I don't spend much time at the liberal blogs, at least not of my own accord. When I wind up there it's usually because I saw something somewhere and decided to check it out. The Daily Koz is one site I rarely go to, but tonight I found my way to it during "covert operations" (yes, we're still doing that). So part of this post is quoted there, and I link over. I cannot for the life of me understand these people's logic. I don't have time for a full-blown Fisk here, but I'll hit on a few points that I think are important:

So, the President starts dropping just a few weeks after an ineffective State of the Union. In some polls he dips below 40 percent, truly dangerous territory.

What I can't understand here is why these people figure these polls are relevant. As if somehow President Bush might have a chance of being re-elected in 2008 if only his poll numbers were better. What these polls might actually be saying is that the President may actually be making a few unpopular decisions that are in the country's best interests. I wonder if they ever thought of that. I also wonder if it has occurred to them that this particular President presented his case to the American people with regard to what he believed in and how he would handle various situations, and they elected him. The decisions as to how to handle this or that were made based on views held before the election, not on polls taken after.

But can the ruthless pols running the GOP these days turn this thing around and snatch a victory from what could be a near-certain defeat?

I had to laugh at "ruthless pols". Look. Whether you like the President or not, he's governing a lot closer to the Constitution's provisions than either of the alternatives would have had. We conservatives only wish he were yet more Constitution-minded. Besides, what the Republicans face today is hardly "near-certain defeat". If the Republicans face "near-certain defeat", then the Democrats are facing "certainly assured defeat" due to their socialist agenda being decisively rejected by the American people. If only the Republicans could see just how decisively socialism has failed with Americans, we just might see some faster progress in the right direction.

Looking at how the year is likely to unfold, it is very hard to see how they turn this thing around.

OK, dude. Just keep pulling the wool over your own eyes.

Their strong and resolute leader gets no bounce from his State of the Union, and has now dropped below levels no one thought possible.

Totally irrelevant. President Bush is NOT up for re-election.

News in recent days show that the many parallel criminal investigations into GOP leaders are gaining additional momentum, and will likely become a very big problem later this year.

This will become an equally serious problem for the Democrats, who are just as corrupt (most likely more so) than the Republicans. Mark my words.

Their domestic policy advisor, the quarterback for any major new domestic initiative, resigns suddenly a few days after the State of the Union indicating deeper troubles inside the White House than is commonly understood.

Again. President Bush is NOT up for re-election. This is not relevant.

Bush's budget is declared dead on arrival by even Republican analysts.

And this is an advantage for Democrats because...? You guys should be thanking this President for all he's done to try and preserve a little socialism so that your piddly little ideology can die more gradually. Hopefully, for once, a Congress will take a stand and hold the line on socialism against a President who wishes to preserve some of it. The President's budget is dead on arrival because it's TOO MUCH like what you guys want. That will never translate into a victory for you. Sorry.

The Medicare prescription drug rollout has been a disaster, with millions of seniors not getting their medicines. Millions who do have the benefit will be hitting the infamous "doughnut hole" for the first time in the months right before the election. Energy costs are more likely to rise than fall this year. Health care costs will continue to rise, further squeezing workers and corporations. The Republicans are deeply divided on the volatile immigration issue, and so far have allowed loony demagogues to define their position. Corporate pension troubles will mount. Economic forecasts predict that national economy will slow later this year.

All of these problems are the result of INCREASED socialism, not cutbacks in it. The Medi-scare prescription drug benefit is an unconstitutional program that should never have been enacted. As for energy costs, corporate pension costs, health care costs, and the national economy, none of these things are the business of the federal government, and the President would be doing a better job if he would simply butt out. Republicans may be divided on the "volitile immigration issue", but Americans are not, especially conservative Americans. We strongly support legal immigration and do not support illegal immigration. What is the issue? If it's illegal, why would you support it without changing the law? You guys are the ones skating on thin ice.

The rise of terrorism across the world? The incredible failures of the Department of Homeland Security on Katrina? The rise of anti-Americanism throughout Latin America?

Since no proof was given that terrorism has risen, I will doubt that. Terrorism against American interest has, but that's because we have chosen to take a stand against it. The Department of Homeland Security has no constitutional authority to deal with natural disasters, so please shut up about Katrina, and if people in Latin America don't like us, well they can go fuck themselves.

