The Orwellian period is in full swing. Our wonderful, all exalted big brother is now taking into account not only where we travel but what we read or even what letters we write to the local newspaper and I presume what we write on blogs (some people's files must be getting thick):

The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials. The personal travel records are meant to be stored for as long as 15 years, as part of the Department of Homeland Security's effort to assess the security threat posed by all travelers entering the country.

And it's all innocent, they're just trying to protect us, to make us safe from all those terrorists. It wouldn't be to intimidate Americans would it? It wouldn't be part of stifling of dissent would it? It would never result in a firefighter being questioned for letters he sent to his local paper would it?

Zakariya Reed, a Toledo firefighter, said in an interview that he has been detained at least seven times at the Michigan border since fall 2006. Twice, he said, he was questioned by border officials about "politically charged" opinion pieces he had published in his local newspaper. The essays were critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, he said. Once, during a secondary interview, he said, "they had them printed out on the table in front of me."

And some of you are thinking that with that first name he should probably be deported. Sick. Why does it take until a family member gets 'interviewed' or arrested that we get how far the current Republicans will go to keep power. That's what this is all about. Staying in power by scaring us. This cancer of consolidating power by fiat in the executive branch is what is scaring. I'm a Democrat and I don't want any President, D or R, to continue down the road to total power. The abuse of power must be stopped before it gets much worse.

Karma will get you. When you violate the principles of a political ideology to the degree that the current Republican leadership has and to the degree that it has, it is only a matter of time that the voters will simply start abandoning the party.

According to the Politico, the polling organization Public Opinion Strategies has noticed a huge trend of voters no longer identifying/affiliating with the Republican Party. While the article mentions that the most significant drops in affiliation would be Independents who formerly favored conservative ideals, it also ignores the fact that many former registered Republicans are moving more towards the Independent ticket disenfranchised with the party. While these voters won't cast a pro-Democrat vote, they will simply opt not to vote at all preferring to stay at home in protest with the hopes that in the long run letting the current Republican leadership lose office and somewhere down the road be replaced by a legitimate conservative.

Yes, the Iraq war is a major part of the Republicans losing popularity, but there is more to it.

One of the huge fallacies about political groups in the United States is that all Republicans are conservative and all Democrats are liberals. This is not really an accurate sentiment as there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans and moderates in both parties. (And, yes, there are also fringe element radical and reactionary groups within both parties as well.)

What is utterly perplexing about the Republican Party is that it has moved more and more towards a hybrid of the classical Rockefeller Republican (often derided as country club Republicans) and emerging Neo-Conservatives (There are variants to the origin of what a neo-con is, but it is usually a combination of former conservative democrats who drifted to the Republican wing and globalists) yet the base of the Republican Party is primarily classical Reagan and Goldwater conservatives and the base isn't happy with this new crop of Republicans who are heavy on government spending, open borders, globalization, et al. In June, rage and anger from the base over President Bush's pro-amnesty stance led to a revolution of sorts which saw a massive drop in grass roots donations combined and this has now manifested to a multitude of the conservative base moving towards independent status.

This should come as no surprise. Why should conservatives affiliate themselves with a party that is not conservative?

Sen. John Sunnunu, R-N.H., might as well pack his bags. He can barely get a 43% approval rating and now former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen is going to run for his seat. From an e-mail sent to the press

because we have major problems facing this country, and there is an urgent need for real change in Washington," Shaheen said. "We've proven in New Hampshire that we can work together to get things done. I want to take that common-sense approach to Washington and help get this country moving in the right direction."

She will make an announcement Sunday. Just by entering the race preliminary polls show her leading the incumbent. That doesn't happen often. Meanwhile Sen. Ted Stevens, he of the bridge to nowhere, is now facing the problem of what happens when one accepts free help. According to the guy who did the bribe (CEO, pipeline company)

"I gave Ted some old furniture," Allen said. "I don't think there was a lot of material. There was some labor."

Nothing to see here. Move on, move on. Except for this:

The workers were Veco employees, probably one to four at a time, Allen said. He said the work on the home lasted for "probably a couple of months." Later, he said it might have been as much as six months. The remodeling work in summer and fall 2000 more than doubled the size of the house, a four-bedroom structure that is Stevens' official residence in Alaska.

