This is anti-Bush propoganda.

Obviously, President Bush is going to campaign for the the re-form of Social Security, on the foundation of the large political capitol he has carefully maintained.

It's not all that surprising. The Bush-controlled Republican party has been in trouble before elections before, and they've always prevailed. They have little reason to think they'll lose (polls were predicting a Kerry victory on the eve of election 2004 remember, and America has been on the "wrong track" since 2003), because voters keep electing them to office, and my bets are still on them maintaining control of both houses of Congress. The media is desperate for a Republican defeat and is selling this election like its going to be a landslite Democratic victory, in the hopes that it will discourage some Republican voters. I think there is a strong likelihood that the Democrats will gain some seats, but I still doubt that they will take control of a branch of Congress. I'd say their chances of taking the house are about 35-50%.

Of course, just because I understand why Bush isn't planning for a Democratic victory doesn't mean I think it's a smart move on his part.

If the GOP loses? I hope that Democrats are preparing for the scorched-earth conservative counterattack likely to begin the day after the election.

Which would be different from the scorched-earth liberal attacks on the GOP for the last six years...how?

Wow, testy... I wasn't making any judgements there, my friend. Just pointing out that Dems would do well to prepare themselves for the worst if the best happens...

Not being testy at all, just pointing out that the Dems should be familiar with the "scorched-earth" playbook, as they've been playing out of it for several election cycles. No one party has the monopoly on playing dirty in politics.

Why would Bush tell anyone if he has contingency plans for a possible GOP loss in the midterms? Wouldn't it be a colossally bad PR move that the Dems would exploit?

Oh, and when did the Dems state their contingency plans for thew possibility that the GOP keeps the House and Senate?

Why should we expect politicians to answer the "what will you do if your side loses" question?

What do you actually have in mind, Eric? For example, I am aware of nothing the Dems have done that's even remotely as scorchy as this kind of ridiculousness:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/vote_republican_1.html

Nor have the Democrats done much in the way of, say, impugning the patriotism of the Republicans; of saying that Republicans are rooting for the terrorists; or of thinking that if we just make nice with the terrorists they'll go away.

And then we have cases of Republicans doing borderline making crap up:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010480.php
and others of Republicans doing just flat-out old-fashioned making crap up:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010462.php

Yes, of course there's some dirt-slinging on both sides, and regular dirt-slinging I can understand and accept as just part of the game. It's the raw, unapologetic mendacity of so much of the GOP attacks that are really beyond the pale.

I wasn't aware that ITA had become CNN, Eric (you know, both political sides must always be "equally guilty"). Because for the life of me, I can't think (sadly!) of a single example on the Dem's side. So I'd like to second philosopher's question: what are some examples of Dem's going scorched earth? You might even renew my faith in Dems here. I believe in fighting fire with fire and just haven't found them generally up to that task. Not that I approve of scorched-earth politics, it's just that I believe it will continue until parity (Political Mutually Assured Destruction) is achieved.

Nor have the Democrats done much in the way of, say, impugning the patriotism of the Republicans; of saying that Republicans are rooting for the terrorists; or of thinking that if we just make nice with the terrorists they'll go away.

I'd say that claiming/implying that President Bush and his GOP allies supported the invasion of Iraq for financial gain or other selfish motives impugns their patriotism as much as any of the above.

Beyond that, I'm just not going to get into a tit-for-tat argument about whose opponents are nastier. Wingers always think their side is righteous and is impeded only by the insidiousness of their opponents. If you want to see examples of nasty Democrat tactics, I'm sure you can find some at freerepublic.com or other right-wing hangouts. I don't spend my time cataloging Democratic nastiness so I can whine about them online. What's ironic is that *you* think *I* am a wingnut while (presumably) you're some kind of moderate. As I saw someone else write recently, that's the scorched bottom of the pot calling the kettle black.

Eric, follow the links-- they aren't random anonymous wingnuts on freakshow sites -- which, I agree, are not the thing to judge a party on -- but the paid advertisements by major GOP-coordinated groups, and the statements of GOP candidates themselves. And those are what one can judge a party by, as actions taken by the party itself.

phil,

I'm not denying that GOP candidates have run nasty ads; I'm just denying that the GOP is more aggressive or nasty in its attacks than the Democrats. I don't have the time or the inclination to dredge up Democrat ads and/or statements to match the GOP mudslinging you've linked to, but what I have noticed over time is that while my personal bias leads me to find GOP attack ads less offensive/dishonest than Democrat attack ads, my counterparts on the left instinctively find the opposite to be true, while political independents find both sides to be equally nasty. Thus, my conclusion that no party has an "advantage" in negative campaigning.

That has got to be one of the lamest responses I've ever seen on this blog by anyone not named "lawyerchik" or "Alan Henderson".

Sounds like philosopher is in a bit of denial about his own biasses.

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Phil on this one. Ever since 9-11, the Republicans have dished out "attack" ads like no other. The new one from the RNC is horrible. Coupled with Fox News and talk radio, it is disheartening.

I have always been a Republican, but this year, my vote goes to anyone that isn't an incumbent. I never thought I would see the day that I would actually be rooting for the Democrats to take over the House and the Senate.

As usual, when phil can't come up with a persuasive argument, he starts calling names.

As usual, Eric? I for one haven't noticed any such thing. How about some links to back that up? Or don't you have the "time or inclination?"

I believe that you'll find my usual pattern is snarky name-calling in and around my arguments, but always accompanied by arguments, thank you very much. In this case it is _you_, Eric, who decided to opt out of offering anything like an argument here, thus leaving nothing for me to do but point out that you'd basically abandoned the field. I'd still be happy to engage with any substantive response you might choose to make to my initial points; but I don't think anyone is going to be fooled into thinking that the "lalalalalala" *hands over ears* of your earlier reply is in fact anything that would remotely count as substantive.

I believe that you'll find my usual pattern is snarky name-calling in and around my arguments, but always accompanied by arguments, thank you very much. In this case it is _you_, Eric, who decided to opt out of offering anything like an argument here, thus leaving nothing for me to do but point out that you'd basically abandoned the field. I'd still be happy to engage with any substantive response you might choose to make to my initial points; but I don't think anyone is going to be fooled into thinking that the "lalalalalala" *hands over ears* of your earlier reply is in fact anything that would remotely count as substantive.

(Oops -- sorry about the multi-posting.)