Who are the GOP putting up against him? To whose campaign can I send my money? This one is worth supporting from grassroots. Is the RNC is not supporting him/her? We need a name, Matt.

The reason Byrd is nearly impossible to defeat is that he is #4 out of 100 Senators in pork barrel legislation. He brings the bacon back to W.V. The people there want their pork. He doesn't have to put much effort into running - he just points at the billions he's steered to his state over the last several decades and say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."

And Republicans in the state realize that running against him is the quickest way to oblivion. The only way to stop Byrd is when his heart finally gives out. Sorta like Fat Ted.

Here's some stuff on Byrd from NRSC

Here's the only Republican who's seriously thinking of challenging Byrd, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, but as Bob Novak says in his article on Town Hall,

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, 53, has been talked about as an effective Republican challenger against the 87-year-old Byrd. However, national party leaders feel she would face an uphill battle. Even if Byrd has seemed more partisan and more eccentric recently, he is considered unbeatable in West Virginia with so many public works in the state named after him.

Republican leaders worry that if Capito ran against Byrd, she not only would be likely to be defeated for the Senate but probably would also lose her former House seat to a Democrat. Capito is the first Republican elected to Congress from West Virginia since 1980.

So there are some drawbacks if she does challenge Byrd. Few give her much chance of winning against the old porker, plus she could lose the seat in the House she now holds to a Democrat if she runs.

Then of course, Byrd has new wind in his sails with support from rising Democrat stars like Barak Obama:

"Senator Robert Byrd was one of the first senators I met with when I came to the Senate three months ago,'' Obama wrote in an e-mail sent out on behalf of the political action committee run by MoveOn.Org, the liberal advocacy group.

"Senator Byrd understands the history, the importance and the role Senate plays in our government -- at 87 years old, he's the most senior senator. He has spoken out passionately against a Bush foreign policy that has alienated our allies throughout the world. Today, he is fighting an attempt by Republicans to change the 200-year-old rules of the Senate that would allow Republicans to ram federal judges through the Senate with no regard for what others might say. Above all, Robert Byrd understands just how sacred the Constitution of our country truly is and fights every day to protect it.''

In 2000, Byrd spent about $1 million to get reelected. As this article says, Moveon.org has been steering funds for his next campaign to Byrd:

With an early fundraising blitz, the online liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org has shown both its potential as a Democratic asset and a Republican target in the 2006 elections.

In less than three days last week, the group's political action committee raised from its members nearly $833,000 for Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), who next year could face his first competitive race in decades.

The LA Times goes on to say:

"Sen. Byrd would be the prize for Republicans in 2006 that Tom Daschle was in 2004," said Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's Washington director, referring to the former Senate minority leader from South Dakota who lost his reelection bid in November.

Byrd, Matzzie said, "is just such a gigantic figure for progressives that we felt like we had to be supportive."

Is Byrd beatable? Was Daschle? Daschle and his backers pooh-poohed the mere idea that the Senate majority leader could be unseated by the unknown John Thune. But guess what, Daschle is gone. It would take a gigantic effort from the RNC to pull off an upset on Byrd, but it is possible. Just ask Daschle.

More on Robert "Sheets" Byrd

From Polipundit:

According to an internal Republican poll, Robert Byrd leads Shirley Moore Capito 52%-42% in a hypothetical match-up. While Capito probably will not run in 2006, this is a good sign for the likely open Senate seat in the years to come.

And the W.V. Newspaper The Daily Mail says:

But Byrd knows how to count votes. He knows that unknown Brent Benjamin beat Warren McGraw by 47,000 votes, the first time a Republican knocked off an incumbent Democratic statewide officeholder since before the Great Depression.

Byrd also knows that Benjamin won thanks to an independent campaign financed by coal magnate Don Blankenship.

Byrd knows that Lewis drafted off that campaign to come within 6,000 votes of toppling the other McGraw brother on the ballot, despite no money, no name recognition and no particular skill in campaigning.

If a name like McGraw can struggle against two unknowns, so can the name Byrd.

Republican Betty Ireland beat his fellow Democratic legend, Ken Hechler, by 29,000 votes.

