Sen. Kerry is a big sportsman,” said Mr. Lieberman, “So heading out to the fields with a couple of shotguns is just my way of getting some face time with John away from the news media.”

Sen. Kerry welcomed the invitation, and reportedly asked Sen. Lieberman, “Where can I get me a hunting license in Connecticut?”

Too funny.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Another brilliant piece by Ben Stein…

Looking for the Will Beyond the Battlefield – NY Times.com (Aug. 20)

Terrorists are still hatching plots against the air traffic system of the West, and this time bigger and worse than before. Obviously, Al-Qaeda is far from dead. We have much to fear from it still. The fact that the suspects were almost all home-grown Britons makes the situation that much more frightening and unpredictable. How long will it be until American-born terrorists strike against American targets? We are a big country and we have a lot of unhappy people. How long until they organize themselves to kill? Not long, I am afraid.

While we’re at it, yes, it’s miraculous and wonderful that the plot was foiled, if it was. But now the whole Western world will be seriously inconvenienced in its travel for years, maybe decades. Isn’t this already a victory for our enemies? Isn’t this already a blow against world business? Might it be enough to push our already slowed growth into a recession?

Now, who’s fighting for us in the fight of our lives? Brave, idealistic Southerners. Hispanics from New Mexico. Rural men and women from upstate New York. Small-town boys and girls from the Midwest. Do the children of the powers on Wall Street resign to go off and fight? Fight for the system that made them rich? Fight for the way of life that made them princes? Surely, you jest.

And that’s the essence. The other side considers it a privilege to fight and die for its beliefs. Those on the other side cannot wait to line up to blow themselves up for their vision of heaven. On our side, it’s: “Let the other poor sap do it. I’ve got to make money.” How can we fight this fight with the brightest and best educated rushing off and working night and day to do private equity deals and derivatives trading? How can we fight this fight with the ruling class absent by its own sweet leave?

I keep thinking, again, that if Israel, with its back to the sea, cannot muster the will to fight in a big way, then the fat, faraway U.S.A. will never be able to do it. I keep saying this and it terrifies me.

We’re in a war with people who want to kill us all and wreck our civilization. They’re taking it very seriously. We, on the other hand, are worrying about leveraged buyouts and special dividends and how much junk debt the newly formed private entity can support before we sell it to the ultimate sucker, the public shareholder.

We’re worrying whether Hollywood will forgive Mel Gibson and what the next move is for big homes in East Hampton. We’re rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The terrorists are the iceberg.

What stands between us and the iceberg are the miraculously brave men and women of the armed forces. They’re heroes and saints as far as I’m concerned. But can they do it without the rest of us? Can they do it while we’re all working on our tans and trying to have our taxes lowered again? How can we leave them out there all alone to die for us when we treat the war to save civilization as something we can just wish away?

If we don’t win this war against the terrorists, there’s not going to be business as usual ever again. If the terrorists get to their goal, there’s not going to be a stock exchange or hedge funds or Bain Capital or the Carlyle Group or even Goldman Sachs. If the terrorists get their way — and so far, they’re getting their way — there’s not going to be business, period. 

I echoed similar sentiments last week.  I am starting to fear for my nation and those that cherish freedom and democracy throughout the world.  We have governments and peoples increasingly unwilling to forceably stand up to the spread of Islamic fascism in the same way we confronted German fascism over 60 years ago. 

These are indeed troubling times….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)