Yes they are. They will continue to gain momentum as more and more people realize that the change we got was for the worse. Next time lets change for the better.

They're gaining media attention because they are the opposition party and because it's very easy to criticize. But they have not offered ANY solutions, all they offer is social conservatism. That's not even REAL conservatism. I want my party back, not this POS that calls itself the GOP.

Let's see, in the two states having elections later this year and currently governed by Democrats, NJ and VA, the Republican challengers are leading in recent polls in both states (Christie over Corzine by 4 and McDonnel over Deeds by 9). It seems pretty clear to me that Democrats are in trouble if ultraLiberal NJ is leaning Republican and VA is certain to go Republican. I am sure this poll will show otherwise though since DC Liberals are in denial that since Obama is in office that no one could possibly not vote for a Democrat.

They're gaining media attention because they are the opposition party and because it's very easy to criticize. But they have not offered ANY solutions, all they offer is social conservatism. That's not even REAL conservatism. I want my party back, not this POS that calls itself the GOP.

They are doomed as they continue to alienate most Americans with their hatred and extremist evangelical issues.

Congratulations to President Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize!!!

I think that politics have always been like a see-saw. When one party gains control, the other party will slowly gain momentum again. If they aren't gaining momentum now, they will eventually.

Just because the Democrats are infighting and backpedaling doesn't mean the Republicans are gaining momentum; they're completely out of touch with reality, while Democrats are just being, well, Democrats.

Isn't that the idea for any out party? Of course, the wingnuts (from the left wing and right wing) will have disdain for the other.

The outparty will review the lessons. In this case, the voters’ shift from one side of the spectrum to the other is NOT something that 'went wrong' - Americans made a choice. The outparty will take steps to cause the shift to swing in their favor.

It is my hope that the outparty will regain some power in 2010. I will argue that if Republicans lost more seats in the House, and lost more state and local seats, that America would be in peril; since there would be no incentive for debate and no balance of power.

The Democrats are doomed with all the bills in the pipeline determined to destroy our way of life. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize? For what? Refusing to support our troops in Afghanistan? Only 17 U.S. troops died last week because of Obama's lack of compassion to send more troops there to help watch their backs. Our troops are dying because Obama lacks the guts to go against Pelosi and do what is right for our troops and our country. Pelosi is doing a terrible job of running this country.

I do not think the Republicans are gaining momentum so much as Democrats are losing credibility and leaving the country no other choice than the GOP. If a third party could field a solid, sane, articulate candidate who doesn't wear a tinfoil hat and can be reverent without thumping the Bible, the GOP will be history.

Yup. And the Redskins are gaining momentum for their Super Bowl run.

If by momentum you mean the GOP's long, sorry march to socio-political irrelevance, then yes.

In 2006 and 2008, the "old outparty" was voted into power, promising lots of changes to be made. Hmm, Iraq still a mess, even while we retreat; GTMO ain't close to closing, as required by some campaign promise and an executive order; Afghanistan is getting worse, with the national and military leaders in a public food fight; the big, bad, intrusive PATRIOT Act was just given new life by the new party in power, even though they campaigned against it http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100804170.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter ; the deficit, blamed on evil Bush is going now through the roof and the budget created by this party for FY10 blasts it even higher yet it can't get past this legislature even with a sympathetic president; and finally we come to health care, which we now learn hasn't been written (so what in hell is on those thousands of pages that the committee chair hasn't read yet?) but the outcome is already decided; BE ADVISED: momentum by the outparty isn't defined by the inparty falling on its face.

Our Constitution sets the basic rules for our elections, which in turn creates a first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all situation, giving rise to two major parties. Third parties just aren't viable in this system: they can only replace one party or eventually die (refer to US history for examples).

My crystal ball says we are in for several more elections of the same power shifts and same political issues, because Americans can't get their act together without some dire crisis. The events of 9/11 brought us together on 12 September - I will always remember that day, too. But by 13 September, the political fractions were already evident by the public debate over the next course of action. My prediction is the next crisis will have to be MUCH, MUCH more devastating than 9/11, so Americans will stand together for up to a week or so.

My question is not whether momentum is regained and where it will take the Republican Party, but rather, where will it take America?

@ Was Buf., Now Was.

I think both parties are ot of touch with reality.

@ Anonymous , 7:30 AM

I agree with you. Looking back, power has always shifted back and forth between the democrats and republicans, no matter how much people complain about the other party. Once a party siezes power, they go over the top and start mesing up, allowing for the other party to make a comeback.

@ LOL

You asked "Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize? For what?" For the potential that he may make a positive difference. Way to go affirmative action. I would have been fine if they awarded it to him for making change, but the potential. Whatever.

@ Politicus

Good (as well as accurate) observations and question.

The party of "No" are impeding all progress in this country. Today's conservatism is criminally regressive. Not that the spineless and witless liberals are any better, but the Republican Party should just roll over and get the hell outa Dodge, and leave the field open for new blood who can see the big picture.

