Christ our eternal King and God, You have destroyed death and the devil by Your Cross and have restored man to life by Your Resurrection; give rest, Lord, to the souls of Your servants the victims of 9-11 terrorist attacks who have fallen asleep, in Your Kingdom, where there is no pain, sorrow or suffering. In Your goodness and love for all men, pardon all the sins they had committed in thought word or deed, for there is no man or woman who lives and sins not, You only are without sin.

For You are the Resurrection, the Life, and Repose of Your servants, departed this life, O Christ our God; and to You do we send up glory with Your Eternal Father and Your All-holy, Good and Life-creating Spirit; both now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen


May God Bless those who died on 9-11-2001 in the terrorist attacks against America.  May he watch over and Bless their families and loved ones.

Please take the time to say a prayer for those who have been lost and those they left behind.

I think the Democrats have once again, as they have often done, aimed the shotgun at themselves and pulled the trigger.  The outcry from Clinton "the lying adulterer", Sandy Berger "the thief", and Madeline Halfbright that ABC's "Path to 9-11" be pulled and not be aired is blowing this show out of proportion and will probably double the number of people that will watch this now.

I honestly had no intention to watch this until the Democrat outcry.  I normally don't watch these sorts of things or much on TV these days, but after the Clinton crybabies demanded it be pulled I think this should be labeled a MUST SEE.  They are afraid that people will remember that terrorism was largely ignored in the 90's.  Then to hear the Senate Dummycrats threaten ABC with having broadcast licenses pulled -- I thought these morons were harping about basic rights and claiming the big, bad, evil George W. Bush has been infringing on our civil liberties.

Last time I checked, free speech was at the top of the list of our civil liberties.  I thought that liberals were the only protection out there for our freedom of speech and now they are trying to censor ABC because they don't like what ABC's free speech is saying.  This is  typical liberalism -- they are against censorship of their ideas, but will do anything to censor ideas that oppose or threaten their ideas. 

These are dangerous little weasels.  I think they are making a mistake of letting the American public see a little to much of who they are so close to the election.  This could bite them in the butt.  I never thought, and still don't think, that ABC will pull the show completely; however, a part of me was hoping they would capitulate just because I think it would really rev up the conservative base and turn out the vote (which I still think may be lacking this November because of disenchantment with the Republicans who have not carried out the conservative policies we elected them to enact).

As we are two months from the November elections, the Democrats continue to spew their Anti-American defeatism that is undermining the War or Terror. 

Eleanor Clift wrote in Newsweek on 9-8-06:
"Given Bush’s sorry record and all the other conversations the media could be having, the renewed emphasis on terrorism is good news for Republicans. Democrats can’t change the channel. They’ve got to win on the ground that Bush has established. That means thinking like Karl Rove and going after the opposition’s strength until it becomes a vulnerability. Iraq is a quagmire. Whether U.S. troops withdraw next year or in 10 years, they will leave behind a country fractured by civil war and an oil-rich theocratic government dominated by Iran—hardly the democratic beacon to transform the region.

Democrats have no power. It’s not up to them to draft the exit strategy. But if they’re going to win back at least one house of Congress in November, they need to raise the comfort level among the American people with their party."

What a lovely commentary.  It’s quite inspiring don’t you think?  So, no matter what, we cannot win in Iraq.  The “civil war” cannot be won, and Iran will control the country immediately after we leave.  That is a very defeatist attitude – and frankly, if the Democrats don’t think that America can succeed, then why should anyone vote for them. 

Why should we support a party that is invested in defeat?  A party so invested in defeat will not be able to fight terrorism and win.

 The Democrats are a dangerous threat to our national security, and cannot be trusted to fight the War on Terrorism with an aim of victory for the United State and the free world.

I can only hope that this point gets across to the electorate in the next 2 months.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Appease:
1 : to bring to a state of peace or quite : CALM
2 : to cause to subside : ALLAY <appeased my hunger>
3 : PACIFY, CONCILIATE; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

No wonder the Democrats are so mad.  They can read and know what an appeaser is.  They know they are being called out.  A light is being shined on them and revealing the truth and they are up in arms about it.  They are attacking the President, Donald Rumsfeld and everyone calling them nasty names.  It's not nice.  Let's whine and cry a little more and throw another hissy fit because someone is calling us out for what we are. 