Hechler, 90, said his age beat him. Hechler said too many people over 65 thought he was too old to serve.

Byrd turns 88 this year. He has never lost an election.

Capito may be within 10 points of breaking that streak.

Looks like Byrd's age may bring him some grief.

Polipundit has a different view of Senator Byrd being "unbeatable": Byrd is Beatable

Byrd knows how to count votes. He knows that [in 2004] unknown Brent Benjamin beat [Supreme Court Justice] Warren McGraw by 47,000 votes, the first time a Republican knocked off an incumbent Democratic statewide officeholder since before the Great Depression.

Byrd also knows that Benjamin won thanks to an independent campaign financed by coal magnate Don Blankenship.

Byrd knows that [announced Republican Senate candidate Hiram] Lewis drafted off that campaign to come within 6,000 votes of toppling the other McGraw brother on the ballot, despite no money, no name recognition and no particular skill in campaigning.

If a name like McGraw can struggle against two unknowns, so can the name Byrd.

So it sounds like the GOP just needs to take a chance on knocking out Byrd like they took a chance to knock out Daschle. The opportunity is clearly there. Does the GOP have the guts to do it? We'll see. Instead of waiting on them though we should start campaigning for Capito now and also start campaigning for her Republican replacement in the House.

Should have read the comments before I posted the same thing as Scaramonga.

You can't pass Social Security private accounts if you pull them "off the table."

You can't break the other side's anti-judge filibuster if you don't change the rule.

And you can't beat Robert Byrd if you don't put up your best candidate against him.

Republicans wrote the book on defeat as self-fulfilling prophecy.

No wonder Democrats still run the country.

You can't pass Social Security private accounts if you pull them "off the table."

Of course we haven't, but that doesn't really matter to you.

You can't break the other side's anti-judge filibuster if you don't change the rule.

And we will do whatever it takes to get the judicial nominees a vote, but that doesn't really matter to you.

And you can't beat Robert Byrd if you don't put up your best candidate against him.

That's a mighty fine crystal ball you got there. No one knows what will happen with Byrd yet, not even you.

Republicans wrote the book on defeat as self-fulfilling prophecy.

No, only people like you who somehow have found a way to stab yourself in the back.

No wonder Democrats still run the country.

How long have you had this problem with reality?

I don't see the big deal about taking Byrd on. Who cares if moveon is going to be sending him some big checks? that just means it will not be spent in other places. this guy is seriously beatable. get dirty if we must but his racist background should definitely be brought into play. Look what happened to Trent lott and he didn't even do anything. he is totally beatable. Spend some money- a few attack adds, a decent challenger, and wait for the 90 year old to make a mistake and say something stupid like he does almost every time you see him on the floor. The guy is a complete idiot and is slowly dieing in front of our eyes. It is pretty sad if we can't take him down. oh and a commercial with his statue in it can't help the guy either. I don't care if we lose a seat in the house- put our best up against their best and see who wins- simple as that

Is Byrd beatable?

Of Course... he is 87. He will beat himself in the election.

I can already see it... uncle sam pointing his finger at the viewer and saying "This is ur money"... cut shot to byrds statue... with the voice over of his speech equating republicans to nazis... Plus his being a KKK member... and his voting record... sheesh. Voting against BOTH black members nominated to be judges... against civil rights... against desegregating schools... LOL... The guy is a GOLDMINE.

Nice. C'Mon GOP... it can be done... all we need is the resolve.

Remember Tom Daschle.

urcool, guess "Remember Tom Daschle" should be our battle cry?

I've heard this demented crone's "unbeatable", but the the demographics of W. VA. have changed, to include retirees from all over America. I know a few of them. I believe he's beatable, but I'm still awaiting a name to whom I can send a check! If the RNC decides to actually put all their big guns behind a candidate to get this stain on the name "caucasian", I'll give up my "not a dime" stance. But I want to see real activity and enthusiasm over a viable candidate!

Isn't it interesting the moveon.org types would be willing to put so much time and money into a former KKK bigwig? Says more about them, than it does about him. He's a known quantity, and their becoming one!

