[MNJohnnie]

The reason the Democrats won in 06 was due almost entirely to the dissatisfaction with the progress being made in the Iraq war

Utter nonsense. NO polling data back this up. Democrats did NOT run against the war. They very carefully danced all around the issue of Iraq. What killed the Republicans was the "Culture of Corruption" and the out right propagandizing for the Democrats from both the "Conservative" media and the Establishment Media. Foley, and the "sit on our butts and do NOTHING" mindset of the clowns that use to run the Republican Congress killed the Majority. They simply gave their Base NOTHING to vote FOR. All the polling data shows this to be the case. Iraq is ONLY claimed as the reason because those Dinocons who are simply are too arrogant to learn even ONE fact about Iraq refuse to consider the reality that "that idiot" GW Bush has been right about Iraq since 2002 and they have been TOTALLY worng all along.

[traderrob6]

And since when have we here at FR put such an unquestioning faith in the polls?

If Iraq would have been going as planned, a perception of overall success pervaded the electorate and we were at the point where we could begin withdrawing troops, Bush's approval would have been at 60%+ and we would have probably picked up seats.

[Sam Ketcham]

Nothing that I disagree with. Well said. The items mentioned in my previous post fits exactly. The Dims do not want to be attributed with another Vietnam by sabotaging the IRAQ War. They know full well that any subsequent attack on the US will be laid at their feet... as well it should be as the current terrorist situation was initiated by Carter and permitted to grow under Clinton... then again under all administrations the Saudi's export more than oil

[GraniteStateConservative]

All the GOP losses in the Northeast were due to Iraq, actually.

[Pukin Dog]

Your post #12 is completely correct.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I agree with everything you've said up to "GW Bush has been right about Iraq since 2002". He was right with his goal and right with his strategy but the tactics turned out to be pretty lousy and there didn't seem to be much in the way of contingency planning or "reaction." But wars are never predictable. I'm not sure how complicit Rummy or Cheney were -- or whether the blame should have fallen on Bremmer and the guy he followed. We waited way too long to bring the Patreaus (sp?) approach and leadership to the fore. I hope it's not too late. A fair history of this conflict will note that Bush's strategy was unfairly undermined by the media's overly negative portrayal -- and Bush's enemies literally making common with our country's enemies. Unfortunately, Bush and his team should have anticipated these huge challenges and done whatever was required to overcome them.

On your larger point: you are right... The Dems didn't run on anything substantive in 2006... just that they weren't Republicans. And the media allowed them to get away with it. The Senate was lost to the Dems because the WaPo ran 13 front page stories in a row about Maccacah! And the Drive-By Media twisted Rush Limbaugh's characterization of Michael J. Fox's "advocacy ad" for government supported stem-cell research (there goes Missouri).

The Dems won nothing permanent and certainly have no mandate. They remain a collection of special-interest groups, victims, special-pleaders and anti-American activists (commie sympathizers, really). Unfortunately, the GOP was just so inept in every way that they gave away this past election. And the "Republican voters who stayed home" got what they deserved.

[srmorton]

You are exactly right!