Thanks. WV and NJ are examples of party politics that have gone too far. The present administration is another. ;-)

While history sometimes seems to repeat itself, it's more often the case that Twain was right: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Dukakis isn't running. The Soviet Union isn't imploding with a Republican in office. Etc.

Comparing the 2000 and 2004 elections, and the turnout, it seems to me that much of the electorate is becoming less receptive to sloganeering. There are too many examples of disasters under Bush for people to take superficially appealing slogans at face value. The web is making it possible for small outfits like [link|http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/aboutus|Rockridge Institute] to have an [link|http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2006/07/at_a_loss_for_words.html|impact] on the debate and illustrate the importance of language in framing the issues (something that Rove and the late Lee Atwater have known for a while). IOW, the Republicans no longer have a monopoly on "Morning in America".

Of course it ultimately comes down to the candidates and the circumstances around the election, but I really don't think that much of anyone is going to care about who voted for the two amendments. Does anyone care that Hillary never really "apologized" for her Iraq AUMF vote, even though it was a talking-point for several weeks? By November 2008 the MoveOn ad will be ancient history.

I think people realize that being "strong on defense" is more than symbolism and empty slogans, and there's more than enough [link|http://the-filibuster.blogspot.com/2006/01/republicans-weak-on-defence.html|ammunition on the other side] if they want to play that game. Remember that even though Kerry was attacked mercilessly on his defense policies, he nearly won. The trends is even more in the Democrat's favor this time.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.