The Democrats ARE FOR APPEASEMENT.  They think that they can pacify the terrorists and our enemies.  They don't care if we have to sacrifice to deal with evil.  What they don't seem to grasp is that the terrorists will STILL WANT TO KILL US.  Appeasement will only facilitate our enemies.  It will allow them to prepare to bring the fight back to our shores and to kill more innocent Americans.  This is exactly what the terrorists are hoping for. 

I honestly think they are trying to hold out long enough in Iraq to make it through the 2008 Presidential election in hopes of an appeaser Democrat being elected.  They want that more than anything because they would most likely get their chance for a break from the War on Terror we have taken to them.  It will allow them breathing room to plan and carry out attacks on Americans.  They want to KILL US.  They are not going to stop unless we kill them first. 

Appeasement does not work.  It never has.  The Democrats and the appeasers and ignorant of history or are just too stupid to learn from it.

We need to work to keep the appeasers out of power.

Mark Kirk is a Republican Congressman from Illinois District 10 (Northern Suburbs of Chicago).  This is my analysis of Congressman Kirk.

The case against Mark Kirk:
Congressman Mark Kirk is Pro-Abortion.  He supports killing living beings.  He supports the extermination of over a million fetuses each year.  Frankly, I don't know what makes people decide to be for death.  Abortion has destroyed the moral fiber of our society by boasting over 40 million deaths since Roe v. Wade.  40 million. 40,000,000.  Forty million abortions!!!  Why cannot these people become responsible if they don't want to have a baby and use contraceptives.  Why do they not take the pill -- and I'm not talking about the morning after pill!!!  You can get it for free if you can't afford it.  This is just a matter of convenience.  We promote the use of abortion as a contraceptive for immoral, irresponsible people.

Mark Kirk's record includes voting for stem cell research in 2005.  He voted twice (2001 & 2004) against making it a crime to harm a fetus in the commission of another crime (like murder).  Mark Kirk get a 100% rating by NARAL.  That is wonderful -- he is my representative in Congress.

I could go on an on about Mark Kirk, but I'll stick to the 2 other most important issues to me, Oil Independence and the 2nd Amendment.  On these issues, Congressman Kirk has an abysmal record.  Representative Kirk has voted to prohibit the drilling in ANWR.  I suppose it is nice that he voted for new oil refieries, but that is just not enough.  Kirk also supports Gun Control measures.  He is not a friend to the 2nd Amendment Rights.  His NRA rating is a D.  I don't like pontificating politicians who want to prevent me from being able to own a gun and while Mark Kirk is not the worst offender, he is a danger to my rights.

These are the major reasons I do not like Mark Kirk. Oh, yeah, he was one of the idiots that voted for Campaign Finance Reform.  There are a lot of those idiots in Congress.  There are many other smaller issues, but I am already being long winded in this post and I still need to address the case for Mark Kirk and also give my opinion of his opponent Dan Seals.

The case for Mark Kirk:
Mark Kirk has a good record on Taxes.  He most recently voted, in December 2005, to keep the tax cuts on Capital Gains and Dividends.  He voted for the Bush Tax Cuts and voted to make them permanent.  Congressman Kirk voted to end the estate "death" tax and is a proponent to ending this tax permanently.  As a fiscal conservative, I am a supported of Tax Cuts.  I believe they spur economic growth.  I also believe that government should not confiscate our funds -- if they can't afford their programs, they need to cut them and reduce the size of government.

Congressman Kirk supports our Military and voted for the use of force in Iraq.  He has continued his support by voting for the approval of Saddam's removal.  He supports the War on Terror and believes that Iraq is part of the War on Terror and that we should set no exit date.  This signals to me that he is invested in Victory in Iraq and the War on Terror.  I commend the Congressman for his continued support in the face of criticism. In the same line, Kirk voted to make the Patriot Act permanent.

I could go on about more points, but frankly, National Security and Tax Policy more important to me.  In these areas, Congressman Kirk is excellent.