Yes - any idiot can govern by throwing money at problems. But when either party pushes the country into Depression era debt levels, there's bound to be a backlash against them.

And you all thought my reign could be toppled with one fell swoop of the left hand!

In order to gain momentum you must stand for something other than "no." They have no ideas, and are not even a factor in the health care debate.

Definitely, painful though it may be for the Church of Barack to admit it. No matter how hard the EU left tries to instruct us on how to vote, American voters remain stubbornly independent. Does this mean the GOP will sweep in 2010? Not at all - a lot can happen between now and then. But the odds are that a number of freshman Dems who rode in on Obama's coattails will be looking for new jobs, without the balance of power being too much affected. What I think the voters were saying in the last election was the GOP had gone too far right and they wanted something more to the middle of the road, which sadly didn't turn out to be Pelosi and Reid. If the Republicans are wise enough to play to that sentiment, they'll win. Otherwise, not so much...

@ V

You forgot to mention that the democrats are spending us into oblivion and adding government oversight to everything they can think of (I am still waiting for them to regulate and tax yard sales)

So far I have not seen the Democrats accomplish anything in Congress. Now that they control two branches of government, they have done even less. The GOP is standing still as the Democrats move backwards. They blame Bush and the GOP, but the voters are becoming wary and question the Democrats' ability to lead the country--anywhere.

@ DevilsAdvocate

If you can find me a "solid, sane, articulate" third-party candidate who's socially tolerant and fiscally conservative, I'll vote for him/her, the Dems and Repubs be damned.

And on a wholly unrelated matter, what are they smoking in Oslo these days? Honestly, a Nobel Prize for Obama? What's next, a Pulitzer for Palin?!

First, let me say that any "momentum" the Republicans might have had evaporated when President Barack Obama won a very well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize.

As I have said over and over, President Obama's election marked the end of an year-year-long national nightmare -- a dreary nightmare of tyranny, corruption, and evil. The illegal and totally immoral Bush/Cheney regime of thugs and cronies came to an end.

President Obama is in the process of ushering the US and the entire world into a New Era -- and era of Peace, Prosperity, Gender Equality, Justice, and Love.

He has turned around the evil and corrupt policies and pracitices of the Bush/Cheney tyranny, and has begun a process.

We deserves the praise of the entire world.

THe Nobel Prize is a one of many, many ways in which the world shows -- and will continue to show -- its deep, deep appreciation for a man who is much beloved because he is committed to Peace, Justice, and a New Era!

Bravo, Nobel Committee!

Bravo, President Barack Obama!

Who is the president... Obama or Bush? I thought Bush is no longer in office. Therefore, Obama has to be resposnible for the Executive Branch. Thus, everyone who keeps bringing Bush up, needs to quit blaming Bush, he is "OFO" in Texas. Obama is at the helm now.

Wow...is that really a question?
Anyone with any intelligence, would have know that the Republican Party would start looking better to some Americans, because the country was so low and in a recession, people losing jobs, big companies going out of business, it would not have mattered which party won the last election, the opposing party was definately going to start looking better to some people, because unless the winning party had Houdini , there weren't going to be those instant resolves, that most Americans seem to believe that President Obama and the Democrat party was going to perform.
I agree with Thomas J @ 10:01 am.

@ TechnoBill

I'd say your crystal ball is correct. Today's GOP is too far to the right, too faith-based, too eager to satisfy it's minority base of extremists, and have nothing to offer but "tax less (but borrow more)".

A return to Eisenhower conservatism would be a Great Thing, but that will never happen in our modern, un-democratic special-interest-funded political climate.

The Republican strategy of voting "NO" en masse at every turn, has forced the Democrats to pass their own legislation. The Democrats have the votes and the President's pen, yet they seem incapable of running the show. While "Elections have consequences," so does incompetence.

@ a couple of ya today -
The party of "no" label has been applied to both sides.
Why do you think that label has to be a bad thing? The outparty can be a very good voice of reason crying out from the sidelines. If you must, look up the history of the word ‘veto’ – to see how minorities and the outparty checks the power of the legislature.
Would you have liked for somebody to shout “NO!” from the sidelines in the run up to the war in Iraq? Do you think the stakeholders would have liked to shout “NO!” prior to massive lay-offs by management? Can you cite any instance in US history of a massive, rapid shift in paradigm and the opposition conceded the change proved better than the status quo?
In my miniscule financial investments, I make greater profit when the market shifts GRADUALLY. I comfortably adjust to small market shifts, whether it goes in my favor or not – because I historically have good returns over the long term. I have little tolerance for major fluctuations. I would love to shout “NO!” when my investments (be they paychecks, property or children) are put at risk.
Why shouldn’t changes to our laws be gradual as well? Even most unacceptable situations can be mitigated gradually.
Finally, I see objection to “the party of no” just for the sake of being told no by the opposition – but there isn’t any discussion of why that no was uttered.