DagneyT -- The prospective challenger is Shirley Moore Capito. She is the candidate whom you can get behind right now. She is supposedly the best challenger that the GOP can put up against Byrd. According to some articles, the GOP is worried that Byrd is unbeatable and do not want to risk Capito losing her seat in the House were she to run and lose against Byrd. However, according to Polipundit, Byrd is very beatable and it seems like it is up to the grassroots to push the GOP to run Capito against Byrd.

Scary:

ME {You can't pass Social Security private accounts if you pull them "off the table."}

YOU {Of course we haven't, but that doesn't really matter to you.}

Read the tea leaves, my friend. Heck, read what Scott McClellan said Friday. It's only a matter of time.

The politics are inescapable: George Bush will sign whatever Social Security reform will comes off the Hill because (1) he's made it such a front-burner issue and (2) he's yet to exercise his veto power in over four years in office.

And the Democrats will NEVER agree to personal accounts.

Ergo, either nothing gets passed or the President signs a bad bill - and the latter is precisely what he did with No Child Left Behind (sans education vouchers) and the prescription drug entitlement (sans Medical Savings Accounts).

It wasn't that long ago that I thought private accounts were going to happen, too. Bill Frist's political impotence has convinced me otherwise.

ME {You can't break the other side's anti-judge filibuster if you don't change the rule.}

YOU {And we will do whatever it takes to get the judicial nominees a vote, but that doesn't really matter to you.}

Frist said he had 51 votes for the Byrd option two months ago; he never held the vote. Then he lost two, then three, then five.

Now Bob Novak says Frist has 52 votes; but he's STILL not holding the vote.

All I want to see is for Frist to pull the trigger.

Doesn't his reticence concern you in the *slightest*?

ME {And you can't beat Robert Byrd if you don't put up your best candidate against him.}

YOU {That's a mighty fine crystal ball you got there. No one knows what will happen with Byrd yet, not even you.}

Nice non-sequitur. Do you, perchance, have anything to say about what I actually *wrote*?

ME {Republicans wrote the book on defeat as self-fulfilling prophecy.}

YOU {No, only people like you who somehow have found a way to stab yourself in the back.}

Don't shoot the messenger - or presume to know what people I am like.

As Dr. Zaius once said to Charlton Heston, "You may not like what you find."

ME {No wonder Democrats still run the country.}

YOU {How long have you had this problem with reality?}

Another non-response.

Why don't you document how the Republican agenda is being enacted *in this Congress*? I'll even spot you ANWR and product liability reform.

Read the tea leaves, my friend.

Sorry, I'm not into reading tea leaves. And I'm not your friend. I said we haven't pulled private accounts "off the table" and we haven't. Your response, "read the tea leaves" leaves more than a little to be desired.

All I want to see is for Frist to pull the trigger.

Doesn't his reticence concern you in the *slightest*?

Again, my comment stands unrefuted. And to answer your question, it concerns me a little. But I am sure that we will get the nominees confirmed. You don't seem to be, hence, the "sky is falling" rhetoric.

Nice non-sequitur. Do you, perchance, have anything to say about what I actually *wrote*?

Non Sequitur

(nahn seek kwit-her) n. Latin meaning "it does not follow." Refers to a conclusion that is not logically determined from the facts or law. A common expression is "that's a non sequitur."

My remark does not qualify as a non sequitur. You have no idea who will be the opponent to Byrd and neither do I. My conclusion is based on the fact that you cannot know who, if anyone, will run against Byrd.

Don't shoot the messenger - or presume to know what people I am like.

Walk like a duck, quack like a duck...

Another non-response.

In your mind maybe. You make the statement that the Democrats are "running" the country. The Republicans are in fact running the country (along with minimum support from some Democrats). You MUST be struggling with reality.

Why don't you document how the Republican agenda is being enacted *in this Congress*? I'll even spot you ANWR and product liability reform.

You can read the Congressional Record as well as I can. And based on your remarks, I'd be wasting my time. So you just go on believing what you must. If you really think the party is that bad, why don't you leave it?

Hard Starboard,

It is, though, a bit intimidating to go up against a man who is a WV political icon and has held his seat since the 50's...Capito is our best bet, goes the conventional wisdom, but she's the one we are asking to risk her seat and position for something which is, no matter how good, not a sure thing.