So, who will I vote for -- Mark Kirk (R) or Dan Seals (D)?
Dan Seals (D), the challenger in this race is just as much of a promoter of baby killing as Mark Kirk, but he is also dangerous on the Iraq War and our national security.  He wants to have a "responsible" troop withdraw from Iraq.  In other words, he wants to cut and run like the rest of the Democrats, but he doesn't want it to sound that way.  He wants to sound reasonable, thoughtful and concerned, but in the end he has the same goals of undermining America as the rest of the Democrats.  I could go on about Seals, but the fact that Kirk is the lesser of two evils is enough for me.  I choose a somewhat fiscally conservative Republican, even if he is a pro-abortion, against ANWR and oil independence, and wants to limit our Second Amendment Right to bear arms.  The Democrat, Dan Seals, is on the opposite side of my opinions on every single issue I wrote about above.  That makes Mark Kirk the better choice. 

Unfortunately, no candidate is exactly what we want.  We have to make a choice.  We have to determine who in the long run will be better for our district, our State, and America.  Some people will take one issue, like abortion, and decide to stay home because both candidate support the killing of a living fetus.  If you stay home, like some people do in these situations, you may end up with a worse representative than you thought.

I am vehemently opposed to abortion.  I think it is a disgusting display of irresponsibility and the moral decay of our society.   But despite my strong feelings and this tangent that I have gone on, you cannot withdraw all support for a candidate because you don't agree on every issue. When you become so stubborn on one issue that you enable a greater evil to take power, then you yourself are helping sustain the problem.  I choose to make the choice of a lesser of two evils because I'm afraid that if I abstain, I will unleash a greater evil on our society and hurt my causes even worse.

I bet you are all amazed at my stunning endorsement of Representative Mark Kirk.  Honestly, I have little in common with this man, but when the decision is between Mark Kirk and Dan Seals, the choice is clear, Mark Kirk is a much better candidate and will still be a better Representative of me in congress than Dan Seals.

I'm voting for Mark Kirk.  (Do you think he is looking for endorsements?  I could send this glowing review to him for his website.)

 

Part of Senator Reid and the Democrat's letter to the President says:

In short, Mr. President, this current path – for our military, for the Iraqi people, and for our security – is neither working, nor making us more secure.

Therefore, we urge you once again to consider changes to your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq’s sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are consistent with the “U.S. Policy in Iraq Act” you signed into law last year. Democrat's Letter

Joshua Bolten's response covers all these points.  The Democrats put this one right over the plate for the second time and the White House is finally fighting back against the attacks.  I'll say that it is about time.  Bolten hit one out of the park with this letter.  The Administration needs to stay on topic and continue to outline their strategy, what is being done, and hammer home the weasel Democrats and their talking points.

Bolten does a tremendous job of responding to each of the points above, and noting eloquently that three of them are already Administration policy and being implemented.  He also gives specific examples.  The part I want to focus on is the last part of his letter that deals with the Democrat's point #2.  This is right on!  He is making the argument against cut and run and the disastrous effect it would have on our nation, national security and the world.  This is exactly what the administration needs to be using, but as of yet, they have not done a good job of articulating these points.

From Bolten's letter (as Reported on the Drudge Report):

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.

On the fourth element of your proposed "new direction," however, we do disagree strongly.  Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right.  Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground.  Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the "phased redeployment" you propose.  (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a "quick reaction force" to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad.)

Regardless of the specifics you envision by "phased redeployment," any premature withdrawal of U.S. forces would have disastrous consequences for America's security.  Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain.  This "new direction" would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists.  This is not a direction this President will follow.  The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and the recommendations of our military commanders in the region. Bolten's Response

I have added emphasis to the most important part of Bolten's response (bold and red).  The spineless, cut and run, Democrats either can't seem to understand that leaving without victory would be bad for America, or they just don't care because they think it will help them regain power. 

"Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies;"
Just as North Vietnamese generals have admitted that they could not have won the Vietnam War had the Anti-War Movement in the U.S. not undermined our policy and military in Vietnam, we now face a group of elected Democrats who want to undermine our military in Iraq.  They would love to cut and run from Iraq and give hope to the terrorists who would love to see us fail.  They would hand victory to the terrorists on a silver platter.  How quaint -- sounds like a winning policy -- let's elect these nitwit's in November -- they are certain to be good at protecting America -- Just look at the policies they are proposing!

"betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves;"
The Democrats have no honest care for the Iraqi people.  This is evident in their proposal to withdraw the troops from Iraq (did I say withdraw -- I apologize -- the code word of the month is redeploy).  If they get their way, we would leave Iraq ill-equipped to deal with the terrorist insurgency.  The Iraqi security forces are still in their infancy and being trained by our military.  You can't build a functioning military overnight.  If we leave now, there is a good chance that the country will be overtaken by extremists and terrorists who will then control the large oil reserves of the country.

"shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East;"
Does any more really need to be said?  If we show that we don't have the mettle to stick it out and finish the job of protecting the fledgling democracy in Iraq, then we are sending a bad message to that region and the world.  We will be giving up on democracy in the Middle East and embolden those who hold the opinion that not everyone can have a democracy.  If we fail to stick it out and allow their democracy take hold, then we might as well right off the Middle East for at least a generation.  The chances of getting another chance to bolster democracy in the region are slim to none, and other countries will have no reason to undertake their own reforms in the face of defeat in Iraq.

"and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain."
This is something that will not resonate with the Democrats.  The only use they have for the American Military is to exploit them to gain power or attack Republicans.  They want to use the images of caskets and funerals to promote themselves instead of supporting the brave young men and women (like my brother) who are serving our country as volunteers to protect all Americans.

"This "new direction" would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists."
Case closed.  This needs to be beaten into the heads of these simpletons; however, I don't think the point will ever get across.  I can only hope that the Administration and Republican Party can get this point across before the election so that we can continue to protect America and bolster democracy in Iraq.  I fear that a Democrat led house would do everything in their power to destroy the President and hurt our policies, including promoting freedom in the world.

We have taken the battle to the enemy and now, we have calls for defeat from our own elected officials in the Democratic Party.  They can only be expected to carry out their policies of defeat for America if they win this November.

 

 

 

The following is from the Drudge Report.  It is listed as the transcript of the a letter from Joshua Bolten to Senator Reid on behalf of the President.







WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF SLAMS DEM LEADER
Tue Sep 05 2006 19:28:01 ET

Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf.

A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks -- political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.

Your letter recites four elements of a proposed “new direction” in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.

First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army -- and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago -- and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations -- which is the most demanding task facing our troops -- tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.

Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups.

Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort." The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq -- all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.

On the fourth element of your proposed “new direction,” however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the “phased redeployment” you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a “quick reaction force” to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

Regardless of the specifics you envision by “phased redeployment,” any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America’s security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This “new direction” would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.

Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree.

Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President’s vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.

We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Bolten
Chief of Staff

Tim Russert had a debate between Senator Rick Santorum (R) and challenger Bob Casey, Jr. (D) on Meet the Press Sunday.  I just watched it online and was very impressed with Senator Santorum.  He clearly controlled the debate in terms of time and also took it to Casey more than once hammering home his points.

I think it was a very good debate for Santorum and am interested in if this will translate into results for him in the 8 point difference in the polls.  He really went at Casey over the Democrat Party's undermining the the NSA program and our national security.  Casey ended up admitting that he didn't think the program should be canceled, despite earlier comments he made against the program.  I think that Santorum came of much better than Casey in the debate because he clearly articulated his points and responded to questions without avoiding straight answers.

Santorum also hammered home a comment that Tim Russert brought up by the Democrat Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, stating that nobody does more for Pennsylvania than Rick Santorum.  I still don't think Santorum has a good chance of retaining his seat, but this debate could help him gain momentum against Casey.   

My Senate predictions (as of Labor Day Weekend):

A majority of the Senate elections this year should provide no surpises.  The following are the states worthy of attention because they are the ones that appear to be in-play:  Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington. 

I don't claim to be a pundit or have any special knowledge.  I just observe races and polls.  I don't always think the polls will account for the winner, especially in close races.  These are my observations and opinions on what the outcome in November will be based on the current state of affairs.  Don't fool yourself into thinking I have any credability, I'm just a opioniated observer who wants to rant about my thoughts. 

I predict that Republicans will still hold 53 Seats in the Senate after November 7th.

Republican Held Seats (Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, & Rhode Island):

Missouri:  Republican Hold (No Change :: GOP 55; DEM 45*)
This is a tight race between Jim Talent (R), who has been serving since the 2002 special election, and challenger Claire McCaskill (D).  The most recent Rasmussen poll shows the candidates in a statistical dead heat, Talent 46% to McCaskill's 44%.  Many of the election pundits are looking to Missouri to determine which way the political winds will carry the elections this year.