@ I tell my kids "NO!" when they need to hear it , 1:12 PM

All good comments.

I do not know why people are afraid of the word "NO". As I see it, if all we say is yes, then we do not make progress because there is no discussion to hash out the differences.

I wish people would say "NO" to congress more often because they tend to run a littel wild and say they speak for the majority of Americans. I do not think that is true at all.

@ Zora, et al -
Obama just got the prize - now tell me what tangible accomplishments he made since 20 January 2009 that warrant a nomination before the deadline of September 2008. See http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html - maybe I am mistaken here, but the prize is for accomplishments, not promises or potential. You, and my fellow Express readers, are welcome to show where I am mistaken. I will claim that the Nobel Org just diminished the value (again). For America's sake, it is my wish that Obama accomplishes much that would earn such an award. But, his accomplishments prior to September were not on a global scale. Sorry.

@ Zora Hopkins

I am going to comment on your ignorant diatribe. Everyone knows you worship Obama. Only time will tell whether he is a good president or not, regardless of what side of the fence people fall on concerning the fact he is president.

If the Republicans have gained momentum, then I doubt the Nobel Peace Prize will do anything to that. It was awarded for potential. Although he is trying, no one succeeds at every initiative. He will have successes and failures. You are the only one that does not believe that Obama is still a human being vice some form of deity. Just in case you did not know, Obama is not the first US president to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

I can’t clearly see how you believe that Obama has “turned around the evil and corrupt policies and practices of the Bush/Cheney tyranny.” (your quote) Obama is keeping the portions of the Patriot Act that some people find controversial even though it would not apply unless you were violating law or in league with a foreign power. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/obama-supports-extending-_n_288054.html) He is also continuing the war in Afghanistan (your era of peace) and has not quite ended the war in Iraq. Likewise, he has delayed the closing of GITMO (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/25/ap-guantanamo-close-january/) and he is redefining Bagram’s prison to ensure that the EPW (enemy prisoner of war) do not receive rights they ARE NOT entitled to: US Constitutional Rights (http://www.congresscheck.com/2009/09/17/is-bagram-obama%E2%80%99s-new-secret-prison/). Are those not things people whined that happened under Bush’s administration? Isn’t Congress mostly the same? Are they not the check and balance for the president? Perhaps they are part of the equation you are not acknowledging?

Obama made campaign promises without all of the facts. There are some things he was not privy to as a junior Senator that he now knows as President. I am not surprised he cannot fulfill all of the campaign promises. I doubt anyone could regardless of their intentions. He is going to make the best decision he can, based on the information he is now privy to, and he will not please everyone all of the time. Which president has done that? Probably none.

Regardless of how one feels about Obama, most would be flattered to be given the opportunity to shake his hand. He is a US President and often the common citizen will never see him. As a veteran, I have served several presidents and I have not been happy with them all, but I would not have minded being able to meet them. However, your hero worship goes a little too far.

What's it matter? It's a single party Republicrat system anyway. They'll probably get voted back in to give the appearance of a two party system again soon, but nothing will change.

Momentum maybe yes, but power absolutely not. They alienate far too many people with their whining, complaining and they are dominated by nut jobs full of outright hate.

Interesting comments, especially from the advocates of "NO." As so often happens, however, I have to wonder after reading her comments what Zora has been imbibing. "We deserves the praise of the entire world"? Not only is that ungrammatical, it doesn't make any sense. If Zora had ever been to Europe (you know, the people that just gave Obama a fat bundle of cash for looking good on TV - at least, I assume that's what it's for, since he has no accomplishments in the field of Peace to merit it), she would know that Europeans have never as a bloc hated Americans, whether the president was Bush I, Bush II, Obama or, for that matter, Calvin Coolidge. Yes, the European left hates Americans, because every success we earn (we -- not our government) makes it more and more clear that their concept of an coercive nanny welfare state being the only way to go is not just foolish, it's dangerous. In fact, most Europeans are like Americans (and other people in the world, except maybe North Koreans) in that each of them has an opinion of America and Americans based on a lifetime of personal experiences, not on whom we elect to the WHite House.

The Republicans are doing what they always do. Blocking everything, spreading division in the American public, pandering to big business, and offering absolutely nothing concrete in terms of solution. What they are also doing is self-destructing amid scandals.

Yes - if you mean to the religious fanatics and bigots......

Technobill,
You are mostly correct. The problem with the Republican Party this last decade is that they were too middle of the road. Both Bush and McCain were middle of the road and not conservative enough and Obama played everyone for fools by acting middle of the road when he was the most left Senator. The problem with many Americans is that when things get bad they just blindly vote for the other party and in this case we got Bush 3 with much higher spending and many of the same policies.

Educating Zora,
Well said. I could not have said it better myself.

Heartland Hank,
Well said also. Maybe people like Zora need to get off their couch and see how others live in the world and maybe then they would learn to appreciate how even the "poor" in this country are spoiled when compared to those in Europe AND Asia.