Iraq? Just in recent days the Administration lost another one in Iraq, with our candidate for Prime Minister losing to a more religious candidate. The CIA analyst in charge of the intelligence leading up to the War says the Administration went too far, essentially manufacturing their case for war. More photos from Abu Grahib surface and get worldwide coverage. In the Plame affair, Libby fingers Cheney as having ordered the leaks, raising the possibility that both Rove and Cheney could be indicted. Even if Bush pulls out troops this year it is hard to see how Iraq possibly becomes an asset for them this year.

Look, idiot. Any time the people in Iraq CHOOSE who a leader will be, it is a victory for the Administration. President Bush knew full well that not all those elected would be the most friendly to us, but he also knew that no matter who was chosen, the fact that they were chosen by the people would make them better than the alternative which, as you well know, would be to have just left Hussein in there as their leader. The CIA analyst is full of shit, and you know it (and so does he for that matter). There were many reasons to go to war with Iraq, and WMD was only one of them. The jury is still out as to what actually happened to them. Do you really want to take this gamble that there never were any when there is actualy proof that he had and used them? Abu Graib is over, and those responsible have been punished. More pictures simply reinforce that we did the right thing in prosecuting those responsible. Again ... IRRELEVANT. In the Plame affair, there is still no evidence that Ms. Plame was entitled to any level of identity protection, since she was not a covert agent at the time her name was brought up. Troops being withdrawn from Iraq will not in and of itself become an asset to the Admnistration. Pulling them out too soon would have the opposite effect. Why can't you idiots just let the generals fight the war?

A safer Middle East? Religious zealots dedicated to the destruction of Israel have now gained power in Iran and Palestine. Al Qaeda operatives convicted for the bombing an American warship in Yemen "escape" from prison, and now on the loose. Things seem to be getting much worse there, not better.

A relatively secure democracy in Iraq? Don't forget that. Those religious zealots in Iran and ISRAEL will be dealt with in due course. I'm not privy to how the priorities are set up by the Administration, but I'm confident it's better than anything anyone from your side would have come up with. Prisoners do escape from prisons. That's not an indication of things going particularly poorly.

Domestic warrantless spying? The President has spent perhaps more days this year on this issue than any other. And for what? Is something they really believe will be a big winner this fall? Their Congressional leaders have it made it clear that this program cannot continue without judicial oversight. The White House belief that this is a winner just shows how little they have to work with.

When we have domestic warrantless spying, please let me know. In the meantime, it would be nice if you clowns would please stop making things up and presenting them as fact. It's been getting annoying.

And finally, Cheney. Always a public opinion anchor, he has become an ever bigger liability for the President.

And exactly how has this been the case? Someone causes a hunting accident and the VP is involved (not even really at fault), and the Left wants to think it's paramount to an advantage for them. Fact is, it's irrelevant. Neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney will be running for office (hell, Cheney didn't even want to BE vice president), so what does any of this have to do with anything?

So, how do they turn it around this year?

Don't really see how they do it.

There's nothing to turn around. The Republicans may be losing popularity, but the Donks haven't had any to speak of for a long time, and it doesn't look like there's any hope for them on that front. Worst case scenario for the Republicans: They will win by a slim margin and have to face real conservatives who want the Constitution respected, ultimately facing more conservative factions both within and outside the party in future elections. This can only help the conservative cause and further sink the Left. So, my liberal friend, I ask - How exactly do YOU turn it around?

I've been skeptical about the fall elections becoming a 1994-like "change election." But given that in Mid-February the President has dropped below 40 percent, their weak agenda has nowhere to go, foreign policy and security issues are as likely to be as damaging to them as helpful, and the criminal cases against their leadership will spread and deepen, I think even the skeptics have to now acknowledge that 2006 is likely to become an historically bad year for the governing party.

Given that polls are of no consequence, the conservative portions of the agenda are doing quite well, and Fitzmas was, is, and always will be nothing more than a pipe-dream for the Left, I will hold that 2006 is more likely to be an historically bad year for the Left in America.

Another prophecy?

Moses I am not, but I'm also not blinded by socialist ideology, either.

RWR