Posted on 05/17/2006 10:22:24 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
That is a question being debated by Mark Tapscott and Jim Geraghty. And lest you think this is an academic debate, think again -- there are indeed many conservatives who, like Tapscott, think that a minor drubbing at the polls this November is just what the Dr. ordered to remedy the GOP's current big spending ailment.
Tapscott argues that a GOP loss of the House would set conservatives up nicely to retake the House and keep (or some may say retake) the Presidency.
There would be lots of talk about insanities like impeachment, congressional investigations, repealing the Bush tax cuts and the like. But the lack of actual results would drive the Moonbats into venegeful desperation and a general revulsion among independent and conservative voters, with a bloody and perhaps permanently crippling splintering of the Democrats to follow.
It would in short be the perfect setup for a stengthened conservative majority to return in Congress in 2008, most likely with a White House occupant wise enough to recognize that the "emerging Republican(i.e conservative) majority" had become a reality.
Geraghty is not so sure:
We can strongly suspect that voters would be repulsed by Speaker Pelosi and a Kos-style legislative agenda. But we don’t know for certain. Remember that a Democrat-controlled Congress is also likely to be getting astonishingly glowing press coverage. You know that roaring economy? You’ll start hearing about it, and it will all be credited to the Pelosi-Reid Economic Stimulus Bill passed in January 2007. Congressional hearings accusing oil companies of “illegal profits” will be welcomed by consumers frustrated by high gas prices. Bush’s approval rating will take another hit after he vetoes the “Every Voter Gets Free Health Care And Free Prescription Drugs And Rent Or Mortgage Subsidies And A Pony Too Act of 2007.” Senator John Kerry’s summit meeting with French President Jacques Chirac will be credited with dramatically reducing anti-Americanism around the world. And so on.
Of late, I have been inclined to see things the same way Tapscott does. It would be disasterous for limited government conservatives if House and Senate leadership maintained the status quo into the election season and then lost no seats. It would be, in their eyes, an affirmation of business as usual.
But leadership on both sides of the Capitol have been slowly waking up to the fact that their conservative base is ticked. And to their credit, they are taking baby steps towards fixing the problem. House leaders Boehner and Hastert have drawn a line in the sand on the emergency supplemental spending bill. Boehner has been very outspoken against the pork contained therein. The duo also appear poised to hold the line against a wishy-washy immigration reform bill. Also, the earmark reform recently agreed to in the House should not be overlooked.
Now granted, these are baby steps and there is still more to be discouraged about than encouraged, but they are not nothing. However, if they build on these actions over the coming months then the case conservatives have for wanting to see some pain extracted in November diminishes. That's not to say conservatives can be bought -- because they can't be -- the actions must be real and not simple gestures to the conservative heart and soul of the GOP.
Additionally, Geraghty's points must be taken seriously. What happens if the Dems win the House and then use their newfound subpoena power smartly -- i.e. not overreaching. I know this is a stretch given their Feingold-esque track record, but the point is that with the majority they will have the power to score political points if they take a measured approach to their political theatre. They will have the power of subpoena and they can use it to highlight every single perceived (doesn't matter if it is real) corruption of the GOP Majority. They will have over a decade worth of history to parse through and manipulate. If they are smart -- again a big if -- they could make real political hay.
I know the chances are they can't hold back their crazies, but the more I think about it the more I am not sure I want to take that bet.
Yesterday, RSC Chairman Mike Pence speaking to a group of bloggers reinforced this point. Pence, no tool of leadership, told the group that the loss of the House would be "disastrous." Pence just returned from an overseas trip and he noted that a Democrat victory would "send a deafening message to the capitals of the world about our commitment in Iraq."
As conservatives on the outside looking in, we are going to have to figure out pretty quickly exactly what we are willing to wager. This is indeed high stakes.
UPDATE: An example of continued good rumblings from the House...this release from Speaker Hastert's office:
(Washington, D.C.) Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) today made the following statement regarding Senate attempts to use an across-the-board cut to make room for additional spending it included in its $109 billion emergency supplemental bill. The Senate passed its bill, which is more than $15 billion over the President’s $92 billion budget request, earlier this month.