Gosh, we just threw some old furniture around and didn't do much besides DOUBLE the size of his house. Maybe Sen. Ted Stevens could find that bridge and keep driving.

The Lousiana GOP is reporting a huge pickup for 2008. They have convinced John Kennedy to switch parties. The big news is that he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate seat now held by David Vitter in 2004. The speculation is that he will be gunning for Mary Landrieu in 2008.

Senator Landrieu barely won her seat in 2002 and since then the largest part of her voting base in New Orleans has disappeared due to acts of God. She's a long shot, but up to this point, the LA GOP has not recruited a good challenger for her. John Kennedy could be the guy. From Nola.com:

In an email message to supporters, Kennedy cited "certain fixed, bedrock principles" that he believes are more in line with the Republican Party than the Democrats, and said GOP officials have been more responsive to his proposals in recent years.

"For the past several years, it has increasingly been the case that those public servants who have embraced my ideas and my philosophy of trying new approaches are primarily Republicans," Kennedy wrote.

2008 is shaping up to be a horrible year for the Republicans Senate Committee, they must win in Louisiana to make up for losses elsewhere.

Reporting from Ohio, where Republican Deb Pryce will is retiring.

Republican Rep. Deborah Pryce of Upper Arlington will announce Thursday that she will not seek re-election to the congressional seat she has held since 1993.

Pryce has scheduled a news conference for 11 a.m. in Columbus. Although a Pryce aide declined to say what she will announce, Republican sources say she will not run next year.

Pryce, 56, has been a fixture in the U.S. House since her election in 1992. Republican sources say if she does not run, former Ohio Attorney General James Petro might seek the seat. Petro today declined comment.

OH-15 was one of the huge battlefields of 2006. Pryce spent $4.6 million, her opponent, Franklin county commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy, spent nearly $3 million. Perhaps she didn't want to go through that again. Or maybe she has a realistic view of the GOP's chances of taking back the majority in 2008 and has decided that she doesn't want to spend another two years in the minority.

In either case, she won't be the last GOP congresssman to resign this cycle, which will make it even tougher for the GOP to get the majority. The senate is also stacked against the GOP this cycle, so if they want to prevent the Democrats from controlling DC, it's going to be all about the presidency.

Having a polarizing figure at the top of a national ticket has long been a problem for other candidates of the same party down the line. Everyone has heard of the supposed "drag" of President Bush on Republican candidates this election cycle (which might be true, if Bush were running for a third term in 2008). But up until now I haven't heard anyone talk about another polarizing figure, one that's actually running for election this time around, damaging the Democrats' chances in 2008 -- Hillary Clinton.

Ron Fournier of the Associated Press does exactly that in a new article, Clinton a Drag? Dems Fear Her Negatives:

Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom. They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry. In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races. "I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.

I've wondered about this for a while, but I really started wondering about Hillary's effect during this past week's two panderfests -- the "debate" performed in front of a crowd made up solely of union members Tuesday night and the "presentation" made to a gay group later in the week.

There's not too many good things you could say good about the last several GOP-led Congresses. The prescription drug bill and McCain-Feingold are two of the train wreck pieces of legislation passed.

That said, at least they didn't have the audacity to steal a vote when they were losing it. No, leave that up to Nancy Pelosi's "Most Ethical Congress Ever":

As time expired on voting, the sitting House speaker, Rep. Michael R. McNulty, New York Democrat, declared the Republican measure had failed on a 214-214 tie vote. But because some members changed their votes in the final seconds of voting, the electronic tally board showed the vote as 215-213, indicating the motion had passed, when Mr. McNulty struck his gavel.

Republicans immediately called for the 215-213 tally to stand, and began walking off the House floor in protest when Mr. NcNulty allowed more members to change their votes. The final tally was 212-216, with the motion failing.

For those who don't understand the archaic procedures of the House, once the gavel comes down, things stop and the vote is final but that's not what happened here. The Democrats changed a vote in the House of Representatives in full-view of the country. They aren't even trying to hide their conniving ways anymore, even when all the facts show the GOP won the vote.

