We do but for none of the reasons he mentions. Because our "leadership" has become all liberals. Hopefully not as bad as 92 when we let a moderate Dem get elected with 41% of the vote - because our liberal only got 33%!
Of course he's a party hack and would not dare criticize. Like Tim never really criticizes the MSM/DNC of which he's been a part for 35 years.

I can't tell which party will end up benefiting from the next round of elections, but I'm pretty sure we are going to see a low turnout.

Recent elections have just been a choice between the two lowest-common denominators, and interest begins to wane. Quite honestly, there aren't even a handful of politicians out there right now that get me remotely interested, let alone excited, as they all seem to be a bunch of lazy fat-cats married more to being in power than to "public service".

The Republicans are spending us into the ground even after 20 years of their complaints about Democratic maleficence. It was just a switch of "pet projects."

The Dems are too reactionary and politically opportunistic. They are incapable of seeing past their hunger for power, causing them to act and sound like spineless and perfidious dorks when it comes to winning the War.

I know this may be a bit cynical, but in general politics is one of those areas that requires so much from an individual, yet offers so little in return. It doesn't shock me that we have so little to choose from in our politicians, Republican or Democrat and a third party won't solve the nature of this problem either.

Anyway, I think this translates into lower turnout overall. So, here we go again -- hold your nose and pull the lever...

I agree with Fred on alot of things but disagree with him on this. The Presidential election is not a popularity contest, it is a contest on keeping out who you loathe the most. Republicans dont win elections, Democrats lose them because they are loathed the most. Because the leftwing has become more shrill and more christian hating than ever before, i see a large turnout like before from christians. I do agree that MSM will be even more pro democrat than before, which is hard to believe. do you remember leslie stahl interviewing the johns on 60 minutes. i thought she was going to drop to her knees.

I think it depends on how unhinged the Dems get over the next couple of years. If the Kos/DU/MoveOn crowd continues to dominate the party and its agenda, then things look good for the GOP. As more sane moderate Dems migrate to the GOP lever on election day, the GOP continues to win. If the Dems have a primary fight-from-hell in 2008 with Hillary v. an "anti-war" candidate, it looks good for the GOP, because a lot of lefties just will not vote for Hillary if she continues to support the war. The problem I see for the GOP is getting someone groomed and ready to run. Giuliani would be just fine for me, but I am a social moderate. The abortion/gay/prayer business is of no interest to me. Giuliani is the strongest national candidate, but the social conservatives will never accept him. I have no idea at this point who will emerge.

When it comes to Presedential elections, it all depends on the candidates, and nobody knows who the candidates will be.

Interesting article and interesting comments above. However, in today's de rigueur mega million dollar campaigns with the intense media scrutiny of everything about you and now your wife and children, it becomes almost impossible to get the type of people that we need and would like to see, to even run for office.

It seems that those who make it to the upper reaches of public office are by then wholely owned subsidiaries of their contributors.

The democrats have totally lost their minds and the republicans are too beholden to their social conservative faction, while having abandoned even any pretense at fiscal responsibility.

The general public and the media, new and old, caturwal about the spending and debt. Though I suspect if there was any real attempt to cut government spending and that means programs that will affect the middle class, in a big way, it would be political suicide for the party that tried.

So come 2008, both parties it appears at this time, will only have blow dried munchkins to promote.

I hate to sound cynical, but I'm not so much cynical as discouraged. (but not giving up)

I think Barnes is making the mistake of looking at the 'big names' like Soros on the Democrat's side and dismissing the grass-roots GOP voter turnout campaign.

I think it's pretty clear from political history that the grass-roots organization beats the big bucks as long as the organization are reasonably energized.

Will they be energized after a second Bush term? This is where the candidate makes a difference.

Barne's 'big three' (Cheney, Rice, and Jeb Bush) all have the handicap that they are too closely tied to George Bush. Cheney and Rice would be hopeless campaigners for different reasons, so it's just as well they aren't running. Jeb is wise to stay out as well.

Barnes dismisses McCain and Guliani way too easily. Both are genuine political heavyweights and national figures. Either or both could energize the grassroots - precisely because they aren't too close to Bush! They both stand for something. Allen could be good as well - but I see him as the veep this time.

Hillary has major weaknesses which offset her strengths as a candidate. She resembles Kerry more than she does Bill Clinton in 1992 in many ways, although with a harder-edged image on national security. But if Kerry should have taught the Democrats anything it's that nominating a Senator from the Northeast is a difficult sell. Hillary will go over well in deep blue states and like a lead balloon in the red state - but how will she sell in the swing states? She won't have the advantage of running against a widely unpopular incumbent like Kerry did. If Guliani is the nominee she's not certain to win in NY, and NcCain would give her a run for her money in California.

Don, I think you're right about Hillary's weaknesses, but she has one very important strength: she is the only candidate with enough name recognition, goodwill and fundraising abilities to win the nomination without pandering to the "screw 'em" faction of the Democratic Party.

She is still a polarizing figure, and will remain so, but I still think she'll be favored in November 2008 IF Bush's approval ratings remain stuck in the low 40% range AND the Republicans pass over Rudy in favor of a more conventional conservative like Allen or a far right candidate like Brownback.

I'd have to say the odds Bush being fairly unpopular three years from now are better than 50-50. Fortunately, Rudy is the Rep frontrunner, at least at the moment; hopefully he will be the nominee.