Personally, I think we'd flatten Byrd fairly easily...GOP Senator Roth of Delaware was also "unbeatable", but the Donk's beat him...they just put up a good candidate who ran an energetic campaign...Roth was a bit over the hill, as is Byrd, and just couldn't take the pace...And Roth was a lot better Senator than Byrd ever was...but the trick is to convince a gunshy political leadership that it's worth the investment of time and money....

"It is, though, a bit intimidating to go up against a man who is a WV political icon and has held his seat since the 50's."

In other words, we are playing (politics) not to lose, instead of playing (politics) to win. I think we all know what happens when we play not to lose.

In other words, we are playing (politics) not to lose, instead of playing (politics) to win.

If by playing to win you mean to run a candidate against one that most think is nearly impossible to beat therefore likely guanteeing a loss, not only of the race but the House seat she now holds, how do you call that winning?

"If by playing to win you mean..."

So was everyone confident that Daschle could be defeated or did we take a big chance on a big victory and play to win?

While Shirley Capito may look like the best shot against Byrd, I'd sure like the Republicans to look for someone else to take him on. For several reasons: One is that I'd hate to risk losing a House seat, but mostly because this has to be, by nature of the opposition, a very nasty race, and I think when a woman gets into that kind of no-hold-barred campaign her gender works against her. Like it or not, while we like strong women, and tough women, we don't like b____y women, or mean women, and a woman in a race like that will have to be willing to pull no punches. And let's face it, beating up on a senile old man is gong to convey downright meanness.

Byrd's history is ugly, and his present is pathetic. One thing we could do would be to help convince the good folk of WV that when they elect a buffoon like Byrd, they look like buffoons to the rest of the country, pork or no pork.

In other words, to get back to iamcool's comments on another thread about the need to get our message out there, we need some really really good political cartoonists.

Oh, and can we stop turning on our own? While I think Hard Starboard is sometimes too hard on the party, he does make some good points about our sometimes letting the Dems walk all over us. I may not be as cynical as he is, but I do see some truth in his observations, and even when I don't agree, I don't think it's helpful to us as a party or as a subset of political thought to treat disilluionment with our party with the same contempt we would treat Al Franken.

I think we need a few bitter cynics in our midst to goad us into action, and if HS is volunteering for the job, more power to him. He's made some good points in some other areas, and if he's frustrated at the Republicans' apparent lack of authority in some areas, well, we need some dissidence in our ranks to keep us on our toes.

I live in this state. I want him gone bad. I am planning on sending my money to just announced candidate Hiram Lewis. He already has a website up & running.

Don Surber, Charleston Daily Mail

April 14 2005

The Republicans poll;
Democrats plead
Byrd is running as if Capito
were only 10 points behind

West Virginians know why Democrats brought in Barack Obama to raise money for Bob Byrd's bid for a ninth term.

Byrd is acting scared.

He is a legend. He never won a Senate race by less than 30 points. West Virginians put him right up there with Sears and Carter's liver pills.

But times change, and whatever my disagreements with Byrd may be, he is a masterful politician.

Byrd taught Ted Kennedy how to count votes in a 1971 upset over the No. 2 post in the Senate. Kennedy miscalculated.

Byrd continues counting. He might see himself falling a few votes short this time.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee did a telephone poll of 500 likely voters on March 15-16 and found Republican Congresswoman Shelley Capito is within 10 points of Byrd.

Byrd was ahead 52 percent to 42. The margin of error is 4.3 percent, meaning that in 19 out of 20 cases, the numbers for the two would fall between 48 and 56 for Byrd and 38 and 46 for Capito.

The days of the 30-point wins may have passed.

Now that is one poll, by Republicans no less. Democrats are not releasing their poll results, but their reaction is curious. They sent in a rookie senator to raise money for their longest-serving senator.

Shouldn't that be the other way around?

"In 2006, Senator Byrd will be the target of Republicans because he stands up for what he believes," Obama said in a computer message to members of MoveOn.org.

In reaching out to the far left for help, Byrd is not only going where the money is, he goes where his political heart is.

