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.”
Man, if there was ever a bait thread, this is it.
Here's a plan: Imagine the 2008 republican candidate coming out with a new "Contract for America". Signed by all the republican incumbents and wanna-be's it would promise not only lots of little things that conservatives want but would promise big things like a balanced budget amendment that winds down government spending after forcing a balance if they get 2/3 's of both houses (or even term limits! ). With the presidential candidate himself pushing the contract himself victory would gave him a genuine mandate to make that contract into law.
A bait thread it may be, but I'm thrilled with the reponses! :)
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
The answer is in the article, which I show above.
Each of us have three representatives. One House; two Senators. We vote house every two years, one Senator comes up 2/3 of the time.
Use those votes (and money if you can) to help the most conservative candidate that has a chance of winning. Primaries are the time to replace unsatisfactory Republicans, if possible.
But holding the majority is powerful, even at the expense of having some so called rinos (I don't like the terminology, because it so abused).
Holding the majority means committee chairmanships. That in turn controls the legislative agenda.
As bad as Specter is regarded, he DID help get Roberts and Alito confirmed. A dem chairman could have EASILY blocked same. Would have.
That is just one example.
A gridlocked Congress would be nice. :)
It appears the only thing we can do these days is try to outgrow (economically) the taxes the politicians place on us and innovate faster than they can regulate the new technology.
I'll work as hard as the next person to elect conservative/libertarians, but not 'repulicans' who are not conservative/libertarains.
The obvious answer is to vote for the best Republicans you can, starting in the primaries. If that means a RINO ends up being your state's candidate in November, so be it. Not voting is the same thing as surrender, and voting for a third party is always an exercise in futility. Short of a major split in one of the two established parties, a HIGHLY risky undertaking from the standpoint of retaining power, third parties cannot win.
Really, it's all about political power and doing whatever gives you the best chance of getting what you want. Get what you can when you can--that's the name of the game.
Be aware some FReepers are little more than shills for the Libertarian or Constitution parties. They not only want the Republicans divided, in their own self interest, they encourage it! The same thing goes from DUmmies. No doubt some are here trying to sow dissension in Republican ranks.
To be fair, no party, platform, or policy is either all good or all bad. However, Republicans are clearly the best of the two viable parties, and Republicans also stand as the best chance we conservatives have of getting what we want. Would you rather have the Dems calling all the shots? I hope not.
'When Republicans run as conservatives, they win.'
----
Yea, but political advisors don't like this idea, after all, if its true, than what's the use for them? :)
If your incumbent is a RINO, & the challenger is a "Libertarian" Democrat; it a tough question!
Throw "local/tiny" issue question E-Mails at both candidates. See which repies Honestly & promptly.
"All Politics is Local".
Following is my "Pet Issue"...
Metal Theft is approaching Pandemic levels. Cemeteries, Parks, Playgrounds, & College Stadiums; as well as Home Owners are victims. Industries, like our Power Company, are under attack.
Folks return home to find their Aluminum Siding & Copper Plumbing gone. Bronze is vanishing from graveyards. Aluminum playground equipment vanishes from parks & daycares.
Neither “Party “ notices. It is off their Radar.
Yet, a partial solution is Obvious! Make Scrap Yards & Recycle Centers, ETC. live by the same standard as Pawn Shops do.
Get ID, keep records. Describe or keep a digital photo of each load & unique item. Don’t let Them pay in CASH, or by a check written to “Cash”. They should Inform the IRS, about “Big Sellers” & “regulars”. If that stuff is Stolen, that transaction was pure “Taxable Income” for the Thieves.
It has been roughly 75 years since a few Congressmen wised up & forced Pawn Shops to keep “Real Records “ usable by Law Enforcement and the IRS.
Isn’t it time to make the “Scrap Metal Buyers” behave to the same Standard?
If you try to win on EVERY trade, wheeling and dealing within the context of the trade established, you WILL lose, ultimately. Trading costs, plus the costs of decisions made under duress, will ultimately make you a loser.
The successful trader cuts his losses when a trade is going badly, by exiting the losing trade. Politics, to my observation, is nothing other than a longish-term trading game.
In short, sometimes the nation MUST cut its losses, put the bloody Marxists in power, and then purge them utterly when (roughly a year's time, I should think; 6 months' time in the case of either Hitlery or Gork) their abuses become sufficiently egregious.
This metaphor is not unlimited, however. We can trade in mkts with a simple phone call or 'Net connection.
Restoring the Republic will unfortunately cost quite a lot of blood, and won't occur until such time as rather more than a quarter of the citizens simply won't stand for the exponentially increasing levels of gov't duress.
As always, we will see what happens with the 'governance' of the United States. And, likely, regret the developments.
And a very good example it is, thanks for the post.
According to some around here, if you signed up in 1998, 1999, 2004, 2005 or 2006, you are very likely a troll. If you signed up in 1997 you're probably ok; and there is apparently something magical about the years 2000 through 2003 as well.
This point right here should settle the matter once and for all.
-PJ
I have a rather enjoyable fantasy notion about what Andrew Jackson would have done with the likes of Dick Morris or Donna Brazile.
:^)
marron wrote: "Electing more Democrats doesn't get you any closer to your supermajority."
Well said. 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.
Before I get flamed for calling Bush a moderate, just remember he's always said he's a uniter, not a divider. You don't unite the Demorats and Republicans by sitting on the right, you unite them by riding the middle. That's what Bush has done and is doing on several (not all) issues, and he's been quite open about it all along.
singfreedom wrote: "I really do want Arlen Specter gone, though."
I'll second that!
Even though the Senate is the body that votes on judicial nominees??
I have never seen such a fantastic creature as a "libertarian Democrat". Tell me, on what planet do they exist?
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.