I predict Talent will squeak out a victory in Missouri based on his connection to the rural base in the state.  The rural areas can carry a candidate in Missouri, especially if they view the other candidate as someone who is out of touch with the rural communities.  McCaskill is not as highly favored in rural communities, and despite her constant attempts to link Talent to President Bush, Missouri will still swing Talent's way this November.

Montana:  Republican Hold (No Change :: GOP 55; DEM 45*)
While Montana is a strong Republican state, Senator Conrad Burns (R), finds himself in a dead heat with challenger Jon Tester.  The most recent Rasmussen poll from 8-8-06 shows them each with 47%.  Burns has come back from being as much as 7% behind; however, he continues to make inflammatory and idiotic remarks that cannot help him. 

This is still a "Toss Up" race.  Due to his recent comeback and strong Republican base, I think Senator Burns will be able to hold his seat barring any other major missteps on his part.

Ohio: Republican Loss (REP -1 :: GOP 54; DEM 46*)
Incumbent Republican Senator Mike DeWine (R) is facing serious trouble from challenger Sherrod Brown (D).  Brown currently leads in the polls 45% to 42% (Rasmussen 8-22-06).  Ohio's Republican Governor, Bob Taft, is extremely unpopular and this is hurting Republicans in the state this year.  Furthermore, DeWine (R) joined the group of senators to compromise on judicial nominations.  This has alienated the conservative base in Ohio and is a large part of what is hurting DeWine (R) this year.  Because of the climate in the state and the fact that DeWine has acted in ways that alienate the conservative base, he will lose to Brown in November.

Pennsylvania: Republican Loss (REP -2 :: GOP 53, DEM 47*)
This has been one of the most talked about races this year.  Senator Rick Santorum (R) has been trailing by double digits for months to challenger Bob Casey, Jr (D).  Santorum is a conservative in a middle-left leaning state.  What hurts him further is the fact that Casey (D) is a pro-life Democrat, which can only have a negative effect on Santorum.  In Rasmussen's most recent poll, 8-22-06, Santorum has pulled within 8%, trailing with 40% to Casey's 48%.  This is good for Santorum, since he had been trailing by over 20% earlier this year; however, he is still lags and will most likely lose his seat in November.

Rhode Island: Republican Loss (REP -3 :: GOP 52, DEM 48*)
Senator Lincoln Chaffe (R) is in trouble and lags behind his challenger Sheldon Whitehouse (D) by 5%.   Rasmussen poll from 8-3-06 shows Chaffe(R) 41% and Whitehouse(D) 46%.  Chaffe looks poised to win the Republican primary against the conservative in the race.  If Chaffe can gain steam somehow coming out of the primary, then he may have a chance to retain his seat.  Under the current circumstances, Chaffe will lose his seat.

Democrat Held Seats (Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey & Washington):

Maryland: Democrat Loss (DEM -1 :: GOP 53, DEM 47*)
The Democrat Primary has still not given us a candidate.  The two running for the Democrat nomination are Ben Cardin and Kweisi Mfume.  The Republican, Michael Steele, is polling better against Mfume (Rassmusen 8-9-06, Mfume 46% - Steele 44%; Cardin 47% - Steele 42%).  I think that Steele is a strong and appealing candidate in Maryland.  He has been attracting attention of high profile people that you would not normally expect to endorse a Republican.  Russell Simmons, founder of Def Jam Records, has endorsed Steele and held an fundraiser for him in Baltimore.  This is a significant gain for Steele.  I think he has a good opportunity and will win regardless of the nominee (I would like to see Mfume as his opponent).

Michigan: Democrat Hold (No Change :: GOP 53, DEM 47*)
Debbie Stabenow (D) is only 5% ahead of her challenger Mike Bouchard.  I think that Michigan's economic troubles will end up hurting the Governor's reelection, but I expect Stabenow to squeak through to another term despite the troubles in Michigan.

New Jersey: Democrat Hold (No Change :: GOP 53, DEM 47*)
The latest Rasmussen poll (8-28-06) from New Jersey actually shows the Republican challenger, Tom Kean Jr, leading Sent Robert Menendez (D) 44% to 39%.  While this is a good sign for Kean (R), I don't think this will last through election day.  I expect the stong Democrat base and sentiment in New Jersey will stick with Menendez (D).