“Any calls from the Senate for an across-the-board cut to make room for a bloated supplemental will be met by a busy signal in the House. The House will not join a shell-game spending spree with taxpayer dollars. President Bush requested $92 billion for the War on Terror and Hurricane Katrina relief spending. The House has passed a bill that exercised fiscal restraint. The Senate needs to throw overboard, unnecessary add-ons and help us get the needed funds to our troops in the field and our fellow citizens suffering the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.”
"The simple fact is, conservatives are NOT the majority in power right now. Bush was always more moderate than conservative, and the Senate is presently controlled by a moderate Republican and liberal/moderate Democrap coalition."
The House is more conservative than the Senate. But on each issue, the equation has three parts: President, Senate and House.
Things have gone as things have gone. Not everybody is pleased all of the time.
I assure thoughtful people that things will NOT be better with any one of the three sides turned over to the opposition party's control.
Think committee chairmanships. Judicial appointments, national defense, tax legislation are three areas that have gone WELL due to Republican control.
It might be worth a trip to that "planet" just to eyeball one!
I agree with your outlook on this whole thing. There's something that I don't understand about many of the "real" conservatives as they call themselves.
They say they want to teach a lesson to the Rinos and if the Repubs lose the majority they'll be made to come around more to the conservative side. I understand that part but they go on to say when that happens we'll take the majority back.
I don't understand how they think we'll regain the majority after having given it up and allowing the Dems to strengthen their position. Is it just wishful thinking?
You know I'm getting a little tired of this 'bend over and take it like a...' attitude. I'm not playing to this bantor. You think you're ticked off now, wait till the presidency and congress are ruled by the true moonbats!
Just a thought... If the Democrats win this November we can trust they'll still mess stuff up. Thus they'll be ridden of their top point in 2008. That the Republicans messed stuff up. When the people see that the Demos did as badly or worst it might take away some of the dislike of the Republican party. Just a thought...
Agreed. The problem, of course, is that we don't know before hand that someone like Toomey could have done as well as Spector did in the general election.
I'm with Tascott. A minor loss. The GOP gets Conservative after that, the Dims won't even be able to organize a photo op with a slim majority, AND they have to take a ton of blame for anything that goes wrong. Sets up a massive sweep in 08--one that keeps us--real Conservatives--in power for another ten years.
True enough...I should have written it will SEEM to the ordinary voter that they can't even organize a photo op. Meanwhile, we get to pile on the blame and consolidate under actual Conservative values. In my humble opinion, that's not a bad thing.
Yesterday, RSC Chairman Mike Pence speaking to a group of bloggers reinforced this point. Pence, no tool of leadership, told the group that the loss of the House would be "disastrous." Pence just returned from an overseas trip and he noted that a Democrat victory would "send a deafening message to the capitals of the world about our commitment in Iraq."
Majority yields committee chairmanships, which control the legislative agenda, including judicial appointments like Roberts and Alito.
Anybody think a Chairman Leahy would have pushed through Bush's SC appointees?
Nope. I think that at least SOME of those pushing for the Dems to win know that too.
A win is much better than a loss.
I'm tired of our elections being decided out of fear and uncertainty. Wouldn't you like to vote FOR someone and not against another? How about this. We vote for the best guy and do everything we can to get him elected.
The "he's too conservative to win in the general" canard is what is getting so many RINOs elected. That's what they said about Ronald Reagan. If we'd listened to such things we would have never elected Ronald Reagan.
Here's my reason---when losing one house temporarily forces our party back to its Conservative values (less government, less debt, less spending)--we (real Conservatives) place ourselves in excellent position to hold power for a very long time.
Now, if we hold both houses and the executive branch for the next two years, we are going to have to answer to voters for what many of them PERCEIVE as some consistent mismanagement of our country. Make the political calculation here. If one house has a dims majority at that time, it will be very easy to paint dims as responsible for it all.
I'm not swallowing all the polls here...but I don't want us to be so naive as to miss the end goal: not merely two years of government by a group who are only interested in acting like real Conservatives sometimes to appease us...but in longterm government by true Conservatives who would not forsake their base on spending, immigration, etc etc.
I never said that about Ronald Reagan.
That all sounds too convoluted for me - since the U.S. House drafts Articles of Impeachment, I'll have to stick with my simple, more direct approach : )
I never said that you did. Yet, it was widely said by those Republicans who were trying to defeat Ronald Reagan in the Primary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.