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.”
Ping.
...a loss, according to those who really want a "Pelosi and a Kos-style legislative agenda." They're not really as concerned with the immigration issue as they say they are. They're socialist "gradualists" (incrementalists). They know that they'll get more of what they want, if our Republican Party quits. ...ever notice how negative feminists are? ...or the fact that they don't offer feasible solutions?
Putting Democrats in power is insanity, and this requires no explanation.
Putting traitors in power is treason.
The "teach Republicans a lesson" idea is immature and dangerous.
Watching the polls and moving to the center to try and satisfy everyone does not work. One only needs to look at the map of red states from the last election to understand. This year I will only vote for incumbents that voted their Republican values.
Apparently, the best way for conservatives to affect politics is to keep voting for big-spending Republicans who favor illegal immigration.
Here's what the head guy has to say about impeaching our President.
To: thoughtomator
If you want to impeach Bush, go join the trolls at DU. Keep it OFF FR.
Jim
58 posted on 03/31/2006 7:16:08 PM EST by Jim Robinson
Think of the United States' national security and our troops under a RAT Commander in Chief and a majority RAT-infested Congress... {{{shudder}}}
Even more recently than 1994. Justice Harriet Myers, anyone? When conservatives stick to their guns, they win.
"Putting Democrats in power is insanity, and this requires no explanation.
Putting traitors in power is treason.
The "teach Republicans a lesson" idea is immature and dangerous."
====
You said it well and succinctly. That is really the bottom line.
I am marking your post and will refer others to it.
Thats crazy. You know impeachment is serious business. I don't when people got it into their head this is some way to get rid of any President they didnt like. I really have a hard time seeing how Bush can be Impeached and convicted since he hasnt committed a CRIME.
If you represent the conservatives that want to take power in the Republican party , I better get ready to move to Australia.
Putting traitors in power is treason.
The "teach Republicans a lesson" idea is immature and dangerous."
AMEN, SaxxonWoods!
Any your point is well taken. JUDGES are still a very, very, important part of any administration.
I got you and you're correct. I knew you weren't inferring it would be better for the libs to win. :-)
'When Republicans run as conservatives, they win.'
I should only modify this comment to the extent of substituting the word 'vote' for the word 'run'.
Absent their voting in a conservative manner, what use are they? There will be civil war in this nation (and, no, I don't like the idea at all) before I'm dead, but it simply must be as well to get it over with as quickly as possible. Let the Marxists back into power, the 'Rats and an unfortunately large proportion of 'Pubbies are two a pair.
It will be interesting (betting pools, anyone?) to see exactly which event ignites civil violence, and ultimately civil war.
And no one here has any idea how MUCH I hate saying that.
Your only choice is the same as always, to choose the most conservative candidate on offer, and keep fighting, keep complaining, keep exposing, keep fighting.
We live in a 50-50 country, and its never going to be easy. We can never relax, we have to fight every day. We'll always have politicians looking for the easy way out, and its only by throwing a fit periodically that we make sure that the easy way out is the principled way out, because its the only way to keep us from embarrassing them in front of their friends.
We don't win by letting the other side win, we win by getting the best deal we can get at each step of the way, and then going back for more, at each step of the way. Take what you can get, then turn right around and demand more.
But don't imagine that a Democratic Congress is somehow good for conservatism. Its tough enough to get a majority now when so many Repubs are weak sisters; it takes a supermajority because you have to outvote the Dems and the weak sisters. It takes a supermajority to even get a bare majority. Electing more Democrats doesn't get you any closer to your supermajority.
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.