To make things worse, the bill will provide illegal aliens (yes, criminals) with hard-working Americans tax money. Talk about insult to injury. Hey, if you can't win on the issues, just cheat and steal. I guess if you have an approval rating of 3% on your handling of the Iraq war, you can't sink much deeper so why not drop any pretense of being ethical.

Salena Zito at RealClearPolitics reports today that former Pittsburgh Steeler superstar Lynn Swann is not completely throwing in the towel on politics and is gunning to get back in the 4th district. Swann made a big play for the Pennsylvania governorship in 2006 and came up short -- way short -- against Ed Rendell, who is a big name in Pennsylvania politics.

Swann's first decision-making hurdle is whether he wants to go to Washington or to stick around Pennsylvania and run for governor again. His second hurdle is the congressional seat's former occupant, Melissa Hart, who is coy about whether she wants to take back her seat. Look for her to run a poll to test the waters of her electability.

Most insiders not-so-quietly agree that Hart gave up her seat to Jason Altmire; in a horrible year for Republicans, she allowed Altmire to define her as a clone of President Bush and Santorum. Failing to draw a contrast, refusing to respond with accurate information about who he was and why Altmire would be wrong for the district, Hart gave it away in the end.

Soured by the outcome of that particular campaign, GOP stakeholders in Washington have turned to Swann as a candidate who could win back the district.

This would be a good move for failed candidate like Swann and something that Ohio's Ken Blackwell should consider. They can both earn back their credibility by getting the house back and proving they can indeed do politics.

As noted, the district won't be easy, but normally it should be doable for the right GOP candidate. Swann won't have to worry about name recognition, but he will have to get back to basics. With as many GOP to Democratic flips as there are in PA, the keystone state will be ground zero in the battle for control of the House of Representatives.

The party of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is learning the hard way that power without leadership isn't enough to win over the confidence of the American people. According to the latest Gallup poll, a mere 14% of Americans have confidence in the new Congress.

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.

Clearly, Democrats have proven an inability to lead, and the public is noticing. One can't help noticing that that the last time the confidence rating was nearly that low was just before the Republican Party tookover Congress in 1994.

What does this mean? It means that the Democratic majority is not guaranteed for longevity. Low approval (or in this case, low confidence) can only spark an interest in new, strong leadership. If the Republican Party unites behind a common agenda that is popular with most Americans they could easily win back the majority

The Democrats came into office with a majority and high hopes. They pledged that they would change the "culture of corruption" in D.C. and make full-scale changes. That, of course, has not happened and the liberal caucus is not too happy with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

Protesting liberals grumble Pelosi has been too cautious setting policy during six months in the majority, especially regarding the Iraq war. The response is that Democrats will revert to minority status in the House if they stray too far to the left.

And they just may if the first six months of Pelosi's lack of leadership is any indication. Of course the war issue is paramount as Pelosi promised she'd take some kind of action. Unfortunately for her, realistic circumstances have won out and Pelosi realizes that she can't make the whole-sale changes the donks promised before the last election.

Since the Democrats took over, Pelosi has not lead the liberal caucus to any major victories -- check that, she has not won any real victories at all. The Dems have majorities in the House and Senate and have been bogged down in minutiae. Pelosi is not the leader they had hoped, she can't form coalitions and can't get any worthwhile legislation passed.

The Democratic presidential aspirants will face the same reality, if you coddle the far left base, you will eventually lose them when you actually have to make decisions and act in the best interest of the country. George W. Bush is facing true reality as we speak with the brutal backlash he's seeing with regard to the immigration bill.

The candidates have to learn that you can promise anything you wish, but once you get elected, conditions are not the same as they were when you were speaking to a large group of supporters. The downfall of once-respected leaders -- Pelosi, President Bush, John McCain, Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham -- shows just how serious issues are once they will affect those who've elected you.

The Senate is set to vote on a non-binding resolution of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The president knows exactly how much of a sham this is:

(Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush dismissed as ``meaningless'' a planned Senate vote today on a resolution of no confidence in U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, America's top law enforcement officer.