Calling for help this early looks like panic. Well, Republicans did knock off the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, last year.

But Republicans tried to target Byrd for defeat when he was Senate leader in 1982 by running Cleve Benedict against him. Bringing up Byrd's Ku Klux Klan past failed as miserably then as it did in his first congressional race in 1952.

Byrd taught Republicans, too, how to count votes.

Democrats hold 17 of the Senate seats up for grabs next year. West Virginia is not yet on the Republicans' list of top 10 targets -- once bitten and all that.

Hiram Lewis is the first announced candidate. He announced on a Saturday afternoon, not a good time to get coverage -- particularly when it is the last day of the Legislature. The only thing worse would be if WVU were playing a football game.

Lewis also is treasurer of the state Republican Party, which is like holding a ticket for the Titanic's return trip. The party is broke.

A poor Republican outgunned 2-to-1 in voter registrations hardly should pose a threat to an eight-term senator with more than 30 public projects bearing his name.

But Byrd knows how to count votes. He knows that unknown Brent Benjamin beat Warren McGraw by 47,000 votes, the first time a Republican knocked off an incumbent Democratic statewide officeholder since before the Great Depression.

Byrd also knows that Benjamin won thanks to an independent campaign financed by coal magnate Don Blankenship.

Byrd knows that Lewis drafted off that campaign to come within 6,000 votes of toppling the other McGraw brother on the ballot, despite no money, no name recognition and no particular skill in campaigning.

If a name like McGraw can struggle against two unknowns, so can the name Byrd.

Republican Betty Ireland beat his fellow Democratic legend, Ken Hechler, by 29,000 votes.

Hechler, 90, said his age beat him. Hechler said too many people over 65 thought he was too old to serve.

Byrd turns 88 this year. He has never lost an election.

Capito may be within 10 points of breaking that streak.

Don Surber may be reached at donsurber@dailymail.com.

Scary:

ME{I haven't seen anybody express fratricidal anger that they
haven't been resolved to perfection in this particular Congress.}

YOUYou're not looking very hard.

Non-responsive.

ME{With immigration, the problem is that the Bush White House is on
the wrong side of the issue.}

YOU{Bush supports a system that you happen to disagree with. That
doesn't put him on the wrong side of the issue.}

Sure it does. And you can bank on my not being the first, or last, to say so.

{At this juncture, I don't think the issue has been decided either
way.}

Sure it has - in favor of inertia. Neither party wants to do anything
about this problem. Hasn't for years. And that means it's only going to
get worse.

Whichever party *does* eventually do something about it will take a big
step towards remaining (or becoming) the majority party.

I just hope it doesn't take an even worse terrorist attack to drive the
point home.

Pity human nature doesn't seem to work that way.

ME{With Social Security reform, the fact of the matter is that
private accounts are the only true "reform" measure to be taken, and the
Bush White House is sending signals that private accounts are no longer
the priority, or even *a* priority}

YOU{Only in your mind.}

NOW look who isn't looking very hard....

{It must be why you are on the team to negotiate for the White
House, right?}

It would seem that somebody needs to negotiate with the White
House just to get them to restore private accounts to their former
non-negotiable status.

I'd include Senate Republicans in that category, but they may be beyond help.

{Since it appears that Frist may or may not have enough votes to end
it (depending on which MSM reporter you read), I'd say that we did NOT
deliver. Delivery would look more like 60 Senators on the Republican
side - all of which will do the honorable thing and support their
party.}

Except that it only takes a minimum of fifty senators to activate the
Byrd option. Fifty-five members should provide a sufficient RINO
cushion.

But that still gets back to Bill Frist's leadership, or lack thereof.

It's all fine and good to talk about senators being egomaniacal "free
agents" and such, but what's the point of electing a caucus leadership
if the rank & file are just going to blow them off? It's not as if there
haven't been strong, effective Majority Leaders in the past - Lyndon
Johnson and George Mitchell come to mind.

You'll note, however, that none of them have been Republicans. And
that's less a knock on Frist than it is the fact the Senate just doesn't
have any Tom DeLay Republicans in its number.

