According to this editorial, things are looking pretty bleak for the Republicans.

With most eyes on the presidential race, a potentially epochal year in Senate elections is taking shape. Almost half of the Republican Party's 49 Senate seats are up for a vote this November, compared to 12 for Democrats. But that is only the first indicator of this year's uneven terrain.

Also consider: At least 10 and usually 11 of these 12 Democratic seats are rated "safe" by the leading prognosticators. Seven of the 10 "safe" Democrats have served four or more terms. These include party fixtures such as Sens. Joe Biden, Dick Durbin, John Kerry and Jay Rockefeller. Only one Democratic seat, that of Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, is realistically considered in play (some also say the same of South Dakota Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson's seat). Not even counting fundraising advantages, favorable Democratic voter-identification numbers or turnout, it is clear that the Senate terrain for 2008 slopes steeply toward the Democratic Party. Here are the most hotly contested races in descending order of Republican vulnerability — eight in total worth watching. Ten months out, a Democratic gain of three to six seats seems likely. A Democratic gain of as many as eight seats is not out of the question, which would bring today's Democratic caucus of 51 senators to the edge of a filibuster-proof majority.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080117/EDITORIAL/287244237/1013

If they take over and run it like they're running CONgress, we're in for a whole sh!tload of problems/trouble. The only thing they did this past year was give criminal aliens raises. Ugh...:(

If they take over and run it like they're running CONgress, we're in for a whole sh!tload of problems/trouble. The only thing they did this past year was give criminal aliens raises. Ugh...:(

All they have to do is look at the Republican controlled Congress for clues as to what NOT to do.

~String

I could guarantee they would get much more done if they didn't have to deal with obstructionist Republicans or W's veto.

I could guarantee they would get much more done if they didn't have to deal with obstructionist Republicans or W's veto.

Uh, no shit? The Republicans would get a lot done too without Democrats in the way. The question is who would do more good for the US. Considering that both parties are now huge spenders, and considering that there are no more presidential candidates aside from Paul and Kucinich who are calling for immediate troop withdrawals, I'd say we're fucked regardless.

Uh, no shit? The Republicans would get a lot done too without Democrats in the way. The question is who would do more good for the US. Considering that both parties are now huge spenders, and considering that there are no more presidential candidates aside from Paul and Kucinich who are calling for immediate troop withdrawals, I'd say we're fucked regardless.

No, we would be "f*cked regardless" if we cut and run from Iraq so all the evil muslim terrorists could come here with their jihad. :mad:

No, we would be "f*cked regardless" if we cut and run from Iraq so all the evil muslim terrorists could come here with their jihad. :mad:

Hmm. We went into Iraq to get the terrorists. Our going to Iraq resulted in more terrorists. We stay in Iraq and we get more terrorists. Meanwhile our national debt is rapidly increasing and our dollar is crashing, with many economists saying we're either already in or heading to a recession.

Nope, still sounds fucked to me.

I agree, we cannot leave at the drop of a hat. It should be planned so that our troops are safe while they get out, like the Brits did.

I agree, we cannot leave at the drop of a hat. It should be planned so that our troops are safe while they get out, like the Brits did.

Immediate troop withdrawals doesn't mean a panicked, unplanned and uncoordinated effort that jeapordizes our soldiers.

Hmm. We went into Iraq to get the terrorists. Our going to Iraq resulted in more terrorists. We stay in Iraq and we get more terrorists. Meanwhile our national debt is rapidly increasing and our dollar is crashing, with many economists saying we're either already in or heading to a recession.

Nope, still sounds fucked to me.
I agree with most of what you are saying. But it would be wise to hold out in Iraq until the Iraqi military is online. If not, where just asking for more Taliban look-a-likes to rise up and make turmoil Iraq. For the sake of Iraq, let’s stay there until Government is stable or until it’s utmost clear that it is a lost cause all together. And yes, the economy is on every ones mind.

Most of the people we are calling terrorists in Iraq are Iraqis, and have no intention of continuing the fight across the ocean. When we leave, they will fight each other for power.

The Al Quida type groups might try to dig in and find a haven in Iraq, but it's up to the Iraqis to get rid of them, with whatever help we can afford to give them. Iraqis don't see a great need to join the police at this time, because they will be seen as helping the occupiers. When they realize their security is in their hands, they will do the right thing for their country. It's my feeling that some Iraqis aligned themselves with such militants out of temporary convenience.

The idea that we are keeping a unified group of Islamic terrorists at bay in Iraq to prevent them flooding over to the US is beyond ridiculous.

I agree with most of what you are saying. But it would be wise to hold out in Iraq until the Iraqi military is online. If not, where just asking for more Taliban look-a-likes to rise up and make turmoil Iraq. For the sake of Iraq, let’s stay there until Government is stable or until it’s utmost clear that it is a lost cause all together. And yes, the economy is on every ones mind.

What do you do if the military and/or government aren't stable a year from now? Five years from now? Where do you draw the line and why then?

edit: and everything spidergoat just said.

Hmm. We went into Iraq to get the terrorists. Our going to Iraq resulted in more terrorists. We stay in Iraq and we get more terrorists....

We went to get Saddam. We got him. Evil muslim terrorists created ALL the problems after that. They don't want democracy. They like violence, death, and destruction. Our surge has helped dramatically. So much that the liberal news media won't even report all the great news coming from Iraq. :(

Romney will finish off the problems in Iraq.

Iran and Syria sent their evil muslim terrorists over to Iraq. :mad:

We'll get them too. :bravo:

Hey sandy, what's the difference between an Iraqi insurgent and a terrorist?

Most of the people we are calling terrorists in Iraq are Iraqis, and have no intention of continuing the fight across the ocean. When we leave, they will fight each other for power.

The Al Quida type groups might try to dig in and find a haven in Iraq, but it's up to the Iraqis to get rid of them, with whatever help we can afford to give them. Iraqis don't see a great need to join the police at this time, because they will be seen as helping the occupiers. When they realize their security is in their hands, they will do the right thing for their country. It's my feeling that some Iraqis aligned themselves with such militants out of temporary convenience.

The idea that we are keeping a unified group of Islamic terrorists at bay in Iraq to prevent them flooding over to the US is beyond ridiculous.
Well said, for the most part.

America sounds stressed out. Haven"t been there much lately. I hope my home land isn't going to fall apart. America is the land of extremes. As I see it, it has an extreme amount of potential to do some thing great, because it is so saturated with frustrated people who are looking for solutions. Last time I was there I picked up on this. Lots of potential.

I don"t think it matters much who our "leaders" are. They are us. We change, it all changes. If we wait for them to change....ha ha. We are not powerless and Democracy is as much a joke as any other external "let's have other people lead us" systems. We have to take the lead. I follow me.

Everything is connected to everything.

Regards,
Jozen

Well, Sandy's narrative is missing a few things. The Iraqis were glad to get rid of Saddam, but what happened next? We let the country's national treatures be looted. We did not establish security because we never had the troops to do so. We let Saddam's weapons including high explosives to be looted, which is what the terrorists use to kill us. We destroyed what little infrastructure was working in Iraq, left them in the dark without water. We secured the OIL departments first. Rebuilding dollars went overwhelmingly to American contractors. Iraqis that could have provided normality in government were suddenly unemployed. Iraqis had every reason to be cynical about the US.