Washington: Democrat Hold (No Change :: GOP 53, DEM 47*)
Maria Cantwell (D) is facing a tough challenge from Mike McGavick (R).  Cantwell (D) leads with 46% to McGavick's (R) 40% in Rasmussen's poll on 8-15-06.  While Cantwell could be in trouble, it would still take a sizeable wave of opposition to well up in this solidly Democrat state for Cantwell to be served her walking papers.  As of this point, I just don't see that happening.  Cantwell (D) will win another 6 years in the Senate.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Since the Independent Senators vote with the Democrats, I'm including them with the DEM's numbers for the Balance of Senate Control.

I bet you are wondering what Wal*Mart, Nazi's and terrorists have in common?  They are all themes I've seen today in the name calling on Liberal blogs and websites.  I know what you must be asking yourself, "What was he doing subjecting himself to the mindless drivel on those sites?"  Well, I sometimes have to remind myself just what sort of mentality we are dealing with on the left.  It only takes 2 mintues of reading a liberal site for me to be sick to my stomach and have a pounding headache.

Today I saw that Wal*Mart is an evil conservative corporation with and Ultra Right Wing hack front group that has been calling Democrats terrorists.  WalMart is evil and must be stopped.  That is liberalism for you, they are out to destroy the largest employer in America.  I don't understand their hatred of WalMart.  WalMart employees a multitude of Americans, and the average pay for a WalMart employee is $10/hour.  Now, that doesn't sound so evil.  Walmart provides inexpensive products.  What is wrong with that?  Don't they want cheap gasoline?  Why is it a sin for WalMart to provide cheap items?  Walmart helps a lot of Americans, like me, who are on a budget and trying to save money and make ends meet.  -->Honestly, does anyone have a good reason as to why Liberals hate WalMart so much?  I don't buy the mom & pop store garbage they spew from time to time.  We live in a capatalist society, like it or not, and the market will determine who succeeds in business based on the products and services that are provided.

...back to the liberal blog nonsense...

Then, of course, as you scroll down the blog, you will undoubtably see a reference to a Republican as a Nazi.  This is the most overused, tired, and sick reference that they have.  I guess it makes them feel better to call people Nazi's for no justifiable reason.  But,  for Darwin's sake, don't call Islamic Terrorists Islamofascists.  That is just a nasty mischaracterization and slanderous.  They call Republican's Nazi's for no other reason than out of hatred.  If you properly classify the Islamic terrorists movement's that want to create an Islamic world order and kill all the infadels as Islamofascists you are being insensitive to the muslim community.

I should have gone to school to be a psychologist or psychiatrist.  There has got to be a lot of money to be made treating people that are so unhinged that they find logic in the garbage I was just reading.

The most recent buzz is that the Republicans (think red, pointed tails, horns, and pitchfork) are going to lose big this year because of the lies that led us to Iraq and the President's unpopularity.  I'm not going to start on the lies part, I've had that discussion one to many times to be nice to the idiots that keep bringing it up.  While the President's Approval ratings may end up hurting Republicans, I don't buy into the fact that the Democrats have a lock on taking the House of Representatives. 

Frankly, unless the Democrats can provide some platform of substantial ideas to run with, I don't think their gains will be that significant in Congress.  They cannot seem to really capitalize on the weakness of the Republicans this year.  They cannot figure out what to say or not say about Iraq.  They want to keep changing their wording to make it sound like they are saying something other than what they really mean.  This lack of clarity does not come across well with middle America.

While I'm optimistic that the Republicans will retain control of Congress, I can't say that I'm overjoyed with the thought since the Republican Congress we have and the Republican Administration we have do not share my conservative values.  They have betrayed the conservative movement by acting like liberals and increasing the size of goverment with wasteful spending (No Child Left Behind, Medicare Prescription Bill, Disgusting amounts of Pork tied to the budget).  I will continue to support Republicans (by voting) because they are a lesser of 2 evils, but I would like to see some responsible conservatives take office and live up to their conservative values and the pledges they make.

The current group of pols in Washington have provided 2 things, tax cuts and conservative supreme court justices, other than that, they have not been conservative.  This is precisely why they are in trouble right now.  If they were enacting a fiscally conservative agenda of cutting spending and the size of government, they would be doing much better regarless of the Iraq War and any sentiment regarding President Bush.

At this point, I can only hope that some true conservative emerge and steer the ship back on course or else they may have a lot more to worry about in 2008 than they do this year.