However, Frist is Majority Leader. And no matter which way one
looks at this filibuster impasse, it comes back to his lack of
leadership. Either he can't put together fifty votes from a fifty-five
member caucus, or he has the votes but is being intimidated away from
pulling the trigger. Personally I think the latter would be the more
appalling, but whichever it is the base is not going to accept it, and
that is what the party poobahs had better be considering, and the sooner
the better.

ME{And if Bill Frist has the votes to activate the "Byrd option" -
and Robert Novak is reporting that he does - then what is he waiting
for?}

YOU{Already addressed that on B4B, but the short answer is: I don't
know and neither do you.}

You haven't "addressed" anything. Aren't you the slightest bit curious
about the answer? Or do you just enjoy indulging in question-begging?

ME{And while politics is, indeed, the art of the possible, one also
has to have a clear-eyed idea of just what *is* possible.}

YOU{Hey, maybe you've just stumbled upon why Frist is taking it
slowly.}

Hey, maybe you've just stumbled upon why Frist should be ousted from the
leadership.

ME{Absent that, "patience" becomes resignation by another name, and
the realm of the possible atrophies to irrelevance.}

YOU{Nice words, but ... feh.}

Ah, but "words are where ideas begin. Maybe you should listen to them."
- David Marcus, Star Trek II

Especially since ideas, or at least their vigorous marshalling, are
something with which you appear to have only a passing familiarity.

{If you're out of power, I'd say your concept of what is possible
would be more like "get back into power." They have nothing left of
importance to lose. They can act like total idiots - it can't possibly
lose them more than it already has.}

And "acting like total idiots" appears to be succeeding, doesn't it? And
that would be because Republicans are retreating as a result, wouldn't
it? And that will get them back in power eighteen months and change from
now, won't it?

Congratulations, you've just about argued yourself over to my side of
the debate.

Welcome aboard. :-)

{They are not patient, and they'll ALWAYS think they're running the
country. They are fantasist - reality is not their strong suit.}

That reminds me of Apollo Creed's trainer in the first Rocky,
when he gets in Creed's face between rounds and tells him, "He doesn't
know it's a damn show - he thinks it's a damn fight."

In this case, Senate Republicans don't seem to realize they're in a
fight. They think the upper chamber is still a "club" where comitous
compromise and bipartisan chumminess are still possible. And they're
getting their heads handed to them as result.

Acting like the majority doesn't require GOPers to "act like idiots." It
requires them to act like the majority, and that means using their
majority power to overcome minority resistance and move their agenda
forward. And in the case of ending the filibuster all that requires is
one floor vote.

Let Bill Frist fix a firm date for the rule change vote, and let the
rule change be approved. Nothing less will suffice.

MEAnd they've got us on the run.

YOUNo, just people like you are running.

You're still shooting at the messenger, Scary.

Good thing your aim is so poor....

Run me as a write in currently residing in California...

Who cares if moveon is going to be sending him some big checks? that just means it will not be spent in other places.

I agree.. who cares who runs as long as they aren't an embarrasment worse than Byrd (and how hard would that be?). The $ the Dem's spend in WV is $ they don't spend elsewhere. They should groom someone to try to win now and if not win later. Someone who does 'well' in a narrow loss could win the in future.

{I said we haven't pulled private accounts "off the table" and we haven't.}

Then why did Scott McClellan last Friday indicate that the White House would consider it? I would think that a non-negotiable item wouldn't be included on the list of what they're "not ruling out."

{Your response, "read the tea leaves" leaves more than a little to be desired.}

Ditto your unwillingness to read the handwriting on the wall.

{Again, my comment stands unrefuted.}

Until Frist schedules and holds a vote on the rule change, your comment stands refuted before you even posted it.

{And to answer your question, it concerns me a little. But I am sure that we will get the nominees confirmed. You don't seem to be, hence, the "sky is falling" rhetoric.}

You have no grounds for proclaiming such certitude. Whereas I have a plethora of evidence backing my skepticism, to which I've only made the most rudimentary reference.

Despite all the snideness flowing from your direction, we seem to want the same things. So ask yourself this question: if Senate 'Pubbies are as skittish on the rule change as they appear, and we want the rule changed, which grassroots attitude will be more likely to move them in the right direction - your passivity or my hell-raising?