``To me, it's political,'' Bush said at a press conference in Sofia, Bulgaria, calling it ``a political resolution on my attorney general that's going to have no bearing on whether he serves in office or not.''

Of course it's political, everything is political with these people.

Do the Senate Democrats not have anything more important to do than vote on meaningless resolutions? The Senate could vote 100-0 against Gonzales and it would make a bit of difference. The president hires and fires his attorney general.

In November, the Democrats regained the House and Senate leadership by slim margins. There was much talk of mandates and the "will of the people." They were the new, re-energized Democrats who would do more in the first 100-hours than the GOP did in 12-years.

The American public has seen the Dems and decided that they're just not all that exciting, according to a new poll by ABC News/Washington Post:

Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War.

But hey, they passed a couple of non-binding resolutions and caved on the important bill. Why would that upset their base?

Note that even though the Dems lost a lot of support, the Republicans haven't picked up any. That says to me that the next presidential election is going to be about the center, which will harm the D's more than the R's. At this point, you're seeing candidates such as Hillary, Obama and Edwards going hard left to appease the base. Come the general election, alot of what they are now saying will be used against them and it will sting.

An interesting article in today's Washington Post outlines the ramping up in Congress of several investigations into the practices of the Executive Branch. You'd have to be living in an underground bunker in Iraq not to have noticed that since power changed hands beneath the capitol dome there has been a dizzying flurry of activity in the area of oversight. In the past week alone, we've witnessed enlightening hearings on the Pat Tillman cover-up and the Justice Department's handling of the prosecutor firings. Yes, Democrats are flexing their constitutional muscles, readying more subpoenas, and drawing up a list of which rocks to turn over next.

Of course, this check to his power is not exactly a welcome development for the president. In the six years that he governed before the Democrats re-took control of Congress, Bush could simply laugh off requests for information from Capitol Hill. After all, he knew full well that his Republican colleagues would not legally compel him to cooperate with the minority parties' toothless requests. Indeed, elections do have consequences.

Since Democrats assumed control of Congress in January, they have hired more than 200 investigative staffers for key watchdog committees. They include lawyers, former reporters and congressional staffers who left oversight committees that had all but atrophied during the six years that the GOP controlled Congress and the White House.

For those who believe that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the climb out of the tech crash and the 9/11 recession, winning the 2008 elections are of the utmost importance. The Democrats intend to raise taxes, the only question is which, when and where.

The Democratic plan predicts a sizable surplus in five years, but only if Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010 as scheduled. Democrats said the $2.9 trillion plan for next year would point the way to a surplus after years of red ink under Bush and a GOP-controlled Congress.

...

The future of the Bush tax cuts will likely be decided after the 2008 presidential election. While in the majority, congressional Republicans never held votes to make all of them permanent, despite Bush's annual calls to do so.

Under Congress' budget process, the annual budget resolution is a nonbinding outline that guides future legislation. It lets the two parties show voters their competing fiscal visions, often without having to take the politically difficult votes to implement them.

The bottom line here is that the Democrats have telegraphed their position on the future of the budget and it is all about getting more money out of the American taxpayer. To be sure, there are some portions of the tax cuts that are political third rails, like the per-child credit (brought to you by the Gingrich Congress). But there are other parts that are anathema to the Democrats and that includes a cap on the top rate.

Just four months have passed since the Democrats took over Congress, and already we've witnessed a slew of oversight hearings on issues ranging from global warming, to the CIA leak investigation, to the Justice Department's persecutor purge. What is startling, unnerving even, about these proceedings is the realization of just how reluctant the Republican Congress was in the previous six years to fulfill its role in our system of checks and balances. Now, however, we are seeing the onion-like layers of the Bush administration's workings peeled back one by one. We are learning of an FBI that has abused the Patriot Act, a DOJ that has set out to tilt the political playing field in favor of Republicans, and a White House that has routinely suppressed scientific findings on climate change.

Well, the hits keep on coming. One of yesterday's most popular "politics and news" YouTube videos? It concerns another oversight committee, this one in the House of Representatives. Witness the day's squirming witness, General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan, as she tries to explain away the fact that her office illegally schemed how to use federal dollars and resources to insure that more Republicans get elected in 2008.