We are approaching our 400th post here at The Everyday Republican. When we started this project back in May, we never imagined quite where it would take us. In the span of less than six months, we have been able to provide a centralized resource for Connecticut Republicans, and a place for you to come and read about local, state, and federal events, all from a Connecticut perspective.

We’ve covered the Presidential campaigns thoroughly - from parades and trips to New Hampshire, to a Presidential debate Live Blog. Our coverage has been unprecedented in Connecticut, and we look forward t0 providing more of the same.

The tracking numbers are somewhat misleading, in that we switched tracking devices in July so we don’t have an accurate count on how many people have visited our site over the course of its existence. But since the end of July, we’ve had over 6,000 visitors come to The Everyday Republican, and we look forward to continuing our work.

Connecticut’s senior U.S. Senator, Chris Dodd, is running for President - in case you hadn’t noticed. And he isn’t just running to occupy the government housing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he is running for his dad. The New York Times is on the story today, reporting that a Dodd candidacy subplot is the resurrection of the good name of Thomas Dodd.

“His campaign is about ending the Iraq war, restoring rights to detainees and promising financial security to the nation’s retirees. But on a deeper level, his campaign is the most public chapter in his career-long quest for his father’s redemption.”

“Three years later, in 1974, Mr. Dodd successfully ran for an open seat in the Second Congressional District, in eastern Connecticut. He said at the time that he had been “sort of sucked in” to the race by his father’s supporters, and he found that the Dodd name, on balance, was helpful. “

Read about “Vertical Day” at www.mikehuckabee.com

As part of our weekly e-mail, the Republican Heard, we asked fellow Republicans to weigh in on a Presidential Campaign 2008 survey. There were seven questions asked of respondents.

A couple of necessary disclaimers - 1) This is not a scientific poll nor is it statistically valid. 2) CTGOP in no way endorses, aids, or supports any candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination. 3) This survey in no way has any effect on the nature of the relationship between CTGOP and any Presidential candidate/campaign. 4) There are still responses to the survey being cast, so we will update these results periodically. 5) The final question of the survey asked respondents for their impressions overall of the Presidential campaigns. We did not seek permission to publicly reveal these impressions, and shall not do so in the future. Therefore there are only six questions here.

Question 1: Which Presidential Candidate are you currently supporting?
Mayor Rudy Giuliani 32.1%
Gov. Mitt Romney 14.8%
Gov. Mike Huckabee 3.9%
Senator John McCain 7.6%
Senator Sam Brownback 1.2%
Rep. Duncan Hunter 0.6%
Rep. Ron Paul 3.6%
Sen. Fred Thompson 23.6%
Rep. Tom Tancredo 0.3%
Alan Keyes 0.3%
Other 6.1%

Question 2: How committed are you to that candidate?
Strongly - Will Not Change 19.7%
Somewhat - Probably Will Not Change 37.3%
Leaning - Could Change 29.7%
Soft - Probably Will Change 1.5%
Uncommitted/Undecided 5.5%

Question 3: What issue is most important to you as you consider the 2008 Presidential election?
War in Iraq 10.3%
War on Terrorism 28.8%
Foreign Affairs 1.5%
Homeland Security 8.2%
Government Spending 12.7%
Immigration 12.4%
Health Care 3.6%
Education 0.9%
Ethics 3.6%
Taxes 8.2%
Transportation 0.6%
Social Security/Medicare 1.8%

Question 4: How much attention do you pay to the Presidential campaigns?
I spend 5 hours or more each week considering the Presidential campaigns 24.8%
I spend between 3 and 5 hours per week on the Presidential campaigns 17.6%
I spend between 1 and 3 hours per week focusing on the Presidential campaigns? 25.8%
I spend less than one hour each week on the campaigns 21.2%
I do not pay attention to the campaigns 4.5%

Question 5: Which Democrat Presidential candidate do you think will win the Democratic nomination?
Sen. Hillary Clinton 70.3%
Sen. Barack Obama 12.7%
Sen. Chris Dodd 0.9%
Sen. John Edwards 5.5%
Sen. Joe Biden 0.6%
Gov. Bill Richardson 0.9%
Rep. Dennis Kucinich 0.6%
Sen. Mike Gravel 0.0%

Question 6: Do you visit the websites of Presidential candidates?
Yes 28.5%
No 65.8%

This week as part of the Connecticut Republican Party’s weekly e-mail newsletter, The Republican Heard 9-20-2007, for the first time ever we included a Presidential survey for our subscribers. The results so far have been very interesting. We will post the results here at the end of the day tomorrow (Friday).

There is a terrific piece out by Time magazine about Republican Senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma for their role in attempting to bring some fiscal discipline to the United States Senate.

The Republican base - an often mocked term here in New England these days - is across the country made up of fiscally conservative people who reject the idea that Government should spend money as fast as it can print it, if not faster. This is a basic tenet of the Republican Party, once you get outside Washington, it seems. And it is a theme that brings Republicans together. It is only recently that the perversions of this idea, via the veto-less explosion of earmarks and out-of-control spending, has it gotten lost by too many politicians in Washington.

“Senator Tom Coburn spent a good part of last Wednesday trying to stop the federal government from building bike paths. He wanted to redirect the $12 million allotted for them to shoring up U.S. bridges following the collapse of a highway bridge in Minneapolis that killed 13 people. The amendment failed 80-18. Undeterred, Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, immediately introduced his second amendment of the day: a motion to suspend all earmarks — or pet projects often attached in secret to funding bills — until structural integrity of all U.S. bridges can be verified.”

It’s gotten so bad that it is of note that Senators Coburn and DeMint are standing up for sanity on the floor of the looney bin. Common sense says that we probably ought to spend money on bridges rather than bike paths. And yet 80 members of the U.S. Senate saw fit to vote against the amendment.

As long as fiscal discipline and responsibility remain campaign rhetoric, as long as the fight waged by Senators Coburn and DeMint continues to be an uphill battle every time, the Republican Party will continue to suffer nationally. Senator DeMint is quoted in the article, understanding just this point: The Republican base is “frustrated with us for not carrying through on the spending issue and over-spending. It’s the reason we’re not in the majority and it’s going to take us a while to earn that trust back,” DeMint told TIME in an interview in his offices last week.

The leadership of the Republican Party in Washington seems to miss the point. Republican Whip Senator Trent Lott is quoted: “A lot of their amendments when they’re offered don’t make a lot of senators happy,” Lott said. “I mean senators voting for bicycle paths instead of bridge repairs? That’s not the smart vote substantively or politically.” Until Senator Lott stops worrying about making Senators happy and regains his concern for what makes Americans happy, there is little hope for improvement in either account.