I'm not from Missouri, but on this issue, Frist and co. have to show me.

{You have no idea who will be the opponent to Byrd and neither do I. My conclusion is based on the fact that you cannot know who, if anyone, will run against Byrd.}

You haven't drawn any conclusion. Rather, you're denying that a conclusion *can* be drawn.

As a reply to my comment - which *does* draw a conclusion and is actually responsive to the theme of the original post - that qualifies as a non sequitur.

If you have nothing to say about the original post, why are you even in this thread?

ME{Don't shoot the messenger - or presume to know what people I am like.}

YOU{Walk like a duck, quack like a duck...}

Well, that reveals two of your traits:

1) You don't like hearing unhappy news; and

2) You assume entirely too much.

Ever thought of giving the Socratic method a try? Or would that disturb the stereotype to which you already appear to have grown so deeply attached?

{In your mind maybe. You make the statement that the Democrats are "running" the country. The Republicans are in fact running the country (along with minimum support from some Democrats). You MUST be struggling with reality.}

Wow. That comment is a remarkable synthesis of obtuseness and irony. Imagine if you could harness that talent and employ it deliberately.

FACT: Republicans were elected last November to carry out a specific agenda, the top two domestic planks of which were breaking the judge filibuster and enacted Social Security private accounts.

FACT: Private accounts are dead in the water, and even the White House is getting squishy on them, while Bill Frist, whether or not he has the votes, is terrified of moving ahead with the Byrd option.

You're confusing being in the majority with running the country, Scary. The two can be - and right now are - entirely different.

Unfortunately, Senate Pachyderms - quite unlike their Democrat "colleagues" - are suffering from that same confusion.

{You can read the Congressional Record as well as I can. And based on your remarks, I'd be wasting my time.}

Nice duck. I'd wager there isn't one you could pull that I haven't seen before.

{So you just go on believing what you must. If you really think the party is that bad, why don't you leave it?}

I didn't say the *party* was "that bad." I'm saying that the party's leadership in the Senate is forgetting why the grassroots elected them. If that condition persists - which your neglect of the need to hold them accountable would guarantee - then most of the base will be estranged, and the party will be headed for disaster in 2006.

That's the point, Scary. It's happened before. I'd much prefer not to see it happen again. And the chances of that happier outcome are maximized if Frist & Co. get an earful from the base *now* and it moves them off the schneid to follow through on these litmus items as was promised.

If you really believe that partisan loyalty is predicated, in whole or in part, on never criticizing the party's leadership, then I would submit that if push came to shove, the GOP would be better off with me in it than it would with you.

Almiranta:

{While I think Hard Starboard is sometimes too hard on the party, he does make some good points about our sometimes letting the Dems walk all over us. I may not be as cynical as he is, but I do see some truth in his observations...I think we need a few bitter cynics in our midst to goad us into action, and if HS is volunteering for the job, more power to him. He's made some good points in some other areas, and if he's frustrated at the Republicans' apparent lack of authority in some areas, well, we need some dissidence in our ranks to keep us on our toes.}

On behalf of Hugh Hewitt and Captain Ed in addition to li'l old me, thank you for recognizing the "tough love" spirit in which these critiques are offered.

HS, I'll stand up for you until you start to talk the HH talk about donating to Dems. Hugh has been my hero for lo these many years, since I discovered him while on an extended business trip to Seattle right before the 2000 election, and my life was greatly improved when he was put on KNUS out of Denver, close enough to pick up on a car radio on a good day. But his anger at the GOP has taken too hard a turn to port for my taste, and you need to get him back on course.

We need to nominate good conservatives, not nominate spineless RINOs and then try to keep them from being elected. I agree with ousting gutless or wimpy GOP candidates, but I think we have to do it long before they get to the ballot box. Waiting for an election and then letting, or helping, them go down in flames will only hurt the party and give the Dems some bragging rights. But a spirited primary season, in which we unseat a RINO and replace him/her with a good solid candidate will help the party immeasurably, by giving us a chance to both get the conservative message out to the public without being in a p---ing match with a rabid Dem and by proving that we put our money where our mouths are.